Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88

Request concerning JonathanGo

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Tijfo098 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA, ARBPIA, WP:NLT

this article is part of Nazi-stile anti-Semitic disinformation efforts to discredit Israel and promote genocide of it's Jewish civil population, mainly by Islamo-fascists activists who obviously has many supporters editing here in WP. there is no legal proof of any sort that there is apartheid in Israel. in fact Muslims and non Muslims in Israel enjoy the highest level of civil liberties, then in all Arab and Muslim world without exceptions. therefore legally it also constitute a slender, and may result both criminal and civil procedures against both site owner and participants (according to Israeli law and some other countries slander law).
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) It's self-explanatory if I just quote it:
 * Since commentary is apparently necessary, I'm stating that insinuating that Wikipedia editors (and the WMF) are Nazi-style propagandists and Islamo-fascists' supporters, and in breach of slander laws for allowing that article to exist seems to be a clear violation of the reminder from the ARBPIA, particularly "assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute" and "remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks", and possibly of WP:NLT as well. 19:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) He is also back at edit warring and calling other editors' explained removals vandalism. 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) He also removed a copyright violation tag from another article, again claiming it was "vandalizm". 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Blocked by  after a previous AE report
 * The above block notice from April 26 includes a uw-sanctions warning about ARBPIA, which was also entered in the case log at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban or indef block. Pretty much the same since he doesn't edit any other areas.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

I hadn't checked that article in months. I was actually curious as to who managed to get rid of the silly lists "for" and "against" the analogy. Upon visiting the talk page however, I found a recently blocked AE editor soapboxing there. Time for another, longer block methinks.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by JonathanGo
1. "It's self-explanatory if I just quote it".

one just can't quote other editor's sentence and declare that it is "self-explanatory". this kind of complaint is both insulting and an a blunt abuse of the right to file a complaint. that's because of 2 reasons: first - it is a long sentence and I have no idea to which part of the sentence he/she is referring to and therefore I cannot defend myself from such a complaint. second - this kind of complaint is assuming that the other side has intentionally and deliberately acted wrongfully, in order to insult or harm other users. which is of course nonsense.

nevertheless and without admitting any wrong doing I have decided to rephrase the initial request for article deletion. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy  |Jonathango| 18:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

therefore I declare that this answer is also a counter complaint. on the ground of insult.and asking to block the user for 2 days

2. the second argue is misleading, because Mr. Tijfo098 didn't quote the full explanation that I gave for the revert but only part of it - the part that support his/her baseless complaint. when I made the revert I wrote "Vandalism. the section is relevant|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)" tijfo098 wrote in his complaint only  "Vandalism". this is misleading, because one can assume that this is the only word I wrote. when it wasn't so. in fact this was a mistake. as you can guess, at the beginning I wrote "vandalism", then when I sow that the other user gave explanation I added the "section is relevant" with intention to delete "vandalism" , but for some reason I forgot to do it. any way "Vandalism. the section is relevant|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)" is not equal to "Vandalism" only.

I would like to refer to this answer also as a counter complaint against Tijfo098. and asking to block the user for 2 days

3. as to this:"I hadn't checked that article in months. I was actually curious as to who managed to get rid of the silly lists "for" and "against" the analogy. Upon visiting the talk page however, I found a recently blocked AE editor soapboxing there. Time for another, longer block methinks".

I have no idea what he/she is talking about.

I need to say regrettably, that in the few days I'm here I see concentrated and deliberate efforts to block and shut up, any user who is not bluntly "pro-Palestinien"|Jonathango| 13:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentences he/she is referring to are: "therefore legally it also constitute a slender, and may result both criminal and civil procedures against both site owner and participants" (this can be construed as a legal threat which is strictly prohibited under site policy) and "this article is part of Nazi-stile anti-Semitic disinformation effort" which can be considered offensive and as a bad faith assumption against users who have been editing the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mcm. mow I understand what the plaintiff meant. and therefore I would like to add some comments. 1. as indicated. I am new here and was completely unaware about these rules. 2. about legal "threat" - I had no idea that this kind of language is forbidden, I can see the logic of this rule here, and promise not to repeat this mistake, also I corrected it now in the talk page. :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy#propose_to_delete_this_article

3. about "offensive language", I admit, I should have chosen more appropriate words , and in fact as indicated above I did change the sentence immediately as I realized it. I think this fact alone is worthy reconsideration of the complaint. but I have to admit that the use of the wording "apartheid" and "Israel" in the same sentence, is to me, at least as offensive and insulting as the language I used. therefore at the time I wrote the request for removal I was expressing anger as result of insult.

finally I would like to add that in my opinion WP can benefit from my contribution, and in fact it is desperately in need for my services. because as I see it, this arab-israeli conflict article spectrum has become increasingly single sided, with almost no place for balanced opinion. and yes - I consider my opinion as balanced, comparing to the majority opinion here. I think that as much as I have my own obvious views about the conflict, I always try to remain devoted to truth as only goal. blocking me, may result even more severe bipartisanship in this scope of articles and eventually it will diminish WP reputation more then mine. considering all this, and the corrections I made, I think, more then one week blocking will be considered, disproportionate and almost draconian measures. |Jonathango| 10:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning JonathanGo

 * JonathanGo is a new user who isn't familiar with most of our Wikirules. I'm afraid he may consider an indefinite topic ban to be an infinite ban. I want to be sure he understands that he should take advantage of his time away from this topic to improve articles in other areas of the encyclopedia, and that he can apply to have the topic ban lifted after x months (where x will be specified by the closing administrator). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning JonathanGo

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

Looks like a straightforward case. I think an indefinite topic ban is needed here. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this user doesn't seem ready to contribute neutrally and collegially in this topic. Agree with topic ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This user's first created articles included Palestinian Fascism and Palestinian Nazism; the latter consisted of copy-paste from various articles plus some copyvio material. His edits are, plainly and simply, disruptive; and as Heimstern says, he appears to be incapable to contribute neutrally in this topic area, at least at this moment. Therefore, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA, is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces. He may appeal this sanction in three months; an appeal will be viewed upon favorably if he can show good work in other, less controversial, topic areas in the mean time. He may also appeal this sanction to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/A. T. Canens (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Bizovne

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Nmate (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 195.28.75.114
 * 193.87.75.82
 * (They are one and the same user )


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren


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


 * 1)   Explanation : all her / his contributions to Wikipedia are wikihounding, personal attacks and edit warring aimed at both Hungarian users and articles which are related to Hungary or Hungarians somehow.
 * 2) 29 October 2010 Explanation : incivility, v. WP:NPA
 * 3) 22 December 2010 Explanation : incivility, v. WP:NPA
 * 4) 23 January 2011 Explanation : incivility, v. WP:NPA
 * 5) 10 March 2011 Explanation : incivility, v. WP:NPA
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :


 * 1) Notified on 22 April 2011 by


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

Indefinite topic ban on Hungary and Hungarian related articles, broadly construed.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

According to this ANI-report on 27 April 2011
 * "Banned user Iaaasi is sending e-mails to myself and at least two other editors in attempt to get people to edit Wikipedia on his behalf. He says that if people don't file sock puppet reports and do his bidding in other ways, it means he is allowed to engage in sock puppetry. I have cut off his e-mail access but he already has the addresses of several users."

On 29 April 2011 User:Bizovne displayed the same map as what was on the user page of Iaaasi with which the user plainly signed that became a recruited meat-puppet of Iaaasi, in my opinion.

On 3 May 2011 there is still made one another message written in Slovak ,which violates WP:NPA; I do not speak Slovak at all, but its edit summary is "fasista coolkoon" as well as its title name is "Madarsky fasista CoolKoon". Please note that the word "Madarsky" means Hungarian in English.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

  

Note by Fut.Perf
Just to note here that the Slovak passage cited above seems to translate (with a little help from my friends) to something approximately like: "Hi, I think that the English wikipedia is not an appropriate platform for the promotion of Your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian views. Stop promoting Hungary and Nazi Germany in WWII. Your fascism has no place on Wikipedia." – Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me copy my own translation of the text I wrote over at WPI:ANI:


 * Hungarian fascist CoolKoon


 * Hi CoolKoon, I think that the English Wikipedia isn't the right place for pushing your fascist, irredentist, revisionist and Great-Hungarian opinions. Stop propagating the cooperation of Hungary and Hitler's Germany during WWII. You fascism has no place on Wikipedia.


 * You might also want to look at the Translation of my conversation with Bizovne on my talk page. It's certainly an interesting reading and also might shed some light in the Slovak nationalists' way of thinking (believe me, it isn't really different from the hogwash in the comments I read on ANY Slovak news portal just about every time I read an article dealing with Hungarians there). CoolKoon (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Bizovne
My thought is that in light of the aggressive and degrading ethnic attacks that an indefinite ban from Wikipedia is probably more appropriate than something limited to this arbitration decision. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we can still indef-topic-ban him from all Hungarian, Slovak and Romanian issues. That should take care of most of the problem. We could also simply indef-block him as a normal disruption block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Bizovne

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


 * User:Bizovne has been blocked one month for harrassment by MuZemike. If this account is a sock of Iaaasi, he may not bother to come back after that time. I suggest that we might as well close this report without further action. If the behavior resumes, it can be handled with an indef block by any admin. The special powers of AE aren't needed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Debresser

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Debresser (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA
 * Enforcement action requested: Revert 72 hour topic ban

I was topic banned by because of a conflict with. As it turns out, that editor had been warned on his talkpage before, as well as blocked , for his insistent and belligerent behavior in relation with WP:ARBPIA. I have never been warned, topic banned or blocked before in relation with WP:ARBPIA. Nor do I usually edit articles related with that subject. Nor do I think that the disagreement I have with Chesdovi is really related to that area. I never saw it as such, in any case.

On the WP:ANI discussion where the topic ban was announced, I have logged my protest. Likewise, I have approached the banning admin on his talkpage to reconsider his decision based on my arguments at WP:ANI. He has not done so for over 36 hours, as far as I can see. I therefore now ask you to consider my request on WP:ANI, and rescind the topic ban as an inappropriately harsh and unfair sanction.

I have come here after an editor wrote me that I should come here , implying that he also believes I have a point with my request. I have informed the banning editor of this appeal .Debresser (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just now I noticed that the WP:ANI section has been closed, while the closing editor also recommended me to come here. Debresser (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Further statement by Debresser

 * I regret that User:IZAK has posted here about a completely unrelated case. As they say, in times of trouble, one reveals ones friends. And sworn enemies as well, it would seem. Debresser (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am actually a little shocked by IZAK's venom. He must have taken it badly that I recommended he be banned from all Judaism-related articles in that ArbCom case. When he thought I was vulnerable here, the snake in him must have come out again. A sorry sight indeed. And that is all I have to say about his rantings and venomous posts here. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A major point I have made on WP:ANI is that I think the banning editor should have differentiated between the aggressor, and the editor who tries to keep the status quo. We do have WP:BRD. And between the editor who ignores consensus building processes, and the editor who tries to bring arguments. I think these point have unjustly been overlooked by User:Georgewilliamherbert. I would like to see other editors assess this argument.


 * In addition User:Georgewilliamherbert has mentioned personal attacks and incivility on my talkpage, but has so far not replied to my request to show me where I have been guilty of such . Whereas Chesdovi has made several insulting comments on my talkpage and elsewhere, and in general has a belligerent tone in his discussions. I would like to repeat here my request to Georgewilliamherbert to tell me which edits of mine he considers personal attacks, or, alternatively, that he take these words back. Or perhaps he meant only Chesdovi when he mentioned the personal attacks? Debresser (talk) 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that Chesdovi accuses me of returning to the edit war. This is not true. I made a few general improvements to some related articles, each with its own edit summary and specific reason. No mass reverts, no categories. Only in one case did this involve removal of a category, and even that with good reason. Debresser (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed that an Rfc has been opened on Category_talk:16th-century_Palestinian_rabbis. I hope the discussion will be centralized there. I have posted a notification on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism . I shake Chesdovi's hand in friendship, and am sure the Rfc will lay the basis for a satisfactory conclusion of this issue. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Debresser

 * This is a dispute about whether to call some followers of Judaism from millenia ago Jewish based on ethnoreligious affiliation or Palestinian because of where they lived (and possibly other reasons). I'm not going to venture an opinion on the content matter, but I think that the two editors should have been encouraged to take the matter to some WikiProject (or a content board like NPOVN) instead of topic banning them, particularly because many articles appear to be involved. It's true that the two have WP:BOOMERANGed themselves by arguing the matter in a WP:TLDR thread at ANI. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Debresser is no "innocent babe in the woods". See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence and in particular the conclusion and warning of the ArbCom Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Proposed decision: And Debresser should know that he was warned that "...if user-conduct problems worsen, then a request to reopen this case may be filed." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Until February 2010 (I have not kept up with him much since then), in the ArbCom case where Debresser was warned, his multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL were noted as he calls users who disagrees with his POV "mentally ill" etc: ; ; ; inserts "FBI"; ; "Food for psychiatrists";, "insane ranting"; ; . Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See evidence submitted in January 2010 by Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at the ArbCom case regarding Debresser's negative behavior at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence: "User:Debresser has engaged in longterm slow edit-warring and abusing editorial tags over POV issues motivated by his Chabad allegiance, at the Cantonist article. He inserted a Verify credibility tag seven times during an edit war that lasted several weeks (18 Oct, 18 Oct, 28 Dec, 28 Dec, 29 Dec, 13 Jan, 16 Jan). The source he tagged, an academic book, was undoubtedly a "reliable source" and correctly summarised; the only issue he had with it was that he didn't like its conclusions because they contradicted some writings by Rabbi Schneerson. He also revert-warred over the insertion of a corresponding tag at the source citing Schneerson (28 Dec, 10 Jan, 11 Jan). Debresser as well as his content opponent,, were warned against disruptive edit-warring under the "Digwuren" clause by me today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Georgewilliamherbert
Both parties were misbehaving equally in the ANI and edit warring dispute. I didn't feel that either deserved worse punishment, either for the instant behavior or for prior history. Further questions and comments welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the question of whether this was fair or not, overreacting or not - IMHO, both users could have been blocked for 72 hrs or a week within the scope of enforcement actions on this topic we've had to do before. Topic banning was far from the strongest response we've used before.  This seemed the easiest way to short circuit the dispute (edit war and ANI).  It seems to have had the first effect but not the second.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As it appears that Debresser did not previously get the ARBPIA warning, I have warned him now.
 * If this in fact invalidates the particular enforcement action, so be it, but I would like to recommend that a final ruling on that be postponed to the point that the sanction would have expired anyways.
 * That's up to uninvolved admins, of course. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Chesdovi

