Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59

Wikifan12345

Not actionable. AE does not resolve content disputes.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Wikifan12345 User requesting enforcement Unomi (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Wikifan ignores wikipedia policy on Reliable sources. Ignores when issues are raised by involved editors as well as concerns raised by uninvolved editors on RS/N. Ignores multiple pleas to self-revert and remove problematic material. Employs stonewalling and WP:IDHT. This thread outlines the initial concerns. Notified that uninvolved editors find fault with the source, stonewalling. Request that material is reverted, [1] IDHT, evasive. Link to RS/N section, shouldn't really be necessary, RS/N is not hard to find. [2] downplays concerns raised. [3] Asked again to revert on basis of consensus. [4] Stonewalling, IDHT and non sequitur. [5] Outside editor agrees that the source is inferior. No response. [6] wikifan continued editing throughout this, including creating a new article with dubious sourcing. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) # [7] ANI thread for recently expired topic ban He was seen to be exhibiting a battleground mentality by the majority of !voting parties. [8] Request by User:Unomi [9] Made explicitly aware of extant sanctions on I/P articles. Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) I would like to see Wikifan extract the information that he has added based on these sources. I would also ask that he is reminded to take sources to RS/N himself if they are challenged by other editors. If he is unwilling to do so I believe that the previous topic ban should be reinstated as I/P is an area in which high quality sources are particularly important. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Wikifan continued introducing them even though he was aware of issues being raised by other editors, he made no attempt at validating them at RS/N at any point. He also created a new list article based largely on what seems SPS, rather than relying on the sources used on the articles he lists. I also find the tactic of stonewalling and IDHT to be particularly problematic as it is, as any editor will know, rather obnoxious. My repeated requests to him were precisely intended to avoid friction and edit warring. It is unfortunate that such efforts were ignored. Unomi (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Wikifan has opened a discussion on my talk page which is substantially similar to his query below. Unomi (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Response to Jaakabou, I don't see how you believe that I misrepresented RS/N. If User:Itsmejudith is involved in I/P then it is news to me, she seems to be a regular and respected resident of RS/N. If you wish to weigh in at RS/N you are more than welcome to, but please don't bring that conversation here. Response to Sandstein, please see [10]. Wikifan has not only previously been notified of the sanctions, he has been placed on restrictions twice for acting in contravention of them, it is inconceivable that he is not aware of what they cover, specifically regarding stonewalling and use of reliable sources. Comment I note that Wikifan seems to be continuing the trend of idht on my talkpage. Unomi (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comment I am discussing with wikifan, I am not sure if I should transclude that discussion here as it is basically a repeat of the problematic behavior. Wikifan seems to not even be bothering to read the sources he uses. Response to Sandstein regarding procedure: here is an instance where he is linked directly to the sanctions. He is well aware of them. I made it clear throughout the episode that he should be more careful in his use of sources, specifically wrt JVL. 29th 20:49 I make him aware of the feedback from RS/N and ask him to use better sourcing. 30th 00:12 I tell him specifically that it was at RS/N. 30th 02:35 Claims not to know I have told him. 30th 05:52 Downplays the RS/N yet has not so far joined the discussion there. It simply cannot be that one has to engage in edit warring or reverting, how is it that normal discussion has become so ineffectual? Response to Sandstein, this isn't a content dispute, RS/N have been involved and these particular pages have been found to be of inferior quality. The problem is that wikifan does not accept the RS/N consensus, and misrepresents other sources. I don't need to come to AE to resolve a content dispute, I need it to get editors to follow policy. Please note that the editor has not read the source that he sought to replace the JVL source with. He just expected that the other source would back the JVL one up, which was pointed out to him at the outset that it didn't. Timeline of recent conversation: 13:01 at the end I give one specific edit and I tell him that the numbers don't match the source. 13:05 His response is to repeat the question of which edit. 13:11 I remind him that I have just given him 1 particular edit. 13:06 He concedes that I have given him an edit but insists that I have not told him what is wrong with it. 13:20 I repeat that the numbers don't match up, with specifics (which shouldn't be necessary as there is only 1 set of numbers that is backed up by sources anyway). 13:36 He again asks me which specific edit and then proceeds to discuss an edit completely different from the one I just pointed out to him thrice, he also claims that the 1,100 number is sourced to ITIC and not JVL. 13:43 I point out that the 1,100 number is not supported by ITIC. 13:50 He asks why it doesn't support stating that he has seen many graphs that add up to 1,100 and, crucially, the PDF doc. gives roughly the same amount, no? (he has not read the ITIC source), he again asks which edit I am referring to. 13:59 I point out that there is only 1 pertinent graph, on page 55 and it adds up to 521. As of this edit Wikifan has not sought to respond. It simply can't stand that he doesn't read the sources, and I don't see the sense of other editors having to discuss with him at length over matters which should be apparent to him if only he would take the time to do careful research. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Wikifan12345 Statement by Wikifan12345 Unomi, what edits do you see to be problematic? I really haven't been paying much attention to this issue and you were never specific in your dispute. Can you link the edits on the article that you wish to be reverted? I was never trying to be "evasive" and I don't see how I was "stonewalling." What am I avoiding? Seriously? Does this even qualify as for ArbCom? Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Cam someone here let me know what Unomi wants me to do? I'm being accused of "stonewalling" and evasion but I do not know what I am stonewalling or evading. Please, just someone tell me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345 Comment by Sandstein Procedural remark: the sanctions remedy provides that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." There is currently no diff in the request that shows that Wikifan12345 has received a warning that meets these requirements. If no such diff is provided, this request will not result in sanctions.  Sandstein  12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Jaakobou The Jewish Virtual Library is most definitely a reliable source with an editorial process and scholar contributors. The 3 editors whom Unomi presents as "uninvolved editors on RS/N" are, in fact, involved to a fairly high degree. This can be easily verified through a review of their contribution history. Reliability of JVL aside, I see Stellarkid suggested an alternative and it appears as though Wikifan12345 agreed[11] so I'm not really seeing a problem for Wikipedia's article space (from the diffs I looked into). That said, I haven't looked deeply into the behavioural nature of this dispute but I'm concerned about both sides after I see an RSN being misrepresented like this. From a superficial review, I'd suggest a warning to Wikifan12345 to be more communicative and a warning to Unomi for abuse of process. This is just a thought to consider as an option for someone reviewing the threads (I haven't really looked at relevant discussion threads). Comment by Count Iblis I like to know if Wikifan is or was under some editing or mentoring restrictions. I remember an AN/I discussion quite some time ago, where Wikifan was community banned. I was one of the few editors (perhaps the only one) to suggest that we should try harder keep Wikifan at Wikipedia and try some mentoring. What has happened since that time? Count Iblis (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comment by Stellarkid The Jewish Virtual Library has quite a few articles that link to it. See [12] It is an encyclopedic source which is appropriate for WP. Stellarkid (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Wikifan12345 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 actionable here, and the requested enforcement doesn't seem to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, or necessarily useful. I second Wikifan's request for specific edits which are cited to unreliable sources; in default of this I will be closing in accordance with Jaakobou's suggestion. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I concur. I see nothing here but a disagreement about the reliability of a particular source. The requesting editor is advised that WP:AE is not a forum for resolving such disagreements (that would be WP:RSN) and is not to be misused as a way to gain an advantage in a content dispute.  Sandstein  14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Quzeyli

Quzeyli (talk · contribs) blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and warned by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Quzeyli User requesting enforcement Sardur (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Mcnabs (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Quzeyli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Last diffs (see infra) of Quzeyli's edit war on Amaras Monastery against several users: [13] Revert (30 March 2010) [14] Revert (31 March 2010) [15] Revert 3 hours after having been warned (31 March 2010) [16] Revert (1 April 2010) Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) [17] Warning by Sardur (talk · contribs) I don't understand the question below: this warning was posted on Quzeyli's talk page on 31 March 2010. After this, he made again 2 reverts on Amaras Monastery, 1 revert on Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery, and 1 on Tsitsernavank Monastery. Sardur (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) At the minimum (see infra), Quzeyli should be placed under supervised editing and revert limitation. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Summary: edit war + Quzeyli reverts and sometimes discusses on talk, repeating always the same point without addressing other users' questions. The three above-mentioned diffs are only the top of the iceberg: see the history of the article, which shows that Quzeyli is editwarring since 14 March 2010. The same can be said about Yeghishe Arakyal Monastery: history (first revert on 10 March 2010). Quzeyli has been warned by third-parties about his disruptive behaviour: by Excirial for Amaras Monastery (20 March), and by SGGH for both articles (28 March). About this last warning, it should be noted that Quzeyli carried on with editwarring after both articles were semi-protected. And now, he is repeating his disruptive behaviour on Tsitsernavank Monastery. As soon as his blocking is over : revert and revert. Sardur (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [18] Discussion concerning Quzeyli Statement by Quzeyli Comments by others about the request concerning Quzeyli Result concerning Quzeyli This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Please provide a link to where Quzeyli was warned of the existence of discretionary sanctions prior to the incident reported. Filest (aktl) 08:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC) User was blocked 24 hours for standard edit warring, not as an Arbitration Enforcement action. They have also now been notified of the sanctions that apply to the area, which I shall log on the case page. NW (Talk) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy

Not actionable.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Nableezy User requesting enforcement Shuki (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, WP:CIVIL, WP:HARASS, WP:NPLT Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Nableezy is trying to bully me here into editing for him by threatening to report me (even prepared an ANI to make the message to me stronger here: User:Nableezy/S) for allegedly violating 3RR [19]. Nableezy has recently been handed a 1R/page and cannot revert my edit addition (incidentally, not revert) which has a precedent and consensus on at least one page where I got the idea from and where it passed consensus there in order to remedy the political issue of the location and countries. This is a content issue that he should be settled on the discussion page of the college article and not come to hound me on my talk page. [20] A discussion is underway on the discussion page, but Nableezy waits for 24hours + 2 minutes to revert so that he does not violate is 1R topic ban. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Notification of ARBPIA sanctions Previous recent block making legal threats Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) discipline for bullying incivility and also pertaining to WP:ARBPIA issues at discretion of admin be it block or strengthening of current 1R topic ban. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Nableezy's disruptive behaviour here and in the past, including his interaction with me, has lead to unproductive stress and conflict, specifically with his threat. Apparently, what he cannot achieve on article talk pages, he will attempt to achieve by personal bullying. Nableezy was recently topic banned for two months and has had issues of incivility in the past as well. He is currently on 1R and by the recent 24h + 2minute revert, linked above, shows that he does not understand his sanctions though he has literally fulfilled them, IMO, not in good faith. Excuse me? So you are essentially saying that there is no difference between coming to taking part in healthy discussion on talk pages and waving a threat of blackmail in front of an editor.--Shuki (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (Comment moved from result section,  Sandstein  08:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [21] Discussion concerning Nableezy Statement by Nableezy I wasnt skirting a 1rr rule, that [last edit wasnt even a revert. It was an attempt at a compromise where the text neither says "occupied Golan Heights" or "Golan Heights, Israel" (something that was suggested at the NPOV/N at a thread I opened). I asked Shuki if he or she would rather I skip filing an AE request and try to work out the content issue without his or her mindlessly reverting everything. I see now I should not have been polite and just filed the request. Below is the AE thread I had prepared regarding Shuki's recent actions which have actually been disruptive. Shuki has repeatedly edit warred to maintain a fringe view as gospel truth in a number of articles: Complaint against Shuki collapsed to avoid confusion. It will not be addressed in this request, which concerns you. Please make it the subject of a separate request if deemed necessary.  Sandstein  05:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Shuki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Shuki has repeatedly edit warred at a number of articles removing any mention of their either being in occupied territory or claiming that certain places, such as the Golan Heights is in Israel. Edit-warring to push an extreme minority view as fact and removing what countless high quality sources say. Examples: On Ohalo College, repeatedly add text saying that the college is in "Golan Heights, Israel" as well as removing what Shuki calls "POV cats", [22], [23], [24] On Herzog College quickly reverts multiple times removing that the college is in the Israeli-occupied territory, [25], [26] On Ariel University Center of Samaria repeatedly removing that it is in occupied territory [27], [28] and later claiming that it is not "in Palestinian area" [29] On Katzrin repeatedly placing fringe minority terminology before standard terminology that Shuki even admits is more widely used in the sources and again removes any mention of it being in occupied territory [30], [31] Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Notification of ARBPIA sanctions Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Whatever Additional comments by editor filing complaint There are many more examples, but the gist of the issue is Shuki's insistence on using minority viewpoints as gospel truth and rejecting the overwhelming majority of sources as either "anti-Israel" or "ignorant". I have made exactly one revert to the page total, not just in 24 hours. That one revert is this. The next edit I made was not a revert, that was a compromise edit suggested at the NPOV noticeboard that does not include either of the disputed phrasing, "occupied Golan Heights" or "Golan Heights, Israel". Shuki edit-warred to maintain a phrasing that represents an extreme minority POV, that the Golan is in Israel. I made one revert of that material. That I prepared an AE request in my userspace on Shuki (collapsed above) is not harassment nor is it a legal threat. That I asked Shuki if he or she would rather I not file that report and instead of continually reverting is also not a legal threat nor is it harassment. This report is based on Shuki edit-warring to maintain a fringe view as fact and being upset that I called him or her out on it. nableezy - 05:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Nableezy Comments by George I believe the "two month topic ban" you mentioned was reversed a few days later. ← George talk 00:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) It was originally a four month ban, but shortened to two month. --Shuki (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I believe you're misreading the January 6, 2010 result of Nableezy's appeal, where Sandstein wrote that "the ban is hereby lifted." ← George talk 00:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by SD Shukis behavior lately has been very disruptive, Shuki reverted the Ohalo College 3 times, re adding that the university's location is in Israel. [32] [33][34] The entire world sees Golan as occupied. The United Nations [35] United States [36] European Union[37] United Kingdom[38] Arab League[39] Same thing at Herzog College, I revert 1 time he reverts 2 times and tells me to "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" He calls the worldview pov while he re inserts the minority Israeli viewpoint and tells me to take it to a central discussion when I had already made a post at the talkpage and he didn't respond: [40] This behavior continues over several articles: take Mey Eden for example. The perfectly suitable and neutral category:Companies operating in Israeli-occupied territories. I revert 1 time and open the discussion at the talkpage explaining how the worldview is that it is occupied and how the category is suitable: [41] he reverts twice [42] [43] and says "take this POV to a central discussion before slapping it anything" when i had already opened the discussion at the talkpage without him responding. Not only that, but he makes a post at the Israel WP project in an obvious attempt to gather Israel supporters [44] and he has continued to do that telling other people at WP Israel to "join the Cfd" [45] clearly canvassing/votestacking.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness, you should understand what canvassing actually means before making false accusations. I told Number57 to join the Cfd since I know that Number57 has a different POV than me and I always want more visibility and comments, that is not canvassing. As for the other behaviour, if there is an issue with me, open a separate request. Given that, the cats I were removing are now disputed at the Cfd and it seems consensus from several uninvolved I-P editors does in fact support me on those edits to the dubious cats. --Shuki (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments By unomi Nableezys attempt at resolving this on the talk page while making it clear that shukis case is weak seems to be a superior solution to edit warring. If anything Nableezy should be commended for not starting the AE before Shuki had a final chance to correct himself. Unomi (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Nableezy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I do not see how mentioning this draft AE report on Shuki's talk page and the single revert cited can be considered disruptive, let alone warrant sanctions. It is on the contrary good practice to seek a solution through discussion before making AE requests, so showing this draft report to Shuki is commendable. Unless other admins disagree, I'll close this report without action and remind Shuki that AE is not a weapon to be employed against people with whom one disagrees. Any serious concerns about Shuki's editing should not be discussed here but be made the subject of a separate request if necessary.  Sandstein  05:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Agree with Sandstein - this report can be closed without action. PhilKnight (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) So closed.  Sandstein  10:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, Vexorg, NickCT

