Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46

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

Request concerning Mythdon

User requesting enforcement:
Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Mythdon_admonished

1. [1] <Gratuitous mention of Ryulong in unrelated case, carrying on a dispute. Also the latest in a spate of recent comments on arbitration pages>

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

1. [2] General conduct warning by FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
2. ...

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Casliber (talk · contribs):
<Your text>

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a

Discussion concerning Mythdon

Statement by Mythdon

All I have to say is that I already struck the comment. No further action is needed. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just notified Ryulong of this thread. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors

• I'll just point to the currently open
  ANI thread (perm). Would suggest a ban from interacting with or commenting about Ryulong (except on arbcom pages and sections immediately related to the case). –xeno^talk 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm not convinced that a sanction of this sort is going to achieve anything more than the same problems as before. In my opinion, a block (or a more complete ban) in terms of weeks, is perhaps the only way to see if there will be any change when he returns to editing. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I kinda favour both, Mythdon is being a real timesink around RFAR and they simply do not get the fact that they have to leave Ryulong alone [3].
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's probably the best option available; I'd endorse it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mythdon

• I've blocked Mythdon for two weeks for either exceedingly bad judgment or deliberate limits testing. It seems obvious that once that block has expired, there will need to be some kind of prohibition on interaction with Ryulong; more discussion as to exactly how that should be crafted would be useful. Steve Smith (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As suggested above, a ban on interacting with Ryulong, and commenting on him except on arbitration-related pages that are immediately related. The admin placing the interactional ban would need to serve as an intermediary if there was anything that absolutely needed to be communicated outside the walls of arbcom. –xeno^talk 19:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern with that wording - and I really hate to assume trouble, but I think given history we should be on the safe side - is it might provoke Mythdon to open a bunch of requests for clarification and appeals and the like solely to get around the prohibition. I'm not sure what we can do to get around that, though. As well, you're talking as if this would be a two-way ban, but can we really impose such a ban on Ryulong as arbitration enforcement when he's not even alleged to have violated any of the remedies? Steve Smith (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to stay out of this as much as possible, but the only possible way for Mythdon and I to have absolutely no interaction would be the topic ban that he attempted to get out of with one of the previous requests for clarification, and an ensuing drama on ANI after it was brought up on

  WT:TOKU. I have still yet to see anything constructive come about from his editing the same pages I do. Even after the block and Nathan contacted him on his talk page to voluntarily choose a different area of interest, he does not understand that there should be a different topic area he should edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  How about: (1)

  WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed." and (2) "If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year. If Ryulong violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 week per violation, with the third violation resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 month." Obviously, this could be tweaked, such as with a timer on the topic ban. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I fail to see how I should be affected by any sanction. I do not go out of my way to directly or indirectly interact or comment about Mythdon. I've purposely avoided commenting on his last two RFAs. I've also in no way commented on his recent requests for clarification. I also have not even touched this page concerning this enforcement until I saw that Mythdon had been blocked again and that there was continuing discussion here. I want you to explain how I should be banned from anything regarding Mythdon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I included it was more for in the unlikely case if you end up on the same article as one he's edited; it's just to highlight the limits of interaction. To be frank, I'd personally be comfortable not formalising via sanction for those same reasons as you stated. In the case that others supported the idea that part was not formalised, I already have an alternate wording ready: Unless

  WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year." Again, thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That seems like a reasonable wording. Shell ^babelfish 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I'm aware that there is reluctance among some admins to even edit this page, we really should wrap this up. I've posted a note at Steve's page, but he does seem to be away. Requesting an uninvolved admin to impose this accordingly. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Responding to the above request for a neutral close, I have imposed the interaction and topic ban using Ncmvocalist's wording above, with the notification here and a log in the appropriate section of the Arbitration page. Is any further notification required? If not, we're done here. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, we're done here - no further notification required. Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement:
Andy Walsh (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned, Subsequent motion; See notes below.

1. [4] Adds text to the main MoS page with the snide edit summary "add useless words to clarify due to pointless objectioon".
2. [5] Makes inflammatory remarks about regular MoS editors.
3. [6] Refers to another editor's position as "irrelevant"
4. [7] Goes back to add that it's also "tendentious" and "inflammatory"
5. [8] Replies to an editor with the edit summary "response to sole instance of reasoning", thus impugning the remainder of that editor's contributions to the discussion
6. [9] A large statement in which PMA refers to me and "my friends" suggesting some kind of cabal, even though I don't know most of the MoS editors from Adam, and ending with a statement implying that I and others should not be editing content at all
7. [10] Misstates the position of an ArbCom member in an attempted red herring (Here is said member refuting PMA's statement)

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Andy Walsh (talk):
In this motion, PMAnderson was allowed back on the MoS pages (except for ones related to date linking) with the caveat that "All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion". Despite statements that he was ""not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes" PMAnderson immediately returned to the MoS pages after his restriction was narrowed and began a campaign of aggressive and incivil rhetoric. Regrettably, all the examples I cite above are within 24 or 48 hours of his restriction being narrowed.

