Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Keramiton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction

 :

Diffs

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

1. 14:29, 16 November 2014 Straight revert of a revert performed by me 22 hours previously. The edit comment left misses the point of my previous reversion.
2. 16:34, 16 November 2014 Further revert performed about an hour and a half after the previous one.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Alert given by Malik Shabazz on 9 November 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If it is considered that the comments below have accumulated an excessive length, please hat them. The purport of them is that:

• The article and Keramiton's edits concern material covered by the remit of the ARBPIA case.
• Keramiton breached the ARBPIA 1RR restriction.
• I removed Keramiton's material because it misrepresented the source and was not neutral, which is of special significance because of BLP concerns.
• Keramiton failed to engage on the article's talkpage.
• Keramiton failed to take the offered opportunity to reverse his last revert.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article concerned is Max Blumenthal, an American author and journalist who, among other activities, writes and speaks about the Arab-Israeli conflict, from a position critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. After publishing Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel in 2013 he became a more frequent target of criticism from pro-Israel quarters, including appearing in 9th place in that year's Simon Wiesenthal Center List of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Israel Slurs. I think that it is obvious why the Wikipedia article on Blumenthal is covered by the ARBPIA case. Blumenthal is still living, so the article is also covered by the WP:BLP policy

The material added by Keramiton relates to a recent incident which is not yet covered well by reliable news sources. Blumenthal and David Sheen, an Israeli journalist, were invited to speak about Israel-Palestine at the Bundestag and a Berlin theatre by a number of Die Linke party politicians. After action by a number of politicians including Gregor Gysi, the leader of the Die Linke party, the invitation to speak at the theatre was withdrawn, but Gregor Gysi, who was ignored by his party members, failed to have the meeting at the Bundestag cancelled. Afterwards, Blumenthal and Sheen attempted to confront Gysi about "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them." They followed Gysi down a corridor and into what turned out to be a toilet, where Gysi attempted to lock himself into a cubicle. Later, Blumenthal and Sheen were "banned from entering the German parliament in the future." The statement giving notice of the ban issued by the Bundestag chamber’s president, Norbert Lammert, said: "Every attempt to exert pressure on members of parliament, to physically threaten them and thus endanger the parliamentary process is intolerable and must be prevented." I think that it is obvious that the material added by Keramiton falls within the remit of the ARBPIA case.

Keramiton cited this, Bloomberg article as a source. The text he added, though short, misrepresented the source, or was otherwise misleading, in a number of ways:

• Nowhere does the article say that Blumenthal was banned for "chasing a senior left-wing politician into a lavatory." The only information in the source we have which relates to that is what the chamber president is reported to have said, near the end of the article.
• Keramiton wrote that Blumenthal went to confront Gysi after the latter "canceled a meeting with him," giving a false impression. In actual fact, Blumenthal and Sheen went to confront Gysi after he'd successfully managed to stop a meeting at a theatre and unsuccessfully tried to stop a meeting at the Bundestag. Blumenthal and Sheen wanted to confront Gysi as to "why he had endorsed the smear campaign against them [1]."
• Keramiton stated that the meeting was cancelled because of, in quotes, Blumenthal's "radical views". Nowhere in the source does it state anything like that. Also, Keramiton's quotation marks give the false impression that he was quoting directly from the source. Keramiton states as a fact that the cancelled meeting was cancelled because of Blumenthal's radical views, though in the source this view is attributed to a politician, not stated as a fact. (modified 20:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

As stated above, currently very few reliable English-language news sources cover the incident. From what is available, though, I would say that Keramiton, as well as failing to represent the source, failed to neutrally represent the incident. Some of what Sheen and Blumenthal had to say about the incident is supplied in the follwing blog pieces: [2][3]. Judging by another blog piece, the Bloomberg article itself appears to be error. Blumenthal and Sheen's complaint was not that Gysi had called them anti-Semites.

In an attempt to produce a neutral and accurate account of the incident, after I reverted Keramiton's edit, I opened this section on the article's talkpage. Keramiton did not engage with me there while performing his subsequent reverts.

After his breach of 1RR restriction, I opened a new section on Keramiton's talkpage and gave him the opportunity to undo his last revert, which, in his response, he ignored.

    ←   ZScarpia   20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is worth highlighting Keramiton's contribution history, which begins on 1 November 2014. It appears to be of the type where an editor bursts, fully-formed, onto Wikipedia.     ←   ZScarpia   19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification given.     ←   ZScarpia   17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Keramiton

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Keramiton

I didn't know that Max Blumenthal, an American journalist, is considered to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area (therefore included in the 1RR). If that's the case, I apologise.--Keramiton (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by RolandR

This editor looks very like yet another sock of

SPI now submitted. RolandR (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Keramiton is one of the more disruptive editors during these last 2-3 weeks in the I/P area. Keramiton have been reverted by half a dozen different other editors, yet will not disclose if they had previous accounts. As I noted earlier earlier, Keramiton "know all the revert -words...like POV-pushing, undue and cherry-picking....as I said, what a vocabulary for a newbie!" Draw your own conclusions. Huldra (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keramiton is already blocked as a sock. Can someone please archive this discussion? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Keramiton edits in a disruptive manner with a consistent contempt for NPOV. A perfect summary of what Keramiton brings to Wikipedia is this edit which claims that an Arab being shot in the head (causing critical injuries) is as trivial as for a Jew to have a windscreen broken. I have also asked Keramiton about former accounts without reply.

Since Keramiton's edits to Max Blumenthal include Blumenthal's alleged characterisation of Israeli soldiers, Keramiton's claim that that it didn't know the article wasn't under ARPBIA is hard to believe. Keramiton was there in order to add something negative about Blumenthal because Blumenthal is a prominent critic of Israel; that is entirely obvious.

Statement by AcidSnow

Support this motion per statements by Zero0000. AcidSnow (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Keramiton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Blocked as a sockpuppet of Wlglunight93 by HJ Mitchell. Discussion here is now moot. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Wlglunight93

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wlglunight93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

 :

Diffs

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

1. 3 November 2014 Edit using a sock after being blocked and topic-banned
2. 15 November 2014 Edit using another sock after being blocked and topic-banned

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 29 October 2014 Topic ban imposed "because of your sockpuppetry to engage in tendentious editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict area."
2. [4] Repeatedly blocked for edit-warring and sockpuppetry

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor was blocked for one month on 19 October for repeated 1RR breaches (their fifth block in less than a month), the block was extended to two months on 29 October for sockpuppetry, then to three months on 6 November for further sockpuppetry. Despite this, a further block-evading and topic ban-evading sock has been blocked today.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Wlglunight93

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Wlglunight93

Statement by AcidSnow

Seeing how they failed to acknowledge that they are still socking and that this is the third time, it's highly likely that they we continue to do so. As such the only solution is a permanent block. AcidSnow (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DePiep

As Wlglunight93 is a sockpuppet (-master), why not simply block indef because of that? (

Request concerning Oncenawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

1. 21:00, 19 November 2014 A clear violation of 1RR
2. 05:19, 19 November 2014 2nd revert, nearly breaching 1RR (25h08m after previous revert)
3. 04:11, 18 November 2014 First obvious revert
4. 06:13, 17 November 2014 First edit in the sequence

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

1. 15:26, 14 July 2014 Warned by user:EdJohnston "Further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA." per AE
2. 12:18, 28 January 2014 Warned of ARBPIA sanctions by user:Callanecc

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Oncenawhile is an experienced editor on wikipedia, whom i have encountered a number of times in the past on various topics, most notably

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested - notified

Discussion concerning Oncenawhile

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Oncenawhile

I'll respond to Greyshark's accusations as I am hoping to clear the air with him. While I prepare that, could someone kindly point me to where the rules for these AE or edit-warring discussions are written? I feel quite poorly treated, having been summarily blocked within just over an hour of Greyshark's submission without an opportunity to provide any context or other input. So I would like to try to build consensus in the rules on this to ensure no other experienced editors are treated like this in future.

talk) 11:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for your comment below. I am still unclear whether the block was ARBPIA 1RR violation or a broader WP:EW violation, but either way the block feels unjustified. Either way, there are key subjective judgements involved here that have not been discussed:

• If it is viewed to be a breach of 1RR, the question is whether the article was covered by ARBPIA given there was no template notice, and surely the views of the two experienced and consenting editors involved at the time should carry some weight? It seems harsh to apply a "bright-line" penalty with this subjective judgement "clouding the bright line" (if you'll excuse the mixing of metaphors).
• If it is viewed as a WP:EW violation, then it is strange that no-one has acknowledged the cordial edit comments, good faith adding of sources, and moving to talk. Frankly the good faith and cordial nature of the interaction appears to have been ignored altogether.

Also no-one has responded to my questions regarding (1) speed of judgement (my first comment above), and (2) concerns re AE-warring (per our discussion on my talk page). I would really appreciate some thoughts on these points.

Finally, I have not responded to Greyshark's good faith but misleading characterisation of our historical area of dispute above. If anyone feels it would be helpful i would be delighted to dissect it.

talk) 21:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi EdJohnston, I respect your view but extrapolating your point to the extreme, if every AE accusation was met with an immediate judgement and block (as happened here in just over an hour), then we shouldn't have a structure set up to allow comments from the accused and from third parties, because such discussion is pointless. Have I misunderstood you?