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs), Vexorg (talk · contribs) and NickCT (talk · contribs) warned; no action at this time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Vexorg, User:NickCT User requesting enforcement Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Users against whom enforcement is requested Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vexorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [46] Supreme Deliciousness: Factsontheground, Do not be afraid, You see The Lobby has dominated Arab-Israeli article for a long time, and you are one of the few who challenges their Israeli pov pushing, so this is why they are trying to collectively get rid of you. [47] Vexorg: Support for Factsontheground - having being the recent target of the disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia, particularly by the attention seeking MBz1 and her little sidekick Stellarkid, I just wanted to voice my support. These editors who attack you have a real transparent political agenda. Don't let them get you down, just keep editing to make Wikipedia as free from political bias as you can. [48] NickCT: Support for Factsontheground - There certainly is a disingenuous Zionist Lobby on Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, take any article regarding a contentious Israel-Palestine issue than look at how many of the people contributing to the article/talk page actually are Isreali. It's a little scary. For contentious China related articles, you don't get ethnic Chinese editors trying to control the article. Same goes for pretty much every other nation but Israel. P.S. I thought Mbz was Stellarkid's sidekick? Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) "Not applicable" Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am filing this ArbCom request due to the excessive conspiracy mongering by a group of editors that continually accuse those editors of whom they disagree with of being part of some “Zionist Lobby.” Such accusations lack any civility or decorum, and at the most base level, destroy the goodwill necessary to create neutral and informative articles. These accusations are the most severe violations of WP:Assume good faith and WP:Personal attacks. And worst of all, this ugly behavior is harmful to the overall Wikipedia community. Such examples abound on the talk page (specifically this section) of Factomancer, previously Factsontheground. The user Stellarkid also has a detailed report on this endemic problem here: [49] This has simply gone too far. Saying that there is a “Zionist Lobby” on Wikipedia trying to suppress “the truth” logically means that these users have a monopoly over the truth and everybody they disagree with is guilty of POV. This is fundamentally destructive to Wikipedia and any attempt neutrality. Calling a user part of “cabal” of anti-Palestinian Wikipedia editors is as slanderous as calling somebody a racist. Lastly, these remarks violate EVERY principle of Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, also known as WP:ARBPIA. Purpose of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not to be used to promote a “political or ideological struggle” Decorum: Severely violates WP:Personal attacks, WP:Assume good faith, WP:Incivility Editorial process: No editorial process exists if you believe you have a monopoly over the truth and that those that disagree with you are part of some “Zionist lobby” Dispute resolution: Same as above. If you are always in the right, there’s nothing to resolve. Ultimately, this status quo cannot continue and this ugly behavior should stop and be sanctioned in the future. Calling those individuals that disagree with you as part of a Zionist lobby is simply slanderous and detrimental to Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Discussion concerning User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Vexorg, User:NickCT Statement by User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Vexorg, User:NickCT Statement by Supreme Deliciousness: I would like to point out that I did not name one single person as a member of anything, and I did not say "Zionist lobby" or "Jewish lobby", I said "The lobby". And I would like to point out these news articles: [50] [51] and also an article in the so called "Jewish Internet Defence Leage" "we decided to get more involved behind the scenes, and many people submitted these names" "We are also looking to get a lot more active on Wikipedia", and also in that article they point out several Wikipedia users (including an admin arb drafter). and also I remember very clearly I have read a news article about some sort of joint collaboration between pro-Israeli editors and they was gonna get together and vote to get one of they're people to become an administrator, I cant find the article right now, but I remember very clearly I have read this. So me mentioning a "lobby" was not really unfounded. Take a look at several discussions at Wikipedia for example when they discussed facktsontheground at the ANI, it was clearly an attempt by a specific group of editors to get rid of her. This issue was brought up at the ANI and they was told "enough", so when they failed to get action taken against me and others there, they are now attempting the same thing here instead. But I now understand that mentioning a "lobby" may not be the best thing to do so if an admin tells me to not mention a "lobby" again, I can do that. And I can strike out my comment or delete it upon request from admin. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Statement by NickCT: Several Points 1) On reflection, the term "Zionist Lobby" was probably unecessarily inflammatory. I think "Hardline pro-Israeli contingent" would have been more appropriate and accurate. I apologize for the wording and will strike if requested. I would point out that I was simply repeating Vexorg's wording. 2) I've been involved in battling for what I see as NPOV on a number of articles (e.g. against Global warming conspiracy theories on Climatic Research Unit email controversy), and I have to say, I have never met a group so ready to bring debates to arbitration as pro-Israel editors. I've been falsely arbitrated against for everything from 3RR to Sockpuppetry over editting Israel-Palestine articles. Frankly, I think much of this arbitration is frivilous. It is just a group of editors trying to throw a bunch of accussations around to see if anything sticks. It would save allot of peoples time and energy if there were a means to protect against this kind of shinanigans. 3) I would point out that on a number of occasions I've worked to remove what I perceived as NPOV material biased against Israel (e.g. this). I think the editors filing this complaint would be hard pressed to provide examples of times they've fought for content which was critical of Israel. 4) As to "Severely violates WP:Personal attacks, WP:Assume good faith, WP:Incivility" - I would point out that the comments that caused this complaint weren't directed at any specific editor(s) and hence aren't WP:Personal attacks. I would also point out that simply saying that editors exist who support almost any given cause is self-evident and should violate WP:Assume good faith. As to WP:Incivility, haven't read this policy in detail, but I'm guessing it's one of those vague ambiguous ones that acts as a "catch-all" for this kind of arbitration. 5) If anyone is was offended by my wording, please let me know on my talk page. Taking things straight to arbitration is counterproductive. I'm usually willing to explain and/or strike my comments. Best, NickCT (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Statement by Vexorg: Well it looks like this is the latest of a series of houndings by a bunch of politically motivated editors who are trying to remove anyone from editing articles in a manner which doesn't conform to their political agenda. In fact ironically this report by Plotspoiler violates Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles as does this report by Mbz1] and this one by Stellarkid. I was even stalked at a sockpuppet report by Mbz1 yesterday. Administrator Georgewilliamherbert called for enough here. And I agree. And whether you call it a Zionist Lobby, pro-Israel Lobby or just a Lobby, it's still a Lobby. And a Lobby which is transparently trying to get certain editors like myself banned from editing topics which fall within their political agenda. This report is the continuation of disruptiveness by this bunch of editors including user:Mbz1, user:Stellarkid an now [[user:Plotspoiler]. Their political motivations ore obvious despite theirs claims of victimisation and I'm not going to waste any more time on this nonsense, save defend myself against false accusations. Vexorg (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Vexorg, User:NickCT Comment by Wikifan12345 I am really getting tired of seeing editors accused other users of being part of some master Jewish cabal that is attempting to take over wikipedia and convert it into a Zionist propaganda mill (if such thing even exists!). It automatically creates a feeling of intense bad faith and undermines the credibility of the editing process. I know everyone has their opinions and no doubt most people involved in I/P sit on one side of the fence, but to constantly vilify and portray the other side as intrinsically evil must stop. What would happen if I were to accuse every editor I didn't agree with as being an agent of a Saudi-funded Islamist branding campaign? Hopefully topic banned. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yeah, or crypto-antisemitic anti-Israeli pov pushers. Unomi (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC) See also WP:ANI#Enough, where I have warned both sides of this that they need to disengage. I'm not sure that AE is necessary or appropriate - godzilla is warming up and stretching out on ANI as we speak, and this might be forum shopping here, and I currently hold both "sides" of this equally at fault in the current situation - but do what you will. Please notify on the ANI thread if any enforcement action comes of it, hopefully visa versa as well. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) George I have disengaged. I have had enough. but when one side is continually filing these disruptive reports on has to defend oneself. I am named in this report and I don't think it's fair to equally blamed for continuing some fight when I am just here to defend myself. plot spoiler has just purposely dragged this up to continue a fight. Vexorg (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I won't pretend to defend editors who accuse others of being a part of a cabal, but it's worth keeping in mind that there have been pro-Israel groups lobbying on Wikipedia before. That can certainly lead editors to be more suspicious than normal of it happening again. ← George talk 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Pro or anti, I hope such editors are topic banned. It brings to mind PalestineRemembered who was a huge drain on wikipedia resources. JaakobouChalk Talk 11:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I won't pretend to defend editors who accuse others of being a part of a cabal, but it's worth keeping in mind that there have been anti-Israel groups lobbying and trying to manipulate Wikipedia before. That can certainly lead editors to be more suspicious than normal of it happening again. --212.78.230.249 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment Supreme, Nick and Vexorg are missing the point if they mainly insist the only problem is the use of the term "Zionist lobby" - that's just a symptom of WP:BATTLEground mindset they bring to these articles. This is typified by Vexorg's response, but all of them think there's still a cabal. And in fact, all they have to is look a bit up this page to see Unomi's attempt to get Wikifan12345 sanctioned -- but somehow they don't consider that to be an example of a "lobby" when it goes the other way around. Ultimately, I do believe its unfortunate how much arbitration is consumed on I/P issues but obviously the status quo on this issue cannot be maintained and these lobby accusations are the basest form of personal attacks, lacking good faith and horrid incivility that is detrimental to the Wikipedia community. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Mbz1 concerning Vexorg Vexorg is the user, who some time ago claimed in Tony Blair article that that Tony "Blair has been a long time member of the Zionist Lobby group". Ever since the user never stopped to add nonsense to the articles being reverted, and adding it right back. Here are only few examples from recent history: [52] [53] [54] Adding the same nonsense this time as IP Adding the same nonsense this time as IP According to the above I strongly support topic ban for the editor on all topics concerning Zionism and Israel--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yes Mbz1 even disrupted a Sockpuppet investigation with this nonsense. Vexorg (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Here are few more differences to support my claim about Vexorg restoring bogus quotes in Henry Kissinger in the violation of WP:BLP removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic More differences could be provided by request.The user is not very harmful, mostly just annoying.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Malik Shabazz At the top of the Request for Enforcement, there is a section titled "Sanction or remedy that this user violated". Plot Spoiler has linked to WP:ARBPIA#Principles, which is neither a sanction nor a remedy. While the use of the phrase "Zionist lobby" is offensive, I don't think it violates any of the ARBPIA remedies. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Peter Cohen Sigh. Apart from this thread, I count three others concerning the I/P dispute on this page. There has also been a fair amount of activity at AN/I where topic bans, blocks, interaction bans etc have been called for. I think the whole thing has reached he stage where someone (an admin here? Arbcom?) needs to go through the material at this and the other drama boards working out who is generating the most heat whether they are the current subject of complaints, the authors of them or just join in once a thread has started, who is always pushing a POV forcing in content or phrasing into Wikipedia's editorial voice, even when it is clearly a minority viewpoint, and when problematic behaviour is identified we need to identify which of those editors are only here to fight a political battle and who, on the other hand, is contributing useful content and does seem to be interested in building an encyclopedia even if they do lose their temper at times. People falling into the wrong categories should be told firmly where to go. It's a horrible task, but I think the warriors are leaving no other option.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Stellarkid While I must say that the recent discussion by some administrators to the tune of "a pox on both your houses" with the warning that both "sides" that complain of users on the other side will be banned equally readily is really chilling, I will stick to my principles here and comment, and I guess just take my lumps as they come. With respect to user:Vexorg, he initially came to my attention at an Afd for an article in which he made an false accusation against the author [55] in an attempt to influence the outcome of the AfD, and one which he did not strike after having been corrected. He claimed afterward that he was ignorant of the outcome of the sockpuppet investigation, but that ignorance did not prevent him from stating something false as fact. In May of 2009 User:Quadell blocked Vexorg for a week with the following statement.[56] "and User:Vexorg has been blocked 3 times before, for increasing lengths of time, for edit-warring in other articles (usually the addition of unsourced and possibly defamatory content regarding Judaism. If anyone feels a 1-week block was unwarranted, let me know. – Quadell ") (my bolds) Since then he has made some of the following edits, striking out "antisemitic hoax" from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well known and universally accepted "antisemitic hoax"; arguing that Zionist Occupation Government is not antisemitic, removing sourced material that does not correspond to his POV with respect to Zionism (edit summary: "unsourced - source contains no such declaration by Bush"-- but indeed it does[Stellar]); & restoring unsourced material with respect to Jews and Zionism . With the addition of the accusations against others as being part of the Zionist Lobby here at Wikipedia, with previous blocks for just such business, and with trepidation that I will myself be banned for bringing it up, for I think a topic ban of some length is not unwarranted in hopes the user will rethink some of his interractions here. Stellarkid (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Stellarkid's post above is evidence enough that Vexorg should clearly be topic banned, if not permanently. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Actually no it isn't Plot Spoiler!!! I don't think ZOG is anti-Semitic. Why? Becuase Zionism does not represent all Jews. JOG would be anti-Semitic. Zionism isn't a race it's a political ideology so criticism of it cannot be racist. And note this argument was made in a talk page. I did NOT insert that in an article, I just made the argument on the talk page in order to stimulate discussion on the subject. It's disingenuous of you to bring it up as a weapon here!!! The following edit claimed by Stellarkid restoring unsourced material with respect to Jews and Zionism is actually sourced as those Zionist groups are talked about in the Dispatches program:Inside Britain's Israel Lobby. At some point I shall reference the program now I have a copy of it again and reinsert that diff. Note Stellarkid said 'Jews and Zionism' instead of just Zionism trying to spin the race card again. And you expose your political agenda by trying to get me blocked/topic banned because I made an argument on a talk page that ZOG isn't anti-semitic. I'm entitled to my opinions and entitled to make them on a talk page. See this is why these battles go on and on, because people make disingenuous points in order to try and get editors they don't like blocked or banned. I have to have my say in rectifying this campaign against me. Frankly I'm disgusted at the relentless and low tactics used by some editors here. Vexorg (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Vexorg, I am sorry you do not understand some of this. If someone challenges something that is unsourced, the WP:Burden is on you to source it before you reinsert it. With respect to "The Zionist Occupation Government" or ZOG. The Free Dictionary, here [57] calls it an "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory." Here is another link from Google Books[58] But I have offered you links and RS before, but you are not interested in such. Nor will you accept the word of fellow editors that this is offensive and antisemitic, and that some of us consider your insistence on such as baiting. Your apparent inability to be sensitive to other editors' honest concerns in this sensitive area of editing is a large part why I support a topic ban for you. Stellarkid (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I don't think ZOG is anti-Semitic. Why? Becuase Zionism does not represent all Jews. JOG would be anti-Semitic. Zionism isn't a race it's a political ideology so criticism of it cannot be racist. I must protest the above statement. Experts on contemporary antisemitism have exposed the phenamonon of witnessing haters of the Jewish state trot out fashionable excuses like they have nothing against Jews, but rather reject Israel and Zionism - as Vexorg does in this example. Modern antisemitism focuses almost exclusively on demonization of Israel and those associated with it, as well as anyone who is suspected of being associated with it. Dressing up old hatreds against Jews and repackaging them as "anti-Zionism" isn't fooling anyone. Not to say anti-Zionism isn't a legitimate political philosophy - perhaps it is - but your statements above aren't anti-zionist, they're antisemitic. Substituting "Jew" or "Zionist" and it's the same result. Please stop. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning User:Supreme Deliciousness, User:Vexorg, User:NickCT This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. See the administrator discussion with respect to the request concerning Gatoclass. Supreme Deliciousness, Vexorg and NickCT are strongly warned not to continue to engage in battleground-like conduct. No action is taken at this time, without prejudice to possible sanctions in the context of a more systematic review of recent Israel/Palestine-related disruption.  Sandstein  05:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass

Mbz1 (talk · contribs) topic-banned for three months. Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) warned. Gatoclass (talk · contribs) advised.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning User:Gatoclass User requesting enforcement --Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Users against whom enforcement is requested Gatoclass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Principles Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it "Could there be any more demonization of Muslims crammed into this article? Practically every paragraph contains some instance of Muslims "attacking" Jews, none of it with any context whatever" Removed the info supported by RS with the summary "no "expulsion" of Jews after Suez according to my sources (highlighted by me) "Secondly, this claim does not conform with my own sources, which don't mention a Jewish expulsion from Egypt in '56" (highlighted by me). badly sourced, POV rant After I complained about "rant", I was explained that it is my presentation that made it rant. It was crossed out after my second complain. "Well if he wrote copiously on the topic, you ought to be able to create a more nuanced article than a grab-bag of comments that make him sound like a cheerleader for Zionism" Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) "Not applicable" Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Topic ban Additional comments by editor filing complaint The article in question is Maimonides Synagogue. Gatoclass is an administrator, who has the say on the articles DYK nominations. The first difference I provided, in which the user claims "Practically every paragraph contains some instance of Muslims "attacking" Jews, none of it with any context whatever" is more than enough to kill the nomination. Please read the article. There are no any place describing Muslims attacking Jews, except the one instance that happened 800 years ago, when Bedouins tried to attack a burial procession of Maimonides, but stopped, when they learned whose burial procession it was. Each and every statement of the article is well sourced. In the second and the third differences the user makes a claim about his own sources, and removes well sourced info because of those mystical sources. The last two differences were provided to show the user language towards Israel and Zionists. The user is very involved with the subject, much more involved than an admin could allow himself to be involved. IMO the user should be banned on influencing DYK decisions on the articles with his more than unfair claims and POV. The administrators, who have much more power than regular users do have to be neutral. As it is shown by the differences I provided Gatoclass is not netural at all.Here are few differences of administrator Dravecky about Gatoclass conduct for my DYK nomination after the user deleted "promoted" nomination altogether without notifying me: "...While not every commenter at AfD is DYK-savvy, certainly that's not true of you, Gatoclass. If you felt the article should have been tagged, you should have tagged it. If you felt the article should not have been promoted after it survived AfD, you should have objected on the DYK talk page." "...To unilaterally completely delete a hook after promotion and without discussion, especially by an involved editor, is always going to create more controversy, both over the article and the tactics, than any discussion of the article by itself could ever raise." For the record administrator Dravecky is an uninvolved administrator, who voted for the article to be deleted BTW. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) }} Discussion concerning Gatoclass Statement by Gatoclass Well I'm very sorry Mbz has seen fit to do this, and I don't believe this request has any substance. This all began when I opposed the promotion of Mbz's article Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948) at DYK. After the article was nominated at AfD (not by me), I left a !vote that described the article as a "POV rant". I do agree that the word "rant" was an unfortunate choice, in my defence it was late, I was very tired, and I had also been dealing with some POV-pushing on other pages (in an unrelated topic area) over the previous couple of days and was feeling quite exasperated. However, I also struck the comment as soon as Mbz complained - but rather than accept that amendment in good faith as an isolated error of judgement, Mbz has continued to hound me about it, to the point that he has now seen fit to open this enforcement request. Mbz did not accept the judgement at DYK - not rendered by me alone, but by a number of the other regulars, not to mention the 17 or so who voted against the article at AfD - that the article was POV or in other ways unencyclopedic, and therefore unsuitable for the main page - leaving melodramatic complaints at my talk page and trying on several occasions to get the nom revived. Obviously, he wasn't at all reconciled with the result. Now in the last day or two, Mbz has submitted a new article at DYK, called Maimonides Synagogue. After this article was brought to my attention by another user complaining about Mbz deleting criticism of the article at T:TDYK, a deletion that violates our conventions and that is clearly COI, I decided to check the nom myself. Again, like the Robert Kennedy article, I found it to be quite heavily POV and WP:COATRACK-ish, with a great deal of disparaging information about Muslims and not much about the ostensible topic. This time however, rather than just oppose the promotion of the article at DYK as with the Kennedy article, an approach which I noted with regret had left a residue of ill-feeling, I decided instead to try and help Mbz NPOV the article so that hopefully it could be promoted. Sadly, instead of accepting my assistance in good faith, Mbz has decided to create more unnecessary drama by opening this RFE. While I don't particularly want to retaliate against Mbz for this thread, what I will say is that dealing with Mbz over the last week or two has burned up an enormous amount of my free time, and considerably diminished my enthusiasm for the project in the short term. I could probably have reviewed 100 other submissions at DYK instead of dealing with his various protests and accusations, and quite frankly I have resented the distraction from my own content creation to try and fix the POV issues in his articles. I didn't expect any thanks for going out of my way to try and help fix his latest submission, but I certainly didn't expect him to open an RFE about it. At this point, I must confess that I am getting quite tired of dealing with Mbz, and in spite of his apparent inexperience at writing articles, am tempted to propose that he be topic banned from I-P related articles just to save anyone else from having to deal with the same tiresome behaviour. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Re: brewcrewer's statement below, all I have to say is that his accusations are completely without substance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Re: brewcrewer's additional statement, he is in error to claim that removal of hooks from the queue is an "abuse" of admin powers - it's done on a regular basis, because sometimes hooks are promoted without adequate discussion. Hooks can be removed at any time in the DYK process, even after they have made it to the main page, if there is sufficient concern about them. Far from it being an abuse, it is part of our responsibility as admins to do so on occasion. Brewcrewer obviously does not understand the DYK process or he could not make such erroneous claims. Gatoclass (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Response to Mbz's latest comment Up to this point I have asked for no action to be taken against Mbz, but I am now obliged to change my mind. In his latest post in this thread, Mbz makes the following comment about me (I quote): Now I know he does not allow to promote DYK nominations for the Holocaust related articles, and it is all I need to know about him. This is after just escaping a topic ban, and a warning from Sandstein not to engage in further WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I am not prepared to accept being made the subject of any more base insinuations of this type. It is clear from this comment of Mbz's that he has learned absolutely nothing from this discussion and is intent on continuing in the same combative and accusatory manner that has thus far characterized all his interactions in I-P related discussions. I am therefore obliged to request that this user now be either topic banned in accordance with the earlier proposal, or blocked. Enough is enough. Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) This is truly extraordinary. In an attempt to justify his previous smear, Mbz is now dredging up an ancient content dispute, selectively quoting from my posts in order to try and make me look like a Holocaust denier. Will somebody please do something about this out-of-control user? This is getting beyond a joke. Gatoclass (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by other editors Comment by Brewcrewer I have nominated and approved numerous articles for DYK so I've interacted with all the editors that frequent Template talk:Did you know. In my experience, and I'm sure others can attest the same, Gatoclass frequently fights doggedly not to allow Israel or Holocaust related articles be approved for DYK. Template talk:Did you know has hundreds of edits a day, so it's really difficult to find old diffs. One example, which I have archived for easy access is Talk:Palestinian Land Law/Archive, where Gatoclass used his admin powers to remove an article from the queue after it was approved by another editor. Then proceeded to editwar in the article, defacing the article with templates, then claiming that the templates indicate that the article is problematic. If time permits I will track down more diffs which establish that Gatoclass has abused his admin powers to futher his POV in the I-P conflict. His AE comments, where he always falls on the side of the anti-Israel editor is further evidence of his POV. What I'm hoping from this is that Gatoclass can simply promise to avoid I-P articles that are up for DYK and stop abusing his admin powers in the process.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) @Mastcell: Removing an article from a DYK queue is something only an admin can do. Gatoclass removed an article after it was approved. Hence, a valid allegation of admin power abuse. For full background see Talk:Palestinian Land Law/Archive, where an approved article was removed from the DYK queue by Gatoclass, and there was a clear consensus for approval after it was removed.(He did the same thing in this instance case: using his admin powers to remove a hook after it was approved [59]) The I-P related articles that Gatoclass disapproved for a DYK were Palestinian Land Law, Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948), and the current one under discussion. I will find more if time permits. The Holocaust related article was The Soap Myth. As for "accusation of antisemitism and Holocaust denialism", in my 40k-odd edits, I've never made such an accusation and I would hope you would redact that. I'm pointing out a troubling trend, and the evidence of a troubling trend is reasonable. Actual diffs for the DYK discussion page are close to impossible to come by on such short notice because the page has hundreds of hundreds edits per day and there is no search mechanism at the page to find the diffs in old discussions.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by NickCT Having had some experience w/ Mbz, I doubt this complaint has much substance. She seems very quick to point fingers at those who disagree with her, and resorts to extremely agressive editing when challenged. She's a fantastic photographer though! NickCT (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Is that an appropriate comment to make? Are you addressing the issue or attacking the editor? Have you backed up any of your claims? Breein1007 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Breein1007, we cannot except an appropriate comment from nickct, not after he made that unwarranted accusation. Beside I have no problems neither with statements by nickct nor with the statement by vexorg, as well as I will not have any problems with any other users, commenting on me. I believe that an uninvolved and fair-minded administrator will be able to distinguish who is who here, and make the right decision based on the differences I provided by Gatoclass himself, by administrator Dravecky about unacceptable Gatoclass conduct on my DYK nomination, and the comments by user Brewcrewer.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I'm simply offering my opinion Bree. Take it or leave it. It's a more than appropriate comment as it addresses whether the issue has merit, or is simply the result of over-zealousness. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Vexorg yes more unnecessary drama from Mbz1. In agreement with Gatoclass I propose Mbz1 be Topic banned from the I-P articles in order to prevent others from being time wasted by this stuff. Vexorg (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Seconded. A temporary topic ban at least. NickCT (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC) What is this '4' ? - One editor lists 4 other editors and all of a sudden the 4 of us become the focus of attention. There are plenty of other people involved in this fracas. For example user:Stellarkid ( who has been one of the most disruptive ), Plot Spoiler, user:Wikifan12345, user:Breein1007 - Why should some users be topic banned and some not? Especially when some of those creating the most noise. And in any case a topic ban is not the correct remedy. The noise is coming from these tedious and seemingly endless arbitration reports that create a huge amount of everyone's time and energy. If anything you should ban us all from making arbitration reports. I only come here to defend myself. Take a look at the people who keep creating these reports. That's where the baiting is created. They know we have to stop by and defend outselves. Vexorg (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed. There are probably a dozen editors here guilty of the same shinanigans on both sides of the debate. Are we REALLY going to go that route? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Question to KillerChihuahua. I hope that as long as you support the topic ban on me you may provide some differences from the the article Maimonides Synagogue which might be characterized as ["Could there be any more demonization of Muslims crammed into this article? Practically every paragraph contains some instance of Muslims "attacking" Jews, none of it with any context whatever". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see. So it is how it works? IMO one cannot make the opinion based on the opinions of other editors on me without actually looking into my contributions and providing differences to support the verdict. Otherwise it looks more like the Inquisition of Galileo than the verdict of a fair administrator, which I am sure you are .--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Questions to MastCell I have three questions why you took differences from a different AE request and brought them here? You said: " I actually don't see a lot of problematic contributions from Gatoclass" Does it mean that you disagree with the comments by Dravecky I linked to above, and you personally see nothing unusual in deleting promoted DYK nomination? You said: "the first diff in the complaint is poor form, since it overly personalizes a dispute". Would you agree with me, if I am to say: If it were the truth, then it would have been a "poor form" to express it, but because it is not the truth it is not just a "poor form" to express it, but yet another POV attempted to kill DYK nomination, where that statement was made. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I'll respond to #2, and perhaps that will touch on #3 as well. I see both Dravecky and Gatoclass making reasonable points here. Personally, I incline to Dravecky's perspective in that discussion more than Gatoclass'. What I think is truly noteworthy, though, is that they managed to discuss the issue without accusing one another of bigotry, anti-Semitism, or nationalistic lobbying. I have a substantial tolerance for differences of opinion where they are rationally expressed, as they were in that discussion. I have less tolerance for instances where disagreement is expressed in immediately personal and highly objectionable terms. That seemed to me to be the distinction here. MastCell Talk 21:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) What is this '4' ? - One editor lists 4 other editors and all of a sudden the 4 of us become the focus of attention. There are plenty of other people involved in this fracas. For example user:Stellarkid ( who has been one of the most disruptive ), Plot Spoiler, user:Wikifan12345, user:Breein1007 - Why should some users be topic banned and some not? Especially when some of those creating the most noise. And in any case a topic ban is not the correct remedy. The noise is coming from these tedious and seemingly endless arbitration reports that create a huge amount of everyone's time and energy. If anything you should ban us all from making arbitration reports. I only come here to defend myself. Take a look at the people who keep creating these reports. That's where the baiting is created. They know we have to stop by and defend outselves. Vexorg (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed. There are probably a dozen editors here guilty of the same shinanigans on both sides of the debate. Are we REALLY going to go that route? NickCT (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (non-admin comments moved here,  Sandstein  20:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)) Eventually, it seems quite likely. Not necessarily all at once, though.  Sandstein  20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I understand that the easiest way to proceed it is topic-ban the ones, who's right and the ones, who's wrong without actually looking into the matter. But before I am topic-banned please do provide me with the differences what I am topic-banned for except of course defending my DYK nominations against POV by administrator, and filing this AE request, and for which I still stay behind every word I posted here, and d BTW I practically edit no I/P conflict related articles, and I was not involved in any edit warring for a long time. Please try to be fair, if it is not so much to ask for. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Supreme Deliciousness I don't get this, am I supposed to get a topic ban for saying one word "lobby" ? When was that like 2 weeks ago? I said above that I can delete it if you want and I promise I wont say it again. What have I done really so a topic bann should be imposed on me? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (non-admin comments moved here,  Sandstein  20:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)) I don't understand what 'topic bans' have to do with this either. Probably 90% of the disruptiveness has been in these Arbitration Reports and not the articles themselves. It seems those 'involved editors' who care calling for topic bans are trying to influence the content of the articles than genuinely trying to sort out the personal differences. I haven't doeen anything to warrant a topic ban either. I haven't edit warred for a long time. I've made a couple of edits that an editor on an opposing side has contended but that's nothing that can't be sorted out on the talk page. All I've done is recognise the existence of a group of editors with the same political agenda. Are they working as a cabal? I don't know. Mbz1 and Stellarkid are certainly a tag-team abnd Mbz1 has admitted fighting for the cause, even to the point of applauding other editors for getting blocks for the 'cause'. I genuinely can't understand what's so pejorative about calling someone a Zionist though. Is it something to be ashamed about? Like I said before I believe the appropriate action if any is to ban us all from making battleground and inflammatory Arbitration reports liek this one and several others. Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC) @Sandstein and other closing administrators: I do not mind being topic banned. I try to be fair to myself and to others. If I deserve to be topic-ban please do topic-ban me, but please provide the differences of my own contributions (not of what others are saying about me), but my own contributions to show what I am topic-banned for. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Peter Cohen Per what I've said in another thread on this page. This is one of four I/P related enforcement threads on this page. Rather than picking out four people from this thread for action, I think all these threads plus the recent activity at AN/I need to be considered together with an admin taking time to consider the details. I not Sandstein's mention of a draft project below. I think somethinglike that will be the correct context to identify properly who should be sent before the firing squad.