In the interest of disclosure, I have had occasional disagreements with PMA in the past but they were never incivil, and they are so long ago that I can't find the diffs. I was not party to the date delinking case nor did I even comment on it. I also acknowledge that PMA does bring some good ideas to the table, and is capable of rational, civil discussion when he chooses to. However, he doesn't choose to often enough.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
[11]

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

Andy Walsh misstates what I said, which was Noetica's question is therefore

when did you stop beating your wife?

and irrelevant tp the issue at hand. I was asked repeatedly, "Why does a given piece of text mean X?" It means Y, which directly contradicts X, and I suggested clarifications which make it beyond doubt that it means Y. At the third repetition, the question does become tendentious, irrelevant, and inflammatory, just like the notoriously unanswerable question quoted. I am still awaiting the next accusation: that I called Noetica a wife-beater</irony>.

This is criticism of a post, not of an editor - as are the rest of these, insofar as they are anything; if it was excessive, I am willing to strike. But I am not quarrelling with Noetica, who has indeed posted rather lavish compliments to me after this incident; we disagree.

Since I have pointed this out already elsewhere, I am puzzled by Andy Walsh's continued use of this charge, which is indeed specious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Ohconfucius: Ohconfucius is under the same restriction I am; he comes here to comment while calling me an anarchist. I am not starting an AE on this - my view is that such stuff should be left to defeat itself; but surely what goes for the goose goes for the gander. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to Goodmorningworld. This is precisely why MOS causes so many problems. It cionsistently makes instructions which violate all three of the criteria in
  WP:CREEP
  :
  1. There is rarely any indication of an actual problem (as opposed to a hypothetical or a perceived problem).
  2. The proposed instructions don't solve this problem (as opposed to treating symptoms or making symbolic gestures).
  3. The instructions are usually overcomplex, forbid reasonable (sometimes preferable) idioms, and are normally unnecessary prohibitions.
• Those who regard recognizing this as anarchism have forgotten that
  Wikipedia is not a government, and that writing English is an art, not an exercise in painting by numbers for which they need to supply an instruction kit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No comment on the merits of the conduct at issue, but since it does not seem to violate a specific enforceable arbitration remedy, I am not sure that arbitration enforcement admins can do anything here.  Sandstein  04:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea. I was told to come here when I raised my concerns at the discussion page for the motion announcement, which grew into a huge conversation. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "...and began a campaign of aggressive and incivil rhetoric" is a good way of describing the behavior seen in the previous day or two. PMAnderson has lost no opportunity to resume his (self-stated) crusade to abolish the MOS at WP. Arbitration was specifically about behavioral issues, so it is disappointing to see inflammatory language such as the following:

- "Masters of MoS",

- "...prejudices of six editors",

- "...question therefore is like 'when did you stop beating your wife?': tendentious, inflammmatory, and irrelevant...",

- "...before resorting to dispute resolution on this confused and obnoxious thread",

- "Why do we need to rule on it, except to satisfy a will to power?",

- "...six "usual suspects...",

- "...we should pull the plug on this swamp. It's a breeding place for controversy, and a indiscriminate mass of unsourced, uncited, arbitrary and silly edicts made up in class one day",

- "Feel free to prove yourself more capable at that than at this specious charge...",

While none of this is particularly horrific, it clearly indicates a mentality of abrasiveness (that has been absent at the MOS for a couple of months now). PMAnderson has done nothing today but demonstrate his unwillingness to work constructively in a collaborative environment. In addition, his self-stated crusade to demolish the MOS renders him unsuitable for (real) assistance at the MOS pages. Sorry, but I support a long-term block for PMAnderson to all the MOS pages (and associated talk pages).

