Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152

Sean.hoyland

User talk:AmirSurfLera and User talk:Kipa Aduma, Esq. are banned indefinitely from content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed; they may appeal this after six months. User:Sean.hoyland is warned not to accuse others of being a sock without providing sufficient reasoning. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Sean.hoyland User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Sean.hoyland (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:ARBPIA : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 06:22, 1 July 2014 First edit after coming off a block for calling me a sock without evidence, repeats the behavior, and says "just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind" Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 11:12, 28 June 2014 Block for the same behavior - calling people socks without evidence 08:45, 1 July 2014 Clarification by blocking admin that such behavior constitutes personal attacks, and will be dealt with accordingly If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 June 2014 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Additional comments by editor filing complaint @Black Kite - WP:NOTHERE, as I am sure you know, is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. My real life work burden prevents me from editing regularly, but I edit when I can. The I-P topic is one my main interests, and when I edit there, I do so without breaking any policies or guidelines, which is more than I can say for the predictable pile-ons by some of the commenters here, or by Sean.hoyland. What policy exactly are you basing your suggestion to topic ban me on? And to all the editors who are now claiming Sean is merely "frustrated", or "blew his cool", I refer you to his most recent edit:[1] "Editors can do and say anything and take the consequences. I know you probably won't be able to understand this but I haven't made any mistakes. Everything I've done is considered and deliberate". Administrators on this board have, as far as I can tell, two options: They can ivent an excuse to block be , not based on Wikipedia policy, while letting an editor brazenly thumb their nose at this site's policies regarding personal attacks, and allow them to continue, in a calculated and deliberate way to drive contributors like me, whose opinions they don't like off the project. In the process, they will of course make a mockery of Sandstein's original block for this kind of behavior and their subsequent declaration that the rules are clear and that such personal attacks will be "dealt with accordingly" [2]; or they can start enforcing the rules without making excuses on behalf of supposedly useful contributors. @Black Kite & Sandstein: If one-sided editing is grounds for a topic ban, then as Shrike notes below, every single one of the commenters on this case needs to be topic banned. Shall I provide you with the evidence? @Sandstein: re: editors who "have clear sympathies for one side, but are not only dedicated to making edits that favor that side. " - if you are referring to their edits within the I-P topic area, that is incorrect. Those edits are uniformly one-sided. If you are referring to the fact that (some) of them may also contribute to other part of the encyclopedia- would it matter if I undertook to significantly increase my edits outside the I-P area, to the level of say, RolandR? Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [3] Discussion concerning Sean.hoyland 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 Sean.hoyland I wasn't planning to comment here for various reasons, but having just read through it, some comments caught my eye and I find them a little disturbing. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq./Archive - the lesson there is, don't file SPI reports unless there is a high probability that they will result in a block because the cost outweighs the benefit. And even if an SPI will likely result in a block, consider that a block is only a temporary inconvenience that can be avoided by simply creating another account. The cost still outweighs the benefit. Who is Kipa Aduma, Esq. ? I don't know. There are several possibilities, and none of them were included in the SPI report. A likely motive for creating the account was to target what they believe (and in a couple of cases I agree) are examples of POV pushing and sockpuppetry in the topic area probably because they have been around long enough to understand that, given the ineffective measures in place to tackle these issues, it is necessary. This kind of vigilantism is common in ARBPIA because it's not adequently policed and the cost of addressing it using the current methods exceeds the benefit. Their first edit targeted Dalai lama ding dong (a legitimate target in my view), during an edit war at 1929 Palestine riots, an article whose history is littered with socks, many confirmed via SPI. They also targeted socks HistorNE and Aa42shirley, also legitimate targets. Unfortunately, they also target and personally attack decent editors who follow policy and it's this aspect, common in ARBPIA, that is disruptive. Although I think SPI is ineffective, if people insist on using SPI for fishing expeditions then the account should be checked against as many accounts as possible that have a troubled history in the topic area. Narrow it down by looking at the behavioral evidence. Who is likely to use a phrase like 'really as simple as that' ? Could be Breein1007[4][5] or NoCal100[6], or me. Who likes to use the term 'friggin' ? Lots of people. Wikifan12345 was always fond of it but never struck me as the socking type. Who has a sufficient level of vidictiveness and/or pettyness to patrol ARBPIA using civilian cover picking off people they don't like ? Several people are capable of that; NoCal100, Breein1007, Dajudem/Tiundrabuggy/Stellarkid, AnkhMorpork, Historicist and sadly many many more. I'm not going to file an SPI report because I know from experience that it is probably a waste of time. Someone else can if they wish. Regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmirSurfLera, those accounts are not related to AmirSurfLera. I will file an SPI report that will list Shamir1 as the master and Precision123 as the sock abandoned to facilitate a return to ARBPIA as AmirSurfLera. But I'll only do that if it becomes absolutely necessary because it relies on a substantial amount of data. Sometimes it's easier to address issues by focusing on the problems caused by an editors personal views, and blocking isn't guaranteed to stop an editor for very long (although it does interfere with the collection of evidence needed for SPIs). I understand admins desire to stick to procedure. Admins should do whatever they think is in the best interests of the project. I would encourage admins to start using the discretion that the discretionary sanctions give them to deal with the systemic problems because sticking to procedure hasn't worked. I'd also encourage any admins who want to handle ARBPIA related reports to spend time as an involved editor making a substantial number of edits before returning to an uninvolved