 * Last time I carried out mass edits, I was blocked, the reason given is that it was disruptive editing. Nothing to do with the ARBPIA. That Debresser should be un-banned would give the impression that mass-edits/reverts are not a problem. Debresser also ignored WP:CFD which states: "Categories that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion, renaming or merging when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to the nomination have been raised. After decategorising 130 pages before the issue had been resloved, Debresser nominated nearly 10 categories for deletion using the cat-empty tag. Chesdovi (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You (two) guys really should discuss controversial mass changes to multiple articles before enacting them. And carry the discussion in a venue where others can easily find it, like a WikiProject or the Village Pump, not (just) on your own talk pages, and not ex post facto at ANI, unless you just want more sanctions from admins who get fed with your style of collaboration. Mass changes without discussion can be controversial even in otherwise uncontroversial topics. Hope this helps, Tijfo098 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Debresser continues his editing before concensus on the issue has been reached?, , , , (these edits made as soon as his topic banned had ended.) Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Debresser accusues me of accusing him of returning to the edit war. What Debresser calls "making general improvements to some related articles" is in fact a return to his disrupting editing. You see, as long as Debresser think he is the only one who has "good reason", we are not going to get anywhere. Chesdovi (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chesdovi in both his above assessments about Debresser's modus operandi as I have had the same experiences with Debresser whenever we have crossed paths (see the ArbCom case against Debresser where he was warned as he plays his tricks just enough below the radar aggravating other editors) as he violates WP:OWN whenever he faces an editor who does not agree with his POV. Debresser does not grasp and does not practice WP:CONSENSUS and that is why he has landed up here. When Debresser does not get his way, he is notorious for running to ANI with frivolous requests, , , , , , , (etc etc), but when he is hauled on the red carpet at ANI pleads his "innocence" and does not let up making up accusations against other users regardless of how many times he has been warned and blocked:  (3RR, sanctioned),  (3RR),  (24h block),  ("using [indirect mention of] 'legal threats' to bypass consensus"),  (warned for edit warring),  (3RR, warned),  (Memorable quote: "It's very difficult to presume good faith, in particular, from User: Debresser, who has often taken what seems to be a quite duplicitous tack in discussions.") (and more like this). Conclusion: Debresser should be topic banned from all subjects relating to Jews and Judaism because he is an incurable WP:WARRIOR violating WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND with editors who do not share his POV, he is a master of WP:LAWYERING, he has wasted the time of more admins at ANI than anyone can even count and abused its functions constantly with frivolous and tendentious "tattle-taling" in order to get his way rather than seeking WP:CONSENSUS in a WP:CIVIL manner with others as he accuses others of violating the very WP principles he tramples on constantly. IZAK (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Debresser

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


 * Debresser has never received a notice or a warning under WP:ARBPIA. This should mean that discretionary sanctions can't be used. I have asked Georgewilliamherbert to consider lifting his topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi and Debresser are now having a cooperative discussion at Category talk:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, where an RFC has been opened. This sounds like a good way to resolve the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston is correct on the technical aspect of the matter. The procedure-compliant method - that would do essentially the same thing - would be to block Debresser for 72 hours, and condition the unblock on a 72 hour topic ban. Given the brevity of the ban's duration, I'm not really inclined to do anything here. T. Canens (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Closing as moot, since the 72 hour period has already expired. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Imalbornoz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Pfainuk talk 21:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits, which is described by WP:DE as disruptively refusing to engage in the consensus-building process (January 2011).
 * 2) A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
 * 3) A long discussion in which users repeatedly refuse requests to explain objections to proposed edits (March 2011).
 * 4) 19:18, 30 March 2011 Wikilawyering over the precise definition of "prevalence".
 * 5) 19:18, 22 April 2011 Includes a direct accusation of bad faith against me (that I take my position purely through some kind embarrassment about the conduct of my country's soldiers 300 years ago, as opposed to the genuine concerns about the weight, neutrality and accuracy of certain points in the paragraph concerned that I have repeatedly expressed).
 * 6) Edit warring to a two-week old version of the article.


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


 * 1) Warned on 01:43, 16 December 2010 by
 * 2) Warned on 20:37, 18 December 2010 by
 * 3) Warned on 19:33, 15 January 2011 by


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

Discretionary sanctions to be imposed on User:Imalbornoz.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This has proved a particularly intractable content dispute, but its intractability is made far worse by the fact that Imalbornoz (and fellow editor Richard Keatinge) have proven themselves unwilling to engage in the consensus-building process. You'll see several things in the discussions I linked above. There's WP:OWN violations (see the title of this section for a typical example - Curry Monster is essentially told that he is not allowed to be WP:BOLD). You will see in the discussions above lots of times when asked for objections, these editors cite lack of consensus consensus. When pushed, they state that things are "required", or "very notable and relevant" with no argument whatsoever backing that up.

It takes literally weeks of asking to get an argument of any kind objecting to any proposal - which would seem to be exactly the "roadblocking" that Vassanya described in the warnings provided. And even then it is generally couched in the sort of bad faith accusations that you saw in the diff from this evening.

Today, Imalbornoz has twice reverted a work in progress because, he said, the Great Siege of Gibraltar took up one third of the history scetion. That was the only objection expressed. Never mind that it was very much a work in progress and that the Great Siege would not have been a third of the length in the end (and Imalbornoz had been told that). Never mind that the Great Siege was one of the most significant things to have happened to Gibraltar in the last three hundred years (and thus given lots and lots of weight by reliable sources), and that the reverts remove it from the article altogether.

Note in that diff that there is no constructive criticism. It's all about "[w]hat I think isn't reasonable at all is WC Monster's current History section" and "[s]omeone should convince WC Monster to be reasonable". This is entirely typical of the sorts of responses we get. The article is at a standstill because of this egregious "roadblocking", and I and Curry Monster have asked repeatedly that it stop, but as you can see, it has not.

For me, that accusation of bad faith this evening was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even taken alone, this is something that I should not have to put up with on an article under Arbcom discretionary sanctions, particularly when the editor concerned has been warned under those sanctions. But I believe the above demonstrates that it is not the only problem with this editor's behaviour here. As such, I would now like to ask that discretionary sanctions be applied.

Note that I will be going away on Sunday for a week, and during that time will almost certainly not respond to discussion. Note also that Curry Monster has a bereavement to deal with at the moment.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

21:02, 22 April 2011

Statement by Imalbornoz
There has been a discussion in the Gibraltar article since October 2009 (one year and a half!), in which PfainUK and WC Monster have tried to avoid mentioning certain events in Gibraltar's history, while Richard Keatinge and myself have thought it reasonable to mention them.

About the ARBCOM:
 * I see he mentions a previous ARBCOM ruling during which WC Monster (then calling himself "Justin A Kuntz" or "Justin the Evil Scotsman") received a 3 month topic ban (in spite of PfainUK's defense) for...


 * Many of these niceties were directed at me, while PfainUK kept defending WC Monster. After the 3 month topic ban, WC Monster returned to edit warring and received a 0RR ban (PfainUK, again, defended WC Monster in the Arbitration Enforcement Noticeboard).


 * You can see that Pfainuk has never critisized his fellow WC Monster's extreme abuse, but -on the other hand- finds my behavior so disruptive as to start here an accusation. I would call that partisanship or one-sidedness. Myself, I have tried to keep a cool head and assume good faith (I think that mostly successfully), which as you can imagine has not been easy at all in face of all this abuse (from WC Monster) and one-sidedness (from Pfainuk).

About the dispute:
 * The issue here has been (for 1.5 years!) whether to include or not the widespread violence that British and Dutch soldiers used on the civil population of Gibraltar during its capture, and the subsequent exodus of the population to a place called San Roque (keeping the curious tradition that they are the "real" Gibraltar). Those are facts that have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claim on Gibraltar, and have been called "embarrassing" by British historians, but no one disputes their factuality.


 * WC Monster and PfainUK have been trying to:
 * not mention these facts in the article, first trying to impose a theory that completely misconstrued the sources (that's when I came in the discussion). Please take a look at what they were trying to say in the article: "much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers.[2] Parts of the town were then plundered by the occupying forces.[3]" Actually the soldiers raped, plundered and desecrated churches, and then the civilians felt fear and decided to leave.
 * (when I finally convinced them that their theory was wrong) they tried to remove any reference to these facts. They argued that the article was already too long and UNDUE weight (curiously, only to remove mention of these events, while they don't care about other episodes in the history of Gibraltar, that are given a much lower weight by sources).
 * now, they are trying to inflate the article by FIFTY PERCENT talking about the siege that Spaniards and French held on Gibraltar after its capture (forget about the article being too long!!).

About PfainUK's accusation:
 * I have not accused anyone of bad faith in the talk page. I have limited myself to mentioning the facts I summarize above (although I must admit that with them one could have a good case for saying that these two editors are consciously or unconsciously motivated by nationalist motives rather than by WP's ultimate goals and policies).


 * PfainUK accuses me of not engaging in discussion (after 1.5 years!!), not mentioning policy-related arguments (when I've even made lists of sources, of arguments...), ... I really think that this accusation is self-defeating if you take even a general look at the discussion.

Conclusion: I actually think that this is a very sensitive dispute and we are not able to find a solution by ourselves. Now that the matter has been brought to this noticeboard (for the 2nd or 3rd time in 1.5 years) I would ask for admin intervention in the discussion and (especially) some opinion on WC Monster's and PfainUK's behavior (and my own behavior as well, of course). We need help!!!

Thank you. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think T. Canens' proposal is just great. Please, do go ahead! I don't think we can solve this by ourselves, and the longer we keep going, the fewer editors remain interested (many editors, like The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Ecemaml, Cremallera..., have been bored into exile during the last 1.5 years...) -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein and T. Canens, 2 comments:
 * I would agree to the topic ban as well if that helps de-monopolize the article. The only problem would be if someone comes and completely changes the decision reached after the RfC. What would be the role of the incumbent editors?
 * Regarding the procedure for the RfC: one of the usual fears from the editors involved in a long and detailed discussion is that an outside mediator/admin does not grasp the main points in it; another danger is an almost irresistible drive for the inside editors to keep adding comments in the RfC that usually drive outside editors away (I have seen this happen in this discussion time and again). My suggestion would be that the two sides in the dispute have an initial statement with a word limit (like the 500 words limit in the ARBCOM initial statements, for example) to explain the essentials of the dispute from each POV and then they are only allowed to comment by invitation by the admin or mediator.
 * What do you think? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Imalbornoz
I'd like to support Imalbornoz's comments and commend his patience in an intractable dispute; I suggest that this particular request is not worth further attention. While I'm here, I would like to record my thanks to NebY for recent helpful edits which may actually break the logjam on this article, and if any editors are prepared to follow his bold example I'd be really grateful for further substantive help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have some acquaintance with this controversy through a peripheral discussion we are having at the NPOV noticeboard; I am not otherwise involved in the Gibraltar article.


 * It appears to me that this controversy is mainly about the four principal editors of that article (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, User:Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) tending to reach a "critical mass" too quickly and railing away at each other. I don't know that any of them is significantly any more (or less) at fault for this than any other; I think the matter needs to be considered in terms of the group situation, and not just in regard of a single editor.


 * I think also it would be unproductive to get into detailed recitals of "he said, she said", as there is a long history here not readily unwound. I don't think there is any deliberate bad behavior; it seems they sometimes just get too wound up about an issue. I wonder if it would be more useful to coach the involved editors in how to avoid the triggering behaviors. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein suggests a break from this article for all of us, an idea that I've previously suggested and would support now. But note that NebY may have managed to get things moving already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend against any across the board topic banning. These editors are having difficulties working together, but banning them does nothing to remove the difficulty, and would deprive the article of four interested, knowledgeable editors.  It appears to me that the difficulties are not irresolvable, and working out how to resolve them would be a great benefit to  Wikipedia far beyond this article.  Perhaps they could be banned from making any unilateral changes to the article, but with an exception for any changes they all agree to on the talk page.  Other conditions are needed, but an across the board topic ban would do little good, and likely deprive us of greater good. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I happily bind myself only to make changes that are supported by all of the others. If that's enforced on all of us by an admin prepared to follow-up long-term, I think we have a solution. All four have more to offer Wikipedia, and indeed this article, than arguments about our long-standing content disagreements. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen the prior very thorough analysis by Vassyana (essentially the same situation as here, but focused on another editor), but suggest that this current flare-up does not disaffirm the possible effectiveness of "lesser measures". It appears the editors involved have been advised in general terms to to work together better, but have not yet addressed the specific behaviors that cause the problems.  Draconian measures won't help, they need assistance at a finer level. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding T. Canens' proposals: Could #4 be broadened such that the concerned editors may also participate in our discussion at WP:NPOVN?  That discussion is not about those events as such, but is relevant to them, and I would not want any incidental discussion to trigger a ban.  Perhaps the exemption could be qualified as where an uninvolved editor supervises or moderates? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Again regarding T. Canens' latest proposals, which I support and to which I bind myself, I would add that an admin should have specific power/permission/encouragement to make a content decision even without 100% agreement from all editors. This arises from my experience at the Gibraltar page, where I answered a RfC and - until the enforced absence of two editors - failed to get any sort of agreement. Given the strong underlying dispute, this is likely to be an ongoing problem.
 * Unless anybody relishes reading reams of reprises, rectifications, and reproaches, I won't respond to the remarks from other involved editors below. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from below Pfainuk talk 15:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC))


 * I would very much welcome a binding RFC - we very badly need closure on this point - but part of the reason why RFCs have not worked before is the enormous walls of text that have generated by some editors. These are not written as debates between involved parties but as arguments for the supposed benefit of readers.  There is simply no point in having an RFC if involved editors are allowed to post such massive walls of text to the RFC.  My other suggestion would be that editors be encouraged to ignore the existing text when determining a new one, and instead try to work out something new.


 * I have some hope for JJ's process, and would also like to see it continue.


 * I'd ask what, in the above, constitutes an "objection". Does this include the sorts of vetoes without reasoning that are Imalbornoz and Richard's normal response to a proposal in this part of the page?


 * Finally, I'd encourage editors to we wait until Curry Monster is able to comment. He has serious family issues to deal with at the moment, and he tends to avoid Wikipedia when these issues, as well as his health issues, arise.  He avoids Wikipedia at these times precisely because these kinds of issues were a major factor in his bad conduct in the lead-up to the Arbcom case (conduct that I have never condoned, despite Imalbornoz's claims).  I would hope that editors here would understand the position: better to stay away from Wikipedia for a few days than to risk a repeat.  Note also that we are still currently in the middle of a holiday period in the UK, and that it is reasonable to expect slow responses from any UK-based editor at the moment. Pfainuk talk 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding to the above, on a more general note, I am very disappointed that it seems to have been decided that Imalbornoz is allowed to accuse other editors of bad faith editing. If he's allowed to tell me outright that my concerns are not based on genuine concerns regarding neutrality and on the clear errors in fact and false implications in the existing text, but instead are purely based on some bizarre notion of embarrassment for an event that is relatively minor when compared with other incidents that my country has been involved in during the 307 years since, then it is difficult to see why he will not continue to do it. Shoot, he even tells you I'm a nationalist in his own statement.