 HWV258  06:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: I am sure there are other pertinent examples, but I would just make the observation that a similar pattern of incivility was deemed to sufficiently demonstrate the lack of
  wikilawyering. A similar sanction may be a appropriate in this case. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• This editor has been involved in a heated discussion for several days at
  WP:NCON where he makes substantial edits to the guideline before any consensus has formed to change it. I also see the edit summary comments here , though perhaps toned down a little. His comments on the talk page are also bordering on uncivil. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is the problem with AE; it attracts all sorts of irrelevant complaints. I surreverted a direct reversion (once) on a page which has no consensus - indeed, as many editors object to it as defend it. I may do again, or leave it to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The behavior I'm referring to is not related to a dispute. Please don't play this off as "some editors who disagree with your edits coming to attack you on AE". I'm merely commenting to let people know that a there's similar behave pattern in other pages that might otherwise be overlooked. And it was clearly not one edit, as anyone who looks at that page history can see. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per [12] and specifically "(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion...", as well as the original terms of enforcement for all restrictions in the Date delinking case, allegations of incivility and edit-warring on style guidelines by editors under restriction can and should be addressed here. Nathan ^T 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, note the intention of ArbCom: this case deals with MOS and progeny; not with other guidelines - and
    WP:NCON is a naming convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I was about to file an enforcement request against Ohconfucius for this edit, when I noticed Pmanderson had mentioned it above. Pmanderson objects (I think) to being called an anarchist, but what caught my attention was Ohconfucius referring to Pmanderson as "Pam Anderson". This is, in my view, a deliberate dig by Ohconfucius at Pmanderson. To realise this, you need to know some of the history here, including a recent exchange (from July 2009) where Pmanderson asks people to call him either Septentrionalis or Pmanderson, and not any of the various quasi-derogatory nicknames applied to him by those he has been in dispute with. The recent background to this is here, a few paragraphs down: "editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed." Then scroll back up the page to the statement by Lar, and you will see Pmanderson saying the following: "Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks". In the same vein as Ohconfucius's earlier use of "Mandy", I submit that Ohconfucius's use of "Pam Anderson" here is an 'intentional pinprick'. If so, then this is classic baiting on the part of Ohconfucius, trying to provoke a response from Pmanderson. Whether this needs enforcement against Ohconfucius or not, I leave up to the admins reading this section, as I may be reading too much into this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On a more general point, it would be good to remind those editing at the manual of style (MOS) pages and talk pages that the original case scheduled a stability review three months after the case. I was recused in the case and remain recused on the requests and any such review (though I might present evidence). The wording clearly says that if the MOS hasn't stablised, further sanctions may be forthcoming. The wording is here. I would ask those editing MOS pages to read what Tony1 (one of the parties to the case) said here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I hope people heed your words Carcharoth. Nothing is gained by name-calling and subtle digs. I tried to be clear in my statement that PMAnderson does do good work, even though I vehemently disgree with his methods, which all too often involve edit warring and insults. I don't think it's fair to make people wait around three months when the behavior I've outlined is serious and current. --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The three months date from the end of the case on 14 June, so that would be on 14 September. One of the things I noticed is that some editors, immediately their restrictions were relaxed, went straight back to "their" MOS pages and started editing them again to roll back the changes that had happened while they were "away". Greg L in particular went straight to MOSNUM and made a series of edits making changes. Only later did he go to the talk page to discuss those changes, using the words "I had been away from MOSNUM for a while" (yes, he had been topic banned from such pages, initially indefinitely, but the restrictions were partially lifted recently after two months). I don't know what definition of 'stability' ArbCom will be using, but I do know that what I'm seeing at the moment doesn't look like stability. I would also guess that if ArbCom do a review and find things are not stable, then they will look at more people than just the ones that were involved in the date delinking case. If I was presenting evidence for such a review, I would certainly take a closer look at the history of disputes at MOS. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Noetica's comment: I am not a litigious editor; nor have actions ever been taken against me. Faced with obstinate and unWikipedian behaviour, I typically present my evidence and arguments incisively and resolutely, and attempt to engage the perpetrator in dialogue; and I do not edit-war. If a firm but rational stand doesn't work, I have been known to withdraw completely, since there are better things to do. A committed and serious MOS editor, I nevertheless withdrew last December – for more than half a year, since PMAnderson had made productive work at
  here. When his case was clearly lost, by a majority of seven opinions to one, he persisted in soapboxing about his opponents (presumably with me as the ringleader) in terms that smear us as little better than Taliban zealots. Us! In his edit summaries also, as recorded above. And now at his own userpage, where he misreports events according to his own coloured view of the situation. No wonder people are provoked to use mild pet names for him. I don't know what should be done. Something, though. We work hard to maintain high standards at Wikipedia's Manual of Style. It is difficult enough without an editor who appears not to understand the goals of MOS constantly operating against us. The guidelines serve Wikipedia well: quietly and without fuss, for those editors consulting MOS who do not look below the lid. PMAnderson should be taken seriously as a persistent threat to stability, good order, and our collegial development work in the service of the community.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Pressed for time so I'll limit myself to just this comment. Calling PMAnderson an anarchist in no way, shape or form is an insult. It is a simple statement of fact. (Although I would qualify it by calling him a style anarchist). There is nothing at all wrong with being an anarchist. It is one possible position of many to take within a compass rose of ideological stances. Anarchists, however, tend to operate on the margins. Generally their positions do not gain majority support and so they must content themselves with the status of a gadfly. Unfortunately PMAnderson is not content with that. He is tirelessly at work making use of WP's full arsenal of fratricidal weapons, from "subtle" insults to warnings and threats to intimidating editors by a dizzying array of means including but not limited to making sure that anyone who argues against him finds themselves added to an ongoing Arbitration. In the past PMAnderson has been treated very lightly by the Arbs who have allowed him to wreak much damage. It will be interesting to see if this pattern continues. Goodmorningworld (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PMAnderson: It is true that MOS instructions are needlessly complicated in some places. That is why a number of editors, myself included, are working to consolidate and simplify the Manual of Style. For example, this edit I made here. If you turned more of your undisputed skills toward joining in that effort, we probably would have less to argue about ;-) Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