status. Spend time finding out what editors in ARBPIA put up with. Get a flavor of the topic area by looking at how editors ignore the existence of WP:NOTADVOCATE everyday e.g. Talk:Rachel_Corrie now. Lastly I want to address Bbb23's comment 'I would not describe that as a constructive motive.' I disagree and with respect I don't think it matters how you see it because it's much more important than that. In another recent edit warring report here, an editor was not blocked. The result was inconsistent with a recent clarification of the rules. That's okay and unsurprising. I asked "Would it be possible for admins to initiate an discussion between admins to settle this once and for all so that there is clarity and consistency ?" Nothing happened, so I carried out an experiment. I'm a humble geoscientist, not an activist or a lawyer, so it was perfectly natural for me to use that approach. These cases clarify 1RR, something that affects every edit and editor in ARBPIA, something that is far more important than what happens to me as a result of this AE report, which really doesn't matter at all in the scheme of things. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nomoskedasticity Four days after this editor's "debut", Ohiostandard (talk · contribs) left a message noting the suspicion of socking. Just sayin'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) So do y'all think that the editor is not a sock?? That would be a tad ridiculous, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani Okay. The most astute, informed and relatively untarnished SPI/IP/ abuse account expert in the I(P area has blown his cool. His edit summary is, self-evidently, a request for a perma-ban because of his outrage (shared, I would add) at the extraordinary sanction applied to him for what was deemed a WP:AGF infraction, in an area where I don't even note any more the insults that fly my way, or make formal protests here or at AN/1. He feels, one gathers, that his record was blemished by an intense focus on a technical piece of the minutiae of good faith protocols, to the exclusion of what everyone knows. There is something extremely odd about the Kipa Aduma account, as there is about AmirSurfLera's and his edits are a disaster. The point that tipped his detachment lies here. He thought in the Sepsis case that he was in his rights to call an editor a sock (multiple account user) on the basis of an assurance given to him by an experienced checkuser that AmirSurfLera, despite his denials, had worked on wikipedia under another account. Several people thought that SH's inference was absolutely rational. Sandstein did not. I laid out the point here in the the Sepsis case just prior to the Kipa Aduma case: SH's comments about ASL's (putative) sockpuppetry ('The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose') appear to draw on Elockid's checkuser judgement that 'it is a user who has edited before', which AmirSurfLera is on record as denying. If those comments consist of an inference, unproven and therefore unwarranted, then there might be a case for SH's short suspension for disruptiveness. If they stem not from personal guesswork, but rather, as would appear to be the case, from taking an experienced admin's judgement as objective, then it is hard to understand the severity. Two other expressly noted the formal problem as I noted here. Three editors now Roland R, myself and Dlv999 have asked for clarification of why SH's use of Elockid's statement to assert something quite specific, that ASL has edited wiki before adopting a new handle, is sanctionable. This is important since SH is virtually the only experienced editor in this troubled area who tracks the extremely problematical and intricate patterns of socking there. A ban that is not tightly argued and reasonable beyond dispute risks effectively maiming our ability to defend wikipedia from the large number of socks, meatpuppets and pseudo-newbies who barge in almost daily. This is not special pleading for SH, nor is it partisan. It is special pleading to not make the work of editors in this area even more sisyphean than it already it. The case was closed without any consideration given to a point independently raised by myself,RolandR, and Dlv999. The refusal to answer the point may be al legitimate exercise in discretional insouciance to what is deemed a technical irrerlevance. But we peons would reply that Sandstein's reading, and tacit dismissal, has left (a) editors not knowing any longer whether they can trust checkuser assurances and (b) SH (I don't know who he is and we have never corresponded, for the record) so pissed off he is apparently willing to challenge the arbitrator, by a formally suicidal edit summary. So, while technical a severe sanction is a quick mechanical consequence, a refusal to address several complaints about what long-term editors think is a vizio di forma or legal flaw at the basis of SH's ban is, inevitably, going to deprive the area of its most experienced technician for detecting the viral plague that makes work in this, excuse me, cesspit of corrupt editing, almost intolerable. A case of overattention to one detail, itself disputed, Sandstein, which now looks like having a drastically negative impact on the I/P area's functionality. Nishidani (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC) BK. Quite correct that 'Whether Kipa Aduma, Esq is a sock of another user or not actually isn't the point here'. But since, he is one of two editors whom almost all in the area from detailed experience consider uncannily like a duck, and, having escaped challenge, now is setting his sights on outing an editor with an outstanding record for contributing to the sanity of this place, the complaint he lays certainly demands that we look at why SeanH's remark arose: the point then is also: was SH's inference, which led to the sanction in the first place, proper or not. No answer has been given, and a large number of editors are puzzled. I have great respect for Sandstein's almost Olympian judgement, the ability to cut to the chase, as repeated over the years. Here, I must admit, I think that meticulousness saw one (small) problem, and ignored what many thought an obvious issue as though it were impertinent in both senses- namely, the statement by Elockid which most of us read as validating the idea that ASL had, contrary to his protestations, edited under another name, and therefore was a sock. Surely that statement by Elockid and SH's logical assumption that it constituted a clear-cut basis for his own remark, requires reanalysis. There's nothing personal in this, or partisan. One's sense of how to read things is destablized if this remains obscure. Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Huldra A doctor in my country recently had to stand trial for drunk-driving. He was the only doctor on an isolated island. One late Saturday night, he got a phone-call about an emergency. Even though he had taken two glasses of wine, (thereby clearly breaking our very strict drunk-driving laws) he sat himself in the car (there was nobody else there to drive him) and got to the patient. He was freed at the trial, as the Judge noted that that nobody was hurt by his driving, and that the patient would surely have died if he had not got there. Nobody criticised the judge, but the patient had really, really been lucky. Undoubtedly, many doctors would have said "rules are rules!" -and refused to drive. CU Elockid said this about AmirSurfLera here. To Sandstein: Is it a blocable offence to repeat that? Is it an offence to link to it? Sickly patients wants to know. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 11:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Everyone, (including me[7]), seems to mix up Kipa Aduma, Esq. and AmirSurfLera. No wonder. Lets sum it up: Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started editing 10 June 2012, but has only 163 edits: long dormant period. 1st edit a revert. On the 11 June 2012, Kipa Aduma, Esq. was named as a possible sock of AnkhMorpork, by Oncenawhile, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnkhMorpork/Archive On the 13th June 2012 Kipa Aduma, Esq. was referred to as an "obvious socks" on WP:AN/I by OhioStandard (link). OhioStandard was not blocked for this. And Kipa Aduma, Esq. somehow follows/is informed about what goes on WP:AN/I after three days on wikipedia, as they referred to it on their talk-page. Wikichecker chart: [8] AmirSurfLera and Kipa Aduma, Esq. typically reverts with the same POV, on the same pages: 05:25, 29 June 2014 revert on Ariel University 06:18, 1 July 2014 revert on Ariel University 04:28, 30 June 2014 revert on Basic Laws of Israel 08:57, 1 July 2014 revert on Basic Laws of Israel However, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kipa_Aduma,_Esq. was closed without action by Bbb23 Note: this is *very* interesting, User Tiptoety just deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AnkhMorpork/Archive "pr Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing". What a coincidence..... Huldra (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC) AmirSurfLera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Started 21 March 2014, but have only 404 edits. Did not really get active until a month ago, Wikichecker chart: [9] CU Elockid said on 8th of April 2014 this about AmirSurfLera "it is a user who has edited before. I'm not sure if they were blocked for sockpuppetry or indeffed blocked but if memory serves me, I believe this user has been blocked before. I just can't quite point my finger who this is, but they are definitely not new." Elockid has not been blocked for this remark. AmirSurfLera denies having previously edited Wikipedia AmirSurfLera is an absolute expert WP:1RR-gamer, just look at these last days: 03:43, 30 June 2014 1st revert on Basic Laws of Israel 03:43, 1 July 2014 2nd revert on Basic Laws of Israel 02:01, 30 June 2014 1st revert on Ariel University 02:04, 1 July 2014 2nd revert on Ariel University Sean.hoyland thinks[10] that Precision123 (see [11]) = Shamir1 was an AmirSurfLera sock. Shamir1 was an extremely experienced (8K+) wikiaddict (since 2005) who is indeffed. However, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AmirSurfLera was closed without action by Bbb23. To Sandstein: I took the liberty of notifying AmirSurfLera here. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Btw, I have spent several hours finding these links, (instead of doing what I love: finding sources for, & writing articles). You so easily say we should "work through the rules". But the I/P area is getting a tsunami of socks, it is impossible to act on them all. We *need* new rules. And we need those few editors who can actually identify those abusive socks. Like Sean.hoyland can. We do *not* need admins who only spend a *very* limited time, looking for some narrow "rule" which is "actionable". These ducks knows every rule to the core. Look at the above expert 1RR-gaming! I´m seriously impressed! In many cases these ducks have been on Wikipedia much longer that the admins they are tricking. Please at least comment here: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#IP_area_still_being_swamped_by_socks Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC) As one who (tries to) work and add content in the I/P aera: please do not block any account. Sean.hoyland very rightly observes: "And even if an SPI will likely result in a block, consider that a block is only a temporary inconvenience that can be avoided by simply creating another account. The cost still outweighs the benefit." That is, IMO, quite correct, and a damning inditement of the "present rules". Instead I would very much like to see Kipa Aduma, Esq. and AmirSurfLera topic banned from the I/P era for one year. If they, after that year, have edited productively on other topics on Wikipedia, they can ask to be allowed back to Israel/Palestine issues. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 Sean.hoyland is one of the most balanced and valuable editors in the mideast area of Wikipedia. Losing him would be a disaster. The pov-pushers would just throw a party and choose their next victim. I urge administrators to take a wider view and act in the interest of the project. Zerotalk 13:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by RolandR Like many other editors involved in Middle East articles, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the proliferation of tendentious, throwaway single-purpose accounts. It seems obvious that many of these accounts are socks, very possibly of banned editors, but it is not always possible to reliably identify the puppeteer. This handicaps our ability to take action to deal with the socks, since Wikipedia rules require a complaint to name a puppeteer. In the case of AmirSurfLera, Elockid wrote that this is "a user who has edited before. I'm not sure if they were blocked for sockpuppetry or indeffed blocked but if memory serves me, I believe this user has been blocked before. I just can't quite point my finger who this is, but they are definitely not new", so Sean's comment was neither unfounded nor outrageous. I would suggest that a new procedure is needed for reporting and investigating accounts which are clearly socks, even if the editor submitting the report cannot specify who the puppeteer is. As others have pointed out, this behaviour, which seems to be increasing, taken alongside an apparent tightening of what is considered a revert, is preventing normal constructive editing. If experienced, good-faith editors have to revert non-stop unconstructive edits from these throwaway POV socks, it removes our right to make most other edits to articles. If this continues, all of the decent editors will be driven away, blocked or topic-banned, leaving the field free for trolls, propagandists and other vandals to wreak havoc. RolandR (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Shrike If admins think that users should be banned for being a SPA then most of those who operate now in I/P area should be banned including those who posted comments in this thread.I don't care either way but please let be consistent--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Carolmooredc I gave up editing in the area in part because WP:SPI ignored clear evidence of one or more SPA's who probably were socks. It can get frustrating when that