Going on about "PfainUK" also doesn't help here - yes, there happens to be a "uk" at the end of my user name. It seems rather presumptuous to assume that this has anything to do with anything, other than the fact that I like the sound of the word "Pfainuk". If I called myself "Tokusa" (to cite a non-existent account name), would he go about calling me "TokUSA"? Again, he seems to be trying to present me as some kind of nationalist - an assumption of bad faith.

If we are now saying that Imalbornoz is allowed to assume bad faith in other editors, this would poison future discussions on the subject, not just of this particular point, but of all future discussion in which he is involved. If he's allowed to call me a British nationalist, then what is to stop another editor from calling him a "Spanish nationalist" - I make this point because it's one of the things that mentions in his repackaging of his case from the original Arbcom (and never mind the facts that - despite his claim - I never condoned Curry Monster's language, Curry Monster repeatedly apologised for it, and the whole thing was considered by Arbcom).

I won't go into the detail of the dispute, other than to mention that the problem with any text that goes into significant detail about certain aspects of the 1704 Capture of Gibraltar (even if it was accepted that this was neutral in and of itself), but then entirely fails to even mention the Treaty of Utrecht or the Great Siege (as per Imalbornoz's most recent edits) should be obvious to any reader with even a passing knowledge of Gibraltar history.

I would finally note that I find Imalbornoz's contention that I am not allowed to change my position based on new evidence from sources rather bizarre but not terribly productive. What I said in September 2009 was accurate based on the limited sources I had seen at the time, and you will note that I was happy not to have the words "fearing reprisals" in it. As such, I would like to give admins the opportunity to confirm my impression that changing one's position with a changing understanding of the sources is not just allowed, but an inherent part of the consensus-building process. Pfainuk talk 15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I endorse Curry Monster's comments below. I do sometimes wonder what exactly Curry Monster and I am supposed to have done to resolve this dispute that we have not already done, given that I cannot in good faith accept texts that - based on the evidence that I have seen - seriously violate WP:NPOV and are strongly misleading.


 * We've tried mediation, we've tried RFCs, we've tried the noticeboards and we've tried including the information that they consider to be "a requirement" - the results were as Curry Monster describes. We've seen proposal after proposal and process after process rejected out of hand, but getting reasons for these rejections - let alone compromises - from Imalbornoz or Richard is like pulling teeth. Pfainuk talk 22:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement from TRHoPF
This article basically needs a new generation of editors - it long ago went beyond content disputes to become personal, and the wording of a couple of sentences has become a very unhealthy obsession for one or two people. This blocks progress and a communal atmosphere. As someone who used to edit this article, who has no intention of editing it again, and who was involved in the ArbCom case, I say the proposal looks good. Running here and "telling tales" is not a solution to the problem. A solution which impacts all four of the current warring editors is needed and - short of topic banning everyone mentioned in the ArbCom case, asking them to voluntarily do something else with their lives, or waiting a few decades for them to pass away - this looks good. (On the subject of passing away, I ask WCM, now in his seventh year of arguing with people in the Gibraltar article, how he feels about the thought of him outliving Imalbornoz and Richard, successfully keeping mention of San Roque out of the article until the day of his death, but one day later, some young upstart decides to put it back in, and there it stays for eternity? Were the years spent arguing about it well spent?  Life is too short, people!)  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN note the inclusion of San Roque (and Algeciras per historical relevance). I ask the RHoPF why he feels the above comment helps the situation here, when he clearly has not kept up with the content proposed.  May I also ask if he feels that Imalbornoz removing from the History signficant events like the siege of 1727 or the Great Siege of Gibraltar is helping build a quality encyclopedia?  My first edit was in 2007, my first edit on Gibraltar in 2008.  And for the record I have never sought to keep mention of San Roque out of the article - merely suggested that if it is mentioned the historical context should be correct.  The statement that in 1704 the people went to a town founded in 1706 has never struck me as the mark of a quality encyclopedia.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In my current circumstances a crack about passing away is beyond the pale. Really am I expected to just put up with this?  Wee Curry Monster talk 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your "current circumstances" are. If you're saying that you are suffering from some potentially terminal condition, I'm sorry that is the case, but remember it's your choice to edit Wikipedia. If you find it stressful, turn off the computer and do something else (like concentrate on getting better, or doing something fun). WP is not worth jeopardizing your recovery for. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Red Hat, do you really think that baiting Curry Monster is helpful? We get it, you don't like one another.  There's no need for this. Pfainuk talk 22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WCM's and Pfainuk's responses are a perfect demonstration of why the Gibraltar article space is so dysfunctional and why a new generation of editors is needed: every post made by people they have historically disagreed with is viewed through turd-tinted spectacles. It's also why I stopped editing the article - I got fed up with it.  To get back to the point, it's the best way forward short of topic banning everyone.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously. My response clearly has nothing to do with the fact that before you retired you and Curry Monster spent over three years editing similar subjects with barely a pleasant word to say to one another.  I have agreed with you and I have disagreed with you in the past, and I bear no grudge against you or anyone else.  But there is no way you spent three years editing alongside Curry Monster and did not realise how badly your snide comments, such as in your previous comments, go down with him.  I ask again, do you really think they are helpful? Pfainuk talk 22:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My current circumstances are commented upon above, I recently suffered a bereavement (which is why I didn't edit for a period and didn't know about this case till a few days ago). Cracks about "passing away" are crass and insensitive at best - and you came out of retirement specially to make them.  I would ask the admins looking at this discussion am I really expected to just put up with this?  Wee Curry Monster talk 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Wee Curry Monster
I have removed my initial comment as those remarks are now amplified below. It is also instructive to consider Imalbornoz's contribution history it is nothing but reverts on Gibraltar articles. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

On a tangent, you might like to consider this and this humorous quote by an involved editor. "*COUGH* Pf And Wee, where has your pro-British POV gone chaps? OH wait, was never there in the first place ;) And I agree with you both on this subject matter". Wee Curry Monster talk 21:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Remarks related to "British Embarassment" at the events of 1704
I believe that you have too quickly overlooked this as a demonstration of bad faith. It is regularly trotted out that the British are embarassed by the events of 1704 and suppress or ignore what happened. First of all let me address the truth of that comment.

The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). All published in the 20th Century, no major work glosses over what happened.

In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845), there are the accounts of Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Reputable histories published in the 19th Century don't gloss over the facts.

In 1704, Admiral Byng and the Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. Again in the 18th Century the facts aren't glossed over.

The statement of Garratt (1939) "The truth would seem to be most discreditable to the English, and has therefore been suppressed in English books." does not stand up to scrutiny - every reputable history published in English since the 18th Century addresses what happened. Yet it is repeatedly used to imply that Pfainuk and I are following the same line to "remove facts cited as embarrassing by British historians".

Were this statement a one off, I could understand why it was so lightly dismissed. But it isn't a one off. Its a recurring statement ,, often rebutted by pointing out the above and.

I want to draw particular attention to a quote from Imalbornoz in this diff.


 * Therefore, WCM and Pfainuk want to apply inconsistent criteria to the text of the article: REMOVE facts that -coincidentally or not- have been cited as embarrassing by British historians but are widely mentioned, but KEEP events that tare not as widely mentioned and do not deal so directly with Gibraltar (but which -coincidentally or not- are not considered embarrassing by British historians).

Please note the repeated referral to "coincidentally or not" cited as embarrassing by British historians. The accusation is I believe clear and it is an accusation repeated again and again. I am very tired of it and btw being Scottish I don't have any hang ups about embarrassing the Sassenachs. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of removal of facts
Note in this diff Imalbornoz alleges we wish to remove facts. The statement does not reflect any edit that is proposed. See User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, he alleges I am removing facts when in fact I include every piece of information that he demands. The accusation of removing facts, suppressing facts, censoring facts are numerous.

We do not wish to remove any facts. We have suggested that if certain facts are to be included, then to achieve a WP:NPOV additional facts should be included. We are in fact urging additional content to balance the WP:NPOV by including text that reflects the range of opinions in the literature. Again refer to User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN to compare the content suggestions. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruption of RFC and Notice Boards
During the mediation case I made a comment about the multiple issues in the way an edit was being formulated. Part of which was related to WP:RS using Google Snippets, part was related to WP:OR in which a conclusion was synthesised from certain facts.

I raised this at WP:NORN at the request of the mediator User:Lord Roem here. Rather than raising the issue focussed and relevant to this noticeboard, Imalbornoz raised multiple issues that were not pertinent to that discussion. As discussion diverted from the issue relevant to the noticeboard I asked a focussed question for outside opinion [, Richard immediately followed this by again raising mattera that were irrelevant . Unsurprisingly the outside opinion sought never materialised.

The suggestion was made for an RFC, so I started one. It never stood a chance, Imalbornoz posted a wall of text, then Richard completely hijacked it aand rewrote it so that it did not address any of the issues that have been raised.

It seems clear that outside opinion is not wanted and Richard and Imalbornoz will intervene to deter it or ignore it.

Surprisingly we did get a very reasonable suggestion from User:Andrew Dalby for a process to follow. And I did precisely what he suggested here which was to produce a large text and gradually summarise it. Both Richard and Imalbornoz refused to engage in that here but sought to perpetuate the current text without addressing the external opinion that the article didn't reflect the full story. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing
The principal sources named for the edits are Hills and Jackson, quite reasonable, both are well-referenced and regarded reliable sources. The problem is that Imalbornoz has neither source [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2011-01-14%2FGibraltar&action=historysubmit&diff=412794785&oldid=412789875 ''Regarding Jackson and Hills, I wish I had access to the books. I think Ecemaml has one or both. I think I'll ask him''] - he relies on a 3rd party for quotes to support the edit he wishes to make. Basically he writes an edit then looks for a supporting cite. How can he for two years argue WP:DUE without any access to sources?

He doesn't address this by seeking sources, rather he asks another editor to email him selected scans to support the edit he wishes to make. translation. He continues to claim he can establish WP:DUE without recourse to sources and on the basis he has a 3rd party to provide quotes claims access to the sources.

Without access to reliable sources, he is reduced to looking for scraps of information in Google Snippets to source his edits. A) This is not considered a reliable means of sourcing and B) it produces misleading results.

For example during mediation he cited Andrews p.54 as proving the establishment of de facto control shortly after the capture. The problem is this chapter is about the period after Utrecht 10 years after the capture. When I pointed this out, he continued to make the claim as "You say, for example that Allen talks about the period after Utrecht (1713)... when he is mentioning Shrimpton, who was governor from 1704 to 1707!!!"  This finally gave me the clue to find the snippet he'd used. Shrimpton was indeed Governor from 1704-1707, the problem is that quote relates to the corruption of the early Governors post-Utrecht citing that it started with Shrimpton. BTW Hills argues that this incident in fact demonstrates the opposite of what is claimed (de facto British control) and that Shrimpton got away with it as a Hapsburg appointee as under British Military Law a British appointee would have been court martialed and hanged.

Imalbornoz has frequently posted this table, when I looked more closely I found he had been misrepresenting his sources see this table. More interestingly if you check this link and look at the article history (Tab on the LHS) it was edited shortly before Imalbornoz first published this table converting British Overseas Territory to British Colony. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bibliometry"
What Richard terms "ingenious Bibliometry" is a recurring feature of discussions. Conveniently Imalbornoz explained his methodology here. This Bibliometry is used to construct a metric, which is not used to guide any discussion on WP:DUE, rather it is used to assert a claim that other editors are giving weight to factors that are of less significance. He refuses to ackowledge the flaws in the argument, which is at best simply an example of Confirmation Bias due to the way he structures his searches, and instead asserts that other editors are unreasonably giving weight to factors of less significance more weight (eg the Great Siege of Gibraltar, the Battle of Trafalgar or even Gibraltar's significant role in WW2.

In any case, hit counts in Google searches are not a reliable indicator of weight see WP:Google searches and numbers, I want to quote the first paragraph.

One of the biggest fallacies in determining notability of a subject is the results of a Google search using the title or keywords of an article or subject, essentially known as a "Google test."

This so-called Bibliometry is not a substitute for reliable sources in establishing WP:DUE but that is precisely how it is argued. Worse it is used to impugn editors by claiming they give undue weight to facts of "less signifiance" see. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Laugh and a Giggle
I have tried repeatedly to find a compromise edit acceptable to all, in fact I've compromised so many times now that basically I have given in and included every piece of content demanded by Richard and Imalbornoz. Still they revert any content suggestion I make. I just find it extraordinary that he can openly state he opposes my content suggestions not for any lack of merit but rather it amuses him. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrepresentation
There are numerous examples of Imalbornoz misrepresenting a position held by an editor. There is an example here.

Above he claims I edited to insert this:

much of the population chose to leave Gibraltar fearing reprisals following the murder of English and Dutch soldiers

Actually I never did and TBH I'm not sure of the editor who did or the source they used. I accepted they'd sourced it as a matter of WP:AGF. I repeated it as an example of one of many reasons why they left but principally my argument (on the basis of Hills, Jackson, Bradford et al) is that they left due to the expectation of a Spanish counter attack and their cited loyaly to Philip. This hasn't actually been mentioned since October 2010, so what is the purpose of bringing it up now and misrepresenting what editors actually argue? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Civility
WP:CIVIL states:

It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

For the benefit of those not in the know, I was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD some time ago. I had a real bad time between October 2009 and March 2010 suffering from flashbacks, nightmares and insomnia. During that period I said a number of things that I regret and for which I have apologised unreservedly on numerous occasions.

Those who know me recognised my behaviour as utterly uncharacteristic, I did not shrink from the destructive nature of my behaviour, I have not and never will use my condition to excuse my behaviour.

I was sanctioned by arbcom as a result but I have not repeated any of the behaviours that lead to my sanction for well over a year. This is despite the fact I have been subjected to baiting behaviour to try and elicit an intemperate response.

Even though I've never repeated this behaviour, again and again Richard and Imalbornoz have referred to my past mistakes. Imalbornoz does so directly above here at WP:AE. Both repeatedly attack me for past behaviour, they were warned this was unacceptable and yet they continue to do so.