• Looking at the various diffs given here and Pmanderson's recent contributions, it is clear that his/her involvement in MOS discussions is unproductive and far too focused on other editors instead of content. Given the spirit of the motion and the specific comments made by Newyorkbrad, I believe that the year ban should be broadened to include any MOS style or related pages and talk pages. I will leave this open for another 24 hours or so for discussion just in case another uninvolved admin should have an objection to expanding the remedy. Shell ^babelfish 09:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Notified Pmanderson and logged. Shell ^babelfish 14:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Pedrito

User requesting enforcement:
Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Pedrito_restricted

Pedrito has been indefinitely banned from Israel-Palestine conflict-related articles.

9) Pedrito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in
the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating
in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

1. While he has not directly violated the ban, it appears that he has messaged another user [13] in a request to influence an article related to the conflict. I will note in favor of the user from whom this was requested, that he did not made the requested change. (assuming this is true) However, I believe that it is a violation of the ban, which was enacted in order to completely disengage the users it dealt with from being an influence on Israel-Palestine articles on Wikipedia.

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}:
There's room to inspect the activity of the notified editor.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
Notified - [14].

Discussion concerning Pedrito

Statement by Pedrito

Comments by other editors This seems to be a little overzealous wikihounding by jaakabou.
User talk pages aren't covered by the ruling; in fact, one of the arbitrators explicitly endorsed the topic banned editors ability to make comments on user talk pages:

"As a general comment, I am opposing the talk page participation of everyone involved. I would like to see these editors return to being involved in related discussions, as they are knowledgeable and valued, but I believe that we need to give the community the ability to enter this topical area, review the lingering debates and unsolved mysterious omissions, and if necessary restart old discussions which have been improperly handled in the past. Uninvolved people are more likely to do this if they are not going to be pounced upon by involved people. The uninvolved people may miss some crucial aspect that has already been discussed, however in that scenario, the restricted editors can still mention that on a user talk page of someone who is uninvolved. i.e. the prevention from entering "community discussion" would not extend to small comments directly to another user, however prolonged engagement in a discussion on a user talk would. Entering the fray of an existing user_talk discussion to support another editor would also. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)"

untwirl(talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overzealous wikihounding allegations aside, there's a clear violation of

WP:BATTLE

here. Pedrito was asking a fellow editor that he trusts (Nableezy) to counter the actions of another editor which he, apparently, dislikes (Shuki). This seems like a valid reason to raise concern on the Arbitration Enforcement page as it endorses and promotes war-like behavior. Pedrito, following the ARBCOM ruling, has been banned from Israel-related discussions (and articles) for this very problem. i.e. tag team mentality and behavior that induces conflict and further misbehavior in others.

p.s. I'd appreciate it greatly if you rephrase yourself here, Untwirl, to remove the word "ridiculous".[15]

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pedrito

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

• I don't believe this is a violation. While editors should not proxy for someone who is banned or restricted, that doesn't prevent a restricted editor from offering reasonable suggestions. Of course, someone who decides to make an edit based on a restricted editor's suggestion needs to realize that they are taking personal responsibility for the content. Unless there's a pattern of disruption here, I don't believe any action is necessary at this time. Leaving open for further comments. Shell ^babelfish 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't a violation of the restriction as it's written. However, you could request a clarification on the
  WP:RFARB page. PhilKnight (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A clarification seems like a good idea. I noticed another editor -
    talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - who was also sanctioned on the same case (link) leaving messages on the other editor's talkpage.[16] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• While it may not be a violation of the restrictions, such requests from a topic-banned editor should not be permitted because of the dilemma it potentially places on the unfortunate recipient (in this case, Nableezy) of having to choose between either appearing to proxy for a banned editor or abstaining from making an edit he/she may believe to be correct. CIreland (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ChildofMidnight

User requesting enforcement:
Wikidemon (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.9 ChildofMidnight topic banned
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.13 ChildofMidnight and Scjessey restricted
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles#12.3.14 ChildofMidnight and Wikidemon restricted

1. [17] - Comments on Obama pages and on interaction-restricted editors by comparing those editors to Nazis
2. [18] - Restores Nazi accusations after they were removed following discussion
3. [19] - updates Nazi comparison after being warned by Newyorkbrad
4. [20] - comments on talk page of
   Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies
   and Grundle's Obama-related comments on other editors' talk pages
5. [21][22][23][24][25][26] - comments extensively on editing history of Obama pages and editors there, forum shops Obama Arbcom matter to Jimbo Wales' talk page
6. [27][28][29][30] - commentary on Obama editors being like Nazis, "bullies and liars", "thugs", his editing restrictions being "censorship", the "content position" of Obama articles containing "false, misleading and innacurate information" and "skewed and biased information", his interaction over Obama pages and with Obama editors being "incessant harassment and stalking", "barage of abuse", "censorship and propaganda pushing", and "hounding"
7. [31][32] - further commentary about edits, and editors, on Obama pages

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

1. [33] - Warning by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
2. [34][35][36] - Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) asks ChildofMidnight to remove Nazi accusations
3. Other editors asking for Nazi accusations to be removed:
   Unitanode (talk · contribs)[41]

Additional comments by Wikidemon (talk):
After posting similar screeds on his talk page and elsewhere[42][43][44][45] without the Nazi references, ChildofMidnight was cautioned[46] that rehashing the arbcom case on his talk page and mentioning me by name among his supposed stalkers and harassers were violations of the sanctions.