Either way, I would like to ensure there has been as fulsome a consideration as possible here, in order to "set the record straight". I would particularly like to hear views on whether my behaviour broke the "spirit" of the rules.

talk) 18:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi EdJohnston, ok, you've (almost) exhausted me into submission. For the record, and acknowledging your view on the 1RR point, could you please clarify whether, (a) you believe there was actually disruptive behaviour or real edit-warring here, (b) you believe there was NOT actually any disruptive behaviour or real edit-warring here, or (c) whether you are consciously choosing not to take a view on this.

I know you've ignored most of my other questions, but I would really appreciate at least this one to be answered. If I accidentally trip another technical line in 6 months time, I expect an unfriendly editor will go to some lengths to portray this incident in an unfavourable light, so a clarification for posterity would be helpful.

talk) 19:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi EdJohnston, thanks for replying. I recognise this is academic and you are tired of my questions, so I hereby submit to my ignominious fate, with thanks for your humouring my persistence.

Having said that, I can't help but note that in reaching your conclusion you did not acknowledge the evidence in each of my edit comments and the talk page of "trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion". To my mind your chosen interpretation of edit warring therefore appears to be in direct contraction with the first line of the WP:EW policy.

Anyway, any chance as a parting gift you could point me to where i can bring up the point in my first comment above re admin guidance on giving editors time to respond to AE accusations? I really would like to ensure others don't suffer the same fate.

talk) 20:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It is noted that Onceinawhile edit-warred with User:Wlglunight93. Note that Wlglunight93 was a serial sock-pupeteer, now blocked. The two last reports here were about this very disruptive sock. I don´t know about the rest of Onceinawhile´s behaviour, but edit-warring with Wlglunight93 should surely not count in his dis-favour. Huldra (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

In the content dispute between Oncenawhile and Galassi, the statement that Oncenawhile was seeking to remove, and Galassi to re-insert, was not cited to any source. It really shouldn't have been re-inserted without giving a citation.     ←   ZScarpia   18:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Greyshark09 (editor filing complaint)

It is my duty to clarify that the issue here is a complaint on alleged systematic violation of ARBPIA by Oncenawhile, which is justified by recent edit-warring with Galassi. The reason i complained on Oncenawhile alone and not on Galassi is because of the 2 recent ARBPIA warnings issued for Oncenawhile (Galassi has not received any warnings on ARBPIA so far, so he should first be notified). Since the administrators consider it rather a simple case of edit-warring and not a systematic abuse of a topic by Oncenawhile, i support the actions and request the users involved to refrain from edit-warring. On my behalf i'm not participating in editing ARBPIA related pages intensively, but i do watch certain pages and topics and will continue doing so for the better of the community. Regards and wishing positive editing experiences for everyone.GreyShark (dibra) 16:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Oncenawhile

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

This appears to me to be a content dispute between Oncenawhile and Galassi, who have been going back and forth for a few days. As such, I've locked both for 48 hours for edit-warring (as an ordinary admin action, as Galassi had not, until now, had a formal notification of the discretionary sanctions and the article and its talk page did not contain the relevant notices). I'm a little concerned that the filer would report one part to an edit war in an attempt to have them sanctioned under arbitration remedies, while informing the other party in a way that (to me) smacks of canvassing and certainly taking sides, if not outright tag-teaming. I'm open to persuasion that there are wider issues with Oncenawhile's editing in the topic area, but I'not convinced by the evidence that's been presented thus far. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best approach for now. I've had a quick look through Oncenawhile's recent contribs and I can't see anything which would obviously warrant further sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1950–51 Baghdad bombings). Nonetheless if we see Oncenawhile at this board again for the same kind of thing a topic ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I had a further discussion at User talk:Oncenawhile to try to understand what the editor said above about 'having my position heard.' This did not lead to anything that seems actionable here, so I renew my suggestion to close this. EdJohnston (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries is obviously a topic in the I/P conflict and anything involving Jewish refugees post-1948 seems to fall in the same category). Since the block has already been made and lifted and no discretionary sanctions were imposed, I'm not sure what purpose further discussion would have. Since there is no topic ban there is nothing to appeal. Even if the block were found unjustified it is almost unheard of to expunge blocks from the log. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Oncenawhile, the 1RR is a blunt but effective remedy to slow down edit warring on articles that are believed to be troublesome. To avoid 1RR problems, just be careful. We are not likely to spend a week debating this further, when it seems to be a closed issue, and you are not under any restrictions. Having good intentions won't protect you from remedies if you choose to work in a troublesome area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Oncenawhile, in answer to your latest comment, yes I think the 1RR was in effect and that this behavior was indeed edit warring. If I were the first admin to look into it I probably would have waited longer to see if you wanted to respond. Since you were blocked right away you didn't have time to object that 1RR didn't apply, even though it is a stretch to make that argument. I believe you were edit warring both technically and in reality. Putting this behind you is the best choice, since your reputation is mostly intact. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Asilah1981

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

Diffs

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

1. 19:56, 24 November 2014 Insert new text,
2. 10:35, 25 November 2014 Insert same text again,
3. 20:46, 25 November 2014 Insert same text 3rd time,
4. 21:18, 24 November 2014 change wording from "engaged in clashes in Aden that killed at least 82 people, both Arab and Jew" to "attacked the Jewish community in Aden that killed at least 82 jews "
5. 10:09, 25 November 2014 repeat above
6. 10:51, 25 November 2014 repeat above a 3rd time

• 19:47, 24 November 2014 add text 1st time
• 10:19, 25 November 2014 re-add text. Note that since this complaint has been filed, Asilah1981 continues to break 1RR.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• 17:54, 25 November 2014 ARBIA warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Newly registered editor who shows no interest in following the 1RR on some of the most contentious articles on the Israel/Palestine area. Have been given opportunity to self-revert, but refuse to do so. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono: good point, but WP doesn´t really leave any alternatives, does it? (Recall "no fishing rules" of SPI). If all I/P articles were semi-protected, we could avoid this. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

Discussion concerning Asilah1981

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Asilah1981 (1)

Hi guys. Contrary to the users who have reported me, I am not an activist user on the Israel/Palestine debate (I have and never will edit articles related to Palestine and Israel - unless they directly make mention to this topic). My focus is ensuring that sentences in the article say exactly what the quoted source say. Obviously if all available sources says that 82 jews were killed in one of the worse anti-jewish massacres in the Middle East, I find it insane and overtly POV that certain activist users wish to change the sentence to "both arabs and jews were killed in clashes in Aden" (PLEASE check sources on this before forming an opinion). I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with users manipulating and overtly lying about information provided in sources, but I hope there is a mechanism to control them beyond the 1 revert rule. My edits and contributions over the past years have largely been in non-controversial issues (mainly arabic dialectology and other languages I know) so Im not very acquainted with activist users. I happen to have stumbled upon this massive campaign to delegitimize ethnic cleansing involving user Oncenawhile and others, which I see the worst offender is already being dealt with above. I see those who have reported me evidently belong to this group of people who are trying to conceal historical fact provided in reputable sources using illogical arguments: "out of scope" etc... Here are a couple of examples btw: Denying religious persecution and massacre in Yemen: [8] Illogically removing sourced sentence on jews escaping to Europe and Americas because it goes contrary to POV being pushed (that they were all leaving voluntarily out of love for Israel and were never persecuted/persecution is a "zionist lie"). [9] I am assuming that the reaction would have been much swifter if we were dealing with the European holocaust and any campaign to deligitimize or deny it (a criminal offence in Germany and France, I believe) on the basis of Middle East conflict, so I hope there is no double standard and that North African and Middle Eastern Jews and their plight is treated with the same care by wikipedia community. Anyways, thank you for allowing me a chance to provide my position. Regards.

(talk) 09:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asilah1981 (2)

Not sure if Im allowed to comment again, but a conversation seems to be going on here, so I assume that I am. I think we are missing the point. Those editors who have reporting me and supporting this case notably Zero000, seem to be using as an argument that I have misquoted Reuben Ahroni's book by stating the number of jews killed during the Pogrom (82, I think). Through his edits, Zero000 is using this source to claim there was no massacre of jews as such, just riots which killed arabs and jews. This is all the more surreal considering Reuben Ahroni's baby brother was murdered in this pogrom and no reputable source (let alone Reuben himself) deny that the violence was directed at jews, that at least 82 jews died and the vast majority of those killed were jews. Here is a source on this (see page 1) [10]. It is as insane as quoting Ana Frank to deny the holocaust, and in my frank opinion this type of concealed POV pushing using fake sources should be the focus of this discussion, not whether I have or have not got the pages wrong during citation. The entire book is written on the premise of my sourced statement, it mentions it on various pages, including the first one, and not one page of it denies it. Thanks again. Asilah1981 (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have just gone through my contentious edits and note I made one mistake, in one of my edits I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers. Zero000 was adamant on ensuring information which he knew was true to be excluded from the article and repeatedly reverted to the denialist version. In any case, Parfitt refers to the pogrom on numerous pages in the book and uses this term (at least part ot it is available in Google Books so this can be verified). Denying racially or religiously motivated massacres and ethnic cleansing on wikipedia is an ugly hobby, Zero0000.Asilah1981 (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Where did I erase highly precise page numbers for specific claims? I do not recall doing that at any point, and I don't see it in the evidence brought against me. I have only rewritten unsourced fantasy statements. No doubt I have broken the 1RR, I don't deny that, but I had never come across it before. Btw, the second half of your statement, regarding an indian muslim which was "probably" killed by a jewish sniper is frankly sick. What the hell? What do you want, all the bodies to have their noses measured to call it a pogrom? Some people, really... Asilah1981 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asilah1981 (3)

@Oncenawhile: As you know, I have a strong issue with the line you are pursuing while editing many articles related to the Jewish exodus. I didn't like the disclaimers added in the introductory section nor the way you give prime importance to arguments regarding the "utiliziation as pro-Israel propaganda" and "role of Zionist agents", One Million Plan and "False flag operations". I find your line of editing morally reprehensible. I also never understood why you have outlawed the term refugee for people who under all definitions were refugees. You refused to engage in discussion with me on Talk pages, even though I concede I was a bit aggressive in the way I engaged you. While the term "refugee" is used close to 50 times on the article on the Palestinian Nakba which you regularly edit, you carry out edits like this [11] on basis of neutral voice!