Worse still for me, this is used to attack Pfainuk as "condoning" my past mistakes. This is done without any supporting evidence whatsoever and such uncivil remarks seemingly will be allowed to pass without comment. For the record, whilsy Pfainuk has shown sympathy for my condition he has never ever excused my behaviour. I do consider that this personal attack against Pfainuk, done in this very forum should not be allowed to pass without sanction to send a very clear message it is unacceptable. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cherry Picking
In a recent edit, Imalbornoz included this "in 1711 the British government covertly ordered the British Gibraltar governor, Thomas Stanwix, to expel any foreign (not British) troops in order to render the place "absolutely in the Queen's power". " Would you not agree it would be signficant to note that those covert orders were never acted upon and that Dutch troops remained until 1713? Is this edit not just the tiniest bit misleading for its selection of facts? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Final Comments
Before commenting on the proposal from T. Canens, I would like to pick up on a comment made by EdJohnston. How can editors draw conclusions and make edits without access to the full text? How can WP:DUE be established without recourse to the full text? On the one hand you have editors arguing weight based on researching the subject in mutiple sources and producing an edit based on that research and supporting it with inline cites and extensive quotes. On the other you have editors who start with a premise, look for cites to support it and then ignore and veto content suggestions that attempt to redress the very real problems with WP:NPOV.

I would also point out this book published by Spain whilst under the fascist dictatorship of General Franco. "It is also well known that the inhabitants of the City of Gibraltar were driven out and their houses ransacked". Actually there are a range of opionions expressed in the literature to explain why the Spanish population left, not least of which is a letter from the population to Philip V that explains they left because of their loyalty to the Spanish crown and refusal to live under Hapsburg rule. The article currently reflects only one opinion and that one opinion is advanced by Spain in pursuit of its modern sovereignty claim; it doesn't reflect the range of opinion in the historical literature.

Comment on proposals from T. Canens
With respect to T. Canens' proposals. I fear that they will not prove to be a means of resolving this dispute rather they will actually perpetuate it.

I don't think an RFC will work, even under supervision from a committed admin. Richard and Imalbornoz are past masters at frustrating RFC and outside comment with walls of text and will filibuster it into oblivion, all the while maintaining the status quo which is their objective.

I would suggest modifying the proposal slightly.


 * 1) All contentious content is removed from the article, see  for an example of what I mean.  This will create the incentive to actually reach a resolution rather than perpetuate the status quo.  Without it, any RFC will not achieve anything.
 * 2) The Gibraltar article to be fully protected whilst the RFC is conducted, and not unprotected until the RFC is concluded.  This will prevent editing by meat or sock puppets, I have evidence of both but do not feel it is strong enough to present at this time.
 * 3) Participation in the RFC by the 4 named parties is limited to providing content proposals supported by inline cites and quotes.  I've always been of the opinion that well written content should stand on its own merits and I have faith that without lobbying the wikipedia community can make an informed choice on merit alone.
 * 4) Anyone involved in the arbcom case should not be allowed to participate in the RFC.  Broadly construed. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Any editor alleging "British Embarassment", removal of facts, suppressing facts, censoring facts or attempting to use Bibliometry to argue WP:DUE or that other facts are of lesser weight to be blocked immediately.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Imalbornoz

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

I don't see anything in the request that would, on its own, clearly require admin intervention. From a brief look at the issue it seems more likely that J. Johnson's guess is correct and that we have a problematic group editing situation. I'm not sure that AE is equipped to deal with it, though. Discretionary sanctions are more suited for addressing clearly identifiable misbehavior by individuals. Consider trying more formal content dispute resolution, such as a content WP:RFC or mediation.  Sandstein  05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We might try long term protection (in the three month range) if it keeps up, but mostly this just looks like a minor flare-up between editors with long memories who are basically trying to work within the system. The talkpage looks like a lot of let us use *this* version while we wait for consensus to magically materialize, but it stays basically civil and I am not convinced by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT assertion. 1RR for the article is also an option, but I think that that would miss the point. Recommend content-focused dispute resolution, and closing this report if there are no objections. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is basically a case of two groups of two editors each arguing back and forth. This dispute has gone to such an extent that Talk:Gibraltar has been essentially monopolized by them since October 2010 . This is not good at all. The applicable discretionary sanctions provision states that:
 * Editors wishing to edit in the area of dispute are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. Any editor who is unable or unwilling to do so may wish to limit his or her editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (Emphasis added)
 * The dispute here should have been resolved, one way or another, a long time ago. As a principle in the case pointed out, "sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes". Intractable disputes that monopolize a talk page is unhelpful to the project. It appears to me that those users, for whatever reason, are unwilling or unable to resolve this dispute through the usual channels on their own; a MEDCAB case was opened in January and closed in March, but then the dispute flared up again; there was apparently an attempt at an RFC, but that seems to have gone nowhere, either. As Sandstein and 2over0 observed, there is a need for content-focused DR, but I don't think telling them to pursue that and then leaving them to their own devices is a good option here. These are experienced editors, who know all about DR; there's no reason to believe that they would miraculously find a way to resolve this dispute when they have failed to do so in more than six months. I propose, therefore, that we enact the following discretionary sanction, which I believe to be "reasonably necessary to ensure the proper collegial editing of these articles and the smooth functioning of the project":
 * Within 15 days after the sanction is imposed, the four users at issue (Imalbornoz, Wee Curry Monster, Pfainuk, and Richard Keatinge) must either:
 * agree to a compromise wording with respect to the dispute at issue, which will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise; or
 * submit the dispute to a binding content RFC, which is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator (to avoid issues like Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23); the outcome of the RFC will be binding upon them, unless and until a community consensus decides otherwise.
 * Any of the four users who fails to comply with #1 will be topic banned from Gibraltar, and all related articles, discussions and other content, broadly construed across all namespaces, until such time they comply with #1.
 * I think this is a fairly novel approach, but it's the best I could think of under the circumstances. Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this analysis. The proposal is novel, but might be worth a try. Have the other editors been previously warned of sanctions and notified about this thread?
 * If we want to do this, we might want to tighten it as follows: All four are banned right now from the Gibraltar article and its talk page (except for any RfCs) until (A) an administrator has closed an RfC as establishing a community consensus about the wording that is to be used, and (B) the banned editor has agreed to abide by that consensus by (B1) not making changes contrary to it or (B2) not trying to change the consensus by any method other than another RfC in no earlier than one year. This would reduce the scope for wikilawyering ("yes I agreed to the proposal!" "no you did not!" "It's their responsibility to start the RfC, not mine!" etc.).  Sandstein   10:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically, the idea is that the instruction in #1 (either compromise or go RFC) would be the requisite warning and "specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines". If any of the four fail to comply with it, then the sanction (a page/topic ban) can follow. T. Canens (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Three of the editors concerned have commented here, and Wee Curry Monster was notified by the filer. I have added Vassyana's formal notifications to the log. Vassyana's old statement certainly indicates that requiring rather than requesting content-DR is a good idea, and this focuses the attention where it belongs without closing off the article to any other interested editors. It might also be a good idea to limit the involved editors' comments to the RfC to prevent it from becoming just another section where the same people make the same points at each other, as is too often the case with RfCs. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I support the idea of T. Canens that the four editors should be required to join in a binding content RfC if they want to continue to edit the article. While I could accept T. Canens' version, Sandstein's version sounds more enforceable. Since the dispute over Gibraltar has been running for so long, I don't think it is excessive to place the topic bans at once and then have them be lifted as a consequence of good-faith participation in the RfC. Anyone who is still hoping that lesser measures will suffice should take a look at the very thorough analysis by Vassyana in the December 2010 AE request. The 23 archives at Talk:Gibraltar show that national disputes about the content of that page have been going on since 2005. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

After considering the inputs above, I propose the following: Comments are welcome. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, , and are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they post on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction, "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule.
 * 1) Except as exempted in #4, the four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion regarding to any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed.
 * 2) Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page.
 * 3) Item #2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set limits on statements and/or other limitations as necessary to ensure its smooth functioning.
 * 4) Restrictions #1 and #2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in #4, if such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, provided that the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.
 * How about allowing an uninvolved administrator to grant an exemption to #2 on a case-by-case basis? T. Canens (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your proposal is good enough to enact even without that change. The actual discussion at WP:NPOVN did not seem very productive. I wish we could tell editors not to draw conclusions from sources without having access to the full text (as Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge apparently do not, according to Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 23) but I'm not sure how to phrase that. There is plenty of reason for admin action, since there was a full arbitration case devoted to this article in mid-2010 and since that time the entrenched parties have continued their dispute. If the T. Canens proposal does not work I think some number of full topic bans might be considered as the next step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion at NPOVN is not yet productive; I have hope, and am patient. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave this open for 48 more hours, to see if Wee Curry Monster and Pfainuk have anything to add. T. Canens (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This thread has lingered for one and a half weeks. It is time to close it. For better or worse, the structure of AE is not well-suited to the detailed analysis of editor conduct over a long period of time and a large number of edits: unlike arbcom itself, AE has neither the manpower nor the luxury of time. It is extremely rare for an AE report to take more than one week; it is virtually unheard of for an arbcom case to take less than a month. It is rare for five uninvolved admins to comment on an AE request; virtually all arbcom cases these days are decided with at least six or seven arbitrators voting. So the sanctions here are designed to look forward, not backward; they do not try to assign blame, for it is obvious that each editor bears at least some responsibility for the present state of the talk page. They are intended as a last-ditch attempt to achieve a solution to this intractable dispute while allowing the editors at issue to continue editing this article. If they do not work, then the only option left to us would be to forcibly terminate the dispute via a series of topic bans. The four editors involved here should understand that this is their last chance. Either work out a mutually agreeable solution, or take an extended break from the topic. There is no third option. For the reasons explained above and in my initial comment, and under the authority of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar:
 * ,, , and are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition.
 * The four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all namespaces and all pages.
 * Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page, as well as any further sanctions an uninvolved administrator may choose to impose.
 * Any uninvolved administrator may, for good cause, grant an exemption to the restriction in item 2 on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions may be revoked if abused.
 * As an application of item 4, an exemption to item 2 is granted to all four editors as follows: item 2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set such limitations as necessary to ensure the smooth progress of the RFC. Like all exemptions, this exemption may be revoked if abused.
 * Restrictions 1 and 2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in item 5, provided that such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, and the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.
 * All involved editors are warned in the strongest terms that disruption of the RFC process, in whatever form, will be viewed with great disfavor, and will lead to sanctions up to and including a lengthy block and/or topic ban.
 * T. Canens (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning talknic

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA and ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 19:38, 27 April 2011 1st revert
 * 2) 17:12, 28 April 2011 2nd revert


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


 * 1) Warned on 05:25, 3 April 2011 by


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

Block or topic ban.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There are two issues here. First the 1RR violation. Talknic has previously violated 1RR on this article (see my report ]) for which he received notification of the case. This is the second time within less than a month.

The second issue is that he has been edit warring against consensus on 1948 Arab–Israeli War for the past week+. And when I say against consensus I mean that three different editors reverted him and an additional 5 said they object to his edit on the talk page, while no other editor supported the change he made 6 times in 8 days. The discussion is here, his multiple reverts can be seen on the article history. Let me know if diffs are necessary. The discussion and history look self explanatory to me.
 * @T. Canens - Unfortunately the IDHT is not limited to al-Husseini (if you have a couple of hours to spare, you can read the previous 4-5 topics on the same talk page). If someone doesn't explain wikipedia policy and guidelines to this editor, we'll be back here in a couple of weeks. I think he needs a mentor, as I tried to suggest here a few weeks ago. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Statement by talknic
Edit warring goes both ways and is started by someone, for a reason.

The reasons for my being reverted have been rather less than substantial. None have challenged the validity of the source. Consensus is by a familiar and predictable rally and seems to be vaguely based on 'I don't like it'. Were there an actual policy based reason other than the blatant misuse of consensus in order to stop information...

I'll leave the Talk pages to do the rest of the talking. talknic (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning talknic

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

Blocked 31 hours for the 1RR violation. I'll look into the other aspects of this matter when I get some time. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've read though the material. That's some pretty obvious WP:IDHT there. Barring objections, I plan to impose a 3-month topic ban from all articles, discussions and other content related Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, broadly construed. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't got the time to read through the discussions yet, but I did take a quick look at the edit summaries they are using. Looks like a broader sanction may be needed here. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Talknic's participation at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War does not show any good-faith effort to respond to others' objections. This must be what the WP:IDHT comment is referring to. I support T. Canens' suggestion of a three-month topic ban but propose that it apply to the whole area of conflict under WP:ARBPIA. There are problems with Talknic's conduct on the talk page of 1948 Arab-Israeli War that go beyond the mufti issue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said in my subsequent comment above, that a broader sanction is needed. Three month ban from the entire area sounds like a good starting point. T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm closing based on the reasoning in this discussion with a three-month ban of Talknic from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. This includes talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Atabəy

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :

Note the enforcement requested is not against only Atabəy but the whole article.