ChildofMidnight is again referring to me, ScJessey, Baseball Bugs, and Tarc as among his stalkers, harassers, bullies, censors, Nazis, etc. Here others opine that it is "heavily imlied"[47] and "anyone with at least a shred of familiarity with this case will know precisely to who[m]... [the Nazi references] refer to."[48] Here ChildofMidnight makes clear that I am one of "this small group of POV pushers" he means to compare with Nazis. [49][50] In other instances, he has included Bigtimepeace, Wizardman, Arbcom generally, Jimbo, and others among the Obama-related censors.

These edits are also violations of his community sanction not to interact with Baseball Bugs (which is more specific as to prohibited conduct), and general behavioral policy (e.g.

Requesting a clerk, or other party, notify various parties so that I need not discuss this case on non-arbitration page, or interact with ChildofMidnight's talk page - Wikidemon (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified COM of this report. [51]

Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

CoM is deliberately pushing buttons to get a reaction, and he will continue to be inflammatory until he gets one. Why waste our time? Indef now, save us all a bunch of petty annoyance. The Nazi thing was the final straw, and though he removed the images, he failed to comply with NYB's unambiguous statement about the complete unacceptability of that sort of namecalling. Frankly, I would support an indef for any user making that sort of comparison; CoM's history of deliberate shit-stirring makes it that much easier. → ROUX ₪ 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• After a brief review of the diffs submitted, I do not see a violation of the arbitral remedies that would warrant an enforcement action. There is much silly ranting and soapboxing about censorship and Nazis and the like, as well as attacks against various named and unnamed users, but nothing seems to violate the actual remedies – the Obama topic ban or the ban against interaction with Scjessey and Wikidemon. I'm not in principle opposed to community sanctions against ChildofMidnight on the grounds of general unpleasantness (
  WP:ANI or another more public forum. On the other hand, this request by Wikidemon could be construed to violate Wikidemon's own restriction against interaction with ChildofMidnight, so it might be a good idea if all involved would just go away and edit a few articles about something non-political.  Sandstein  17:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

On the specific matter of the Nazi stuff on the talk page (which is still there, even though another editor removed Nazi imagery, now petulantly replaced with "censored" boxes), I think the best idea is to post on ANI. Personally I consider that material disruptive so long as it remains on C of M's talk page, and I think he should remove it post haste, or if he won't he should be blocked and it should be removed for him. An ANI thread could best determine whether or not the community agrees that the talk page material is a problem. I think that's probably the right place for that discussion, though I think it would be a lot more effective if a fairly neutral party started it, which is not me at this point since I've already made it clear that I think C of M's Nazi analogies are quite heinous. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to thread this, but I absolutely have not violated and will not violate any Arbcom remedy, technically or otherwise. I have ignored ChildofMidnight completely since the initial close of the case, not discussing, interacting, or mentioning ChildofMidnight in any form, except to file requests in response to ChildofMidnight's making attacks on me in various forums in which I was participating. I have sought two clarifications here and now this request for enforcement. The first two resulted in findings that CoM was at the very least pushing the boundaries and that a continuation of the behavior would be a violation. This new incident is obviously unacceptable conduct directed at me in part, and derives from the Obama Arbcom case. Whether Arbcom decides to construe it as such, this forum is my only redress and I have not been told I should not use it. I have not abused my privileges here, so I cannot fathom how I would be precluded from seeking redress or discussing these remedies before Arbcom. Beyond that, the point of the interaction ban as I understand it is to prevent the kind of toxic exchanges that took place between me and ChildofMidnight during the period when he was disrupting the Obama pages. That works if it truly keeps ChildofMidnight away from me. If it means ChildofMidnight can call me a Nazi and I'm not supposed to ask for help, even here, it is not accomplishing its purpose. It would have been better if the community had dealt with this already through an AN/I report, an RfC, someone else filing this report, or an administrator simply removing the offensive material as Bigtimepeace suggests and blocking ChildofMidnight if he reinserts it. I waited for three days to see if the material would be removed, saw what looked like an acknowledgment from Newyorkbrad that this might be a fair matter for the committee,[52] and asked if anyone else would be filing a report[53] (despite saying "a few minutes" I waited a further six hours). So I hardly jumped the gun here. I filed this reluctantly after it was clear that the Nazi accusations were not going to come down on their own and there was nothing actively being done. I would be pleased to bow out now, but will someone please take care of this? Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I don't think you should get in trouble for this and I obviously understand your frustration. I think bowing out now is very much a good idea, and obviously a number of people are aware of the situation. I do not know what happens next, but I think this will get addressed one way or another.