In any case, I am not the kind of editor who will delete reputable sources because I find them objectionable. Even arguments provided by Hamas on "how jews brought the expulsion on themselves" expressed as a legitimate argument on the relevant section of Palestinian Nakba article, I did not delete (although I did ask about it - with evidently no response)[12]. So someone please at least tell me. Where am I deleting sources?? So far I have only, at least consciously, added sources!Asilah1981 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Ok fine, sounds good. I do have strong feelings about this issue, no doubt, and I did get upset over the way this whole episode of history has been politicized. But I understood how things work in these types of articles deemed "controversial" (they shouldn't be!). Note, I normally edit articles from time to time in areas where sources are scarce or non-existent. Will also try to get on better with users I disagree with, and assume good faith, particularly with user

Oncenawhile . I will refrain from being too quick to decide on someone having an antisemitic agenda. I also noted some of Oncenawhile's edits were not destructive (in article on Oujda massacre, I see positive contributions for example) I can't say the same for all other users I have interacted with recently. I will respect 1RR as well. I can't believe this whole issue has arisen from one individual edit which Palestine-obsessed Huldra reverted for no apparent reason beyond that it ran contrary to her political inclinations. In this case I did NOT remove sources but just added one. Is there no rule in wiki against removing relevant, neutral properly sourced sentences? [13] I also wonder how many of these users who claim to be so respectful and knowledgeable of wikipedia rules are calling their activist buddies to help them in their private edit wars. I guess this is why wikipedia is dying. Its controlled by people who don't have a personal life. Anyways, thanks again. This has at least been enjoyable and an escape from my problems in real life! Asilah1981 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Here we see Asilah1981 removing sourced information with a false claim about what the source contains, and here we see Asilah1981 adding entirely fake page numbers for it. (The pages given do not mention the events they are cited for.) Editors who lie about sources are more dangerous to the encyclopedia than common vandals. Zero^talk 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Asilah1981's reply ignored the charges of repeated 1RR violation, and also ignored my specific charges of lying about sources. I'm happy to provide a copy of the source to any admin who wants to check—just send me email. Zero^talk 10:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: that link supports my charges. Zero^talk 13:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: The page numbers she added were 85–124. They contain two chapters on Law, Customs and Economy, and the first page of a chapter on 1930–1939. Nothing about the violent events of 1947–1949. Zero^talk 13:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilah1981: You are now claiming "I mistakenly quoted Parfitt instead of Ahroni and therefore gave the wrong page numbers". Did you think nobody would look at Ahroni's book to see if the page numbers 85–124 make any sense there? Of course they don't; no sense at all. You need to give a better reason for adding those page numbers because the only explanation on the table so far is that you just made them up. Zero^talk 23:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

@

In sum Asilah1981 erased highly precise page numbers for each claim, then rewrote the text without page citation, then came back with a vague page ref that fudges. There can be no justification for editing like that: it just wastes time for people who actually read books, and cite them exactly. One cannot edit these pages with a monocular ethnic eye, eliding as Asilah1981 did the specific indication that 33 Arabs died in the clashes (these events are complex: we ignore the 4 Indian Muslims and a Somali killed, that a Jewish sniper probably shot dead an Indian Moslem doctor and a 'Levy' soldier on 4 December, and the crucial fact that many Jews killed were not simply killed by local Aden 'Arabs', but by local levied troops under British command, who abused their functions by acting on their own). People who write off the top of their heads, and edit to shape an ideological reading of history, who erase precise data and replace it with unverified, vague source assertions are a bane that rots the work of the few people who take this encyclopedia's ambitions seriously.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Where did I erase highly precise page numbers for specific claims?.'here. This has got nothing to do with activists with a Jewish pogrom suppression remit (!!!!) or whatever. This is about scholarly precision and scruple. Please don't be disingenuous, or bury a serious list of damning diffs under a

WP:TLDR screed. Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

[14] or SPI. Waste of everyone's time here.Cptnono (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oncenawhile

Whilst Asilah1981's heart may be in the right place, (s)he needs to learn to

Asilah1981's passion tells me they could be a good contributor, but they need to begin to trust others here, learn to collaborate, and learn to read existing sources properly. So far Asilah's edits have been almost exclusively destructive, because they are not using sources properly. Apart from the point Zero brings above, it is the deletion of existing well sourced scholarly text which I find most disturbing - for example [15]. I suspect Asilah1981 has simply not read the sources they are deleting, for which there really is no excuse.

• This looks to be a 1RR violation by
  1947 Aden riots, suggesting strong feelings about the article content. At the time of these reverts Asilah1981 was not yet alerted to I/P sanctions but that doesn't matter for enforcement of 1RR, which doesn't require a warning first. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• See Asilah1981's response above. He seems to be agreeing to follow 1RR in the future. Is this enough, or should we issue a block? EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing. Nobody has responded to advocate a block since my last comment, so I am closing this with no action.
  WP:1RR rule. It should be obvious to all that the topic of Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries is highly controversial. It is expected that everyone will keep their edits neutral and their talk page comments neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Appealing user

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Mooretwin (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban on articles, discussions, and other content related to The Troubles, the Ulster banner and British baronets, imposed at [[16]]. The decision was imposed on 10 February 2012, six months passed on 10 August 2012. I appealed on 9 October 2012. The appeal was not upheld, though was relaxed by the removal of the British baronets topic ban. Since then, I have not made any subsequent appeal until now, over two years since the previous appeal and some two years and ten months since the ban was imposed.

Administrator imposing the sanction

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA

)

Notification of that administrator

[17]

Statement by Mooretwin

I have abided by the topic ban for nearly three years now, and I would like it to be lifted. That is a long time during which to reflect and I think the period demonstrates my patience and acceptance of the sanction. I have not been involved in any disputes, edit wars, incivility or any other misdemeanours during that time. While in the period up to about five years ago I was involved in a number of such disputes, I had not been involved in any in the two years prior to the incident that led to this ban. That incident was in the "heat of the moment" and, I argued at the time and still do, was the result of extreme provocation. I should like to think, given the conduct in the two years previous and the nearly three years since, that it would be accepted that the incident does not represent a fair reflection of my contributions to Wikipedia, and thus that an indefinite ban is no longer a reasonable sanction.

At the time of my first appeal, editors sought evidence of collaborative editing. However, I made the point that my inability to edit articles in the only real area of my expertise (Northern Ireland) meant that I was unable to edit collaboratively. This remains the case, although recently, for example, I have engaged constructively at

@EdJohnston: I'm afraid, as a result of the ban, I haven't been reading or following any very closely, so I'm not up to speed on what needs work. There is currently no particular article that I intend to work on immediately. I don't have a lot of time, to be honest, but I would still like the freedom to be able to participate as and when I think I can offer something useful. At one time, I was in the process of creating articles on historical members of the Northern Ireland Parliament missing from the encyclopaedia, adding categories for government ministers and so on, but that all had to stop. Eventually I'd like to complete that. A few random examples of articles I've created are:

Edmund Warnock. I also won't pretend that I wouldn't wish to be able to add value to some of the more "controversial" articles on occasion without resorting to edit wars or confrontation: I've certainly learned my lesson on that, and would give an undertaking to tread carefully and respectfully. Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

In response to the comments by Cailil, I would like to make the following points:

• It is factually incorrect to say that I have made "only 2 talk page comments in 2014", as the talk page of
  WP:CRICKET
  , which I noted in my statement above, will testify.
• If there is a genuine desire to see me collaborate productively, why not lift the ban partially, say, for six month so that I may participate in talk page discussions but without being able to edit articles? As I have said consistently, I cannot demonstrate productive editing when I am banned from the only articles in relation to which I have any expertise to offer. Mooretwin (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the suggestion from Cailil is that I should deliberately seek out articles about which I have no particular expertise or interest, but about which there is some kind of dispute or issue - and thus an opportunity to intervene constructively - for the purpose merely of demonstrating that I can work collegially. This appears to be the only way I will convince Cailil that the ban should be relaxed, never mind lifted. I have already made the suggestion above that the ban be relaxed to allow me to edit Talk pages, while keeping the ban on editing articles in place. Surely this is the best (and obvious?) way of allowing me to demonstrate the ability to work collegially? Mooretwin (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by T. Canens

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Mooretwin

AFAIK, you've had no problems in other areas during the 2+ years, thus a demonstration of your new approach. IMHO, your topic-ban should be lifted. Afterall, it was placed as a preventative measure & since there's nothing to prevent anymore.....? :) GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Mooretwin's appeal is denied on the basis of his not having caused problems, because his sanctions worked. Would that not be like saying "we want you to proove you can behave without your handcuffs, but we want you to do this while wearing your handcuffs"? GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very troubled by Cailil's comments below, especially the implication that because there has been no trouble from Mooretwin in the past couple of years, it means that the restriction must therefore be working, and that in itself is a reason for the restriction to stay in place. That is not the purpose of placing a restriction on any editor, and is an abuse of the restriction process in general. In good faith, an absence of comments on Talk pages might mean that Mooretwin recognizes that this is a potentially troublesome area for him and stays away and that is exactly the behaviour we should applaud. Enough time has passed in Mooretwin's case to lift the restrictions and let him, and everyone else, reassess his involvement with the project. If his behaviour should prove troublesome in the future, then we have lots of mechanisms and processes by which to take further action.