The Safavid article needs AA2 remedies like Caucasian Albania where all people under AA1 and AA2 were sanctioned permanently, and the article had semi-ip protection for at least one month. It has been both ip attacked from the outside and also has seens its share of WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTBATTLE from some users, specially. It shares of archives shows that some users have repeatedly ignored sources as shown belown.
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [|AA2 remedies]


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

Note had the previous name  and has been in two arbcomms, as well as banned permanently from some  topic. [|AA2 remedies]


 * 1) [ "You're only weakening your Iranian identity by claiming Safavis as Kurds or Armenian or anything else, because any reference that you make up 500 years after, when there are pages of Ismail's poetry in Azeri Turkic, will be laughed at." (It should be noted that I am of partial Kurdish heritage and Iranian also, but I believe constantly referencing ethnicity outside of the topic of discussion is harmful).
 * 2) [] "Armenian user Nareklm has once again abused the consensus version with help from Mardavich. It's clear that both users make no contribution to either this discussion or the main page, but are only involved in making reverts to my editions." (It should be noted that referencing a user because of his background and then association them with negative actions is against policy)
 * 3)  "general pattern demonstrated by Iranian/Persian groups to attack and remove, dereference and POV every article related to Turkic groups shall also be noted as nothing more than hateful and disturbing development"  (again against policy)
 * 4)  Atabek: "but diretly related to Osroene as well as general grammar improvements are being reverted by TigranTheGreat, inserting Armenian POV, without any justification"  and "Not sure why you're jumping right at reverting the fact that Osroene was first Christian state apart from anything else, just pushing Armenian POV on irrelevant topic page. "  (note I just reviewed this piece because Moreschi put a ban on Atabek on editing the page.  Atabek was pushing a 100 year non-expert source based on unacceptable legends (by modern scholars).
 * 5) [] (While accusing other users of pushing POV, Atabek is pushing a 100 year old obsolete source about Turanians speaking a Median language and putting a POV controversy section. )

Also I should note that recently, there was an Azerbaijani Russian wikipedia list that was exposed in Russian wikipedia to do coordinating editing:  A similar English wikipedia list was also found with some still active participants (who if they remain active should be exposed to more admins and users). I can forward to the admnistration, evidence of the off-wiki coordination (the same evidence used for the Russian case) and hateful comments by :

Here are some highlights from the list, the messages pertaining to : 


 * See my comments below. Admins already know about the list as well as arbcomm which has been emailed about it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

More recent comments on Safavids talkpage

 * 1) 25 April, 2011 : "It is noteworthy that the two sides engaged in this edit conflict were always one side (like myself), which was and is open to incorporation of any referenced material to provide a breath of knowledge in the article, and another side, which prefer to write pages of emails with selective references to either deny Turkish identity or disassociate it from dynasty, push POV that dynasty was Iranian/Persian/Kurdish anything but unrelated to Turks or Azeris, when the founding king used the language as his mother tongue"
 * Here Atabəy is describing me as "writing pages of email with selective referencing" whereas I have consistently said that we need to include all sources about the Safavids.  What I said is this: "So the only person that has been actually working to make sure all sources are included in the article is me, because I have absolutely no problem with any RS source that is specific to the Safavids written by Safavid scholars(Roemer, Mathee, Savory, Minorsky, etc.). "


 * 1) 28 April, 2011 : "Now, Kasravi held neo-fascist views, so his fringe Hitleristic theories about everybody having "Aryan stock" are not scholarly.".
 * We should note that Kasravi's usage of Aryan here means indo-Iranian and had nothing to with Hitler.  Atabəy fully knows this concept, but brings up hitler to enflame the discussion as Hitler has nothing to with an article about 500 years ago.  I should note the theory of Kasravi is reviewed by several respect scholars (Roger Savory, Vladimir Minorsky) and accepted.


 * 1) 28 April, 2011 : "Khodabandeh, I don't have to read pages of selective sourcing that you like posting in talk pages.",
 * This not only violates WP:NPA, but the references I posted are from well known Safavid scholars and I asked Atabəy to incorporate them into his suggestions for change in the introduction. Furthermore, I have said repeteadly that we need to look at wikipedia guidelines on the introductatory names, and until that is done, we should include all relavent names and all possible alphabets (Persian, Azeri-Turkish, Kurdish and Georgian).  One should note my method has been all inclusive because of what I see is a lack of clear guidelines about Wikipedia foreign names.


 * 1) 21 April 2011, even when adding a simple template, the user makes such a comment (which shows a battlefield mentality if you are familiar with his edits): "as much relevance to Azerbaijan Wikiproject as it is to Iran one".
 * This might seem like a harmless comment, but there is no need to mention "Iran" here, and I believe is a aspect of the violation of wikipedia is not battlefield which has been going on for a long time in the article.

violation of 1rr by Atabəy on article
Per AA1/AA2, Atabəy is on 1rr
 * 1) 28 April 2011 Atabəy, removes the Georgian and Kurdish names.
 * This has been an ongoing discussion in the talkpage, and until there is a new concensus, I had restored the old four names
 * 1) 28 April, 2011 Atabəy, violates his 1rr revert patrole by removing Georgian and Kurdish names (which are under discussion).

Other problems of poor behaviour including accusing others of being anti-Turkish
Throughout the talkpages (and I can bring numerous examples) user Atabəy has accused others of Turcophobia (even authors who have been falsely accused of being anti-Armenian at the same time (and are not !
 * 1) "Kanas Bear..So please, follow WP:NPOV, show us how the dichotomy of your opinions is NOT based on anything other than Turcophobia".


 * 1) . "So I don't think the addition to intro, except from apparent allergy to word "Turkic", should establish any reason for edit reverting, ".. and " to push a WP:POV emotionally charged with habitual opposition to referencing Turkic".


 * 1) "removed historically Armenian POV, no references were provided, see talk for discussion"

I can cite numerous examples where the user constantly and falsely accuses others of being anti-X or anti-Y. This sort of comments as well as numerous comments bringing ethnicity of users into his comments are hard to report to AE, but if the admins have patience, they can look at the users edits to see numerous such examples.

I would also mention that several years ago, Atabek went totally out and removed all references to Armenian Genocide..
 * Removing every reference to the Armenian genocide in many articles or putting words such as "alleged" in front of it:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * This was discussed in the admin board here:.


 * The other very irritating bad pattern which was the cause for me to finally make this report is Atabey simply ignores the sources I have repeated 10x times and repeats statements without any RS support. Of course to show this violation is much harder, but it can be done by combing through the Safavid archives as well as other articles.
 * Of course he had used a sock [] as well, and then in the off-line wikipedia coordination list, the blocking admin was called a "bigot Kurd" (although he is not a Kurd, whereas I am partially).

Final comment on
A search in the archives of AE shows clearly how much (previous name  has wasted the communities resources.  The wikipedia coordination list which was exposed in the Russian wikipedia actually has more unfortunate information that such users are actually lobbyist for regional governments which makes their neutrality 100% questionable.

floating ip with the starting address 75/76
The ip is different than, but it is about the same topic, showing why I am requesting severe sanction on the topic. The ip has not enganged in the talkpage once (except in an article on the Orontids) and has constantly removed any references to Turkish names and background. I have tried to revert him and ask him to discuss, but to no avail. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and the article is an AA1/AA2 related article, so I will report his actiivies here. He has easily broken 3rr as noted in the here: This is an unrelated topic.
 * 1) . Note the floating ip seems to be also engaged in Orontids and removing the word "Persian".
 * 2) . Ip is removing Azeri/Turkish because he claims:" response previous comments are factual and can be proven by constant vandalism in "Karabakh" <-Armenian Arstakh articles vandalized by Azeri's and their claims of Armenian lands".
 * 1) the same ip that is in Safavids also removing terms in another article.
 * more reverts..


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


 * 1) Warned on [|AA2 remedies] ( former user has been in two arbcomms, and topic banned temporarily or permanently by several admins including.


 * 1) I have warned the floating ip that he needs to use the talkpage, but with no avail. The ip is definitely not a new user.


 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

I ask the same remedy that was applied to Caucasian Albania to be applied to Safavid dynasty. Furthermore, given some of the comments by  which violates all norms of Wikipedia, I request the user be permanently banned or topic banned from editing all Armenia/Azerbaijan/Iran/Turkey (broadly construed) pages. The ip with floating number 75/76 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia as it is a SPA.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Some of the xenophobic comments are from couple of years ago, but nevertheless, they have an effect on the general atmosphere of editing. One can hardly assume good faith given the above attacks on people's background and nationalities. The off-line English wikigroup can also be sent to the relavent admins (just like it seems it was done in the Russian arbcomm case), but since it has personal names, I will not divulge it here.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

User has been notified

Discussion concerning Atabəy

 * In response to Atabəy's comment, I did not accuse him of being the ip as the ip is reported separately and right here. But the issue is not topic disagreement and I have provided both online wikipedia evidence and also off-line to relavent admins about extreme nationalist viewpoints and battlefield mentality which has been part of the reason that Atabəy has been topic banned already from several articles.  I believe this is the reason why he ignores sources as mentioned above.  The online evidence is sufficient to show battle field mentality and also poisoning of the atmosphere of the Safavid talkpage (recently and in the archives).  The ip has also been reported as well, and it is the ip that edited Orontids (while removing the word Persian in Orontids and Turkish in Safavids).  The ip has also concurrently caused trouble for the article.  I believe as the evidence shows, both users (the floating ip and Atabəy) have violated the main principles of wikipedia, which is wikipedia is not a battlefield and the Safavid article should be sanctioned like Caucasian Albania, as well as other remedies I mentioned. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see why IP discussion is brought up under the thread about myself? Another major issue is why "offline evidence", without any proof of connection to myself, has been posted in a Wikipedia AE board, even if removed later after a note by admins. Does not that along with any potentially private information, falsely attributing to my identity, constitute a violation of WP:HARASSMENT? And how are those not a waste of community's time? Atabəy (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The thread is about the article Safavid dynasty, and misbehaviour by various users making soapbox comments and nationalistic POV (the ip being half the problem). I believe the ip as well you have violated wikipedia guidelines and I'll let the admin decides.  Besides the commonality of ignoring sources both users do not like, both users are intent on removing WP:RS material, and introducing soapbox and battlefield comments.
 * The off-line evidence has been used already in Russian wikipedia almost a year ago. 28 ethno-nationalist users were sanctioned. Furthermore,  private wiki-lists like the East European case have been used as evidence in the English Wikipedia.
 * It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that wiki-coordination list a few times.
 * I do not plan to divulge any comments about me from there, but I do plan to sift through the material and bring to the attention of English wikipedia Arbcomm since I do not edit Russian wikipedia. I still have not sifted through the Russian material as I do not speak Russian and google translator hangs up, but I am slowly doing this.  However, if a list mentions the names of admins, my name and is coordinating in Wikipedia, then it is important matter for Wikipedia like the East European list.   However, since it is not public to general wikipedia, it must be posted privately to arbcomm.
 * Similarly, the English wikipedia-list has been mentioned several times before me by other users, and after pursuing the Russian matter, the English list address was provided to me.  In it, several admins including Khoikhoi, Dmcevit and New York Brad  have been mentioned and talks about manipulation of these admins.  Thus it is a matter of Wikipedia and the mentioned admins as well.  That discussion was sent to arbcomm, and wether they plan to take any actions or not, it is my responsbility to mention that Khoikhoi, Dominic and New York Brad were mentioned in the list.  I believe these admins have the right to know if a group is coordinating regarding them.
 * As per what concerns this thread. Some of the posts on that list discuss the Safavids, off-line wiki coordination voting and etc.  However, I did not divulge any personal names in public wikipedia, but usernames who made comments.  However, these were deleted by admins as I was instructed to send it to arbcomm which I did.
 * I am allowed to mention is that the off-line wikipedia list (in both English and Russian) talk about Safavids (the current AE problem) and ethnic coordination. I will not discuss the off-line wikipedia list any further than this in this thread as that matter which was very recently brought to my attention (my name being mentioned on that list) has been forwared to arbcomm and the appropriate admins whose names were listed.
 * Again, I am not going to further talk about this wikipedia off-cordination list (as its content cannot be copy & pasted publically as mentioned to me by admins here) except to mention that the English version overlaps with the current AE problem article of Safavids where various users and ips have been violating wikipedia guidelines.  So the article and the problem users need special remedies, such as Caucasian Albania and other remedies. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And what does any of this have to do with requesting to enforce ArbCom against myself? You are ignoring two important factors:
 * 1)information that you are trying to publicize was obtained in violation of U.S. privacy and copyright laws (i.e. hacking and forging of someone's private email account in Russia), it is not an admissible evidence for Arbitration by default, whether you post or email it, because hackers can put any name in there;
 * 2)even if forged information is ever considered by Arbitration, then Arbitration has to prove that the forged correspondence is connected to me, the Wikipedia User:Atabəy;
 * None of the above can be accomplished without severely violating WP:HARASSMENT and a number of other Wikipedia policies, which is exactly what you are doing by assuming bad faith along. This entire thread here is a one big disruption of Arbitration's time. Again instead of solving topic problems in talk page, you are trying to target contributors in arbitration boards making frivolous reports. Atabəy (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The inline evidence and archives of Safavids are sufficient to show the bad behaviour, 1 ) specially calling out users by their identity and ethnicity, while making negative comments or soapbox comments about them, 2) soapboxing about users being anti-X or trying to deny identity, while it is a vandal ip, but conflating them with other users.   3) Not looking at read references of other sides per admission.  4) Constantly having a battle-field mentality (i.e. having problem with the term "Safavid dynasty of Iran" or "Safavid Iran" while it is used 240+ and 6500+ times in google books with many scholarly citation  ), and the problem is due to battle field mentality, as one cannot oppose something that is used by 6500+ google books (scholarly) sources.  Maybe 10, okay.  Maybe 50 okay, but not 6500+.   5) and yes the ip who is removing Turkish in Safavids and Persian in Orontids needs to blocked from the article and all of wikipedia as well, and I have already discussed him.
 * If Arbcomm used such lists in Russian wikipedia as evidence, then it was not forged. It also concerns the Safavid dynasty article (as there are discussions related to it there) which has had constant problems by behaviour.  Information about the list is not a concern to the thread, but the fact that clear battle field mentality has been present in the talkpages can be gleamed by looking at the archives and I have just shown some of the examples above.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * These are already known by arbcomm as they have been exposed several times in Wikipedia (both English and Russian). I think it is relavent to this discussion that someone has said: ""Turkic people were always glorious in their history, ruled many kingdoms and were masters of Armenians, Persians, Greeks and others." "I hate Armenian infection ever more passionately as many of you do. " "Armenians should always be kept as servant/dependent people".. These are very relavent to this request and they have also been sent to the admins in question.   However, unlike the Russian wikipedia case, only a small portion of the English list communication is available, and mainly from 2007-2008 it seems.  Unlike the Russian one which has close to 4000-5000 wikipedia coordination messages (it had my name in it too as I just became aware very recently and is one of the reason I posted the information), the English list has about 20 or so posts (the rest were not posted online it seems).  Of course the groups title had wikipedia in it.  Few of the relavent users are still active, but the list has been emailed to Sandstein, Khoikhoi, Moreschi, Dmcevit, New York Brad, Dbachmann and Golbez as well as arbcomm.  So it is not new information for Wikipedia, but the main point is to show that the ultra-nationalistic thoughts get projected in Wikipedia by seeing it as a battle-field and here is a clear case of one member of the list who sees wikipedia as a battleground rather than a place for common human knowledge.  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Important Side note, I did not know that one cannot post off-wiki communications (since I gave no address) involving the coordinated wiki-list and I apologize for any inconvience. Those have been instead sent to relavent admins including Sandstein as well as arbcomm.  Thank you  --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The evaluation of behaviour on the off-line wikipedia list is an arbcomm issue which it had its parrallel in Russian Wikipedia. I believe the group-list is valid per the Russian wikipedia case (and also other evidences if needed), but that is for the Arbcomm to decide.  So I am not going to comment on it anymore.
 * Rather I am asking admins to evaluate here only the online behaviour of the user who has been in two arbcomms, under 1rr and blocked from editing several articles permanently.
 * Here is another comment: please add this one to the battle field and soapbox comments,.  "So I don't think the addition to intro, except from apparent allergy to word "Turkic", should establish any reason for edit reverting, ".. and " to push a WP:POV emotionally charged with habitual opposition to referencing Turkic" .  Note I had to seek mediation from  on the issue but these sort of comments have been going on for a long time.  The user in the talkpage (if someone reads) constantly (at least 3x times) accused me of using a "single Bosworth source" while I brought Bernard Lewish and Peter Golden who are also top modern experts, and excised sources from an 100 year old Britannica and authors with non-Professorship and non-academic credentials.  I invite anyone to read that whole discussion page.
 * I believe such soapbox and emotional comments from the inline wikipedia is enough.. please note the user also accused an American (with no regional affiliation) of "Turcophobia" (posted above) and these sort of emotional accusations have been going on for a while. They are violation of wikipedia is not a battlefield, npa, soapbox and forum.  They are unprofessional.   So the inline wikipedia comments do not necessarily depend on the group-list (not private email but rather a wikipedia group list) which discusses coordination on Safavids.
 * I have said multiple times I have no problem with RS academic sources, so the dispute is not about content but rather the unprofessional behaviour I have cited. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another point.