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comments by George I've read through the administrator discussion below, and while I think Sandstein's suggestion for a WikiProject to better organize administrators is a good one that may eventually help improve the situation long term, I'm also somewhat confused by administrator reluctance to hand out topic bans (in general, not necessarily in this case). Keeping these editors around, time after time, only scares away less partisan, uninvolved editors, afraid to get caught up in the edit warring shit storm or accused of bias. It also drains Wikipedia resources by forcing administrators to go through these endlessly repeated (and reposted) cases, ad nauseum. If the editors in question are truly committed to Wikipedia's principles and improving the encyclopedia, they will find other areas of Wikipedia to improve when topic banned; if not, I would question if their purpose here is anything other than POV-pushing. There are thousands of editors on Wikipedia who could help improve these articles, but keeping around the handful of "bad apples" on both sides effectively scares them away from even touching these articles. ← George talk 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, George, you're talking about me. I am the one, who is afraid to edit I/P conflict articles. For the last few months I was mostly involved in editing of two articles that I started, one of which is about 800 years old synagogue cannot be even considered I/P conflict article. Beside those two of mine I edited few more without getting really involved in any, and that's it. Topic-ban me will be not only unfair, but it will not help to resolve anything about editing I/P conflict articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) But Mbz1 you haven't been just mostly editing two articles for the last few months. your post above is not an accurate representation of your behaviour. You were involved in one notable edit war with myself and a few others. You've also been extremely active in starting several arbitration reports, each of which have round into the thousands of words and wasted the time of an awful lot of people, including the poor old admins who have to wade through this stuff in order to apply a fair solution, and running around disupting all kinds of places on wikipedia reprating the same old accusations about editors you have on some kind of list. Persoanlly I don't think topic bans are the way to go, but if, and I say 'if' there's any topic bans, blocks or anything else to be handed out to any of us you are right at the top of the list. Vexorg (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Nsaum75 - I think George is onto something in terms of something needing to be done sooner rather than later. The disruption continues on both sides, and its difficult to move forward with productive editing when ever single edit made by one side is scrutinized by the other for "pov concerns", even when its something as simple as what country a photo was taken in. As it stands, I am even reluctant to make comments here out of concerns it may provoke discontent or lead to more drama here or elsewhere. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 22:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I'd agree with this sentiment, but I think the suggestion will be about as easy to implement as mid-east peace. If you were really going to end the disruption, you'd probably need to topic-ban all Israeli(s)/Arab(s) and thier descendents/relations. The simple truth is that anyone close to this issue is likely to be slightly biased and apt to make wikipedia a battleground. Frankly, I'm resigned to wikipedia being a battleground. I wish it weren't so, and I'd reach out to anyone who like to help me bring peace. NickCT (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC) But this is where mature editing and willingness to work with others comes into play. We are all bias by our very nature of being human, but the problem lies in the difference between editors who consistently show a willingness to work with others to move the project forward and those editors whose appear at an otherwise quiet or non-political or stable article and almost instantly turn it into "battlefield" with rash behavior, comments, and editing style. Keep in mind, there is something to be said for editors who are constantly popping up at AN/I and this enforcement page. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 22:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Conclusion by Mbz1 No matter what accusations are made against me, or against anybody else involved for that matter,they should be supported by the differences of the editor own contributions. Otherwise the accusations are nothing more than the words without any prove. No editor should be afraid to file a valid AE or a valid post on AN/I. For me personally this was my very first AE that I ever filed. I did comment on two or three, but never filed one myself before that one. BTW I filed only 2 reports on AN/I on the users involved in I/P conflict editing. One report ended up with indefinitely blocking the editor. The other was about Vexorg. My concerns about Gatoclass are valid, and I stay behind them. I'd like to thank you, Brewcrewer, for your comment. I thought that Gatoclass does not allow to promote DYK nominations for well sourced articles about I/P conflict, or any articles about Jews/Muslims relationship that he does not like. Now I know he also does not allow to promote DYK nominations for the Holocaust related articles, and it is all I need to know about him. I repeat my initial request to topic-ban Gatoclass for any Jews related articles. He is an administrator, who is at least 10 times more powerful than a regular user is (remember he removed my promoted DYK nomination from queue and from the list). IMO administrators should be 10 times more neutral than a regular users are, and Gatoclass is not, just the opposite. I was/am more than surprised by the highly unfair and unexplained reaction of KillerChihuahua, who I met the very first time today. I'd like to thank MastCell and Sandstain, who tried to be fair, and I know it is not an easy and very time consuming task. As I said few times already, I do not mind to be topic-banned assuming the differences from my own contributions could prove that I deserve to be topic-banned. I hardly edit I/P conflict related articles, topic-ban me will not change a thing on this ground, but please do what you believe is in the best interest of the project. Thank you all for commenting.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Reply by Vexorg Actually you've just made a good case for yourself to not be topic banned but to be blocked altogether. See your disruptivesness is far greater in carpet bombing these Arbitration reports. Myself and several other editors have wasted a huge amount of times defending ourselves against you and Stellarkid's relentless campaign to get us banned becuase of your political agenda. So yeah just Topic banning you wouldn't stop you with your Arbitration campaigns would it? Vexorg (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Mbz1 moved my reply to her points above - I have restored them.Vexorg (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Please stop moving my reply to your points above. My reply is specifically directed at the above!!!! This is the 2nd time you have moved my reply now. You do not own this space!!!! Vexorg (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC) An interesting, but not surprising observation "...At this point, I must confess that I am getting quite tired of dealing with Mbz, and in spite of his apparent inexperience at writing articles, am tempted to propose that he be topic banned from I-P related articles just to save anyone else from having to deal with the same tiresome behaviour." from statement made by Gatoclass at 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC) "Up to this point I have asked for no action to be taken against Mbz, but I am now obliged to change my mind..." from statement made by Gatoclass at 01:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (in both cases highlighted by me) It is the usual tactic of administrator in dealing with the DYK nominations, deletion requests, and now with me. He'd say something that is incorrect and let it be. The above example is the most recent one of course, but I could provide many more of those by request made in much more important places. About my statement itself. Gatoclass, I only repeated what was said here, at that very AE, by the user I have absolutely no reason to doubt. Gatoclass IMO you should not be bothered by what I, or anybody else for that matter, are saying about you as long as you personally believe it is not the case. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Few quotes by Gatoclass denying DYK for the Holocaust related article "...Thirdly, even if one took seriously the evidence presented by the Russians at Nuremberg that the Danzig Anatomic Institute conducted such experiments, AFAIK no evidence has ever been presented that the raw materials came specifically from the fat of Jews being slaughtered in Nazi extermination camps. Fourth, there is no source provided for the claim that the Nazis produced soap in small quantities at a nearby concentration camp, or rather, the provided source makes no such claim, and I've seen no such claim in any other source...." "...The problem is not the hook, because I'm sure an NPOV hook could be found without too much trouble. The problem is that Historicist has slanted both The Soap Myth and the Soap made from human corpses articles to promote the view that the Nazis made soap out of human beings, when the majority of reputable scholars say there is no reliable evidence that they did so...." And here are the sources that confirm the soap was made out of the corpses by nazi: page 126 page 971 by William L. Shirer page 71 page 294 --Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Comment by Yazan Since I've been involved in this incidence since it started. I feel it is only fair to Gatoclass (whom I've seen put extraordinary effort at DYK, since I began helping there) to state my 2cents on the matter. I was the first editor to confirm Mbz1 nomination, and I went on to the article to fix some of the minor problems, such as formatting of sources and sections et all. But after two days, it was clear that the article was expanding in a rather suspicious manner which focused on very recent events and has stopped being an article about a synagogue but rather one about Jews in Egypt. I scratched my confirmation (which is well within my right in DYK convention), asked for a second opinion on the matter from more experienced users, and posted on the article's talk page. Her response was invariably accusative and out of context. She did scratch "Yet another try to kill a valid but unwanted nomination." after I called her up on it, but did not relent and wait for a second opinion on the matter. I posted a cordial message on her talk page explaining what, and why I did that and telling her that I will refrain from contributing to the article or the nomination further. She immediately deleted my message without response. Her problems with editors on DYK started soon after with her attempts at deleting the conversation (which is as GC noted, against convention), I didn't care to further involve myself in the matter and I made it clear after insistent posting on my talk page by Mbz1. Please note, that I try as much as possible to avoid editing on I-P issues because it's less than gratifying and certainly not fun. Gatoclass has been accused of several things here that come very close to character defamation (especially for him, being an admin), and I believe an apology is in order. Yazan (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Yazan forgot to mention that he was involved together with Gatoclass in declining my first DTK nomination for Robert Kennedy in Palestine (1948). The other thing that put me off was only 11 minutes difference between complaining on the article talk page, and reverting the promotion, without allowing me to react, but maybe I do own an apology to Yazan for assuming bad faith. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning User:Gatoclass This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Concur with topic ban for Mbz1; disagree with temporary nature of ban. Suggest that when banned, Mbz1 be allowed to request a lifting of the ban in the future, with a specified time to elapse prior to any such request. I suggest six months. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Reply to Mbz1: No. You seem to be confused about how this works. I have followed links and read comments by editors in the discussion section, and made my recommendation. I have no further interest nor involvement in this. I certainly am not going to get involved in an argument with you concerning one of the comments made by another editor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Will people ever learn that you can't accuse someone of being a bigot, anti-Semite, or member of a "Zionist lobby" just because they disagree with you? Those are serious charges - if leveled at a living, identifiable person, they might be considered defamation - but apparently no one feels the need to substantiate their accusations here. For example: Vexorg: Mbz1 and Stellarkid are part of a "disingenuous Zionist lobby". NickCT: Amplifies on rhetoric about a "disingenuous Zionist lobby". Mbz1: Explicitly accuses Gatoclass of anti-Semitism ("Your dislike of Israel, Jews and Zionism...") Brewcrewer: accuses Gatoclass of "fighting doggedly" against "Israel or Holocaust related articles", but can't be bothered to supply diffs because that would be "difficult". Bonus accusation of administrative abuse by Gatoclass, again unsupported by any diffs. Again, calling someone an anti-Semite or closet Holocaust denialist is a serious accusation. You find the diffs before you make an accusation like that, no matter how "difficult" you think it will be. I actually don't see a lot of problematic contributions from Gatoclass; the first diff in the complaint is poor form, since it overly personalizes a dispute, but beyond that they seem within the standard of discussion on controversial issues (though I should note I don't see the "demonization of Muslims" at Maimonides Synagogue that Gatoclass complained of). But virtually everyone who has commented here comes off looking much worse than Gatoclass. If it were up to me, I'd probably start by topic-banning the 4 editors I cited above until they understand the minimum standards of interaction with people who hold differing viewpoints. Certainly this reaction to having a DYK hook questioned suggests a lack of perspective. In any case, I've said enough. I will leave this without action on my part, and will await additional administrative input. MastCell Talk 19:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I would support a topic ban on all four editors listed by Mastcell, along the same lines as the one I outlined for Mbz1. While I find that Mbz1's actions have been the most disruptive, and certainly attempting sanctions here has elevated, not helped, the disruption level, all four have been participants in very poor behavior and noticeably reduced the signal to noise ratio. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC) A topic ban on all four is a considerably more indiscriminate measure than I would normally propose, but I can live with it, if only to lower the noise level on various fora for a while. They are certainly not all equally responsible for the recent flareups in the I/P conflict area, but they all contribute to this unproductive drama. If we do this, I can think of some more users that I may make subject to the same sanction if they show up in coomunity fora in battleground mode again. Instead of indefinite bans with an appeal option, though, I suggest time-limited bans of three to six months, just to spare us the four appeal discussions that are unlikely to be very illuminating. As to Gatoclass, some of their comments at issue here are not up to the standards of detached professionalism I would expect from an administrator working in this sensitive area, but I do not see a need to issue sanctions based on the situation as currently presented.  Sandstein  19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Looking through the report above it appears to me that if we want to issue these broad topic bans, we might just as well include Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) for the same sort of battleground mentality comment, reported above but probably lost in the mudslinging.  Sandstein  20:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Nods, Sandstein is correct. If the ban is extended to the other three listed by MastCell, then SD should also be included. Again, I am willing to support this if this is consensus; my preference is for Mbz1, as the most egregious offender, and second choice for the expanded list. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC) @Sandstein: I agree a topic ban on all 4 is pretty indiscriminate. My proposal was based in part on frustration at the recurring unsavory aspects of the dialog; it may well be too severe, on reflection, to topic-ban the 4 people I listed (that's why I wanted to get other input rather than act myself). I also agree that it's hard to know where to draw the line - I happened to find those 4 editors by direct linkage from this report, but I agree with you that Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is more or less indistinguishable from the sorts of behavior I listed above. In any case, I'm not going to push for the topic bans I mentioned above because, like you, part of me thinks it's a bit too harsh or indiscriminate. I would be open to less severe approaches that would facilitate more responsible discussion. It would seem that some parties have already committed to more careful choice of words in the future - if that's the case, then perhaps we should close on that note - hopefully the issue is resolved, and if not, presumably there will be less tolerance the next time around. MastCell Talk 20:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) The problem is really how to adequately keep track of repeated misconduct so that if we do need to topic-ban people we can do it for their track record and not for isolated incidents. I'd appreciate your (and KillerChihuahua's) input with respect to this draft WikiProject intended to address this.  Sandstein  20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I'd be glad to take a look tomorrow; we certainly could use something which helps clarify the muddy waters in this area. Meanwhile, on the current issue: am I correct that although we share deep concerns regarding the other editors, we do not feel that a topic ban is warrented, although one would be indicated should such behavior continue? And I would appreciate clear opinions regarding the proposed topic ban for Mbz1 from both of you as well - thank you so much! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with an expression of concern and no further sanctions at this point. The reason I proposed topic bans was not to punish a specific set of editors, but to make clear that there are some minimal acceptable standards of discourse (for example, it is unacceptable to handle disagreement by routinely accusing people of bigotry or nationalistic conspiracy without providing substantive evidence). Assuming that concern is understood, I don't see any need to be punitive. I will leave the question of Mbz1 to Sandstein, KC, and any other admin who stops by; my initial review was certainly concerning, but perhaps s/he should fall under the same umbrella of warning-but-no-sanctions this time around. MastCell Talk 20:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC) (ec with MastCell) I don't think that I'll impose a topic ban on anyone right now, not because I think that this would be unjust towards any of them individually, but because I would prefer to approach this in a somewhat more organized manner by compiling a track record of all involved and deciding on that basis (see the project draft). Also, banning the one or five editors who are in our sights right now and letting the others off with a (probably futile) warning would be a somewhat random and unsatisfying result. That said, I do not intend to oppose any ban on any or all of these editors, including Mbz1, that you or other admins may decide to impose using your own discretion.  Sandstein  20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC) That seems eminently sensible to me. I'm not prepared to ban anyone myself at this point, for essentially the same reasons that Sandstein has articulated. I'd be happy to go with Sandstein's approach. MastCell Talk 21:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I will certainly not oppose my fellow admins' views in this; I wish to note extreme concern regarding Mbz1's actions and attitude, and apparent approach to this entire dispute as more of a conflict to be won rather than as a difference to be resolved. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I share that concern, which in my view is unfortunately not limited to Mbz1 or even the other editors under discussion here. If there are no objections, then, I will close these two requests with no immediate action but a strong warning to all involved that continued battleground-like conduct may result in immediate topic bans, and that we may still decide to issue sanctions on the basis of the conduct discussed here at a later stage.  Sandstein  21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Please see my response to Mbz's latest comments above. Gatoclass (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) OK, I've closed the request above to get that out of the way. Now, yes, I am really concerned about these Holocaust soap DYK diffs provided by Mbz1. As Gatoclass says, these seem to reflect a bona fide content dispute about what the sources say, and Mbz1 brings them up here in a manner that gives the impression of having the intent to associate Gatoclass with Holocaust denial, and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for. This has got to stop. While the soap issue is probably outside the scope of WP:ARBPIA, it being brought up here is part of a pattern of battleground conduct by Mbz1 mostly in an ARBPIA context. To stop this, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions I am hereby topic-banning Mbz1 from all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, broadly construed and without exception for reverting vandalism or BLP violations, for three months. Brewcrewer is warned against making wide-ranging serious accusations unsupported by specific diffs. Gatoclass, I strongly recommend that you recuse yourself from taking any administrator action or administrative action (e.g., deleting DYK hooks) with respect to editors you are in content-related disagreements with, as with Mbz1 here. (I've not evaluated whether you should have recused yourself at the time of the incidents under discussion, but you should now.)  Sandstein  06:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues

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

Request concerning Sulmues

User requesting enforcement

Athenean (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

WP:ARBMAC#Principles#Purpose of Wikipedia

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

This user displays classic WP:BATTLE mentality. Many of his actions appear calculated and solely designed to irritate other editors as much as possible, without any obvious benefit to Wikipedia. Whether it is aggresively-worded, inane merger proposals [60] accompanied by talkpage rants [61] as a way of getting around the normal AfD process, or adding articles that have nothing to do with Albania to the Albania TF in a tendentious manner [62] [63] [64] [65] and then using inflammatory language on the TF page to rally the troops so as to make sure the Albanian National POV is represented [66] [67], it just doesn't stop.

At Pyrros Dimas, a BLP article, he's been at it for months [68]. Just when things had quieted down a bit, he has now managed to mis-read WP:MOSBIO and he has started the nonsense all over again [69]. His proposal is utterly nonsensical (P.D. renounced his Albanian citizenship early on, and became notable after that) and based on a (deliberately?) flawed understanding of WP:MOSBIO. It's pretty clear he won't stop until he has had his way in that article. Such proposals are motivated by nothing more than nationalist feeling, generate tons of wikidrama, and do absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia.

Here he is aggressively editing another flashpoint article [70] [71], adding massive amounts of inflammatory material while admonishing others to go to the talkpage and not revert him. The mere fact that on this very thread, he defends such edits as "very good" speaks volumes.

But most egregious of all is this post to another user's talkpage, urging him to create a new battleground article [72]. Such inflammatory "we-are-victims" articles and the countless hours of wikidrama they invariably generate are the last thing this encyclopedia needs, especially in an area as troubled as the Balkans. Recruiting other editors to create battleground articles is the epitome of WP:BATTLE behavior (incidentally, User:Mladifilozof does nothing else on this encyclopedia but create such battleground articles). And this is in just the last two days! It just doesn't end with this guy, it's like his mind can't stop coming up with ways to create new battlegrounds. A couple of weeks ago I filed this AE request [73], where he only narrowly escaped a topic ban on the thinnest of technicalities. Yet instead of heeding the warning, it appears he has taken the fact that he got away with it as an endorsement and is now even more aggressive. Though he has also made positive contributions, I believe he causes far more harm to the project than good. I am convinced that there won't be peace and quiet on Albania-related topics as as long as this user is allowed to edit them. He was given a chance last time, and he blew it.

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

[74]

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

Topic ban from Albania-related topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I also see on this very thread that Sulmues is threatening to press ahead with the creation of a Cham Genocide article, even though a literature search reveals such a term doesn't exist [75] [76]. If that's not classic WP:BATTLE behavior, I don't know what is. Also, the stuff about Pyrrhus of Epirus and the antiquity articles is malarkey, but is very illustrative: Claims that he and the Molossians and Thesprotians are Albanians are WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Pyrrhus' capital was in Arta, far to the south, he founded only *one* city, Antigonia (Chaonia), in the territory of present-day Albania. So what? Only nationalists consider Pyrrhus to be Albanian. There are plenty of Albanian nationalists that also consider Alexander the Great to be Albanian,. Does that mean that their views should be included in that article? Sulmues wild claims about "The Albanian archaeologists' NPOV is continuously deleted in Wikipedia by the Greek editors." is sheer nonsense, and his posts to the TF talkpage are a classic call to arms to ensure that the Albanian nationalist POV is represented in these articles. Nothing could be more WP:BATTLE than that. Today it's Pyrros Dimas and Pyrrhus of Epirus, tomorrow it's going to be Achilles [77] (referring to this image [78]) and Alexander the Great (and probably still Pyrros Dimas). I also note that many of Sulmues' wild accusations on this thread are completely unfounded and beyond the pale, whether about my perceived "extreme rudeness" (when in fact it was he who was trolling my talkpage), "extreme edit-warring", or about "anyone who dares question Pyrrhus' Greek origins will be reported" (that's a funny way of describing academic and wikipedia consensus). Sulmues' claims on this thread that "I must have read that in some inappropriate website" are disingenuous and an insult to the community's intelligence. Athenean (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

Sulmues is also wikistalking me. When I became involved in a discussion at Talk:Ethnic groups in Europe#Ethno-linguistic_map_dispute, an article he has never shown the slightest interest in, he and his teammate ZjarriRrethues popped in within a few hours of my original post just to spite me, using the usual inane arguments [79]. It is quite clear he has no idea what he is talking about regarding Gaelic and no interest whatsoever in the article, he just saw what he thought was a good opportunity to spite me. He is also an expert at taking my words out of context and playing the good guy, e.g. here [80], where he claims he was trying to "collaborate" with me, but in fact all he was doing was trolling my talkpage and threatening me with nothing short of a community ban [81]. Athenean (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[82]

Discussion concerning Sulmues

Statement by Sulmues

I know this editor (user:athenean) only because of his extreme edit-warring and the reports that he files against me. Only recently he got a block [83] because of his edit-warring at Vjose. It is a mystery to me how an editor with more than 8k edits, such as Athenean, a Tutnum, would recur to edit-warring.

If an admin falls into the traps of this user:Athenean report, then I'll be glad to be topic banned and I'll quit Wikipedia, because that will mean that there is something wrong with the whole system. Athenean has made more reports against me than he has written any articles (only 4, see [84]), whereas I have written 75 (see here), out of which 72 only in the last three months, however he is a specialist in reporting people who contribute and use proper sources, and he'll make sure to revert them to death because of wp:idontlikeit. Below I will bring some reverts that he has made, notably in Albanian language, but just to give an example of the many reverts that he makes I'll bring this one [85] where he liquidates me in a second as a POV editor, while deleting my sources. I could bring much more, but I am here to defend myself.