The proximate issue right now is the "wikipedia is like the Nazis" stuff on ChildofMidnight's talk page. I think that should be dealt with on ANI (or just removed, but that was tried once and ultimately just meant that instead of having this we now have this), and as I said I hope some uninvolved person who happens by here and views it as a problem can start a thread on the matter. If not I'll maybe do that myself (loath as I am to have anything further to do with the matter), though that would go far less smoothly since C of M sees me as one of the administrators spreading propaganda and censoring him in a manner akin to the brownshirted stormtroopers of old. Also in the recent dustup here I said I was "utterly done" interacting with C of M directly and I intend to hold to that, so if another admin or editor can take a look at this and/or throw it up for community discussion that would be appreciated. If the consensus is that it's C of M's talk page and he can liken other contributors to Nazis then I'll accept that and to a significant degree won't even care, since ultimately I think the material on his talk page does a great deal of harm to C of M and essentially none to anyone else, so ridiculous (but also ridiculously offensive) are the accusations there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Hasta mañana, compadres. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find gratuitous comparisons to Nazis particularly distasteful, as do many; if an editor with no history in this conflict is needed to refile this report on another board, I'll volunteer. Nathan ^T 20:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to offer to refile at AN/I as well; I have a history with this user, but no sanctions against interaction as others do. But a completely uninvolved person wants to, that'd be great. It is time to put an end to this toxic behavior. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point now. C of M has, wisely, removed the offending material. Archiving it elsewhere hardly seems advisable, but it's definitely best to just let that slide. I don't think further action is necessary, though a user conduct RfC is still a possibility in the near or semi-near future. C of M certainly does not seem to think the offending material was a problem, which in and of itself is a problem. But as far as I'm concerned an uninvolved admin can probably fill out the results section now and archive this request. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst AE doesn't seem to be an issue here, I think CoM's behaviour merits further examination. The way he inserted himself into a discussion that was nothing to do with him ([54] - link to oldpage#section; CoM pops up about halfway through the section) really makes me think he could do with an extended wikibreak to think about what exactly it is he's trying to achieve on Wikipedia, and how he wants to go about it. I mean when you get to the point of comparing admins to "rabid dogs" and concluding that "Occasionally the worst ones are put down"[55], well then maybe, just maybe, the time has come for the editor and the community to take a break from each other. Rd232 ^talk 00:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The worst, anyway - I'm not being called a Nazi except in archive, just a thug, bully, liar, obscene, and accused of intimidation, stalking harassment, etc.[56] We never did settle whether commenting about the three interaction-banned editors in that way, or forum shopping complaints about the Obama articles and Obama arbitration to Jimbo's talk page or elsewhere, is okay. I don't plan to comment further and won't raise this unless or until it crosses my path again but if it does, this is the forum, no? Wikidemon (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM's last comment to the thread on Jimbo's page[57] suggests that he considers this event sort of a success. This is worrying but I suppose unsurprising. This will not be the last time we discuss CoM.[58] PhGustaf (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ChildofMidnight

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

• No enforceable remedy. The restrictions being asked for step a bit outside of the case, however, its possible that given CoM's tendency to "blow off steam" and attack editors from a prior dispute that perhaps the community needs to take action of its own here. Unfortunately, that's really not for this board. Shell ^babelfish 05:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Jayjg

User requesting enforcement:
MeteorMaker (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_restricted

Jayjg is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles [59].

For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project. [60]

1. [61] Quote: "Just because Ahmadinejad says he's not antisemitic, it doesn't mean Holocaust denial isn't antisemitic." Granted, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but this is not the place for unnecessary sophistry. Jayjg clearly understands that the Iran-Israel conflict is a subset of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
2. [62] Contentious edit to the Persecution of Jews article, section Muslim and Arab antisemitism that makes the Qu'ran appear more bloodthirsty.
3. [63] More of the same, with an explicitly modern context: "The Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. [...] It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left. Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them."
4. [64] Jayg removes "The church-owned Washington Times newspaper has been accused of having a pro-Israel bias" plus a large number of quotations, including:

""The Washington Times is a mouthpiece for the ultra conservative Republican right, unquestioning supporters of Israel's Likud government." [65]

"Lind writes that the most supportive members of Likud in the Republican Party are southern Christian fundamentalists. “The religious right believes that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, and fundamentalist congregations spend millions to subsidise Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,” says Lind." [66]

[...] "the [Washington] Times editorial content is generally considered favorable toward Israel by pro-Israel activists." [67]

Diffs of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required by the remedy):
Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (

Additional comments by MeteorMaker (talk):
It would be helpful to know the exact boundaries of what the ArbCom (twice) has loosely defined as "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project". Can topics such as Ahmadinejad, anti-Semitism, pro-Israel bias in media, the Qu'ran and different modern interpretations of what it says about Jews be discussed or not?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a