@Cailil, the question isn't whether Mooretwin can edit with collegiality across a wide range of articles. Even had Mooretwin edited other articles, the question the community needs to answer is "Has Mooretwin recognized his previous disruptive behaviour - and this is a crucial bit - in his proven area of expertise or interest, and - this is the critical bit - is now prepared to accept community standards of behaviour." To use your own analogy, Mooretwin shouldn't have to drink in every other pub in town before he can return to his favorite pub. That is not the purpose of sanctions, and is unfair, especially for editors that have a specific area of expertise and/or interest.

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

IMHO, Mooretwin has the ability to reform his behaviour in the area he's restricted from. Give him the chance to proove himself. Should he mess up again? then merely re-instate his restriction. What's the harm in placing him on probation? PS: Anyways, that's all I've left to say, here. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it might be possible, probably with the consent of T. Canens and the applicant, to institute some sort of discretionary sanctions on the editor in the relevant fields for at least a given period of time instead? Such discretionary sanctions might be able to expire after a given period of time if there are no substantive issues during a predetermined time period, and might, at least potentially, allow for the replacement of the topic ban if during that period of time the concerns seem to resurface. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is a more sensible approach. Putting in place a process whereby Mooretwin can engage once again with the community in the relevant fields and can be monitored for a period of time is far more likely to result in an opportunity whereby Mooretwin can demonstrate he can collegially engage towards a consensus.

-- HighKing⁺⁺ 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

With respect to Cailil, his analogy with the pubs is kind of like suggesting that someone who's been barred from a pub should head off and prove that they can behave in a knitting circle, even though they've no interest in the latter. Mooretwin has edited other pages, mostly on sports, without any obvious issues. The vast majority of editors on this project will have specialist areas which interest them. Besides sports, Mooretwin's is obviously Northern Ireland related, so they do seem to be in a bit of a Catch-22. There has to be a more practical way of doing this. Putting Mooretwin on probation and only allowing them to edit talk pages at first, followed by a 0RR on articles, would be a more practical way of dealing with this. Valenciano (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Mooretwin

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

• Mooretwin, can you give an example of a TROUBLES-related article you would work on if this ban was lifted? What kind of material would you add? EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody has advocated keeping the ban, so I am planning to lift it. Be aware that, if there is further trouble, any single admin has authority under Discretionary sanctions to reimpose the ban. So please be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Striking my comment after reading Cailil's observation below. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it can be lifted per EdJohnston, though I'd prefer a comment by @
  WP:AC/DS requirement for a "substantial" consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would hope that ArbCom and the community would accept unanimity as sufficient for a substantial consensus, even when the numbers are relatively. There's just no way to read the will of the silent majority. But just to help out a bit: my reading is the Mooretwin has been abiding by his topic ban and continuing to edit in non-disruptive ways (not just trying to "wait it out", as some have done, and which just doesn't work). Given that a substantial amount of time has passed, I would agree to lift this ban. Though I also agree with EdJohnston's reminder that the ban can be reimposed and agree that Mooretwin should approach this area with caution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the whole substance of this ban is to do with interaction with others in the Troubles area I am far more skeptical than my colleagues above. It was this diff at the original AE (one filed by Mooretwin against another user) that resulted in his ban.
  The whole problem here is Mooretwin's history of not being able to work with others (not any bad editing in articles per se) and using the DR system to attack others. Despite the reformed gnomish edits to various articles Mooretwin has made only 2 talk page comments in 2014 (1 in February and 1 in May). The last one before that was July 2013[18]. In more than 2 years the last substantial interaction/converstaion this user had was with anyone on WP was with a bot that they swore at & Cloudz679 who was biten for reminding Mooretwin not to WP:BITE [19] in April 2013.
  I would suggest that lifting in these circumstances is looking for trouble. A clear road map was given to Mooretwin at the last AE[20] (which was in 2013 not in 2012 as Mooretwin says above, the 2012 AE appeal relaxed the ban from the Baronets[21]). That road-map was not followed.
  To my mind if this user can edit productively with the topic ban in place and has no compelling reason to edit in the area and has shown no movement on the roadmap then there's no reason to lift it. Simply put the ban is working - for everyone (Mooretwin included he hasn't been blocked or sanctioned in years), thus in light of this I cannot endorse lifting this ban--Cailil ^talk 17:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoodDay - until recently the big red box at the top of the bag explained that ArbCom rulings and their enforcement are coercive rather than punitive. Nevertheless ArbCom remedies are not preventative in the same way blocks are under the normal rules. Hence, AE decisions take so much time, consideration, and have so many rules attached--Cailil ^talk 18:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mooretwin - I'm sorry I missed those edits Mooretwin. Yes you did make 4 comments to that page in November 2014 (all related to the 1 topic or "Irish cricket clubs: notability"[22]) (3 of which are very short). All of which look very positive however I can't find any others before that (up to April 2013), have I missed them? If I haven't missed anything then this evidence is unfortunately too slim for an appeal of a ban about interpersonal conduct. The problem for me is quite simple, *you* don't need to edit in WP:TROUBLES articles to demonstrate reform - it actually might encourage old behaviour. If you can show change by continuing to collaborate and to do so consistently then your ban will be lifted, however coming back to AE every so often but avoiding engagement with others outside this topic area is the definition of "waiting a ban out" - which wont work with an indefinite sanction (it has nothing to do with time and everything to do with behaviour)--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  nationalist accounts that: "I need to edit in the ***enter whatever Nationalist dispute area here*** topic, these are the only articles I care/know about!!" is in fact a clear articulation of their problem - an obsession with one topic area, and a refusal to substantially edit anything else.
  FYI hyperbolic comments like these are among the least convincing ways to get anyone to change their opinion--Cailil ^talk 19:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Mooretwin - No I am not saying to seek out other articles "where there is a dispute", I'm suggesting you edit generally and collaborate generally. The idea that a topic banned editor edit other areas is the only thing they can do. Also if you have "no particular article that [you] intend to work on immediately", then what exactly is the hurry? Why not work on the cricket articles or football articles more and bring one to a higher quality. That kind of concrete evidence is convincing. Also I take it from your lack of reply to my question that I didn't miss any further edits?

  @John Carter - I see your point but if the problem here is a single purpose mentality then what purpose does feeding that focus on one area of WP achieve - is it not counter productive? For me this was would have to be limited to 1 page in WP:TROUBLES first and then if Mooretwin were able to help improve it substantially and collaborate substantially at that stage my mind would be changed (but I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea until a more diverse editing pattern emerges)--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: This appeal was opened on 27 November and Mooretwin deserves a decision. Regrettably we didn't hear back from the banning admin,

WP:AC/DS the success of an appeal depends on "(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN.." So per Arbcom when we are at AE we now count only the admin votes. The reading of the discussion most favorable to Mooretwin still gives us a tie on admin votes (since I oppose the appeal) so evidently we don't have consensus to lift. Mooretwin is advised to show that he can contribute on other (non-Troubles) controversial articles and negotiate with others on difficult subjects before applying again to have the ban lifted. Please study the result section of the 2013 AE appeal and try to follow the advice there. This appeal is denied. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Request concerning BoboMeowCat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MastCell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions :

Diffs

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

This request concerns tendentious editing by BoboMeowCat at Becky Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about a teenager "who died in 1988 from a botched abortion because she was afraid to get her parents' consent, as the state law required." Bell's parents subsequently became highly visible critics of parental-notification laws.