I am an incredibly valuable contributor to the Albanian Task force because of my edits and articles created. It is contributors like me that Athenean would love to kick out in order to assert his POV in Albania related topics: I am trying to enter through consensus NPOV whereas his POV pushing and continuous wp:harassment against me has been noted at the Arbmac talk page (Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia#Statement_by_sulmues). I know what this is all about: the article that I will write on the Cham Genocide. I have already asked for the collaboration of user:mladifilozof on the topic (see here) because he is a political analyst and his style would be more than helpful. Mladifilozof gently offered to help ([86]). User:Athenean would love to prevent that from happening and he promptly reported me here (see here). 25k Cham Albanians were expulsed from Greece in 1944-1945 even though the discrimination started much earlier (see Cham_Albanians#Population_exchange_and_appropriation_of_property_.281923.E2.80.931926.29, Cham_Albanians#Discrimination_and_normalization_.281927.E2.80.931936.29, Cham_Albanians#Crackdown_under_the_Metaxas_regime_.281936.E2.80.931940.29, Cham_Albanians#First_expulsion, and Cham_Albanians#Involvement_in_the_Greek_Civil_War.2C_repatriation_by_ELAS_and_final_expulsion). An article on the Cham genocide is warranted in Wikipedia and I intend to write it. Everyone can then nominate it for deletion.

So far User:Athenean has falsely accused me of socketpuppetry User_talk:Moreschi#Sulmues.3DGuildenrich, endorsed user:alexikoua's false accusation of, again, socketpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Report_date_September_13_2009.2C_04:52_.28UTC.29_2 here, accused me of incivility three weeks ago here, you name it. He will never stop, until an admin will take a decision to block him for harassment. He reports me on every occasion and is extremely rude when I talk to him in the talk page when he tells me to stay off his talk page (see the most recent [87], [88]), or in the articles' talk page even though I have a point [89]. I don't respond to his incivil comments and I swim away.

Addressing the accusations specifically

Now I'll address the accusations because I have to do so for respect of the time of the deciding admin. They are ALL ill-suited and my defense follows:

• inane merger proposals [90]

How is a merger proposal inane? It actually makes sense to have Albanian nationalism merged to Greater Albania.

• accompanied by talkpage rants [91]

This is not a rant: Many arguments in the article are not well supported. Nationalism seems to have started in Albania in 1994 after Edward Jacques according to Athenean POV. This just doesn't make sense.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• [92]

Tsamiko dance. So I guess, it is Ok for User:Athenean to expel 25,000 Cham Albanians (children included), as collaborationist with the Nazis, but instead keep their dance in the Greek TF only, and not under the Albania TF? The Tsamiko Dance (Albanian: vallja came) is extremely popular in Albania, used in wedding parties. Not only that, but the dance has even more variants than it has in Greece, notably the Dance of Osman Taka. His partner, Alexikoua made sure to revert me ([93])--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• [94]

Pyrrhus of Epirus lived in an area that is in modern Albania and that's where the most important archaeological excavations are made. The Albanian archaeologists' NPOV is continuously deleted in Wikipedia by the Greek editors. We are forced to keep our references here (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albania#Origin_of_Albanians) because we know that we'll be edit warred, reverted and reported. See four times deletions of user:Athenean only in Albanian language ([[95], [96], [97], and [98]). We are not even allowed to put the article in the Albania TF (see revert [99] where user Athenean even takes out my talk in the talk page with derogatory comments. Both Pyrrhus cities: Butrint, his main residence, and Antigonia_(Chaonia), are in modern Albania. The discoveries of neutral archaeologists that assert the Illyrian origin of Phyrrus are completely, arrogantly, and mysteriously ignored. Whomever dares to go against Pyrrhus' Greek origin and tries to bring sources about his Illyrian origin will be reported. Actually I reconsidered this in the Pyrrhus talk page and stroke my edits. It doesn't seem there is sufficient evidence to claim Illyrian origin of Pyrrhus. See Talk:Pyrrhus_of_Epirus#Albania_TF--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• [100] [101].

I am trying to enter these articles under the Albania TF project. Both the Molossians and the Thesprotians (the last one correspond to the territories inhabited by Cham Albanians) cannot be under the Albania TF according to User:Athenean. I was reverted for each one of them ([102]) and ([103]), and did not edit-war, but those areas of Southern Epirus have historically had an Albanian presence that culminated with the dinasty of Gjin Bue Shpata in the 14th century. The Greek editors continue to say that there is no link between the Illyrians and the Albanians, just to assert that in the antiquity the Molossians, Thesprotians and Chaonians were not Illyrians but Greek. Actually there is a lot of evidence to contrast that. In addition several Albanian archaeologists (Korkuti, Prendi, Ceka) endorse the continuity Pelasgian-Illyrian which makes the Greek editors infuriate more than anything else (Read [104]). These people have been archaeologists for the last 50 years and were not born yesterday.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• using inflammatory language on the TF page to rally the troops [105] [106].

I don't know where you see the fire in my language. The fire is only in your reports. We are collaborating in our Albania TF to provide sources that are NPOV. There are no flames. Everything that the Albania TF stands for is good secondary sources.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• At Pyrros Dimas, a BLP article, he's been at it for months' [107].

Just when things had quieted down a bit, he has now managed to mis-read WP:MOSBIO and he has started the nonsense all over again [108].

Read Talk:Pyrros_Dimas#Per_Manual_of_Style_the_lead_paragraph_is_wrong. Read it carefully. I am right per MOS. Dimas was World's Vice Champion juniores, European Master and member of the Albanian national team in Weightlifting that placed 3rd in European Championship and 2nd in European Cup for Nations. He was notable already and at that time had no Greek citizenship. My proposal to mention that he holds both passports, but has Greek ethnicity is very sensible. You are getting continuous reverts from IP addresses because a lot of people are angry to read in Wikipedia that he is only Greek. He was a great Albanian champion way before he became a champion in Greece. Per MOS he was already notable, as I explain in the talk page. What is currently in the lead is to say the least controversial, besides being incorrect per Wiki policy. Can I add now that I know Pirro Dhima personally and that I have talked to him several times? I know exactly who he is and what he stands for, but this is outside the point. --sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty clear he won't stop until he has had his way in that article. Such proposals are motivated by nothing more than nationalist feeling, generate tons of wikidrama, and do absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia.

Actually all the wikidrama I get is from you.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here he is aggressively editing another flashpoint article [109] [110], adding massive amounts of inflammatory material while admonishing others to go to the talkpage and not revert him.

I made very good contributions (see difference. Filates was a town populated mostly with Albanians until 1945 when the final Cham Genocide occurred. You are trying to hide a genocide in Wikipedia using WP:AE to report me who is writing it down with plenty of good references. See reverts that were made to my very well sourced edits ([111] and [112], [113], through edit-warring of the tandem Megistias-Alexikoua. I did not engage in edit warring --sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• But probably the worst of all is this post to another user's talkpage, urging him to create a new battleground article [114].

Mladifilozof is a professional political analyst. He has written plenty of articles on the Genocides and is the most respected person around to be able to help with the Cham Genocide. I pointed it out in the beginning that you just want the Cham Genocide to disappear from everywhere. Turkey has tried to do that with the Armenian Genocide, but couldn't do it.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• And this is in just the last two days! It just doesn't end with this guy, it's like his mind can't stop coming up with ways to create new battlegrounds. A couple of weeks ago I filed this AE request [115], where he only narrowly escaped a topic ban on the thinnest of technicalities.

So are you trying to make an OJ Sympson case here? This is unbelievable. There was absolutely nothing to support your claims and user:Sandstein didn't fall into your trap. I hope the next admin won't fall either. You know that I'll write Cham Genocide and I know that you'll bring it to AfD. Let me write it first and then you can bring it to AfD.--sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Though he has also made positive contributions, I believe he causes far more harm to the project than good. I am convinced that there won't be peace and quiet on Albania-related topics as as long as this user is allowed to edit them. He was given a chance last time, and he blew it.

Since I started to contribute heavily in December 2009 the number of the Albanian topics has almost doubled, because I have tagged many Albanian related topics, written articles and kept excellent communication with Albanian and non-Albanian users to improve our Task Force. The number of the Albanian related topics went from ~900 to 1700+ only in three months (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albania/To_Do_List)! Whether I am here to improve Wikipedia with my 6.4k edits and 75 articles that's not for you to decide. If I were you, I would focus more on writing articles than on reverting, edit-warring, and falsely reporting. Your behavior classically falls under wp:harassment, but I am too busy to report you and I have faith in the admins. I need to write down articles instead and take care of my Albania TF. Not only you are not leaving me alone but along with user:alexikouayou are also accusing other editors as soon as they join Wikipedia with false accusations of socketpuppetry, harassing them as soon as they start contributing (see (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sarandioti/Archive#Report_date_March_13_2010.2C_01:24_.28UTC.29). You are harassing many Albanian contributors with your lack of faith and continuous battleground behavior. Look at yourself first before accusing anyone. I have been even too patient with you too. I should report you for harassment. --sulmues (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I am finished unless some other Greek editor makes any further accusations, which is usually the practice they follow when they accuse me. --sulmues (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing accusations of other editors

Ok here they come: I am basically accused that the IP editors revert Alexikoua??? How can I be accused that your edit-warring is reverted? You just got out of a 3 day block [116], because you always revert and edit-war with derogatory comments. I have advised you several times not to edit-war but sort the issues in the talk page or through my user page. I usually will say to you in your talk page if I revert you, and we have had good collaborations for many articles, such as Andreas Zarbalas. Why not continue that? Ops, I noticed that you have already reverted my proper sourced additions in Filiates ([117] and [118]) and then the usual tag teamed revert by Megistias ([119]). I won't engage in edit warring with you, don't have the time. You are disruptive with your edits. Shkumbin: You were reverted by other people, not by me. And yes, I agree with their edits [120], as you are trying to enter in Wikipedia that there are no Albanians South of Shkumbin, leaving half of the Albanian nation (the tosks) out of nowhere.

Regarding the fact that I disregarded user:sandstein's warning: I really took that warning seriously, but Sandstein had not read my answer fully when he made the decision. --sulmues (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the statement of user:tadija. user:ZjarriRrethues argumented very well about his goals, but his edit got messed up with a very disruptive edit that user:tadija just made, which completely messed up the timing of the postings ([121]). That edit should be possibly reverted. That very revert to mess up the timing of the postings, and to have the last word is indicative enough of that person. I told him in his talk page to revert himself ([122]) but he didn't do it, and here is his mocking response [123]--sulmues (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Again for Tadija. The last decent interaction I had with you was here. User_talk:Gaius_Claudius_Nero#Skanderbeg, where you didn't answer me. Then you jumped on the boat in the last two reports that user:athenean filed against me. Now you are bringing an edit from May 2008[124]. In addition, could you please get comfortable with Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars? That's the reason why I deleted that message. --sulmues (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing further accusations of user:Athenean

In regards to the additional comment of user:Athenean. You just confirmed that all this is about your fear about the new article Cham Genocide. You can read that the Albanian government brought it up in the Paris Conference in 1946 (see here). You may also want to know that in Albania there is a 1994 law about the Cham Genocide see here, when 27 June is declared by the Albanian Government as the Day of the Cham Albanians who suffered Genocide fro the Greek Shauvinism. Plenty of more sources to come. Make sure to bring the article to AfD as soon as it's ready as you already did for all the Cham Albanians founding fathers of Albania (Veli Gërra (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Veli_Gërra), Jakup Veseli (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jakup_Veseli), Rexhep Demi (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rexhep Demi), Azis Tahir Ajdonati (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azis Tahir Ajdonati)). --sulmues (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Further comment for user:Athenean. Under Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F you can read that personal attacks include:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.

If you continuously accuse with your diffs not supporting what you say, then this falls under harassment. In the last accusation you accused me of being incivil, and it turned out that all your diffs did not support that. Before you had accused meto be a Sockpuppet) endorsing a false accusation, and prior you had accused me at Moreschi's page again as a sock, again unjustly. They were all false accusations and proved so. But you did not stop, and I don't think you will until you get your way. Now you are reporting under wp:battleground and when all your diffs will be proved wrong, this will fall under harassment. You have been warned. You are harassing me. --sulmues (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another comment on the accusations that you make to a newbie like you derogatorily call ZjarriRrethues. I think he is defending me based on my contributions, but also based on the fact that probably he senses that you won't stop with me and he is next in your agenda of accusation of every Albanian editor. He probably senses that you will never stop in making wikipedia your personal battleground and POV pushing place. You accuse me of hypocrisy about Pyrrhus of Epirus, but those edits were made in good faith and I stroke myself in the talk page. You have already accused ZjarriRrethues improperly to be a sockpuppet and have done so in several occasions. That falls under personal attacks and you have continued to do so after you had been warned [125]]--sulmues (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talking of sockpuppets, it seems that instead, user:tadija is likely to be one even though it was not confirmed (see [is a likely sock per checkuser]), only per intercession of a Serbian admin (User:Obradovic_Goran) that works for the Serbian wikipedia, which I found very odd. --sulmues (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Concluding, I think that I might have exagerated while I tagged Albania TF Pyrrhus of Epirus without having full proper sources. I must have read some website that is far from proper secondary sources. In addition my intention was mainly to bring to the community Albanian language sources for the two main cities that are in modern Albania, Antigonia (Chaonia) and Butrint, both founded by Pyrrhus, so my intentions were in good faith. However I apologize for that to the Wikipedia community: because I asserted that he might have Illyrian origin, while that still is not verifiable. I already apologized to the community in the talk page as well. But from here to say that I should be topic banned is a long way, I believe. All the other diffs do not support what user:Athenean is accusing me of. The Albania TF is a better place since I joined and many Albanian related topics are being covered. I think although I have received plenty of accusations from User:Athenean, and although he is a very proud person, he has a good logic and with some effort can learn to respect other users, because right now he is not respecting me. On my side, I will try to respect a little bit more him. --sulmues talk contributions 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Addressing Update of user:Athenean

In relation to this edit [126] of User:Athenean: he continues his personal battle against mehere and also in my talk page with additional threats of reports because "I am following him around" User_talk:Sulmues#STOP_following_me_around. This editor clearly has personal issues with my editing and is continuously harassing me, even though he claims I am harassing him, thus playing the victim. --sulmues talk contributions 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I really wish I could collaborate with this user more and I have tried several times, but all I get when I write to him in the talk page is to "Stay off my talk page" [127], "Spare me the preaching" [128], again "Get off my talk page" [129], or "I'm not interested in discussing with you [130]. What more can I say about the willingness of collaboration of this user? --sulmues talk contributions 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Sulmues

Comment by Mladifilozof

"incidentally, User:Mladifilozof does nothing else on this encyclopedia but create such battleground articles".