Discussion concerning Jayjg

Statement by Jayjg

Comments by other editors

• I don't believe that "Israel-Palestine" can be stretched, however broadly construed, to include antisemitism in general; but I would strongly recommend that Jayjg be circumspect in his selection of articles to edit and discussions to join. Any repeat of the behavior that led to the current sanctions is likely to be viewed very dimly by the community and ArbCom both. — Coren ^(talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (To answer the more direct question, I do believe that the edits under discussion skirt dangerously close to — but do not cross — the line. It's probably unwise to toe this close to the line though.) — Coren ^(talk) 16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic is not defined as "Israel-Palestine" but "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles". Stretching it to all of antisemitism may be too much, but antisemitism in Iran is closely related. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (e/c with Coren above) I believe that the three diffs cited are not within the area of conflict. They are about the president of Iran, Islam, Judaism, antisemitism and holocaust denial. All of these are topics distinct from the
  Arab-Israeli conflict, and the context in which the edits were made does not involve either Israel, the Arab states, Palestine, or any people from these states and territories. This request is not actionable.  Sandstein  16:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: A fourth diff, unequivocally within the area of conflict, has been added. MeteorMaker (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think the edits are clearly within the area of the conflict, broadly interpreted as the ruling states. Islam and Ahmadinejad as topics are plainly part of the

WP:BATTLEGROUND over which editors on different sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict are prone to war, and for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone. I think that needs to be clarified to the user in question. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't think it applies, unless the I/P sanctions are to construed as applying to generic Judeophobia. Indeed, it might be a little too close to the line for Meteormaker's comfort, but the sanctions are not intended to prevent Jayjg from editing. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is difficult. It seems very hard to argue that Holocaust denial is a topic that is covered under the IP conflict (moreover, as noted Achmenijad is Persian, not Arab but this does seem to be a minor detail). These are very hard to draw lines. If Holocaust denial is covered, would an edit to say
  Benjamin Freedman which I thought might violate the restriction and after talking to him about it he decided not to edit it although it wasn't completely clear if Freedman was included within the ban. Some sort of clarification from the ArbCom would likely be helpful here. (I'm also a bit worried by the fact that Meteormaker who has a prior history of conflicts with Jayjg on IP issues seems to have returned after a 2.5 month absence solely to discuss Jayjg's editing). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Neither Holocaust denial nor "generic Judaophobia", as jpgordon puts it, would necessarily fall under the purview of topics related to the I-P conflict in my view. However, edits regarding prominent enemies of Israel such as Ahmadinejad, or edits that involve alleged Muslim attitudes to Jews (and by extension, Israelis) ought to be clearly off-limits for obvious reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm more concerned about this edit. This shows the classic behavior for which this editor was topic-banned. There's removal of a section, "Recent Genetic Studies", containing sourced material with references to reliable sources regarding the genetic history of the Jews in Israel, with an edit comment of "(remove unsourced material and material not referencing The Thirteenth Tribe)" One could legitimately argue over that edit, but given that the article contains the line "if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel" it's clearly in the topic area of concern. --John Nagle (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nagle, you may be correct about that edit concerning the Thirteen Tribe but that doesn't seem correct. There's no mention in the section removed of the Israeli-Arab conflict and if we followed your logic then any edits related to what fraction of Jews are converts would be not ok, which seems to be a bit extreme. Also note that the material removed by Jayjg while technically sourced seems to be arguably OR in terms of connecting it to the book in question. This hardly seems like an edit to get worked up about. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just realized, the material that Jayjg removed in that case is actually arguing against the Khazar hypothesis and is thus if it has any relevance is supportive of a Jewish claim to the land. So um, yeah... JoshuaZ (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the Israel-Palestine conflict should be broadened to include "Anything about Jews, Israel, or Muslims at any point in history." If the ArbCom decision was intended to be that broad, it should have made itself clear. An expansion to anything related to two major religions, significant elements of modern politics and 6000 years of history should require a request for clarification. Nathan ^T 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Holocaust denial has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian article space. The fact that some Palestinians are Holocaust deniers does not make Holocaust denial an I-P issue any more than the fact that some Israeli's are soccer players make soccer an I-P issue. -- Avi (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't quite that clear cut because much of their Holocaust denial seems motivated by the surrounding conflict. But the argument does have some merit. I'm more worried about Gato's statement about ""Jews and by extension Israelis" which if one follows that sort of logic than anything at all related to Jews isn't ok. (Aside from the fact that the equation Jews=Israelis is pretty noxious). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is arguing for a broadening to include anything about Jews or Israel? I'm certainly not, and I haven't seen anyone else here make such an argument. However, I do believe edits relating to Muslims/Arabs, and to the relationship and alleged attitudes of Muslims/Arabs to Jews, ought to be off limits. Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel in the I-P conflict, and for that reason such topics ought to be off limits. Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel" - That seems to be getting perilously close to letting your own POV dictate what is and is not covered by the ArbCom ban. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(