Another point. constantly has repeated three times that I am connecting an ip 75/76 with his edit. But I have mentioned at least twice that this is not the case. This is in general part of the pattern of what I consider poor wiki-behaviour by the user. He simply repeats the same accusation or sometimes the same wrong statements.
 * For example, in another article, the user constantly repeated that "you keep repeating the bosworth source", while I brought 4 other sources. Now he repeats three times that I have accused him of being the ip, which I have not.  This sort of problematic behaviour is hard to report but leaves absolutely no room for even attempting a good faith diologue.   Rather as I mentioned, the ip has caused several problems for the article as well, but 's non-related comments have not been any better.
 * Besides the poor behaviour by the user (examples given above), the user thinks that a word such as "Safavid dynasty of Iran" is POV while 234+ google books use such a term (and Safavid Iran is used by 6500+ google books) and it should be one of the many alternative names for the dynasy in the intro.
 * However, my main concentration is on the on-line wiki behaviour in this AE (while the off-line comments which is 100% accurate and has been verified by admins in Russian wikipedia is to show that user is not POV).
 * As per any article I have written outside of Wikipedia (and I have written several), it is unrelated to Wikipedia, but I would totally accept any comments from any private email on any error, and I will gladly fix any error. It should be noted that I do not allow people to quote me in Wikipedia and I have reverted such users that reference my own outside of Wikipedia online articles in any body text of an article (I can lookup my history and pull out examples if necessary and is an example of following Wikipedia laws.).  Only if I had a respectable peer-reviewed journal article that some other University experts verify and write about it, would I not have a problem with it.  I have had one of the firmest policy which is to quote the top most specialist sources (on the specific topic, character, dynasty, event in history etc.) on any source, whenever possible.  This is why you do not see me quote 100+ year old outdated sources:
 * And note I am not a political person, have no connections to lobbyists (unlike the wiki-list group that was found and connects users to actual political lobbyist groups), and Wikipedia sometimes disgusts me for the reason that political lobbyists edit it.
 * As per changing of my username, I have displayed it on my userpage and I have not used sock like  had.  Neither have I been in two arbcomms or topic banned.  The same username gets boring and I like to mix it up, but I do it through the legal channel by letting admins know and then requesting for username change.
 * To make it short, note I never said that is the ip. However I have cited poor online Wikipedia behaviour from   in some topics (that were also discussed in an off-line wiki group which arbcomm can judge about) and examples of: 1) Calling out users by their ethnicity and making negative comments  2) Saying they do not have time to read the users comments (which shows here as well by accusing me of accusing him to be the ip when I have stated it that the ip is different users.  3) Accusing users such as me or Kansas_Bear to be "Turcophobic".. As a counterexample, I was the first one who has reported the ip and who was removing the word Turkish from the Safavids.  This sort of emotional accusations of being anti-X or Y from a user (whom on the off-line wiki comes out anti-X or anti-Y) is unethical and poor behaviour, and occurs unfortunately when in some of the topic disagreements.  4) Writing emotional comments about people's identity or group behaviour which is irrelavent to the topic at hand.  All these evidences provided in the links I mentioned.  So the problem I have is the wiki etiquette (which the admins can judge).  Heck the article is not important for me and if this wiki-ettiquette problem of  is solved the way it should be AE, I'll be happy to take a 1 year voluntary leave and self-sanction from the article myself (if proper action is taken by AE with regards to behaviour) and I could care less what is written in it.
 * My main problem is behaviour (which shows up also when discussing content as habitual ignoring of many RS sources). And people can see, I am not even pointing out any of the other users in that exposed wiki-POV list (some are actualy ethnic lobbyists and still have accounts here, but I could care less) because the other users do not violate the principles I have listed.    --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I added some more links for admins for a background. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As per my statement in 2006, I am referencing the government and society "Republic of Azerbaijan" which I believe has identity issues because of the 100 years of USSR rule. This is mentioned by pro-Azerbaijan republic source(Svante Cornell..) and in google books, however this came after various edit wars at the time.  Svante Cornell (who is generally a pro-republic Azerbaijan source, "Azerbaijan since independence" pg262: "Azerbaijani society stood out among its counterparts in the former Soviet republics, particularly neighboring Armenia and Georgia, in that it underwent a deeper identity crisis..." .  It is a forum comment (but not racist statement although abrasive, since I mentioned Azeris in Iran do not have this crisis, where-as racism would require dismissing a whole group of people) and I'll be happy to cross it out, even though it is from 2006.   Most of the former Soviet Muslim countries have an identity issue in my opinion, including Tajikistan (which is Persian speaking), mentioned by numerous google books sources.  Actually, looking at it more objectively today, Muslim societies today (which I am from) including Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Neat East) are going under a serious identity crisis between modernism and tradition.   This has been going on in the last 140 years and ideas such as Wahabism, various extreme nationalism and etc, are some aspects of these.  But that belongs to a forum and I will happily cross out my statement as I should have known in 2006 that WIkipedia is not a forum. This statement about identity issue coincidentally is on that list: "Our nation, which was defeated and humiliated in the war, subject to years of corruption and lack of morals suffers from an identity crisis. I cannot gather 10 Azeris in one place who fully understand why they’re Azeri Turks, some are Bakuvians, others are Iranians, Ganjali, Garabaghli and so forth."...ALso the statement was made after seeing a very weird article in Russian trying to be inserted in a specific article....
 * Heck I'll admit the same problem of identity crisis now is not much better in other countries including Iran as it is manifesting itself in a form of very pro or anti-Islamisms.. The Azeri wikipedia is actually taking Parthians, Scythians, Medes, Atropatene and etc. as Turks.  There is a lot of problems right now in the region.  So, maybe the statement was abrasive, but the statement was made when I was in my twenties and 5-6 years ago. I hope my comment above is explanatory enough.  Note the posts I have from Atabey are from 2011, some very recently and late 2010, as cited above and shows not a change in behaviour.   --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The user mentions my 2006 statment (explained above and also ignores many times which I have mentioned the republic of Azerbaijan and its people in a good light (e.g."By the way the etymology of Azerbaijan(land that is protected by the fire) and then name Azeri (of fire) are some of the coolest names I have seen. I don't think I can find a cooler meaning for a place than "land protected by fire". I would put it has the coolest name, but that would be a POV. :)") (Note this is again from 2006-2007 period when I was not aware and made some forum comments). However, Atabey has no execuse for his 2011 behaviour of battlefield mentality (and the list-serv which was asserted as a fact by Russian wikipedia).
 * And Atabey apparently is not using google books correctly as "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" shows zero hits  hits, as does "Dowlat-e Safaviyya"  (zero hits) while "Safavid dynasty of Iran" (which Atabey is adamantly opposed to) has 235 google books hit, "Safavid Persia" has  (4300+) hits.  "Azerbaijani Safavid dynasty"  has 7 hits none of them from any Safavid expert (3 of them from federal research divison).  Okay but "Iranian Safavid dynasty" (94+ hits), "Persian Safavid dynasty" has (158+) hits..However note the double quotes need to entered to show if a term is used.  Else it will check for each term individually in a book.  Also "Dawlat" has several meaning including: fortunate, government, estate, state, luck and etc.  Wikipedia cares about common names in English and 4000+ hits and 250+ hits are sufficient for listing common names.  Of course Atabey is intelligent enough to do this, but why he claims a term that gets zero hits in google is equal to 2000+ is POV?
 * As per official name, I have brought WP:RS source that exactly states what the "official" name of the Safavid country was but Atabey consistently ignored it (it is in the talkpage). Something Atabey has failed to do (find an RS source that talks about "official name").  He never commented once on these sources but said: "I don't have time.." (note the diff above).
 * Alireza Shapur Shahbazi (2005), "The History of the Idea of Iran”, in Vesta Curtis ed., Birth of the Persian Empire, IB Tauris, London, p. 108: "Similarly the collapse of Sassanian Eranshahr in AD 650 did not end Iranians' national idea.The name "Iran" disappeared from official records of the Saffarids, Samanids, Buyids, Saljuqs and their successor. But one unofficially used the name Iran, Eranshahr, and similar national designations, particularly Mamalek-e Iran or "Iranian lands", which exactly translated the old Avestan term Ariyanam Daihunam. On the other hand, when the Safavids (not Reza Shah, as is popularly assumed) revived a national state officially known as Iran, bureaucratic usage in the Ottoman empire and even Iran itself could still refer to it by other descriptive and traditional appellations".
 * In actually, Safavids had no one "official" name but used variety of names including Iranshahi, Iranpadeshaahi (It is on their letters from primary sources) and etc.. But only secondary RS sources can be used to talk about official names.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

consistently refers to names with zero hits in English. And I have pointed out the 2011 behaviour as a continuation. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My main problem is the online wikipedia behaviour of battle field mentality (take this naming issue where something has 240+ google book hits), so it must be listed while Atabey
 * As per Atabey's statement: "If there is anybody who deserved to be added to AA1 and AA2 ArbCom lists of restricted users for his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, while being somehow left out till now, it's User:Khodabandeh14 also known as User:Ali doostzadeh/User:Nepaheshgar.".. Nope because I actually shaped up and learned the rules about Wikipedia around 2007 before the arbcomms. Admins gave me a enough guidance and I have changed my whole approach to Wikipedia.  I follow the guidelines.  When I was alittle bit over mid twenties, I started using Wikipedia (2006 or so) but a person matures.  Atabey however in my opinion has not matured as the late 2010/2011 statements I brought shows.
 * Also this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality manifests itself right here, because I never said I oppose or accept, "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" (it has zero google books hit, so it is not a common term []), I didn't even make a comment on such a term. However Atabey without getting my opinion, sees it as a fight between terms.  I only have mentioned, common terms should be used (and in reality 230+ vs zero means 230+ is a common term).  Yet he brought a term which gets zero google book hits and without putting the double quotes in google books (he is sure aware of this fact), tried to claim it gets thousands of hits (right below).  This is the main problem I have with Atabey, not some emotional rants on and off-wiki which is part of the problem (but we have to admit, millions of people might make such comments).
 * Or for example, I bring RS sources about official names (secondary sources which explicitly state official names), but he simply states "official name was this", and I asked for google books and scholars(secondary sources which support his claim), and he didn't bring any.
 * This is the reason I believe Atabey was banned permanently from editing some articles, as he has taken a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards wikipedia and the 2011 statement above which I brought is a continuation of a long pattern. I urge admins to review all the archives of Safavids.. The discussions were much friendler in 2007, but as time went on, users started to dismiss RS sources.  He simply admits he ignores the sources of others (see the diffs which I posted above).  That is unacceptable from wiki editing point of view, and I do not care personally on what personal viewpoints Atabey might have, but rather if he can accept RS specialist sources (per wikipedia guidelines) and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (as the diffs I showed from 2011 shows this continuation)--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As per Atabey claiming I cannot prove it, I can prove in three ways . Heck the Russian list has close to 5000+ off-line wikipedia coordination posts, there is no way anyone has time to make up such stuff...  The Russian arbcomm verified its veracity.
 * But as I said to Atabey, my main problem (forget the listserv for a moment which shows complete ethnic POV nationalistic feelings) is SOAPBOX, FORUM, WP:BATTLEGROUND and ignoring of high quality specialist (people that have written articles and books about the topic, not random quotes) RS sources which he does not like (something he got ban for in some articles).  This is done totally from ethnic POV editing mode.  Else the personal opinions of users (which can show bias) is not important if users follower the guidelines.  I have brought the diffs from 2011s to show Atabey edits with ethnic POV mindset and when there  is POV disagreement, he sometimes brings soapbox comments of being anti-X or Y (even against Kansas Bear) which have nothing to do with the discussion.
 * Yes if a term is used 3000+ times (with correct google books input with double quotes and quoting at least some of the top specialists with regards to the topic), then it needs to be in the article. So if it said "Safavids of X" (with say 250+ scholarly sources), I would have no problem with it either as it is Wikipedia guidelines.  If it did actually say "Safavids of Azerbaijan" (with the quote search) 250+, then it needs to be in the article.  Because one must follow guidelines.  So the problem I have with the user is editing from ethnic-pov WP:BATTLEGROUND perspective (ignoring say hundreds of sources and then bringing a term with zero hits and claiming with no reason that I oppose it) and this can be gleamed at from the Safavids page.. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Atabəy

 * Most of the links that User:Khodabandeh14 (formerly User:Ali doostzadeh / User:Nepaheshgar), including baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, refer to January - July 2007, while conclusions in regards to my editing were made by the later ArbCom in August 2007. He continues to push WP:POINT despite presented facts.


 * All of the off-wiki information collected by Khodabandeh14 in his Wikipedia user page originates from a hacked email inbox of another person, published on the Armenia-based website. Such evidence is not only inadmissible in Wikipedia, violating WP:PRIVACY, it is also forged. Publishing people's private email boxes online is a criminal offense in the United States where Wikipedia is based, as opposed to Russia, Armenia, Iran.


 * Note, the comment made by Khodabandeh14 in this AE request:
 * "It was brought to my attention very recently that my name has been mentioned among the discussions in that list a few times. I take that matter seriously"
 * What is meant by "brought to attention", by who? Khodabandeh is essentially admitting to having off-Wiki coordination to bring up accusations against unrelated Wikipedia contributor in AE case. What does any of this have to do with Safavid dynasty article, if not for targeting contributors based on trump-up invented evidence from hacked sites to advance his POV.