1. BoboMeowCat has a history of tendentious editing on abortion-related topics, and has previously been blocked for edit-warring on the Becky Bell article.
2. BoboMeowCat removes 6 reliable sources attesting to the fact that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion.
3. On the talk page, BoboMeowCat claims "it's not a forgone conclusion that Becky Bell had an illegal unsafe back alley abortion" and that she may have instead died from a naturally occurring miscarriage.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Previously blocked for violating 1RR on abortion-related articles.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Notified of discretionary sanctions by User:EdJohnston on 20 April 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In a nutshell, this editor a) denies that Bell had an illegal abortion after b) conveniently removing a huge number of reliable sources attesting that she had an illegal abortion. This is both poor editing (in that there is no justification given for removing numerous reliable sources) and cynically tendentious gamesmanship, in that she's removing sources in order to advance her personal viewpoint more easily. In light of this editor's prior history of edit-warring in this topic area, I am requesting a topic ban for tendentious editing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning BoboMeowCat

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by BoboMeowCat

I don’t have a lot of time to respond right now, but would appreciate any advice and any input from uninvolved admins/editors on how or where I have made error editing this article and any input on what would be a better editing approach in future. I'm a little confused by this complaint, because I’ve only edited Becky Bell one time in the past 7 months. That one edit was to revert to an earlier version by editor GodBlessYou2, who the complaining editor, MastCell, appears to be involved in a slow longterm edit war with. I found GodBlessYou2’s arguments regarding the neutrality of his version convincing on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Becky_Bell#More_Neutral_Introduction and it appeared to me GodBlessYou2 had talk page support for his version being supported on talk page by 131.109.225.24. Regarding removal of sources, for that revert, I actually used the undo button to restore to the version by GodBlessYou2, and was doing so based on the neutrality of the text. I had no intention to remove any sources. I can understand a complaint regarding unintentional removal of sources, and will certainly be more careful to look at references, as well as text, when using the undo button in future.

Regarding my block on Becky Bell 7 months ago, that was the result of a content dispute with MastCell on that same article. I was blocked for violating 1RR. I was a new editor at the time, and I honestly did not understand that when content is being disputed, and you are leaving that disputed content completely alone, and there is other dubious content (regarding allegations of attempted murder which does not seem properly referenced) [24], that you have to wait 24 hours to delete that different content, if the article is under 1RR sanctions. MastCell reported me to the edit warring noticeboard for this, and I was blocked. I was actually very confused by this block and the revert rules in general and sought out advice and clarification at the teahouse as a new editor and on EdJohnston’s talk page was educated on what counts as a revert and have not since made the same mistake on abortion related or any other articles. [25]

Additional statement by MastCell

Your justification seems to be that you didn't look at the content of the edit you were reverting, and didn't realize you were removing a bunch of reliable sources (all of which happened to contradict the argument you were making on the talkpage). Even if true, that seems like an aggravating rather than mitigating factor, because it suggests that you're reverting just for the sake of reverting, without actually considering the content or sources. Your responsibility for your edits is just as great, if not greater, when reverting another editor as when making a de novo edit. You don't get a free pass on the substance of your edit just because you used the "undo" button. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by BoboMeowCat

The version I reverted to one time by GodBlessYou2 contained reliable sources saying that Bell died of an illegal abortion. It's not true that I removed all of the sources that state Bell had illegal abortion, although I readily admit that removing any RS references was a careless error on my part, which I will be vigilant to avoid making in the future. I reverted based on the article text comparison between the two versions, with GodBlessYou2's text seeming more neutral and also based on what seemed to me to be compelling talk page arguments by GodBlessYou2 and what appeared to me to be talk page consensus, which MastCell seemed to be reverting against. I have previously asked uninvolved editors to advise above on a better courses of action for future editing, and would like to ask again here. Please refer to talk page discussion here: [26]. Also, please note that MastCell’s comment about adding additional references was made after my one and only edit during this content dispute. To further clarify what occurred, I've had this page on my watch list for several months and have noticed a slow back and forth edit war between GodBlessYou2 and MastCell on the Becky Bell article. Talk page indicated GodBlessYou2 said he was trying to make article more neutral and had concerns that reliable sourcing that argued it was possible that Bell had a natural miscarriage were not being neutrally represented and that there remains debate that parental consent laws caused Bell’s death. I found these arguments by GodBlessYou2 particularly compelling [27] [28] [29] Additionally, I noticed that 131.109.225.24 indicated agreement with GodBlessYou2 and that he was concerned that MastCell was purposely adding misleading information to the article. [30] [31] [32]

I then contacted GodBlesYou2 on his talk page to provide him with an additional reference for this article. [33] For a bit of back story, several months ago,

This is an example of the arrogant bullying and intimidation of a relatively new editor by a cliquish and highly biased, but well-connected administrator. If any participant in this article should be a candidate for punishment by discretionary sanctions it should be MastCell. Here on the Talk page [36] she made a far from comprehensive response to points brought up in the discussion. Eleven minutes later [37] she substantially changed the articles wording (to the "stable" earlier version) "per talk" as if her preferred version had been reached by consensus. She then has the monumental chutzpah to recommend BoboMeowCat for punitive sanctions because he had the common sense to revert her massive changes pending further discussion. Bobo should get one of those barnstars I see, instead. As for MastCell, at the very least, a well earned rest from administrative duties. 131.109.225.24 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ArtifexMayhem

The editor does not seem to understand (or possibly doesn't agree with) our policies on

April

• Edits, beginning here, to the
  undue emphasis on a Baltimore Sun op-ed by James A. Miller, then director of research for Human Life International, and an article on LifeNews.com by the founder and Editor of LifeNews, Steven Ertelt[38]
  .
• In response to the Becky Bell article being tagged for the use of unreliable sources the editor either failed or refused to understand the policy based explanations provided on the talk page.[39]

November

• Creation[40] of 22 Weeks which relies excessively on unreliable or partisan sources (e.g., The Christian Post, WorldNetDaily, LifeSiteNews). [41]
• In response to the 22 weeks article being tagged for notability and the use of unreliable as well as partisan sources the editor, once again, fails or refused to understand the policy based explanations provided on the talk page.[42]
• On the Becky Bell talk page, the editor claims that, "According to the references currently in article, some medical experts believe Becky Bell's septic abortion was the result of this sort of natural miscarriage."[43], when in fact we have no reliable sources that support such a claim (at least not without violating
  WP:GEVAL
  ).

This is very similar to the type of conduct[44][45] that led to topic bans[46][47] in the ARBCOM case. I second MastCell's request for a topic ban per the above, and based on the intent of the principles, findings, and remedies given in the original case. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maunus

I am in the mood to make a statement so I will: I have absolutely no knowledge about this case, but would like to add that I just watched a 1971 debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault and it seems to me that FOucault was right in arguing that there is no basis for claims about a universal morality. Nonetheless, morality is contingent on social forces and power relations, which means that a consensus on wikipedia does have its own moral force that it can bring to bear on any wikipedia user. So this means that this online kangaroo court can validly claim jurisdiction over any matters related to wikipedia editing, including the antics of users by the name of BoboMeowCat.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

BoboMeowCat asked Drmies for protocol regarding AE filings [48]. Drmies pinged me. Reviewing the editor's contribution history I'm seeing a green editor perhaps a little too eager to work in controversial areas given their experience level. I followed up on their talk page [49]. They've agreed not to edit the article talk but confine their activities to the talk page. This hopefully adequately address MastCell's concerns and will allow Wikipedia to further develop a new editor without requiring formal action on part of reviewing administrators. NE Ent 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: given that the purpose of all dispute resolution mechanisms is to minimize disruption to mainspace, how will a formal ban be any more efficacious than BoboMeowCat simply not editing the article? NE Ent 20:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GodBlessYou2

I'm only commenting because I saw a notification/alert/red flag at the top of my page stating my username had been mentioned in an Arbitration incident.

When I checked into it, I see that MastCell is trying to get BoboMeowCat sanctioned?? As far as I know, BoboMeowCat has not even been editing the Becky Bell article . . . at least not lately. I tried to correct some information a bit ago, but I ran into MastCell declaring that his slant on the article was more accurate than the facts represented in the sources. (See for example his insistence on using "unsafe abortion" in the lead though the medical term used in the autopsy was "septic abortion." He does not dispute that the official cause of death was septic abortion but he continues to revert my correction of the lead, bringing into conformity with the official cause of death, simply because he prefers the term unsafe abortion...or, possibly, because he may prefer to drive readers to the unsafe abortion link rather than the septic abortion link.)

It is my experience that MastCell has been uncooperative and has been policing this article to preserve his preferred slant.

Actually, I was surprised to see a comment from BoboMeowCat "congratulating" me after I made my first attempt to clarify the article. Perhaps he should instead have warned me that this was a contentious article which was being policed to enforce certain editor(s) slant.

After respectfully making my edits and moving to the talk page to discuss, MastCell said he wanted to bring in outside opinions. Fine.

But now I see he's trying to actually exclude an outside opinion, BoboMeowCat, precisely because that editor agrees with my recommendations for improving the article.

Talk about protectionism!