WP:OR and 2) potentially insulting to the Arab or Muslim in question by intimating that they cannot separate those issues in their mind and are willing to judge one group by the actions of another. The logical reductio ad absurdum of that line of reasoning is to judge all Muslims by the actions of Hamas or Taliban suicide bombers—an abhorrent comparison in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

You may think so, but when Jayjg makes comments such as "The Muslim holy text defined the Arab and Muslim attitude towards Jews to this day, especially in the periods when Islamic fundamentalism was on the rise. [...] It is really easy to find quotations stating that jihad (holy war) is the sacred duty of every Muslim, that Jews and Christians should be killed, and that this fight should continue until only the Muslim religion is left. Al-Baqara says about the Jews, slay them (the sons of apes and pigs) whenever you catch them." - then it ought to be clear to anyone that Jayjg is fighting the I-P conflict by proxy on these pages. I don't believe that is acceptable, and I think the best way to avoid problems is simply to make it clear to him that edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs in any way are off limits. Gatoclass (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in what universe is anything related to Muslims or Arabs part of the I-P conflict? Does this mean for example that he can't edit say

al-Khwārizmī? Would that extend to History of algebra for example? The claim that any edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs should be off limits seems to do a decent job of indicating the extreme absurdity of the position that these edits go over the line. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, you are playing the straw man. I did not state that "anything related to Muslims or Arabs [is] part of the I-P conflict". However, the question at hand is where to draw the line in regards to the sanction imposed upon Jayjg. I am simply making the point that the simplest solution is to draw the boundary at edits relating to Arabs or Muslims, or at least to the relationship of Arabs or Muslims to Jews. That way there cannot be any misunderstanding about it. Gatoclass (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what straw man there is here. You said "the best way to avoid problems is simply to make it clear to him that edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs in any way are off limits." That's anything related to Muslims and Arabs. So may he edit al-Kharizmi or not? What about History of Algebra. Heck, for that matter, can he edit material related to Maimonides whose philosophy was very much influenced by the Muslim culture in which he resided for most of his life? That's pretty clearly in the interface between Islam and Judaism. Is that too close to the IP conflict in your view? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, Gato. That is not fighting the I-P war by proxy, it is discussing the claims of inherent antisemitism in Islam. The Quran and Islam as a religion predated the I-P issue by hundreds of years, Gato. -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not fighting the I-P war by proxy - only if you ignore the fact that the alleged antisemitism of Arabs and Muslims is very much a live issue in the IP conflict. Gatoclass (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Islam predated the I/P conflict by hundreds of years, but claims of an "inherent antisemitism in Islam" did not. Indeed, one of the edits Jay recently made was to obscure the fact that one of his preferred sources, Bernard Lewis, explicitly states that Muslim antisemitism as a modern phenomenon is rooted in European antisemitism. Here's what Lewis says, which Jay in that edit claims to present a "more accurate representation" of:

From the late nineteenth century, as a direct result of European influence, movements appear among Muslims of which for the first time one can legitimately use the term anti-Semitic. Hostility to Jews had, of course, roots in the past, but in this era it assumed a new and radically different character...A specific campaign against Jews, expressed in the unmistakeable language of European Christian anti-Semitism, first appeared among (Middle Eastern) Christians in the nineteenth century, and developed among Christians and then Muslims in the twentieth....The first anti-Semitic tracts in Arabic appeared toward the end of the nineteenth century. They were translated from French originals - part of the literature of the Dreyfus controversy. [emphasis added]

In his "more accurate representation," Jay removes everything the source has to say about the "direct" influence of modern European antisemitism.--G-Dett (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hello, G-Dett, good seeing you around. Even if Lewis is 100% correct, that still does not make discussions about Islam and antisemitism an I-P issue. The emergence of the claims is still not an I-P issue; your own quote is tying it to the Dreyfus affair and France. -- Avi (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zionism began in the late nineteenth century, Avi, and the Dreyfus affair was a major catalyst.--G-Dett (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with Muslim antisemitsm ("first anti-Semitic tracts in Arabic…"), G-Dett? -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this anti-Semitism was due to early Zionism is not in the cited sources, is OR on your part, and is frankly a bit incredible. The early Zionists and their Arab neighbors got along well. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what OR has to do with this or how I can possibly be engaged in it. I'm not editing the article in question, nor suggesting it should say that "this anti-Semitism was due to early Zionism." I'm saying that the formative European influence on modern Arab antisemitism is an issue with obvious relevance to the I/P conflict, so Jay ought to avoid it. If you mean there aren't sources for the relevance of this issue to the I/P conflict, then you're wrong. There are scads.--G-Dett (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now something that's just minimally relevant to the I-P conflict isn't ok? Can he edit our article on the book of Joshua since it is relevant to where the historic state was in ancient times? Let's not be absurd. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]