happens and is a disincentive to collecting proper evidence. While everything is a judgement call, obviously those who only appear (and reappear under different names) to edit with one view, on one or two related articles, have to be dealt with. If SPA rather than SPI is the best way, please enforce it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Serialjoepsycho I have to question what this would accomplish. One thing of note that it would do is prevent Sean.hoyland from reverting Kipa Aduma, Esq. I have to say that I agree with the revert in question and it was done by more than editor. I think it might be necessary to ask you admins to review these comments as they were the comments that Sean responded to. While they weren't directed at Sean directly they do seem inciting. I also question if those comments are casting aspersions against Zero. It seems to me to be an Implication of Bad faith editing. I question the emphasis on original research and I'm wondering if his mention of adminship suggests conduct unbecoming of a mod. As for Sean, You have already banned him and it did not work. It is my understanding that discretionary sanctions are not meant to be punishment. They like other sanctions on wikipedia are meant to end disruption. As to my understanding Standard discretionary sanctions apply, I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions. I'd like to note that Sean's disruption has linked directly to his interaction with Kipa. In the linked policy it does mention interaction bans. My assumption what an interaction ban is a ban on an editor from interacting with another editor. Such a ban could effectively end disruption. Ban both Kipa from and Sean from communicating unless absolutely necessary. Limited exclusively to content and only as necessary. I do not think that Discretionary Sanctions were meant to be used as a blunted object to silence other editors. It seems to me that is exactly what Kipa is doing here.I'd also point to his action here.In this complaint his issue was that Sepsis II committed a 1RR violation. Not that there was an edit war. Not that he even had an issue with the content change. I would also like to point to This where he contacts the mod who banned Sepsis II in that case. I have to point to this as well. Let me be clear however before continuing, I'm not accusing either mod of any improper action. I do question if this amounts to Kipa Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_sanctions_for_disruptive_behavior Gaming the system. Note that I personally see Kipa's response to Zero in a similar light to the comments Sean responded with. While contacting these admins may not be wp:canvassing to the letter I wonder if it is in principle. Specifically contacting a admin insure a predetermined outcome. I do find this suspect. It brings into question the overall fairness of the process if you can just walk in and pick your admins to judge the case. Does Kipa have Unclean hands and is this Vexatious? Finally my interpretation of the talk page where this happened is that Ariel university is not in Israel but the land we attribute the name Palestine and in some cases the "State of Palestine". Multiple editors reverted this change multiple times to conform to that consensus. WP:TAGTEAM is an essay that defines a specific form of Meat puppetry. I question if The edits by Kipa Aduma, Esq, AmirSurfLera, and a number of IP's would constitute Meatpuppetry and are in violation of WP:sock. These edits dating back to 04:53, June 16, 2014, and continuing at least until 01:04, July 2, 2014. I apologise for exceeding 500 words. I ask that you review my comments and consider leaving them intact.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sepsis I suggest we desysop those admins who are shooting the messengers and ignoring the messages. How many admins here are working on solutions to the major sock problems in the IP area? How many are criticizing and blocking those who are trying to deal with the socks, point out the problem? Sepsis II (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Result concerning Sean.hoyland This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. I previously sanctioned Sean.hoyland with a brief block and a commenting restriction because, in an earlier AE thread, they repeatedly alleged that Kipa Aduma, Esq., is a sockpuppet, but did not provide evidence in support of that allegation when asked to. Sean.hoyland now continues to repeat that allegation, including on a noticeboard. However, an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq. has since been closed without action. The continued allegations by Sean.hoyland are therefore personal attacks that impede cooperation in the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area, in which both editors are active. They are not acceptable conduct (see, in particular, WP:ASPERSIONS). In an pseudonymous editing environment, editors are required to assume good faith of one another unless they have actionable evidence to the contrary. I am of the view that a week-long block of Sean.hoyland and a ban from the topic of sockpuppetry in the Arab-Israeli conflict area are indicated. But I'd like to hear the opinion of other admins.  Sandstein  09:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Whether Kipa Aduma, Esq is a sock of another user or not actually isn't the point here, especially since if they are, they're clever enough to circumvent Checkuser. What can be proved is that they are an account that doesn't edit for long periods of times, and then activates to edit-war and/or insert themselves into contentious issues with a clear POV, almost exclusively on IP subjects. This is pretty much a textbook definition of WP:NOTHERE and that alone, I would say, suggests that an IP topic ban would be a suitable method of preventing future issues with this account. Black Kite kite (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC) If this description of Kipa Aduma, Esq. is correct, then I agree that a topic ban would be suitable. However, nobody has so far made an AE request or submitted evidence to this effect. If such evidence can be supplied here, I'd agree to act on it. Black Kite, I am also interested in your opinion concerning the conduct of Sean.hoyland.  Sandstein  11:36, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I think Sean.hoyland has become as frustrated as many others who have posted above by the continual issues in this topic area created by suspicious single-purpose accounts, many of whom - even if they can't be proved to be sockpuppets of other users - are clearly not new users, as Elockid pointed out. As Nishidani says, Elockid's comment may have been taken by SH and others to mean that particular editor was a proven sock (I realize that he didn't quite say that, but the difference was effectively negligible). Effectively, SH went about things the wrong way when dealing with accounts that frankly really do fail the duck test in many ways and whilst he has clearly breached WP:POINT with his second comment, I am not convinced that another sanction is worthwhile, especially given a comment by a Checkuser that suggests exactly what SH is being sanctioned for. Do we really want to reward these SPA accounts for their incitement of good-faith editors? I don't believe so. As for evidence of Kipa Aduma's modus operandi, a simple perusal of their contributions history should be enough. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) Kipa Aduma, Esq.: whilst WP:NOTHERE is a guideline, it links to policies, and the decision that administrators need to make is whether an account is a net positive to Wikipedia. Your account, with its persistent POV editing, edit-warring, and running off to this page to attempt to get good-faith editors blocked for opposing you, clearly is not. Having looked at this in detail now, I would recommend a block and/or a topic ban (effectively the same thing) for both this account and AmirSurfLera. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I don't have a particular objection to these proposed sanctions, if only because I am of the view that one-sided single-purpose editing is in and of itself a violation of the conduct aspect of WP:NPOV, and as such sanctionable misconduct. The 1RR gaming evidence by Huldra is also indicative that these accounts may mostly be here to play games. However, the socking evidence is still non-existent, really, there's just a lot of allegations and suppositions. At any rate, having alternate accounts is not in and of itself sanctionable - only abusing them, such as to avoid scrutiny or sanctions, is. And we'd need evidence for that. Also, if AmirSurfLera is to be sanctioned here, they would need to be notified and allowed to make a statement. At any rate, nothing about this changes my appreciation of the conduct of Sean.hoyland, who I note has said on their talk page that they won't comment here. No matter what others, including checkusers, may have suggested, confrontatively accusing others of misconduct without actionable evidence is not permitted.  Sandstein  20:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC) I agree with the first part, but feel that I need to point out that the socking (or not) is irrelevant - it's the disruptive editing that should be taken into account. Whether or not a single-purpose POV edit-warring account is a sock doesn't matter. As regards Sean.hoyland, if a checkuser has (effectively) suggested that an editor is a sock, I don't see how one can sanction anyone else for repeating that claim. Otherwise one would also have to sanction the checkuser. I didn't realise AmirSurfLera had not yet been notified, so that would of course have to be done. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC) The checkuser's comment (which may not even be based on checkuser information) does not help Sean.hoyland here. Their disruption, as I see it, lies in repeatedly and in several fora accusing another editor of being a sockpuppet, without providing evidence after being asked to, that is, without even citing the checkuser's comment. Such conduct violates the principle described in WP:ASPERSIONS.  Sandstein  22:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC) If an account edits in the manner of a sockpuppet or illegitimate alternative account then they can hardly be offended when they are called out on it. The two accounts being discussed here may belong to good-faith editors who just happen to only visit Wikipedia when there is a dispute or edit-warring from a certain POV in the IP area to be done, but to say the least it would not be my first guess. As I say, given the situation my inclination would be to warn SH only. Black Kite kite (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC) In response to Shrike, if there is evidence that any participant to this request is a single-purpose account dedicated only (or almost only) to advancing one side's position of the Arab-Israeli conflict in Wikipedia, then you may make a (separate) AE request for sanctions against them. My impression, however, is that this description does not apply to (at least) many participants to this thread, who may have clear sympathies for one side, but are not only dedicated to making edits that favor that side.  Sandstein  05:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC) There are two sock puppet investigations that were closed. One is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq., which has been referred to, and the other is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera. The Aduma investigation was brought by Callanecc, and none of the listed puppets was found to be technically related by DoRD. The ASL one was brought by Sepsis II (currently blocked and mad as hell about it). It listed Aduma, among others, not on the other list, as puppets. After consulting with DoRD, I closed the report with no action. You can see the closure at the bottom (that was one of things that Sepsis was pissed about). Today, Sean brought a 1RR report against ASL at WP:AN3 (here). There was a lot of back and forth between Sean and a user (User:DanDanT) with very few contributions who openly created an "alternate account" of another user with very few contributions. Dan accused Sean of having unclean hands. Sean accused Dan of being a sock. Sean also made a more generalized comment about socks in the report ("I am attracting socks to the project"). At least one of Sean's motives was to test administrators on their interpretation of 1RR ("I want to see how this pattern of edits is handled and whether they are treated as 1RR violations"); there's some history to that I'm omitting. I would not describe that as a constructive motive. I blocked ASL for one month for the 1RR violation (the duration was based on their recent ARBPIA blocks). I ignored the Dan contretemps, but I did criticize this mentality of seeing socks under every rock. God knows that as an SPI clerk I see a lot of socks, and I'd hardly call my attitude pollyannaish, but I still insist on evidence, and although gut feelings may turn out to be correct, they may also turn out to be wrong. In the context of ARBPIA, although I may not be the most experienced admin in the area, alleging someone is a sock before they've been found to be a sock is, at best, distracting, and, at worst, a personal attack. Just focus on their conduct until an uninvolved administrator or a CU has reached a conclusion. Finally, as to Elockid's comment, it was directed at ASL, and he said (a) they weren't so-and-so, (b) he thinks the user has been blocked before, and (c) they are not new. Now, I would trust Elockid's hunches over an ordinary editor's hunches, just as I would with any CU, but he didn't conclude that ASL was a sock, no matter what people may infer from his remarks. Sorry for the length of these comments, and I'm not sure how helpful they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Without commenting on other issues, I think SH needs a stern warning to the effect of harsh block and/or topic-ban length should SH accuse others of being a sock without providing sufficient reasoning. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC) I concur with Penwhale's suggestion and the bulk of BlackKite's proposals above ("I would recommend a block and/or a topic ban (effectively the same thing) for both this account and AmirSurfLera"). --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Per User:Black Kite I agree that we should be imposing ARBPIA topic bans on User talk:AmirSurfLera and User talk:Kipa Aduma, Esq.. Also agree with Penwhale's proposed warning to User:Sean.hoyland. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC) I, too, concur with this result. Although off-topic, but triggered in part by User:Sepsis II's comment above, I have issued an only warning to Sepsis II on his talk page for personal attacks in these edits. He just came off a one-week ArbCom block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC) If there's no dissenting comments from other uninvolved admins over the next few hours, I'll close this with an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban on User talk:AmirSurfLera and User talk:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (with the ability to appeal after six months) and Penwhale's proposed warning. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Regarding Sepsis II, the request below would be a better place to address it. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikieditorpro

Wikieditorpro is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and making any edit broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is suggested that Wikieditorpro does not appeal for at least six months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Wikieditorpro User who is submitting this request for enforcement Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Wikieditorpro (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:ARBPIA#Editors reminded : "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary." (emphasis added, links removed) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 6 July Personal attack 7 July Personal attack 7 July Personal attack 7 July Personal attack following my warning on Wikieditorpro's Talk page Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 20 February 2013 48 hour block for ARBPIA violation (edit warring) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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. 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 I warned Wikieditorpro against continuing personal attacks.[12] Minutes later, Wikieditorpro made the fourth attack listed above. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [13] Discussion concerning Wikieditorpro 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 Wikieditorpro Firstly I apologize for the length of this response. I hope the administrators will nevertheless read it in its entirety. While it seems that the administrators have already passed judgment on me (one in a seemingly prejudicial manner), I will nevertheless post my reply, although this situation is far from ideal. Malik Shabazz cites four comments yet only one can be reasonably interpreted as a personal attack: I will start with the fourth one as it highlights the particularly egregious background to the report: The comment that he claims was a "personal attack" was actually a sympathetic comment written directly to a young and vulnerable new editor (who had posted a lot of personal information on her talk page before I advised her to delete it). She was struggling in the face of harassment, intimidation and threats by Malik Shabazz amongst others in violation of WP:NEWBIES. Malik Shabazz should be aware of those guidelines and that turning the the screws in that manner on someone struggling to understand Wikipedia is enough to scare off anyone, particularly people in that demographic. I showed my support in a series of posts directed to her on her own talk page including that one. The lynch mob mentality of a certain group of professional and partisan editors on Wikipedia is evident in their responses to this report against myself, in previous reports on this page, and against others who have dared to cross them. It reached a new low when it was used against a young and defenseless editor. The comments cited by Malik Shabazz should not be stripped from this context. Addressing his specific claim: He claims that the idiom "Then the terrorists win", is a personal attack. It it however a widely used phrase. There is even a Wikipedia page page for it. A search for that phrase shows how widely it is used. This is the first time that I've encountered someone trying to interpret that idiom in the literal sense as labeling people terrorists. To state the blindingly obvious; I have never made such a ridiculous claim about any Wikipedia editor ever. Given Malik Shabazz's position, I am be tempted to label this state of affairs as the blind leading the blind. (And no I am not claiming that Wikipedia editors are visually impaired.) Given that the user was bullied to the verge of abandoning Wikipedia I consider this a successful interaction given that my response quite clearly resonated with the user to whom it was directed. With respect to the other comments that he cites: Edit 1: Was not a personal attack. It was criticism of the lack of clear guidelines in Wikipedia allowing editors to arbitrarily apply different criteria to different sources. See here and here. Edit 2: The statement that someone "does not understand" something is not a personal attack. I don't think this point needs elaborating. Edit 3: I was trying to make a legitimate point based on a previous discussion. I failed. I retracted the personal aspect and clarified my intent after Zero0000's response. (See response to Zero0000 below for more context.) I will also be commenting on the reports below. I do not believe that complaints by Pluto2012 and Nishidani are in any way reasonable or justified once the complete interaction in its entirety is examined. I intend to prove that. P.S. In the last week, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet, threatened that my "days here are numbered", been told in no uncertain terms to get off Wikipedia, and I have tried to comfort a young editor being harassed on her talk page. And now I am defending myself against claims that I am attacking users. Karma, if you are reading this, it is time to stop joking. Thank you for your patience. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 The fourth of the diffs is a good summary of this editor's behavior on Wikipedia: it thinks it is here to fight "terrorists". I challenge anyone to find examples of this editor making valuable contributions rather than consistently pushing an extreme policital position. In this exchange you can see it promoting a religious outreach organization (that teaches Bible codes among other nonsense) as a reliable source while at the same time claiming that all of the Palestinian media "ranges from being virulently anti-Israeli to being virulently anti-Semitic too, usually both". The only argument provided is that "Wikipedia considers that viciously anti-Semitic rag Ma'an [a major Palestinian news agency] to a reliable source ... That being the case, Aish can certainly be considered a reliable source." which as well as indicating that this editor thinks Wikipedia is the enemy shows a clear violation of WP:POINT. Everyone here is biased, not least in the Middle East section of the project, but someone with such black-and-white views