I don't know any details about BoboMeowCat's other activities or past activities, but he has not been a problem on the Becky Bell page since I tried to contribute to it. In my view, MastCell is the one trying to dominate the page rather than work toward edits which are clearly supported by the sources -- and one which properly identifies the persons whose opinions are being stated, rather than elevating opinions to factual statements. That isn't too much to ask. GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading MastCell's original charge, he states that BobMeowCat's #1 offense is "In a nutshell, this editor a) denies that Bell had an illegal abortion . . ." I don't think anyone is denying that Bell may have had an illegal abortion, but a careful reading of all the sources shows that while her parents argued definitively that she had died of an illegal abortion, the autopsy found no signs of instruments being used for an illegal abortion and did not exclude either a self-abortion or a miscarriage as possible causes of the septic abortion. That's three possible causes of the septic abortion. See the recent reference info provided by Ca2James,on the talk page reporting that the pathologist believed an illegal abortion was the most likely cause, but lacking any physical evidence to support that conclusion, he could not rule out a self abortion or miscarriage. He even states, no one knows because "the answers went to the grave with the little girl. Given this irrefutable "agnosticism" of the pathologist (and many others) regarding the "actual cause" of death, it is hardly unfair of BoboMeowCat or any other editor to insist that the lead and content of the article should clarify that all three causes of death were postulated and supported by various parties. What is undisputed, by all but MassCall, is that the official cause of death was septic abortion. I really don't see how MastCall has an argument against these clarifications which are entirely supported by reliable sources -- within the 60 minutes piece alone, this is all clear. If anyone should be sanctioned for being "tendentious" it is MastCall. He should also be sanctioned for going after BobMeowCat when his real target was me, since I am the one trying to make these edits which have led to this flurry of recent changes and reverts.GodBlessYou2 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement by BoboMeowCat

In a conversation with NE Ent, I have stated that I would willingly not edit the Becky Bell article for six months. The removal of sources was a one time accident, that I am committed to not repeating. I have a history of learning from and not repeating mistakes. I have not repeated my previous new editor error of violating 1RR, due to not understanding what counts as a revert, which I made 7 months ago. I do not feel that I require a formal ban, and would like to continue to participate on the talk page. I edit a wide variety of articles on WP, but I am particularly interested in the challenge of presenting complicated issues in a neutral and encyclopedic way. I agree with NE Ent that participating on the Becky Bell talk page would be a valuable experience to help further my skills as a new editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning BoboMeowCat

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

• This article risks becoming a football in the abortion controversy.
  WP:ARBAB shows there has not been much activity so far in 2014, which is probably good, but it also means that AE has got out of the habit of evaluating abortion disputes. If it appears that groups of advocates or opponents of abortion are editing systematically to change the slant of articles in favor of their preferred side we may need to consider wider admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Since BoboMeowCat asserts that the removal of six sources was not intentional, I would favor closing this request with a logged ban from the article itself (though not the talk page) until 1 May, 2015. It's usually better if more than one admin comments in this section, so I'll wait a bit before closing. In the future, if it turns out that there is any further warring on the Becky Bell article then further bans should be considered. I'll ping User:MastCell to see if he has anything to add. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: The offer by
  WP:ARBAB and you are subject to being blocked if it is violated. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning William M. Connolley

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Serten II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change :

Diffs

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

1. [50] Explanation Complete erasure of (34,638 bytes) at 22:38, 16 December 2014 (The "literature" section said it all as comment, no reaction on the talk page).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Connolley has a topic ban on some aspects on the topic, especially with some persons he doesnt like. It seems that this may applicable here as well, since he seems not to like some of the persons being quoted, as

Ozone depletion and global warming

was released.

1. various revisions through WMC on 17:28, 23 August 2014 (edit) (undo)

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Basically all in place and alerts have been given. Serten II (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The draft has been available for months and its been well known and stated that I have been working on the draft [51]. If WMC might have had any concerns, he might have uttered them before. Point is, an article about the actual consensus making process of the IPCC and its wide discussion in the social science field has not been written before and is of a certain interest. The current entries (Scientific opinion on climate change, the IPCC entry itself and others) use part of the IPCC assessments but do not describe the actual science (with various peer reviewed papers and high ranking scholars included) about it. In so far the Process per se is not being described properly. To disallow for such an article by a sort of "cold AfD" is rather disruptive. If Connolley has something to say, he shall go via the talk page or a regular AFD, the current procedure is not acceptable.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

Discussion concerning William_M._Connolley

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by William M. Connolley

Statement by Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

This page is clearly a personal essay that had somehow been moved into article space. In his edit summary, William Connolley is apparently drawing attention to the fact that it's an opinion piece largely based on a single source. I would probably have tagged it for summary deletion, but replacing it with a redirect works just as well. I see no credible evidence of a ban violation in this instance. --23:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Statement by

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs

)

A. No compliant notice on wmc's talk page
B. I agree with Tony's assessment, and I was trying to tag the essay POVFORK when WMC turned it into a redir
C. I don't really know about RFC/u but I wonder if that would be helpful in this case? Among other problems, Serten was blocked for edit warring in climate pages not so long ago, and ironically is edit warring even as he was posting this complaint.

• Example-1
• Example-2
  

• After I posted the above examples, Serten made three edits to this thread, the last being at 00:47 and then (amazingly) provides

Edit war Example-3

Statement by Serten II (talk · contribs)

Interesting claims by

• PS.: comments were transfered as required.
• PPS.: The IPCC consensus article contents are not being covered by current articles in the climate field. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and others use primary (IPCC internal) sources, the relevant secondary sources (on the IPCC work as in my case) are being actively ignored. Quote on Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Talk page "This article is not about the IPCC or its processes or policies"]. Now we have at least one that is.
• PPPS.:
  NewsAndEventsGuy
  EW allegations = WP:GIANTDICK, nice try, in the meanwhile I inserted a disambiguation link and a basic aim section on the talk page.
• PPPPS.: Dave Souzas claim ignores the scholar search provided to him already (and a more friendly wording instead the Harry-Frankfurter-word) before he came up here, he then picks on a NSCE. That has been repaced by quotes from Martin Voss (ed.) Springer handbook on social science perspectives in climate change. Dave might have refered as well to Michael Oppenheimer "limits of consensus" article in Science and other major papers.

IPCC+consensus =42.000 scjolar entries In 2010 e.g. 'creating, defending and communicating ... consensus' has been part of the 2010 external review (via the

Statement by dave souza (talk · contribs)

The diff given by Serten II for "The draft has been available for months and its been well known and stated that I have been working on the draft"[53] shows that NAEG was aware of the draft at User:Serten/IPCC consensus but gives no indication that it was advertised: I do some editing in the topic area and was completely unaware of it. Even if I had been, that doesn't give it immunity from the usual editing process in mainspace.

At 19:49, 16 December 2014‎ Serten II "moved page User:Serten/IPCC consensus to IPCC consensus: done so far". Unfortunately the article is still incoherent, and even lacks a definition of the title or any indication that "IPCC consensus" exists as a term in English.

The use of sources is idiosyncratic and questionable. For example, "The IPCC science assessment of Global warming as such itself, similar to Evolution as a mainstay of biology since the 19th century, is being deemed acknowledged and of less basic controversies." is sourced to an NCSE critique which notes that the creationist book Explore Evolution "equates alleged controversy about evolution with controversies over plate tectonics, climate change, and string theory". but only uses the phrase "IPCC consensus" after defining that specifically as the 2001 consensus that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," and subsequently calls the same thing "the IPCC assessment". The article just isn't ready for mainspace, and its topic needs a clear definition.

It was therefore reasonable for William M. Connolley (WMC) to make it a redirect until it's sorted out. Unfortunately, Serten II's response was "Bullshit revert by WMC You have had all time to comment on my draft, if you come now and revert valid content, youre just disrupting stuff. Start a discussion or get lost. Serten II (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)" followed rather quickly with this AE request. Serten II is clearly aware of the

Statement by JzG (talk · contribs)

William's action is clearly correct per policy, as the article has numerous problems (as expected for any monograph by an editors with a strong opinion) so I moved it back to User:Serten II/IPCC consensus for now. Hopefully Serten II will have the good sense to get others to help tone it down and make it less of a POV fork before trying to move it back to mainspace, because the alternative is yet another drama-laden AfD with the usual partisans chucking bricks at each other and I don't think anyone needs that. Guy (Help!) 15:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning William M. Connolley

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

• WC's action of redirecting the page seems not unreasonable to me. Moreover, User:Serten II, what is this "topic ban on some aspects of [climate change], especially with some persons he doesnt like" that you talk about? Please provide a quote or link or something. When I tried to find the terms of the alleged topic ban on this page, I saw several bans, but they all expired in 2010. Have I missed something? Also, Serten, please don't argue in other people's sections. I tried to move your responses up to your own section, but you keep edit conflicting me, I had to give up. You'd better move them yourself, if you value them, before somebody deletes them. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Per section 5.6 of
  WP:ARBCC#Specific remedies, after amendment by a 2011 motion, "William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so." If people believe that IPCC consensus should not be a Wikipedia article, the right thing to do is probably to nominate it for deletion. If an edit war continues on whether to have a redirect or an article then blocks or sanctions under ARBCC ought to be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Agree with comments so far. No violation of the ban, and I don't see a need to impose discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with no action--Cailil ^talk 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Pigsonthewing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Pigsonthewing and infoboxes :

Diffs

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

1. 6 December 2014 Nomination of {{Infobox ABU Radio}} with the aim to discuss its removal.
2. 6 December 2014 Nomination of {{
   Infobox Sanremo Music Festival
   }} with the aim to discuss its removal.
3. 6 December 2014 Nomination of {{
   Infobox Cân i Gymru National Year
   }} with the aim to discuss its merging/removal.
4. 6 December 2014 Nomination of {{
   Infobox ABU country
   }} with the aim to discuss its merging.
5. 6 December 2014 False allegation of canvassing. After which the user then admitted to "searching through my talk page archives" in order to dig up dirt; which made it look like the user was attempting to have me silenced and blocked so that their desire to have the deletion of nominated infoboxes was carried out successfully.
6. 7 December 2014 Pigsonthewing stated that no templates would be merged/deleted until a replacement was ready. The replacement template in question became {{
   Infobox Song Contest
   }} which addressed all the issues that were raised at the TfD.
7. 17 December 2014 Despite PotW's recommendation to create the universal infobox, {{
   Infobox Song Contest
   }}, he goes and nominates the aforementioned replacement for deletion anyway. Clear attempt to cause disruption and fuel up more heated mudslinging debates.
8. 18 December 2014 the user reverts an edit made on
   WikiProject Eurovision stating that "TFDs are still in progress". The previous version
   clearly shown that there were new templates and the ones being discussed at the TFDs could become obsolete depending on the result of the TFD.