 * Khodabandeh14 uses off-wiki hack sites as a reference with no proof that this material was written by me, User:Atabəy. Secondly, he produces no proof that the information in these archives was not forged to target other individuals unrelated to Wikipedia. Usage of such information against a userin Safavid dynasty article violates WP:POINT and reveals Khodabandeh14's inability to focus on article subject instead focusing on contributors with opposing view. Importing and using hacked and forged off-wiki sites containing somebody's private email box to target a Wikipedia user is not simply a severe assumption of bad faith, it's also an intimidation of Wikipedia users, in violation of WP:HARASSMENT and WP:NPA.


 * Khodabandeh14 refers to some off-wiki group, existence of which along with my alleged membership in it he cannot legitimately prove. Because it comes from a hack site and he cannot physically establish my identity. If such evidence is ever admissible, anyone could create dozen sites referring to Ali Doostzadeh leading off-wiki groups with forged correspondence.


 * Khodabandeh14 is frivolously accusing me of violating 1RR, while I only reverted an anonymous IP constantly vandalizing the article, removing the inserted NPOV tags. To my knowledge, removing tags without discussion or consensus is considered an act of vandalism in Wikipedia, hence any revert of such edit is justified and does not fall within 1RR. Moreover, Khodabandeh14 has to some way to go to prove that 1RR not only applies in my edit, but even applies to me in general as a user.


 * For a very clear example of racist comments in Wikipedia (not even off-wiki), you can refer to another sample of Khodabandeh14 predecessor Ali doostzadeh account writing here: Friends, The current republic of Azerbaijan has some serious identity problems. That is according to Khodabandeh/Doostzadeh, 9 million people in Azerbaijan have allegedly identity issue, and he, Doostzadeh, would not be considered a racist making such wholesale generalization about a group of people.

And all of the above, simply for what? Disagreeing with my talk page comments, inability to come to consensus without attacks violating WP:NPA. Arbitrators are welcome to check Safavid dynasty page history, to see what IPs are doing there, and for some reason, Khodabandeh14 was less concerned about their behavior, instead focusing on attacking only contributor who takes time to comment and provide references on talk page. And above all, Khodabandeh14 shows interest to get rid of opposing view by suggesting to topic banning me from range of subjects based on talk page discussion in one article.

Implying that anyone editing Orontids is connected to me is another "pearl", be my guest, run all IP checks and logical comparisons and prove it. I always did, do and will edit under a single user account, regardless of where I am. Unlike Khodabandeh14/Ali doostzadeh/Nepaheshgar, I don't see a need to change user names over time to reestablish Wiki identity.

In short, my position is that current Safavid dynasty article is a complete POV pushing starting with the first sentence: "Safavid dynasty of Iran was one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran.". Apart from disputable POV, the statement "of Iran" is duplicated in sentence. Google Books search for "Safavid dynasty of Azerbaijan" returns over 2,980 references, another more specific search for "Azerbaijani Safavid Dynasty" returns 4630 references, including 7 specific ones to expert scholars like R.G. Suny or a combination of scholars who developed country study summaries for the Federal Research Division. But no, Doostzadeh/Khodabandeh is more "expert" than those, claiming that this dynasty was only that of Iran, when the official name of state was "Dowlat-e Safaviyya" (State of Safavids).

Moreover, Khodabandeh14's edits in Wikipedia are not apolitical, especially considering some of his publicly available off-Wiki political writings.

If there is anybody who deserved to be added to AA1 and AA2 ArbCom lists of restricted users for his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, while being somehow left out till now, it's User:Khodabandeh14 also known as User:Ali doostzadeh/User:Nepaheshgar. Atabəy (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Response to MarshallBagramyan comment: For further information about User:MarshallBagramyan editing, check out the A-A2 ArbCom log of blocks and bans. I don't think my username appears on that page as often as his in recent years, including 2009, 2010, and 2011.
 * And to clarify about my temporary restriction from Osroene many years ago, so much repeated by User:Khodabandeh14 and User:MarshallBagramyan. It was a wrong decision drawn by administrator, not based on content facts or references, but on hasty lack of interest to get involved in actually mediating the issue. Because Osroene (Kingdom of Edessa) was a first Christian state (201A.D.), I can prove it then and now with a multitude of historical references. If you claim, it's based on legends, so is the establishment of Christianity in Armenia 100 years later (301A.D.)based on a legend mostly proliferated by scholars of the same background. Atabəy (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Atabəy
Speaking as someone who is relatively familiar with Atabey and his edits, I don't think a mere ban on this single article will do any good. If the past is any indication, it has proven that even after Atabey has been banned from editing a particular article, he has shifted the locus of his disruptive edits to elsewhere. In February 2008, he was topic banned for several weeks from editing the article on the Shusha pogrom. One month later, he was topic banned from editing the article on Osroene. In September of the same year, he was permanently topic banned from editing two different article. Given this history, there is little hope to hold out that he will be start making more constructive edits and drop the generally bellicose attitude toward resolving conflicts and other editors. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Atabəy

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

I have redacted the alleged off-wiki communications. These should be sent directly to the arbitration committee via email. It may be necessary to open a new arbitration case ala WP:EEML. T. Canens (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have emailed the committee to see if it has received the material and if it intends to take any action. T. Canens (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to WP:ARBAA2, Atabəy was placed under supervision. Atabəy revert-warred over the placement of a POV tag on Safavid dynasty on 28 April, and this may exceed the definition of good behavior that was contemplated by the supervision, whose wording is given at WP:RESTRICT. Atabəy has been blocked four times since 2007, and he has two article bans logged at WP:ARBAA2. His behavior at Talk:Safavid dynasty does not suggest a good-faith effort to reach a compromise. It is more like the traditional ethnic warring over which alternate languages ought to be used when naming article topics. I suggest that unless we hear back from Arbcom on this coordination/mailing list issue, we go ahead with a three-month ban of Atabəy from the topic of the Safavid dynasty, including talk pages. At the same time we could reinstate the indefinite 1RR/week editing restriction that he used to be under per the former ARBAA terms. This would be less drastic than a ban from the entire area of conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a reply. It says that arbcom is aware of the issue, but no action has been proposed (there's apparently not much discussion on it). T. Canens (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm closing with the above sanctions against Atabəy due to a pattern of nationalist edit-warring and battleground behavior. That is, a 3-month ban from anything to do with Iran, including the Safavids, with the ban including talk pages, and an indefinite 1RR/week editing restriction. The case reported by Khodabandeh14 is murky and he seems unable to express the issues briefly. Atabəy shares with Khodabandeh14 the habit of making very long statements that don't convey useful information to admins. I did study the edit warring at Safavid dynasty and viewed the discussion at Talk:Safavid dynasty. I asked Atabəy to propose his own ideas for reaching consensus but he just responded with more content arguments. He's been on Wikipedia for several years, so Atabəy should be used to our system by now. He seems unwilling to take practical steps to reach agreement on contested articles. Short of a topic ban, long-term full protection of Safavid dynasty might have been considered. It doesn't seem to be the best choice because there has been a long-term pattern of trouble on AA articles and Atabəy has been sanctioned before for similar problems. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Passionless

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : Broccolo (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA


 * Topic ban violation

block
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

On April 7, 2011 user:Passionless was topic banned from I/P related articles in all namespaces Today user:passionless made the comment in the discussion clearly related to I/P conflict. 
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Passionless
Does anyone else think that Broccoli is a sock? I mean just look at his last 100 edits they are one, spread out over time really thin for an editor as serious as he is, I mean most of us experienced editors could make 100 edits in a day or two instead of 4 months. Also his edits have a very high rate of voting on issues compared to his number of article space edits, his edits are solely in one area - on pages where disputes are occuring. Does any uninvolved editor think that Broccoli is helping to build an encyclopedia? It seems to me he is here to create trouble and waste peoples time. Passionless  -Talk  22:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, if Brocoli was wanting to bring possible infractions of Arbcom bans to arbcom's attention not based on a BATTLE mentality would he not be bringing in other editors as well? Last time Broccoli boy decided to bring me here hoping I would be permanently blocked he cited only edits I made to an article about the war in Iraq...is it not obvious he hates me and brings this here to battle and not because he thinks it would benefit wikipedia. Passionless  -Talk  23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Me a sock? What a crap. Anyone who looks here will see what's my contribution to the Wikimedia projects is. Next time check the facts before you attack, so you wouldn't be caught with your pants down. Broccolo (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yo Ed, you sure you want to be doing things like this "The article on 1982 Lebanon War ought to be fixed. The wrong statement is still there in the first sentence of 1982 Lebanon War#Precursors to war.", as you must know, being an admin and all, that working on behalf on a banned editor is against wiki policy. How can I expect a fair case here when the judges both act above the law, and act in favour of banned users they like, and against those they dislike. Passionless  -Talk  16:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not a biased statement, the comment on the Lebanon War is a simple statement of fact. I think you must have misread the comments. Gatoclass (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Passionless

 * Passionless, I recommend that you address the complaint against you instead of making insinuations about other editors. Why did you return after 2-1/2 weeks just to comment in this area? Are you looking for an indefinite block? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I never left, I still watch you people (seems like you guys are still throwing insults, writing POV articles, and arguing over POV/NPOVing edits, it's funny...and pitiful) and I was merely giving an editor some information, that an SPI would be useless as the editor uses a mobile device so that it is not connected with their other account, what does that have to do with my ban, the edit was merely a couple editors talking about stuff and junk. Passionless   -Talk  23:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want I could compare my edits to those made by others under similar topic bans to show you how innocent my edit was in comparison to those skirting their bans every ** day homie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, wait a minute, Broccolo just got off scot free for a transparent violation of 1RR on an I-P related article (I'm still struggling to comprehend the logic behind that decision), and now Passionless is facing a 48-hour block for mentioning that someone edits from a mobile device? How does this comment infringe on her ban precisely? Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Once again user:passionless is banned "from all articles and discussions related to Palestine, Israel, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for a period of one year ".  this discussion  ic clerly related to I/P conflict, it even mentions Itamar attack.
 * Besides this post is a poorly veiled violation of his interaction ban.--Broccolo (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, and all I-P related content is subject to 1RR, but that didn't stop you from getting away with such a violation without so much as a warning only a day or two ago. For the record, it doesn't bother me one way or another whether or not you or Passionless are sanctioned for violating the rules. What concerns me is that consistent standards are applied; it's obviously inappropriate for users to be given the benefit of the doubt in one case and not in another. In this case, I think it's at least arguable that sockpuppetry is a meta-issue independent of the topic area in which it occurs. It's certainly more arguable in my opinion than any argument I have yet seen that removing references to "stolen lands" in an article about Israel does not constitute an edit in the I-P topic area. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Gatoclass, it looks like you are having problems with EdJohnston for declining to sanction me. If so why are you addressing your question to me? The subject of this request is user:Passionless. Let's concentrate on him.--Broccolo (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consistency in which rules are applied at places like this or especially EW, but there is even less consistency in what will get you brought to AE, I made a single edit about a former SPI about a user, and I get brought here for violating a topic ban, but this was from the same battle editor who brought me here as many remember for writing about Americans adopting the Iraqis they orphaned, so we all know the battler brought this pitiful case here because he hates me. Passionless   -Talk  15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Broccolo, I didn't address a question to you. You addressed a comment to me, and I replied to it. And yes, obviously my comment relates to process. However, you do score extra chutzpah points for starting a case concerning someone's at most technical breach of the rules only two days after you yourself were the beneficiary of a considerably more generous reading of the same. Gatoclass (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Passionless, are you in self-destruct mode and just trying to give people an excuse to block you, or were you unaware that the edit was a violation of your topic ban? If it's the latter, then at least attempt to to make a case in your defence instead of casting aspertions. You haven't guaranteed yourself a block yet, so people might listen to you if you make a case for yourself. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When the accusations are so pitiful as are here now, I see no reason to defend myself, and it would be hard to unless I was given full privilege. Passionless   -Talk  15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If I truely was in a "self-destruct mode" I would have made actually pointy edits to articles that clearly skirted my ban, not something so weak as a comment about an old SPI on a little read talk page. If you want I could make pointy edits that skirt my ban like writing brand new I/P articles that create huge amounts of trouble and wasted time, or I could even continue to do whatever it was that lead to my topic ban, no clue what that was, but if it was say incivility maybe I could keep on being incivil, and do not say that this would be wrong to do because I have seen others do it and so have you, but you and others all keep your mouth shut about that now don't you. Passionless   -Talk  16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I was to purposefully break my topic ban, my first edit would have been to award User:Ryan Paddy a barnstar for his neutral work at the Israeli apartheid article which I meant to do before I was randomly topic banned. Passionless   -Talk  16:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - Any admins interested in blocking the obvious sockpuppet with prior knowledge of wiki editing and wiki editors in the I-P topic area that triggered all this while we're at it ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried to get the duck blocked before for being a duck but no go, if admins cared to clear out the mass number of socks and masters they would do an entire sweep where all users including admins who have edited certain articles (since say 2011), discussed related Arbcom trials, voted at AFDs, and all those users site banned began are brought to a giant SPI so that we can site ban them for sockpuppeting for the purpose of POV pushing. Passionless   -Talk  15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Question for admins only How come not a single admin will reply to me on why I was topic banned? Is it cause there was no diffs to topic ban me on? Passionless   -Talk  15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When was I ever taken to ANI? And when did I ever question for diffs at AN3? And since when is the founder infaliable, he didn't even put in time to read the source to notice he was wrong, I don't care who makes an IDONTLIKE vote, it is still worthless. Other editors and admins have stated that my last block was wrong and here you are still avoiding the question, what was I banned for and what are the diffs, English, do you speak it? Passionless   -Talk  23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * this comment is yet another violation of the user's interaction ban, the third one in this AE. Broccolo (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Passionless

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

Propose 48 hour block. T. Canens (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I leave it to others to decide what sanction is best, since I commented in the discussion of his I-P topic ban. (That discussion closed on 7 April). A common element in many of Passionless' appearances at AN3, ANI and AE is that he wants to be given diffs, because he doesn't understand what he did wrong. His being reported so many times in admin forums, and his frequent disagreement and puzzlement about admin actions,  is the thing that suggests that he must be overlooking some data that is readily available to him.  He managed to get himself personally scolded by our founder, "..this is outrageous conduct" on 10 March 2011.  Passionless' indef block was lifted by Elen of the Roads on 17 March due to his assurance of better behavior ("..in future he will ensure that his editing is scrupulously in accordance with policy"). I hope that Passionless will consider these two diffs helpful in explaining his current reputation among admins. The road to a better reputation is open to him but he has declined to take it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked 1 week for that blatantly obvious interaction ban violation. I think this can be closed. T. Canens (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Request concerning Hans Adler

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement :  Sandstein   23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 2011-04-30 Makes personal attacks and casting aspersions without evidence against another editor regarding their alleged previous conduct in disputes about pseudoscience, namely: "a disruptive WP:IDHT artist", "the predictable temper tantrums by QG" (emphasis in original) and "who fails to see the full extent of his own incompetence".
 * 2) 2011-05-02 Redacts one personal attack after advice by a clerk while leaving the others unchanged.
 * 3) 2011-05-02 Maintains that these are not personal attacks.
 * 4) 2011-04-22: Another personal attack in the same context, against an arbitrator, to illustrate that this is not an isolated incident.