Please Athenean, if you think that my behavior on Wikipedia is irregular or offensive, report me regularly and I shall have the right to defend myself. Do not accuse me behind my back. Thanks.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by ZjarriRrethues

Although I have partially commented on this matter, since Athenean continues to try to get Sulmues blocked I'll reply again here. I told yesterday to Athenean to take it easy[131] and not attack other users. About this matter:

• [132] is as anyone can see a discussion where Sulmues says that if no one objects he will make the changes, so I can't understand how this is "agressive or inflamatory"
• [133]He is asking from a user to write an article, since he thinks that user is more experienced. Again I don't really see why this is agressive.
• [134][135] He posted a proposal and Athenean considers that "aggressive".
• [136]As far as I can see this is sourced and isn't "inflammatory". I don't see how this is a problem according to Athenean.

• [137] is a wikiproject talkpage so it is most normal to have such a message there and as far as I can tell he isn't "rallying" any "troops".

Generally, the language used in this report by Athenean is very aggressive, harassive and similar to other messages of Athenean like this [138]. Also in this report users like Mladifilozof have been mentioned and accused and I think they should be informed.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk11:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that this report is the result of overreaction and hostility. I think that all users should "take it easy" and spend their time improving wikipedia and not accusing and reporting each other, don't you all think?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Tadija: User:Sulmues showed numerous times that we don't want to follow NPOV, and meatpuppetry is just one of his ways. Actually, i think that it is pointless to add ones again all problematic diff's that Sulmues did. However, Tadija has had virtually no interaction with Sulmues except the 2 reports(with this being the second one) against Sulmues initiated by Athenean and Alexikoua, which he supported. At least now certain things are clear...--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How are any of these IPs related to Sulmues? I don't see any proof but accusations, so I'll regard your statement Alexikoua as a personal attack against him. In Shkumbin I see that the IPs are actually against Sulmues's consensus but that doesn't stop you Alexikoua from accusing him that they are collaborating with him. User:Tadija I see that you have had no interaction with User:Sulmues except when you again without having any interaction with him decided to support [[User:Alexikoua]'s] report where Alexikoua reported Sulmues as a sock . If I may quote I see that you said [139] This is such a DUCK, that i cannot say almost anything else which was proven wrong. Considering that this is the second time you interact with Sulmues and you do that only to support a report which is supported by the same users users who wanted to block him as a sockpuppet, is very suspicious.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I also find it pecular that in the very few interactions you've had with Sulmues Tadija, most of them had as participants also Alexikoua or Athenean.

I think I should remind to Athenean that JulianColton has already warned him not to accuse me for being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet or anything else.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by Tadija

As i told earlier, the most damaging way of editing wikipedia is trough WP:BATTLE. User:Sulmues showed numerous times that we don't want to follow NPOV, and meatpuppetry is just one of his ways. Actually, i think that it is pointless to add ones again all problematic diff's that Sulmues did. I also agree, regarded user:Mladifilozof remark by Athenean. At the end, i give up. Tried with some reverts, but i simply had no will to enter marathon discussion, each time with same "arguments" and conclusions. So, i am out of that. Both of them don't know what neutral means, and both of them uses wikipedia just as a tool of accomplishing they're instinctive desires and POV's. When they are joined, then everything else is pointless to discuss. Per ARBMAC conclusion, that kind of editing is highly unwelcome in Balkan related articles. I already talked to User:Prodego regarding this, so it will be wise to invite him also into conversation.

No more words from me. Everything is already said.

Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, 
advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

This is the main idea why ARBMAC is generally established, in the first place. --Tadija^taking 14:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

@Zjarri - (No sources, despite more then 10 of them), (opened AfD, violation of the ban imposed here), (just one theory of Sulmues, Albanians as creators of Serb nation) (Warning about WP:FORUM that he deleted in the moment)...

And this is just few of them that i remember. Please, write in your own space, and don't write about things that are not true. Also, you dont need to comment everything on this page. One main comment will be good. --Tadija^taking 16:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Comment by Alexikoua

Sulmues has been advised multiple times to calm down and avoid battlefield behavior [[140]], but in vain. Last time he was warned for this [[141]], but he completely rejected this warning [[142]].

In the following days he continued this dangerous pattern. Although in some occasions, like in Shkumbin I&Sulmues initially reached an consensus [[143]], but after a few days the usual ip army that follows Sulmues attacked. Characteristically Sulmues continued to edit the article after the ip disruption but without reverting them, proving that he enjoyed this activity. Same situation in Filiates, Sulmues makes massive pov edits without initiating any discussion in article's talk page, he is reverted, but suddenly the ip army strikes again and restores his massive edits. In Pyrros Dimas he uses the dirsuption, created by ips [[144]], as an argument to promote his pov verion.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Some other examples are his late obsession to create the Cham Genocide (suppose to describe events already described in Expulsion of Cham Albanians but promoting his personal POV), and to support the 'Albanian POV' as he says here [[145]]. I see that his recent warning was just the reason to initiate a more massive wp:battle.Alexikoua (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

What really impresses me is that User:Sulmues has never admitted that he overdid it (at least a little) after all this discussions, blocks and topic bans he received. Although he has been warned several times to avoid wp:battle by third part users [[146]] he mysteriously insists to play the victim of the situation, launching accusation against everyone. No wonder, he promised to continue his wp:battle behavior in near future [[147]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Lontech

Sulmues has made an extraordinary contribution to the improvement of articles

Allegations are from users without credibility (like tadija with more than one account-socks). and non-neutral users like Athenean and Aleksikoua who oppose everything that is against the greece politics(nationalism).-- LONTECH  Talk  22:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Megistias

Sulmues has a static monolith of an opinion and stance on things that lacks all and any elasticity that would give him room for improvement and a positive view on things. According to him diff Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Quote: "but the Greek editors (Athenean, Megistias, Alexikoua) work to prove that the Albanians have no connections with the Illyrians"..."seems like a very good plan to make today's Albanians seem as if they are foreigners in their own land, not autochtonous, which in the Balkans would be only the Greek population. No other population in the Balkans can enjoy the autochtonous status but the Greeks, according to these three editors."... "This is the standard that these three editors are following in all the history articles especially in the Illyrian Albanian articles that have been usurpated by them", etc, etc. The fact that he goes on expressing such views, and acting upon them, bearing a staunch belief that they are the state of affairs and motive behind activities makes this user's general attitude ligneous and unyielding. Megistias (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Kushtrim123

This is another bad faith nationalist driven report by users with blocks full of edit-warring blocks. Some of them like Athenean I found out that have been banned in the past from Balkans-related articles. Tadija has also been blocked because of having sockpuppets. Taking all of this in account, the explanations provided above for the so-called "proof against Sulmues", the large contributions of Sulmues in Albania-related articles, and the constant personal attacks against him by recently blocked users already blocked, I honestly must say that we should discard this so-called report as another harassive attack in a long series of personal attacks launched against him.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Aigest

Saw this thread on Sulmues talk page and I felt obligated to write smth about him and this issue. If you look at through all Albanian contributors talk pages you may notice that everyone of them has been reported by Greek contributors in relation to their contribution to Albanian articles and this persistence of patrolling Albanian related articles is astonishing. I don't think that it is possible that every single Albanian contributor in wiki (even anon IP) is wrong. This is very frustrating and many good editors from Albanian side (just like the cases of Taulant23 or Balkanian`s word show), have left wiki for this reason. User sulmues is a good contributor. He has written many articles and kept writing them even when he was the only Albanian contributor in wiki for some time. I give him credit on that because other including me didn't had the nerve to continue. Being the only one he was constantly under the same pressure and sometimes this might have affected his behavior, but that's understandable. I can assure that everyone of us might have reacted this way. I agree that it takes two to make a tango, but unfortunately one of the partners is not interested in dancing. Aigest (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by A Stop at Willoughby

This AE thread is still unresolved, as no uninvolved administrator has addressed the request yet. As such, I've undone the automatic archiving. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do not think a compelling case for the application of sanctions has been presented. Athenean and Sulmues seem to be on opposite sides of multiple content disputes; I believe that passion from those disputes has led to exaggerated charges against Sulmues. Athenean calls this an "aggressively-worded, inane merger proposal" when in fact the proposal could not be construed reasonably as aggressively-worded. Similarly, this four-line comment is not a "talk page rant" by an average person's standard. Adding articles to a WikiProject's scope, particularly when a reasonable case can be made for their inclusion in said scope, is not really [{WP:TE|tendentious editing]], though posts like this do seem to indicate a battleground mentality (but not because of any sort of inflammatory tone). However, it is not Sulmues alone who is responsible for the battleground atmosphere; several editors on the "Greek side," including Athenean, need to tone it down and stop trying to prevent the "Albanian side" from editing. Both sides are at fault, and both sides need to collaborate and compromise.

The dispute associated with Pyrros Dimas is an excellent example. The basic question is whether Dimas's former Albanian citizenship should be mentioned in the lead, per WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. Sulmues has made a reasonable case for including it on the grounds that Dimas first became notable under WP:ATHLETE as an Albanian citizen and competitor. However, the "Greek side" appears to be intent on avoiding mention of this in the lead – apparently solely because of this whole conflict between editors of Greek and Albanian nationalities.

This needs to stop. These are content disputes, so sanctions should not be levied to take one side out of commission, but because of the battleground mentalities on both sides, sanctions may later become necessary – for both sides. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Sulmues

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

Countries of the United Kingdom

Not actionable on this board; request does not relate to an arbitration decision.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning n/a User requesting enforcement RA (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested n/a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy that this user violated Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it n/a, but see article history and talk page for evidience of conflict over the covered topics. Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) n/a Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) Place {{Troubles restriction}} on article talk page Clarify that the 1RR applies to "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR" and that an admin is not required to place this template on any article. Additional comments by editor filing complaint This article has for some time been subject to drive-by reverting of content and dispute over content. In recent days there has been an great increase in the reverting and conflict over material relating to Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and British and UK identity/nationalism. (See article history.) Consequently, last Friday, I posted a notification of my intention to place the "Troubles" template on the talk page as remedy. A Troubles-related article is defined as: "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR ... When in doubt, assume it is related." (my emphasis). Following further reverting and conflict over use of sources in relation to Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and British and UK identity/nationalism, I added the template and posted message on the talk advising others of it. Some (good faith) editors have responded with "point of order" concerns that this template can only be added to an article talk page by an administrator. I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that, per the ruling, the template merely serves as notification that "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism falls under WP:1RR. ... When in doubt, assume it is related." (my emphasis). The template merely acts a courtesy to other editors after which the ArbCom remedy is enforced. Countries of the United Kingdom, as the difficulties and conflict over the article, both in recent days and over an extended period demonstrate, can be "reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism". Should there be doubt, per the ruling, we "assume it is related". The request for enforcement is thus: To ask that the template be added to the Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom To clarify that any editor can place this template on "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism". Many thanks, --RA (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. Notification placed on the article talk page. Discussion concerning n/a Statement by n/a Comments by others about the request concerning n/a Countries of the United Kingdom does not seem to be a “Troubles”-related article. No mention of anything that would normally be associated with the “Troubles” has been made, either on the article itself or on its Talk page. The article sets out to define the political status of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as individual countries and within the United Kingdom. Its subject matter is bound to be controversial. However, the recent content disagreement between two editors is not “Troubles”-related. It is just that: a content disagreement between two editors. Accepting that any editor may have the right to declare an article "Troubles"-related and once so designated, it remain so in perpetuity, is a dangerous and unnecessary precedent. There is no need to designate Countries of the United Kingdom a “Troubles”-related article. Things are just fine as they are. Daicaregos (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Its excessive, best handled between the two editors concerned. OK it could do with a couple of warnings and the odd warning block for failing to use the talk page, but bringing the issue here is disproportionate and damages the necessary use of what should be a limited sanction. The second proposal to allow any editor to add the template is a license for more edit waring and game playing. --Snowded TALK 10:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Daicaregos here - things are fine as they are. This article has actually developed pretty well, with less than the usual bias, sock/dodgy-IP appearances and tendentious editing - mainly because it's actually been solidly and collaboratively written. I was off WP for most of a year, and I noticed on returning that it had hardly changed during that period. Both the 'arguing' editors here (I am one of them) did use the talk page, and IMO the main issue here has been lack of WP:AGF, and unfortunately also a simple lack of respect between two people, who do have different 'politics' regarding Northern Ireland. But that happens alas - we can't homogenise Wikipedia completely, we just need to keep plugging away, using AGF and compromising. The actual existence of the Troubles sanction could well be the problem here: theoretically it could relate to all UK/Irish articles. I don't edit in the 'Troubles' articles (what I expect to be the central ones anyway), but I can't personally see how 1RR can benefit Wikipedia. 1RR can only benefit people who's edit is 'up' surely - plenty of game playing can go on to facilitate that surely. Nor do I support any above-normal warning-blocks over this article. Wikipedia needs to be a friendlier environment, not an even more oppressive one than it (too-often) already is. Neither me nor RA have deserved either a warning or a block for failing to satisfy each other after a couple of re-writes of a single line in the 'Sports' section, and I think it's a real shame that this Troubles avenue has been tried by RA. I don't ask him to respect me, but I do ask him to use WP:AGF. The Troubles sanction is an unneeded temptation and a real red herring - we just need to stick to developing the article (it seems that more space for more detail could be the answer) and general Talk. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Result concerning n/a This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As far as I can tell, this request is not actionable. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case is not a remedy passed by the Arbitration Committee, as Rlevse's note in that section makes clear, and can therefore not be the subject of arbitration enforcement. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies does not allow for restrictions with respect to whole articles, only for probation against individual users. Absent objections by other admins, I will close this request.  Sandstein  11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Profoundly interesting in itself. Thank you. --RA (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Would you please clarify Sandstein, does that mean editors of the article Countries of the United Kingdom are under "Troubles"-related sanctions or not. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC) My understanding is that they are not under arbitration sanctions unless individually put under probation as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Remedies. There may be community-imposed sanctions that apply, including Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case if this is intended to document a community-imposed sanction, but such sanctions cannot be enforced or modified through this noticeboard, which is limited to arbitration business.  Sandstein  14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I see. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I concur that this does not appear to be actionable. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC) So closed.  Sandstein  16:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by RolandR