1. templates for discussion
   he is "adding" with the intent to engage in "discussion" so that his nominated templates are either merged or "removed". Thus Pigsonthewing is indirectly going against the spirit of the remedy "adding, or discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes", by having someone else do the work on their behalf.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Remedies notes that the user "may be banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts". He has demonstrated and admitted that he trawled through my talk page archives in order to dig up dirt. The archived discussion that he used was in no relation to the allegations he was making, and was 18 months old. Doing such sly actions like that is a clear way to stir up trouble and distress against myself.
3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2 further arbitration requests on 6 July 2007.
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147#Pigsonthewing Another arbitration request covering similar issues was made in March 2014.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 8 December 2014 by
  talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

• Note I will be unavailable from 18:00 GMT due to real-life participation of a championship 8-ball pool competition. Any further discussions from my behalf will be made upon my return.
  T@lk 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 14:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 15:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 15:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 15:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 12:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 16:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @
  T@lk 17:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

done

Discussion concerning Pigsonthewing

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Pigsonthewing

Statement by Harry Mitchell

Andy is a personal fried IRL, so I won't be commenting as an uninvolved admin. Sigh. The remedy is atrociously drafted (note to arbs: draft proper remedies or they come back to bite you). But it applies to discussing the addition or removal of infoboxes from articles. Andy's participation at TfD was never in question in the arbitration case, and does not in any way violate the remedy. This should be closed quickly with no action (again) as it has repeatedly been used as a stick with which to beat Andy. I don't fault Wes for misinterpreting the remedy, for the record, I fault ArbCom for the cack-handed drafting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I don't see any of this as a violation of either the letter or spirit of the arbitration restrictions regarding infoboxes, which relate to adding or removing infoboxes from articles. Previous AE consensuses and the discussion that led to Andy being unblocked this month both support this interpretation. The TfD discussions are about whether one type of infobox should be replaced with and/or merged with a different type of infobox, the effect on an article would be like changing {{infobox foo}} to {{infobox bar}}. This is even less of a significant change than that discussed at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for Clarification (July 2014) where the arbitrators found that there was no breach of the restriction. Note I am commenting here from the position of an admin who is involved in the topic area but not in the specific instances discussed here, not as an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

Infobox Eurovision country}}. Yes, the restriction is appallingly written but there has been so much subsequent discussion about it that the intent to restrict it to articles is abundantly clear. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

TfD works slowly - it doesn't seem unusual for things to be agreed which take months to be implemented. While the nominating the replacement template for deletion after suggesting it does sound a bit silly, I'm not at all sure how that is relevant to this restriction? Likewise "digging dirt" and bad accusations of canvassing are not optimal, and an admonishment would not be out of line, but they are not breeches of arbcom restrictions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tone of those comments could be improved but I'm not seeing that as disruptive, let alone a violation of his restrictions. Rich is right that anyone can comment on a TfD discussion, and you are not required to report his every comment here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: that would definitely help, but the current committee is fed up to the back teeth with this case (which is a direct result of the absolute mess that was made of the whole thing) and so are unlikely to take kindly to any request to discuss it further and could easily dismiss it out of hand. I would wait until the new committee before initiating such a request - I will have to recuse of course, but I think it more likely to be meaningfully considered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: 1 admonishment each for edit warring, an admonishment for Andy for the "trolling" comment and an admonishment for Wes for the "possible vandalism" comment would indeed be appropriate here I think. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent: If an infobox is deleted, as opposed to being renamed, merged or redirected, then yes it would be removed from an article. However it was merging that was being proposed here and so that point is a technicality. Your suggestion to restrict Andy from discussing infoboxes at TfD would have the same clarificatory effect as the article space limit to the arbcom decision, but I would want to see some evidence of Andy disrupting TfD (generally) or disrupting TfDs about infoboxes before I could support that. As it stands the disruption is being caused by other users misinterpreting the poorly-worded restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

If a template which is an infobox is deleted, that removes it from an article, right? Rather than wikilawyer over the perceived quality of Arbcom's 2013 wording, wouldn't it be simpler to page ban from Tfds on infoboxes per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing_placed_on_probation? NE Ent ~ 19:20, 18 December 2014

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pigsonthewing

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

• I agree that there is an implication that the restriction applies to articles and hence that there is no violation. However it probably wouldn't hurt to get ArbCom (through
  WP:A/R/CA) to pass a motion adding those two words to the remedy and solve this issue for the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs
  )

@Thryduulf: Probably a good idea to wait, but this is about as easy as it gets (given we can write the motion for them) and they are usually quite happy to act when admins active in AE ask them to clarify/do something. Plus waiting just means we have to do another one of these to remind us all that we need to get it amended (no reflection on Wesley Mouse intended, it is the way the remedy is worded). But I don't mind waiting, I'm happy to post the request if others think it's worth doing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit war at Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/rightpanel I'm considering two admonishments for edit warring and incivility ("trolling" and labeling the other's edits as "possible vandalism"). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with

WP:ARCA to amend the restriction to refer only to adding infoboxes to articles. No objection to any warnings that Callanecc thinks necessary but it seems they would be an ordinary admin action and not fall under the authority of the case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#May 2014

 :

Diffs

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

The following diffs consist of personal attacks:

Note: Diffs 13-22 added 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

1. [54] - in response to
   Dwpaul
   's comment, self-explanatory
2. [55] - says Myopia123 is clearly trolling, unconsciously racist
3. [56] - jokes that Cwobeel is edit-warring to defame persons covered by BLP
4. [57] - continues accusing Myopia123 of trolling
5. [58] - says the cause of Cwobeel's actions is "hyper-partisan anger" and desire to defame.
6. [59] - calls Cwobeel's opinion uninformed
7. [60] - self-explanatory attack on Cwobeel's editing
8. [61] - Cites Cwobeel's accidental source misrepresentation to justify an argument.
9. [62] - Implies that
   RAN1
   is careless
10. [63] - Describes Cwobeel's editing style as sophistric, disingenuous and overt reality defying
11. [64] - Asks Cwobeel if he thinks dishonesty and source misrepresentation are helpful to the project
12. [65] - "Go cry elsewhere" in edit summary. Edit removes Cwobeel's announcing his withdrawal from the discussion.
13. [66] - contextual, Myopia presenting missing white girl syndrome opinion
14. [67] - contextual, Dwpaul and Rmosler2100 responding to Myopia
15. [68] - FCAYS navel-gazing comment #1
16. [69] - Dwpaul/FCAYS conversation
17. [70] - Myopia response #1
18. [71] - Myopia response #2
19. [72] - Cwobeel response to Roches
20. [73] - Cwobeel source post/refactor
21. [74] - RAN1 intervention
22. [75] - RAN1 clarification request

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Has previously been blocked for edit warring on BLP pages, see block log linked to above.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Factchecker_atyourservice has been making repeated personal attacks against other editors to the detriment of collaboration. He was warned about discretionary sanctions in October, and was also warned at least once about the consequences of personal attacks last week [76]. This has not abated his use of personal attacks, even when an editor he's attacking has left discussion of the topic under sanctions. His conduct is therefore disruptive.

@

RAN1 (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@

RAN1 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

@Collect and Cailil: I didn't provide context for the case, which was my fault, so I'll clarify that now. Myopia brought up the idea of applying missing white girl syndrome unconscious racism to Michael Brown (diff 13), at which point Dwpaul and Rmosler2100 pointed out that it was probably wrong, not a good idea and could be seen as failing to AGF (diff 14). FCAYS brought his opinion that Myopia was navel-gazing (diff 15). Dwpaul tried to diffuse the situation by commenting that he thought Myopia's idea was constructive, at which point FCAYS brought up the Iain Banks quote in reference to Myopia's opinion (diff 16). Myopia defended his point of view (diff 17). This led into diff 2, and then diff 4 after Myopia declared he wouldn't be commenting on the talk page anymore (diff 18).