None, requested here.
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) :

Warning not to make personal attacks on opponents in pseudoscience-related content or conduct disputes, with a link to the discretionary sanctions remedy, as a condition for sanctions should such conduct reoccur.
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) :

This request is made in my capacity as an administrator, and not as a party aggrieved by the conduct at issue. I previously issued a warning of my own, but later withdrew it because I could be considered to be involved given that the comments were made in the context of a then-ongoing arbitration case to which I was a party and in which Hans Adler had criticized my conduct. An arbitrator instructed me to address my concerns to the clerks, but the active case clerk did not decide whether or not to act on my request before the case was closed (and the request archived). Acting on the assumption that this is now again a standard AE matter, I ask another administrator to issue the warning.  Sandstein  23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

23:56, 5 May 2011
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Statement by Hans Adler
This report is what I call chutzpah. As I already mentioned elsewhere (in at least one location where Sandstein must have read it), an arbitration case is not the kind of location where we cannot speak about editor conduct. The conduct of QuackGuru was one of the key reasons that led to the case in which I commented on him, and in fact, while a number of editors are using the chaos produced by QuackGuru for political reasons, AFAICT not a single editor has gone so far as to defend him openly. Even Sandstein appears to support him only in practice. He doesn't go so far as to say that what I said about QuackGuru was not true, or not a reasonable interpretation of the evidence about QuackGuru which I introduced into the case under WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing. I think the expectation that editors who are discussing on the case talk pages have familiarised themselves with the evidence presented, at least to the point that they know that several editors (Ludwigs2, Ocaasi, Hans Adler, Becritical) have presented evidence about QuackGuru, is a reasonable one. A negative statement about an editor does not become a personal attack just because the evidence on which it is based is referred to implicitly.

Sandstein is trying to get me on a technicality, in much the same way that he got Ludwigs2 on a technicality. He tried to protect his predictably controversial block of Ludwigs2 against reversion by abusing the arbitration enforcement mechanism (the block had nothing to do with the old case on which it was ostensibly based) and when that didn't work ran to Arbcom with his fifth complaint about an unblock of one of his blocks by another admin within 24 months. It is fairly obvious that this report is retaliation for the evidence I presented against Sandstein at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence#Sandstein's behavioural patterns.

By blocking the messenger in reaction to this report of on-going (at the time) disruption by one of Wikipedia's most notorious IDHT artists, Sandstein actively encouraged chaos and disruption on pseudoscience-related articles. Now he is trying to use the case which was supposed to address these problems as a tool for revenge. First he tried to give me a formal arbitration enforcement warning himself. He had to remove it on the advice of an arbitrator. The incident appears to have influenced the voting behaviour of another arbitrator. (This happened just after I criticised this arbitrator harshly, so I doubt he was biased in my favour.)

It appears that after learning that I am not an admin (see WP:Requests for adminship/Hans Adler), he thinks in spite of the negative feedback he received from Arbcom for his earlier stunt, that he can get away with asking for a licence to hand out random blocks against me. I doubt it.

I think that's enough in my defence. For various reasons I have come to the conclusion that Sandstein does more harm to the project than he is worth. I don't want to be instrumental in his losing the admin bits by becoming his punching ball. But if he insists and the consensus here is that this is desirable, then I can stand it and I will not go out of my way to prevent it. I am certainly not going to say false things about QuackGuru to prevent it. Hans Adler 01:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Past three in the morning of my local time, I somehow managed not to properly consider the fact that to moot harsher formal statements about him in the recent arbitration case (my interpretation, obviously, and I can't bother to hunt for the diffs right now as I don't remember where it happened), Sandstein informally promised to stay away from arbitration enforcement in the near future. Had I been able to consider this at the time, some of my rhetorics, especially in the penultimate paragraph, would have been different. I think it's not completely wrong, though, so for simplicity I will let it stand as it is.
 * I want it on the record that the main reason I redacted "temper tantrums" is not the character of the original formulation, but the fact that I now have doubts whether "temper tantrums", or indeed "overreactions", is an accurate description of QuackGuru's behaviour. This would require an analysis of conflicts around QuackGuru that focuses on whether his behaviour changes throughout such a conflict, or whether this is just an illusion created by a complete lack of adequate reaction to reasonable, often strong, opposition, and to escalation. I have been planning to do this analysis, but as the matter didn't seem to play a role for the arbitration case I didn't give it a high priority.
 * I got the message that some here think my language is not always appropriate. I cannot promise that you will see a change in my behaviour, though. One reason is my natural inclination to call a spade a spade and my dislike for soulless language that disguises the speaker's feelings. On Wikipedia we don't have non-verbal cues, and it is indispensable for the social dynamics that we have a mental image of a speaker's emotional state of mind. To prevent unnecessary escalation, we should all take care that it is approximately correct. Should you ever see me using laborious circumlocutions to describe actions of yours about which I feel very strongly and negatively, then you have reason to worry. It would mean that I have identified you as an obstruction to encyclopedia building that I intend to remove swiftly and with a minimum of fuss. If I have ever acted in this way, then it was probably in reaction to a vandal. But I don't remember such a case. Hans Adler 09:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hans, you have a point about expression of feelings etc. However I think your approach is at odds with Wikipedia civility policies. These polcies encourage everyone to address all issues in dispassionate manner, and address even complex and controversial problems in civil, calm, polite and colleagial manner. I am not quoting but I think I am pretty close. These polcies are grounded in the belief that a polite logical (but firm) argument goes a long way compared to strong langauge. Indeed insults, no matter how justified, are usually counter productive. I therefore suggest that you make extra effort to follow Wikipedia's civility policies and to encourage others to do the same, regardless of how outraged they or you are. To give you a simpler example, I am sure you think that at least some of your co-workers (broadly construed, inclduing administration) are stupid, ignorant, don't care, etc. It happens in every work place. Yet I do not think (somehow) you tell them day in and day out what you think about them. It is called elementary decorum. I know this is completely broken in online communication on blogs, discussion forums, etc. But Wikiepdia should be different, shouldn't it? For the record I do not supoort this AE request. Indeed, I am not much concerned about occasional lapses in civility. Indeed I found you impeccably civil in the past. But I am concerned that you propose an incivil behaviour as a valid and desirable approach in some cases. I don't agree. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Hans Adler
I'm totally uninvolved here, I've never crossed paths with Hans and I hold Sandstein in high regard. Given that these comments (and I'm not making any judgement about them one way or another) occurred on the workshop page of an active ArbCom case, isn't it really up to the case clerks to enforce decorum on those pages, not admins patrolling this AE board? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought clerks had the discretionary power to enforce decorum on ArbCom case pages via blocks if necessary. --Martin (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is up to the clerks, and they can block if necessary, but a block is not what I recommend here. Given that the conduct at issue does not relate to the case, which was about arbitration enforcement procedures, but to persistent conflicts in the pseudoscience area more broadly, I recommend to issue a warning with respect to the broad topic area. In other words, I am not certain that the authority of clerks to enforce decorum excludes the possibility of warnings for another purpose by other administrators, especially if the clerks never got around to addressing the issue one way or another.  Sandstein   00:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. --Martin (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, take a hint already. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, you need to slowly take your hands off the keyboard, and back away from the computer. This is a user very involved in the ArbCom that just closed. You also are now uninvolved in AE enforcement, per your own statement aren't you? So please, stop this. It's unbecoming an administrator. BE——Critical __Talk 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You can add me to this request for sanctions because I also wrote that certain actions of User:QuackGuru constitute WP:IDHT artistry in my opinion irrespective of how mighty defender of the wiki against pseudoscience QuackGuru may be otherwise. If I recall correctly, another user User:ScienceApologist had similar behavioral issues as QuackGuru, which led to various sanctions despite the fact the he was probably right on the content issues 95% of the time. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans' comments above are accurate descriptions of the editors in question (even the comment he redacted) and they were all made in contexts where such statements are reasonable and necessary for the evaluation of the situation at hand. The effort to cast this as personal attacks is simply rubbish. -- Ludwigs 2 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, as you have already been told extensively, if something said during a case on the case pages requires any action, clerks and arbitrators will take action. This move of yours directly undermines what arbs have told you and it has prompted a strong likelihood that someone will request for the case to be amended to formally restrict your privileges. Harassing an editor because they presented evidence against you is utterly unacceptable and unbecoming of an administrator, and the fact that you brought this here was a show of exceptional poor judgement and disruptive point-making. Are you going to withdraw from this (pursuit) to abide by your assurance, or do you want your privileges revoked to effectuate total disengagement from AE? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Call for ukase from Short Brigade Harvester Boris
It looks like the principals in the recent Arbcom case Just Don't Get It. Aside from Sandstein's dubious request above we have spurious "warnings" from User:Ludwigs2 directed toward individuals who unquestionably are already aware of the things they're being "warned" about, and heated responses thereto (see e.g., here and here for a small sampling). The impression is that these are thinly-veiled attempts to provoke. Someone -- an Arb, a clerk, or whoever -- should tell these guys to stay the hell away from each other and from the venues that are causing the problems, namely Pseudoscience and arbcom enforcement, for a period of one month. Wikipedia won't collapse if Sandstein doesn't do AE for a month and if the other editors stay away from one another and the topic area for a month. The hope is that after a rest away from the heat of battle they can work more cooperatively with each other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with SBHB's analysis, particularly concerning this enforcement request and the bogus templating. The bickering and mud-slinging that occurred on the case pages did give rise to requests on the arbitration clerk's talk page. Some of those requests were dealt with at the time, but the elegant solution found by NuclearWarfare at the close of the case was to courtesy blank all but three of the case pages. The blanking signalled a close on all heated discussions on the case pages. If the bickering and mud-slinging does not subside, then there are other avenues to resolve these disputes (RfC/U, ANI, etc). Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by BorisG
I think people are seriously confused here about Sandstein's role. Sandstein has made this request as a regular editor, not as an uninvolved admin (unlike the previous warnign which he made in his capacity as an uninvolved admin, wich was wrong). This page gets requests for AE enforcement from involved editors all the time. This is normal. So his involvement in the ArbCom case does not somehow exclude him from filing such requests. When arbs advised Sanstein (unofficially) to stay away from AE, they obviously meant him in his capacity as Arbcom sanction enforcer. Here he is not doing so, so procedurally everything is fine here. At the same time, I do not think there is any serious incivility by Hans and I think this case should be dismissed. BorisG (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If anything, I think you are confused about why the case turned out the way it did (which is what I gather from your comment on Risker's talk; note, the words were very clear: "If you have a concern about posts made to an arbitration case page, the appropriate action as a party to the case is to draw it to the attention of arbitration clerks and explain your concern. This is not an arbitration enforcement issue.") That doesn't merely mean "don't warn him" because you are involved; it means don't assume you can go to AE about what is happening on a case page. It might have been very different if Sandstein submitted this in his capacity as an editor who was aggrieved and involved in the topic area and if there was merit to the claim; however, Sandstein submitted this here as an admin who is not aggrieved by the conduct or otherwise involved in the topic area. In particular, I do not accept that AC or the Community endorse AE as a process for disruptive point-making and harassing an user who submitted evidence against you while you were an admin. To permit that would have a chilling effect on editors who need to utilize dispute resolution in good faith especially when users have concerns about whether an admin is acting in accordance with what the Community (and in this case, AC) expects of an admin. I hope my response is sufficient to explain what has attracted this level of criticism. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Result concerning Hans Adler

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


 * I don't hang out much at AE, though I've been considering doing so lately since it appears there's a need. Anyway, leaving behind all questions above about Sandstein's behaviour as for another forum, I think the mere staleness of this request is sufficient for no action to be taken, since all diffs here are at least four days old. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Crap, I misread this. It appears the request here is for Hans Adler to be warned, not blocked. OK. Well, I'm going to go ahead and state my opinion that his comments do not rise to that level. The worst item in Hans's comments was "temper tantrum", which Hans has since refactored; even that strikes me as rather more of a characterization of behaviour than a personal attack. The others strike me as harsh characterizations of users' conduct, which is not really the same as a personal attack. Still not seeing the need for action. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a bad idea. AE does not usually interfere with arbitration case pages. (Perhaps there is an exception for egregious disruption that requires immediate action, but then in those circumstances a "normal" block would be the usual solution, and there is no need for AE to get involved either.) As a matter of good practice, Hans Adler might want to tone it down a little bit, just because, even if accurate, harsh characterizations tend to inflame the situation rather than solve the problem. I don't see any reason to take action, and suggest that this be speedily closed. We have enough drama already surrounding the AESH case; we don't need more. T. Canens (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see what arbitration decision we are being asked to enforce, because this request relates to comments made in an arbitration case about, confusingly, arbitration enforcement generally. I see that the Psuedoscience discretionary sanctions remedy has been cited here, but, unless I am being dense in some way, I simply do not understand how that is at all relevant to this matter. Moreover, these comments were made in the context of an arbitration case that was closed today. In light of that, it would, in my view, be pointless to take action at this point—even if there was some arbitration decision that would allow us to do so. On an unrelated but equally important note, even if this case was still open, the diffs cited by Sandstein are ones made by Hans in his role as a party to an open arbtiration case. That is the purview of the clerks, and is not a matter of enforcing an open arbitration decision. Again, I am therefore confused as to why this request has been filed here; I would have thought that the obvious place for enforcement would be WT:AC/C, simply because we as administrators do not ordinarily enforce arbitration case conduct. As it happens, I'm also a clerk, and I can confirm that these diffs were discussed on the mailing list, but that the appropriate action that was decided on was that the discussions in question were closed down by means of a collapse top tag, or something similar. Taking action against Hans now would be overly punitive. I would take no action here. AGK  [&bull; ] 14:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, so the thinking is that the Psuedoscience remedy is applicable because User:Ludwigs2 is heavily involved in that topic area. That is a tenuous link to make, not least because this case is explicitly not about what 'faction' each party belongs to—per finding 2, "Case acceptance rationale by arbitrators". If we were to follow this logic, the absurd result would be that the arbitration remedies of all cases that every editor had ever been involved in would be applicable in all interactions they then went on to be involved in. There is no mention, so far as I can see, of psuedoscience in this discussion. Again, I would decline this request. AGK  [&bull; ] 14:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)