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – RolandR (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Prohibited from using image Commons:File:No Israel.svg or substantially similar ones (i.e., crossed-out flags of countries involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict) in my user space, imposed at User_talk:RolandR#Your_user_page and logged at ARBPIA sanctions log.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[148]

Statement by RolandR

I do not believe that this action falls within the scope of the relevant sanctions. The image was not, despite assertions by the banning admin, directed against Israelis or any other people; but against an ideology and political ideology. It was in use because the same admin previously deleted a similar image, explicitly described as anti-Zionist rather than anti-Israel. Similar images are commonly used by Jews opposed to Zionism and the state of Israel, such as at the home page of Neturei Karta [149]. There had been no complaints about the use of this image, and its removal was only demanded after the admin visited my user page after another editor complained aboout a personal attack on me by a third editor. Other editors are not prohibited from using this or other similar inages, it was not disruptive or offensive, and I believe that this ban is uncalled-for, and outside the scope of ARBPIA sanctions. Incidentally, I believe that the use of these sanctions by the admin to justify removal of the original image from Wiki Commons was entirely outside the scope of these sanctions, which apply only to Wikipedia.

Statement by Sandstein

This restriction concerns two images (Commons:File:Azflag.jpg, Commons:File:No Israel.svg) depicting a struck-through Israeli flag that were (in succession) displayed inside a userbox on RolandR's user page which says "This user is an anti-Zionist." I was alerted to that image through a complaint made to me concerning a comment by another user (topicbanned by me) in conflict with RolandR concerning that user page. The deletion of the first image (which was unused anywhere but in that userbox) occurred in application of Commons deletion policy and is now subject to a Commons undeletion discussion; it has no bearing on this appeal.

For the reasons explained in more detail on RolandR's talk page, it appears self-evident to me that users should not use images to decorate their userpages which vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both in the light of WP:UP#POLEMIC and especially WP:ARBPIA#Principles: "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." Accordingly, I recommend that the Community decline this appeal.

Reply to Tim Song

Not to my knowledge.  Sandstein  18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Malik Shabazz

Well, because I am not on a warpath on anything. I've come across this one problem in the course of my admin work and reacted accordingly. As a rule, I don't go out looking for AE issues because... well, look at my talk page, there are already more than enough issues coming to me. If there is similarly problematic content on other user pages, as I assume there is, please bring it to admin attention at WP:AE if the user in question does not agree to remove it.  Sandstein  18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

General comment concerning the issue of scope

In view of the comment by Revaluation I have re-read the applicable remedies. I have found that there is indeed room for discussion. WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict defines the area of conflict as "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted", emphasis mine. WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions allows discretionary sanctions on users "working in the area of conflict". One way of interpreting these provisions would be that they limit the scope of incidents that can give rise to discretionary sanctions to topic-related disruption in article space, thereby excluding user space (as in this case) but also talk and project space. Another way of looking at it would be that these provisions allow discretionary sanctions for all topic-related disruption in any namespace by any editor who is working on articles in the area of conflict. I believe that this interpretation, which would allow the sanction at issue here, is more plausible, in part because the remedy lists "bans from editing any page or set of pages" (and not just "articles") among the possible remedies. I'd appreciate the opinions of others on this issue, though; if they agree that the scope should be construed more conservatively I'll revoke the sanction or possibly request ArbCom clarification.  Sandstein  16:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

Sandstein, you say "users should not use images to decorate their userpages which vilify, reject, deny the legitimacy or right to existence of one side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Why limit that statement to images? More than a few users have userboxes with text that vilifies, rejects, denies etc. Why aren't you on the warpath against those userboxes? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Gilisa

I think that the link to RolandR TP, provided by Sandstein, explain much of it. Any version of an intentionly provocative image of a country flag crossed with red line is unavoidably and unnecessarily offensive and I agree that it shouldn't be on one UP _{(espcially and specifically when most of his edits are directly related to that country)}.--Gilisa (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to ZScarpia: In short, it doesn't. Infact, Sandstein allowed RolandR to have "anti Zionist" box on his UP, and no one seem to object to that. The problem is with the image. Lets say that I'm against Bullfighting (and I'm)-would it be ok if I have an image of Spain flag striked in X!? You see, editors from all over the world and from all different backgrounds participating in the English wikipedia project-that's one reason, among many, for why we shouldn't have this kind of images. The other one is that in the problematic I-P topic wikipedia earn nothing from it, at best. The admin who declined Nableezy request to restore the image after Sandstein deleted it, explained it well. P.s. The EU is a political and economical regional union, not a country-objecting to it is like objecting the UN or to the Quartet-the comparison you made is oversimplifing

--Gilisa (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to ZScarpia: Your view that Zionism is nationalism is an ideological view by itself. But for the matter of this discussion, even if it was, and even if Zionists use Israel flag to express their ideology, it still doesn't justify vilification of people by defacing their country flag. There are Russian nationalist who identify with very much of the Nazi ideology-they many times use Russia flag as their symbol, and yet, if one oppose them he's not allowed to deface the Russian flag. If you support the independence of Catalonia you are allowed to use its flag but not to deface Spain flag, and vice versa. The admin who declined the restore request on wiki commons refered to the negative contribution of this kind of images. --Gilisa (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to ZScarpia I think it becomes a bit ridiculous. I don't have to find specific examples-the use is highly offensive, with one of the images implying directly that Israel have no legitimacy to exist as independent country (or at all) and the second explicitly say so ("no Israel"). There are few examples BTW, but with your permission-I don't want to get to this.--Gilisa (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

RolandR's original user box looked like was a negated version of the This User is a Zionist one, with a cross over the flag on the left-hand side and the word not added to the text. The text made it clear that the image represented opposition to Zionism. I think it was unreasonable to interpret it, as Sandstein said, as an attack on the Israeli people. On the page containing a collection of Polics by Country userboxes, the European Union flag appears defaced several times. Obviously it would be unreasonable to interpret those userboxes as attacks on EU citizens or countries rather than opposition to the EU or EU membership. The symbol of the Chinese Communist Party also appears defaced several times. Similarly, it would be unreasonable to interpret those userboxes as attacks on a group of people rather than an institution or ideology. Generally, I think that Sandstein makes good decisions. There has, though, been a couple of times, in my opinion, when he has made very bad ones, including one very biased one which the user was, unfortunately, too busy to contest. Here, I think he has been unnecessarily high-handed and confrontational.     ←   ZScarpia   19:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Gilisa

The request to restore the deleted image was turned down on the grounds that the responding administrator didn't feel that userpages should be being used to express ideological beliefs. I agree with the administrator's feelings about userpages, but, in the meantime, I think that, if there is to be deleting of users' images and instructions given about what may be shown, it should be done using sound reasoning, consistently, impartially and unofficiously. One of the remarkable things about Wikipedia is that it can require editors who detest each other's views to work together civilly. Doing that requires give from each other; the expression of reprehensible opinions may have to be tolerated. In the scale of tolerability, a small image of a defaced national flag is pretty minor. If supporters of nationalistic political ideologies want to use national flags as symbols in userboxes displaying their allegiance, I think they should live with their opponents using defaced versions of those flags as symbols of their opposition.     ←   ZScarpia   16:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Gilisa

If Russian nationalists tried to use the Russian flag as a userbox symbol, hopefully other Russian citizens would force them to use something such as the symbol of Vladimir Zhirinovsky's LDPR instead; likewise for other types of nationalist movement. Can you give examples of where editors are forbidden to do the things you mention on Wikipedia? Where does the adminitrator say anything like what you say he does?     ←   ZScarpia   20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Gilisa

Perhaps the best solution, for various reasons including the fostering of collegiality, would be to discourage displays of political allegiance on user pages? Presumably, for the sake of consistency, you would support the removal of images showing other defaced national and group symbols, including the EU flag, the Communist Party of China flag and the Nazi Swastika (there just might, after all, be some editors round here who are offended by the defacing of that). It was clear, to me at least, that RolandR's user box symbolised opposition to Zionism, not the Israeli people. Where should the line be drawn as far as the removal of material that is offensive to particular individuals or groups be drawn? I'd say that it's fairly certain that most editors contributing to the ARBPIA area of the project have added something that is offensive to somebody else.     ←   ZScarpia   21:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

• According to WP:UPNO "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" is usually interpreted as applying to user space "

According to WP:NOTSOAPBOX "... Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:

1... propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise....

2.Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. "

• According to WP:UPNO "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal website. Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project."

• According to WP:UPNO "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor."

• The deleted images are propaganda, opinion pieces about current events; they do not represent neutral point of view;
• The deletion of the images was appropriate and was done in the full accordance with few Wikipedia policies. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

I see several problems with Sandstein's action. One is that the arbitration decision he/she is relying on does not (I think) mention user-space but is everywhere concerned with the behavior of editors in article space. So it is somewhat of a stretch to apply it to user-space; I think a request for clarification on that would be in order. Moreover, he/she relies on the "Principles" section of the decision, not the "Remedies" section. Since the Principles listed here are general principles that don't even mention the I/P domain, I don't think that arguing an application of the Principles is sufficient to be able to claim that the arbitration decision is being enforced. As far as I know, enforcing an arbitration decision means enforcing the Remedies specified by the decision. The other page cited by Sandstein, WP:UP is a guideline rather than a policy. In summary, the legal basis for Sandstein's action is very shaky.

Regarding user-boxes, I don't like them and never used one myself but very many users declare their political opinions in this manner. Most of these opinions are likely to "offend" someone with contrary opinions. I don't see how the one Sandstein objected to is worse than many others, and strong interpretations like that it denies Israeli people the right to exist are just political counter-rhetoric. The right way to tackle the issue of political userboxes would be to open a general discussion on them and develop a community consensus. I don't think it is reasonable to specifically sanction one user on an ad hoc basis. Zero^talk 00:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stellarkid

I gave this a lot of thought because I am generally all for freedom of speech. If a user wants to call himself an "anti-Zionist" I my first inclination is to say fine. If he's a member of the KKK, let him put a hood on his page. Of course this would mean that I would have the freedom to put "anti-Palestinian" and a crossed-out Palestinian flag on my user page and expect no repercussions over this. A person that has such banners should expect to get flak for it and not complain to administrators because of it, at the very least. Most importantly, such banners should be able to be acknowledged among editors in any article in the IP area with POV concerns and the benefit of the doubt should go to editors who do not have such bias exhibited on his or her talk page. Frankly, if the objective is to make Wikipedia a good workplace, such things should be banned. They show, de facto, someone whose editing in the area must be suspect in terms of both POV and WP:Battle. Both the Sanctions and WP:UPNO provide plenty of justification for Sandstein's decision. Stellarkid (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by unomi

sigh. Unomi (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by RolandR

• Not commenting on the userspace policies, but this seems to be an expansion in both the letter and the spirit of the sanctions put in place. Administrators enforcing arbitration sanctions should be more careful in the future not to stretch existing sanctions and enforce them under a process with a limited mode of appeal. Revaluation (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• To be frank, I don't think the image posted by RolandR was particularly helpful or in good taste. However, I've always felt that userspaces should be treated as "partially private areas" belonging to the user. Userspaces shouldn't be policed except perhaps in cases where there is something which is blatantly innappropriate (i.e. pornography, threats of violence, etc). With respect to  Sandstein , who in my opinion is a decent enough admin, I would suggest that admins trying to scrub user pages of things they deem "possibly offensive" seems slightly dictatorial. NickCT (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by RolandR

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

Is there precedent for applying discretionary sanctions to what appears to me to be a purely userspace matter? Tim Song (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tons, but I don't have links handy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Decline request. If you wish to vilify or disparage views other than your own, there is an entire Internet out there, with free homepages and blogspace abounding. Do not mistake Wikipedia allowing you space to identify yourself, with you having rights over "your" user page. Your desired images will serve no purpose in creating or improving an online encyclopedia, and therefore you have no rationale for your request that will hold any weight here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'm of the view that talk space and project space discussions - and even some userspace discussions - are so inextricably intertwined with article space editing that they should be considered to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions. In the absence of precedent or further clarification from arbcom, however, I do not think a purely userspace matter, entirely disconnected from article space, is within the scope of discretionary sanctions. Tim Song (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  Regardless, Sandstein was covered by multiple policies - see Mbz1's post, above - and if we view this solely as ArbCom enforcement, you may have a point; but if you view this as a request to have Sandstein's actions overturned, which it is, matters complicate. I'm for IAR and close this, and advise Sandstien to cite every policy applicable when he takes such action in the future, to head off malcontents arguing to keep their divisive userspace clutter. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I'd reject this appeal for the same reasons as KillerChihuahua. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)