After that incident, Cwobeel and FCAYS got into a dispute about a bad paraphrase of a NYT article (the article said Brown was found to be unarmed, whereas the paraphrase implied it was known that he was unarmed). Cwobeel defended the paraphrase (diff 20), and FCAYS responded as he did in diff 3. Cwobeel responded by refactoring the PA and posting the source material (diff 21), after which FCAYS responded as he did in diff 5. After some more back and forth resulting in 6 and 7, I decided to intervene (diff 21), FCAYS responded in diff 8, saying Cwobeel was defaming McCulloch with no solution to the conflict. I didn't find anything that defamed McCulloch directly and asked for clarification (diff 22). In diff 9 he blamed me for not finding the relevant text, saying I was being careless. That discussion fizzled out, and then FCAYS went on to make the PAs in diffs 10-12 with no relevance to talk page discussion.

I might have organized this poorly, but I don't think the case is as weak as Collect thinks. Myopia was genuinely trying to contribute and FCAYS decided to forget AGF is a guideline even after it was clear other editors weren't antagonistic. Not only that, but his PAs and incivility made it difficult to figure out what was the actual content problem in the second dispute. I understand where FCAYS was coming from, but that wasn't a good reason to be uncivil then, and given the follow-up attacks in 10-12 I still don't think he gets how disruptive he's been in being that. --

@

RAN1 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

[79]

Discussion concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

I'm traveling for the holidays and I don't expect I would get a chance to respond at length before Jan. 1. Thanks to all who have spoken in my defense. That said, probably most of what I would say in my own defense, if I had the time, would revolve around the proposition that Cwobeel's approach to editing and willingness to twist, abuse, and even ignore policy, and to ignore stark facts about sources even after they are pointed out to him, and to argue and Wikilawyer and threaten even after it becomes clear policy and sources are not on his side, represent a new low in WP editing. He gives WP the appearance of dishonesty. Things like this make my blood boil. Cwobeel's not the only person I've snarked at or called a name recently, but his (IMO) awful, agenda-driven editing and ignorant combativeness have given me reason to doubt the future of the project, and that is why my behavior has changed. So assuming you're going to dispose of this before I get back, I would just say: if you're going to enforce civility policy here, and do it with sanctions, I would sure appreciate it if you'd also kick up your enforcing-content-policies game a few notches. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(re Brianhe) Comment. My profane comment was in fact a direct response to Cwobeel telling me he "didn't give a fuck" what I thought. Civility rules are civility rules, but aren't we being just a little bit selective here? Stuff like this is my main concern about having to walk away from this discussion without being able to defend myself at length.

Worse still, Brianhe has refrained from linking to the original discussion, or even the actual diff of my edit, thus raising the very real possibility that nobody would have noticed this unless I had pointed it out myself. Yeah, I guess I am a little concerned about the prospective fairness of an admin case conducted in my absence.  :( Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brianhe

I reminded FCAYS in October that he was violating the terms of a "final warning" issued by

talk) 17:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 18:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by TParis

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Factchecker_atyourservice_isn.27t_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chrisgualtieri

These "personal attacks" are pretty weak. The 1st is a well-known

The others, concerning Cwobeel are more complex. And that's why I expected Cwobeel to be here and not Factchecker. Why? The editor does not understand

Cwobeel says "I am very well informed on WP:BLP", but a well-informed user would not add a wall of negative quotations dedicated to portray the subject as deceptive, manipulative and biased light like this. Cwobeel and also the filer (Ran1) does not understand WP:BLP very well, as the existence of this

Factchecker has civility issues when he is upset over some of these BLP issues. The case, however, is not a strong one when context is given the situations. I believe that it would be best to remind Factchecker of

Once again, we use "they deserved it" as an excuse for verbal abuse, and wonder why we have a severe civility problem. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwobeel

It should be obvious by now, that FCAYS derives a certain pleasure from being an enfant terrible, and no matter how much feedback he gets about it, it is unlikely that he will change. The question is: his FCAYS making a useful contribution to the project or is he here just to raise heckles? If the former is correct, then we could just ignore his incivility, otherwise we should not.

As for the accusations of BLP violations made by ChrisGaultieri (btw, he never pinged me about this thread in which he is leveling accusations against me), just read what he quoted me saying, and let me know if my understanding of our core content policies is flawed.

Given the contentious nature of

After re-reading Gualteri's comments, please note that the diffs he provided which he described as "criminal accusations" [82] are all impeccably sourced to CNN, USA Today, Fox News, St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, after discussions in talk page related to WP:UNDUE,[83] I trimmed that section considerably [84]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

@Cailil: I fail to see how the diff you provided [85] is either a personal attack or a mirror of FCAYS's. Care to explain? In any case I will gladly accept an interaction ban, as it will avoid any further escalation. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

I will now end this wishy-washy statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect

A mélange of quite weak arguments, including use of a well-known quotation, and assertions of crypto-racism of some sort. Diffs clearly show deliberate examination and searching through weeks of FCAYS edits, seeking anything remotely objectionable, most of which simply fail to rise to any major level in the first place. A look at AndyTheGrump for one week or less will show far more animus than a month's worth here of FCAYS could. Nor has any sign that FCAYS has violated or sought to violate BLP policy been shown here - which is the basis under which apparently a sanction is being sought. The BLP at issue is rather a mess of allegations and rumours being given equal weight with facts determined through the legal system. Anyone seeking to add allegations and rumours in such articles, IMHO, is far more culpable of BLP violations than is FCAYS. I would also point out that sanctioning people on a "variable basis" for being uncivil is a major issue on Wikipedia, and one which should be quite avoided in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BH - the issue of civility enforcement in general is iffy at best - I suggest you read the recent discussions thereon. The issues you raise, found by thorough examination of every edit by FCAYS (including his use of a well-known adage) do not rise to the level needed here for sanctions, and I fear the ones who are abusing BLP are not FCAYS. Let us use BLP sanctions for those who actually abuse BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CW - I most have assuredly been the subject of stalkers, snide and snarky attacks, and disparagement. I advise folks to avoid the "drama boards" as a matter of course, and to recognize that there are always those who seem to want to have "enemy lists" of some sort or another (my bêtes-noires were "Inclusionist/TravB/manyothernames" and "Ratel/manyothernames") - and that doing such is a sign of weakness and insecurity as to the positions one takes. I offer you the exact same advice. And if you wish to "enforce civility" note that it took me over two years to get the infamous "DICK" essay emended at Meta.Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

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

• I think Collect has actually summed this case up quite well. I need more time to dig through diffs but the only one of the many listed that I find remotely problematic is this one (but I need to check its context). The May 2014 ANi thread is a
  Solomon's judgement by TParis and could (in less temperate hands) have ended up in far harsher sanctions for those who brought such a ridiculously weak case to ANi. In this instance I'm struggling to see a point of action that could be taken re: civility that I trust either the community or the ArbCom not to over-turn. Nevertheless, the question I'm left asking is whether or not other users are contributing to the problem at that page. And right now what I'd consider is placing the page under probation, but I'd be interested to see what other sysops think--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• OK as above the only diff that is remotely problematic is the one where FCAYS mentions "unconscious racism" but what RAN1 leaves out is that User:Myopia123 started the whole "unconscious racism" thing off. Collect provided the diff[86] at my talk page here. Frankly if there's a problem here it's being caused by a number of you. It behooves all of you to behave like adults in topics that are controversial in real life. While I see FCAYS making less than temperate remarks, the only incivility from him was actually a deliberate mirroring of someone else's comments. Remarks by a user whom RAN1 has portrayed as a victim rather than as part of the problem. I'm still waiting for further input from other admins put my strong inclination here is to place the page under probation--Cailil ^talk 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cailil: What sort of sanction/remedy/restriction on the page are you thinking of? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again I'm struggling to find some talk page restriction that wouldn't be reversed by the Community or ArbCom. Given the whole trouble here is interpersonal & on the talk page we could in fact look at Interaction Bans. Having taken a few days away from WP ad hominem comments like this[87] from FCAYS do raise concerns and show that the issue is not just at one article but with a group of editors. The repeated (and frankly unnecessary) attempts to make FCAYS look bad by others show that any sanction needs to be 2 way. So after all this my suggestion is an IBAN restricting interaction with or commenting about the other editors, between FCAYS and the following: Myopia123, Cwobeel & Brianhe, for a period of 3 months.
  Otherwise we can formally admonish the 4 listed for
  battleground mentalities, casting unfounded aspersions about other editors and misrepresenting other ppl's communications. I would normally say that given the final warning FCAYS has had enough WP:ROPE but as far as I can see almost all the diffs showing actual problematic behaviour are FCAYS mirroring other users intemperate remarks targeted at him - even the one I cite above is a mirror of Cwobeel's comment[88] wrong diff, this the correct one[89]. It depends on how much Christmas spirit other admins have I'm happy either way--Cailil ^talk 14:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'd suggest going with the DS logged admonishment and final warnings and keep an eye on the article and talk page, making liberal use of the block and ban buttons as needed. Thank you for all your work on this! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Callanecc - I think that will do, will close in 48 hours unless there is further sysop input--Cailil ^talk 04:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel Diff corrected. If you can't see how your comment[91] is being mirrored here[92] by FCAYS's vulgarity (which is why RAN1 raised FCAYS's diff here at AE) then I cannot help you. Frankly the lot of you are wasting a lot of other people's time and would be advisable for you all to disengage, enjoy the holidays and come back with a clear head and fresh perspective--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]