and the willingness to ignore key policies like NPOV to promote them is not welcome. Anything less than a topic-ban would be inadequate. Zerotalk 09:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Zero0000 has a long history of hostility towards me, specifically trying to get me off Wikipedia, first by cajoling, then with repeated intimidation and threats. His actions are in breach of WP:HARASS. He has also stated that I can't read [14]. So I am not surprised that he jumped on the bandwagon. If he wants to dispute my characterization of Ma'an or other Palestinian media outlets, I am prepared to back that up with evidence. But I can't see how that point is relevant here, particularly since I did not try to remove anything based on Ma'an, or even contest its usage. WP:POINT is clearly not applicable here for a couple of reasons, including the fact that the discussions were limited to the talk page, and that I supported the use of the contested source in principle. Wikieditorpro (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Pluto2012 I had a "disagreement" on the article Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala with Wikieditorpro on the 12/01 (here is the section). I tried to open to discussion : "There is no other solutions but to discuss here, one by one, your modification proposals. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)" ; "I ask you to discuss each point at a time. If you make several modifications at once it is not possible to follow. There is no hurry so instead of having a fighting spirit, just start the discussion on 1 point so that we can analyse it and find the right way to introduce the information. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ; "Hello Wikieditopro, What I ask you is to write here what you want to change, say why shortly and that we can discuss this to have a consensus and have the best version possible. But one point at a time and quietly...." ... and get answers in infraction to WP:NPA and WP:AGF such as : "I completely reject your childish and patronizing behavior of reverting everything unless I act in accordance with your wishes. Wikieditorpro " "You are not saving anyone time by demanding that I bring each and every point in accordance with your whims and caprices. I don't believe that even you are stupid enough to believe that your stalling tactics save anyone time" ... The same day, in infraction with WP:AGF and WP:NPA, he attacked me on my talk page and was reverted by another editor belligerent harassment : "An in some stunning hypocrisy, you (...) ; you promptly ignored in order to further your false agenda..." ; "In keeping with your POV editing history..." ; "But of course you'll do anything to avoid that and other NPOV corrections".... On January 14th and 15th, he WP:WIKISTALKED me and reverted me on articles he had not participated to ([15], [16]) I suggest that Wikieditorpro is topicbanned from all articles related to the I-P conflict but also related to antisemitism and Jewish culture. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Pluto2012 is lying when he claims that the comments he quoted were himself "opening the discussion." By that time I had already explained half-a-dozen edits which he refused to respond to. His comments were in fact a very patronizing attempt at avoiding discussion knowing being that since it was one-against-one, he could simply revert every change I made. (There is probably a Wikipedia page describing such tactics, though I don't know where). The fact that I could not engage in a good faith discussion led to frustration on my part as seen in the comments. I would strongly urge the administrator's to read the talk page beginning with my first post to see the context. It is absolutely clear that while I made good faith attempts to engage with Pluto, he refused to allow me to edit the page, whilst also refusing to respond to any of the points that I raised.. I would also like to point out that the article he brought is beyond the purview of the Israel/Palestine section. He also claims that I stalked him. However I have never stalked anyone, nor do I know how to. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani Deeply problematical behaviour from the outset of his return here, certainly at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers which, despite the understandable grief occasioned by the event, generally met with an intelligent consensual approach by all concerned. But as one can see here Wikieditorpro was an exception. One example. After a good many edits, I reviewed several hours of additions and made 4 changes. In particular, I noted that someone had changed a paraphrase of statements in a UN Security Council deliberation from Reuters, and where our text read:- In response to proposals in the Security Council to make a statement to the press condemning the kidnapping, and the collective punishment and deaths of Palestinians during Israel's operations on the West Bank, no agreement could be found('Reuters') someone had rewritten this, spinning in some obviously unacceptable remark In response to proposals in the Security Council to make a statement to the press condemning the kidnapping, and the justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters during Israel's operations on the West Bank, no agreement could be found All this wikieditorpro reverted at sight (of my name, I presume) with the incomprehensible edit summary ‘NPOV as per RS and talk page’. I then provided an analysis on the talk page of the way this revert ignored the fact that both NPOV and the RS for the above had been ignored, and the text as wikieditorpro restored it revived an egregious piece of faked source quotation I freely admit I got hot under the collar here: an hour of attentive analysis, recontrol of sources and the edit went up in smoke as I was reverted blindly, and the rule is that neither I nor many other editors active on the page that day could undo the damage (1RR). The nonsense would enjoy the privilege of staying up another 24 hours). Wikiproeditor’s response was to snap back that I had a 'bizarre sense of entitlement', ignoring the main point, that he has reintroduced a faked quote. I repeated my request for him to explain his reintroduction of the demonstrably manipulated/faked quote, and his reply was that my attitude was ‘bizarre’, that I ‘ranted and raved’ at his revert, showing a glaring ‘sense of entitlement’ Again, aside from the abuse, a refusal to face the evidence, that his revert restored a serious source distortion. Well, one sees a lot of this. I just dismissed it as another throwaway account blowing back in for an emergency to hassle an article. But I see that elsewhere, the behaviour is identical.Nishidani (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Nishidani seems to be very angry that I undid one of his reverts. However that doesn't justify him neglecting to mention the comment of his that I was responding to: "In short, get off the page, and leave it to serious editors who understand source control, do not automatically revert a disliked editor (Nishidani in this case) on sight... Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC) " ; Given this context, my response to this comment about him ranting and raving and having a bizarre sense of entitlement looks very different. He repeatedly claims that I reverted because I "don't like him" which is of course patently ridiculous. I reverted the edit in question only because he made a couple of controversial edits without discussing them or obtaining consensus. He seems to be very angry that a minor correction he made was undone. The truth is that when users make a number of controversial changes in a single edit, minor edits very very often fall under the radar, as it did here. The talk page proves that I was the one who initiated the discussion, and discussed all of my edits, while he neglected to do so. His response to a minor and very common oversight with a full-fledged diatribe is severely overblown. He also seems to use this as a forum to dispute content that I added to the article (which incidentally was well sourced and had the consensus of two other editors when I added them.) There are plenty of changes that he made to the article that I disagree with. For example his latest edit is this long-winded POV edit in my opinion. However the correct place for that discussion is on the talk page of that article, not here. Wikieditorpro (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ykantor Sisyphean task: punished by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever. The Arab- Israeli conflict articles are biased against Israel and trying to fix it is similar to a Sisyphean task. Editors (e.g. user:Pluto2012) are repeatedly deleting well supported text just because it does not suit their POV. (e.g. The Arabs started the war). Even more frustrating is the difference between ignored Wikipedia rules and rules which are strictly enforced. -Why it is acceptable to ignore the rule that if there is a dispute, then both views should be presented.? (user:Pluto2012 repeated deletions are breaching it and no one cares). - How do one know which rule is enforced and which one is ignored , other that looking at WP:AE archives? - Why it is acceptable that an editor is repeatedly cheating? (e.g Pluto2012 some edits ) but personal attacks are not acceptable? Why not to enforce both? - I know some good editors who left Wikipedia out of frustration. Shouldn't we all be interested in a better Wikipedia with more good editors where rules are transparent, and enforced? While Personal attacks are not justified, I can understand how the hostile environment is pushing editors to the verge of that kind of behavior. Ykantor (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Wikieditorpro This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. After reviewing the diffs and links above (with a particular focus on Pluto2012's & Nishidani's statement), I think Wikieditorpro has not only engaged in personal attacks, but his editing has generally been disruptive. He has been blocked for edit warring before, though it was over a year ago. I think a topic ban would be appropriate, perhaps six months or a year. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Per the evidence given by Pluto2012 and Nishidani, I recommend an indefinite topic ban of Wikieditorpro from ARBPIA with the right of appeal after six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I agree that there is sufficient evidence to impose an indefinite topic ban. Wikieditorpro's collaboration with other editors falls way below the standard expected from any editor on any page, let alone on these controversial topics. He ranges from sly/oblique (Malik's diffs are a bit that way) to blatant name-calling. In the interest of full disclosure, he and I had a significant disagreement at WP:AN3 (if others want a link to that, let me know), which, I think, is emblematic of his wikilawyering, twistiing-words style. That said, we should give him permission to exceed the word limit as he's requested before passing final judgment. I therefore authorize him to do that.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC) In view only of Nishidani's evidence, which shows among other things that Wikieditorpro re-added (via a revert) the text "... justifiable deaths of Arab terrorists and rioters ..." as an assessment of the situation in Wikipedia's voice, referenced to a source that of course does not say this, and does not address this in their statement, I agree that a topic ban is appropriate.  Sandstein  08:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II

Sepsis II is banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months.  Sandstein  13:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Sepsis II User who is submitting this request for enforcement Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Sepsis II (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:ARBPIA#Editors reminded :: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks...." Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Sepsis recently return from a block wherein his talk page access was revoked[17] for disruption and personal attacks.[18] After his talk page access was revoked, User:Bbb23 removed the disruption.[19] In their first edit back from the block Sepsis restores the disruptive version (or most of it) with the edit summary "rvv". [20] Subsequently Sepsis proceeds to falsely accuse me of hounding him on two pages. Sepsis accuses me of hounding him at Jennifer Rubin (journalist) [21] whereas i made edits to the article [22] before the Sepsis II account was started. Sepsis further accuses of me of hounding him at Rachel Corrie [23] (canvasses for a revert also) because I reverted his reversion of multiple editors’ work [24] wherein I made 13 edits to the article even before the Sepsis II account was started.[25] In another edit Sepsis makes personal edit summary and assumes bad faith [26] (I assume they meant “‘revert’ whitewashing”) @Lord Roem. I limited this report to edits made coming right off the seven day block. More evidence of subject's overly confrontational approach/personalizing disputes/ personal attacks can be seen just by viewing the edit summaries of the diffs below. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC) [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] Have I violated NPA at times? Sure. I'm editing for ~7 years and have over 50k edits. Nobody is perfect and at times I have gotten heated. Overall a review of my interactions with other editors in contentious subjects will reveal that I am generally cordial and avoid personalizing disputes. The above diffs regarding Sepsis took 10 minutes to find. His inability to get along with others is pervasive and constant. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any See block log If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) [41][42]. Sepsis has also participated in numerous discussions at this page. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [43] Discussion concerning Sepsis II 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 Sepsis II Brewcrewer wants me sanctioned for editing my own talk page and for pointing out how he hounds me. I will put together a case on his hounding of my edits over the last year and how he was warned on several occasions by several admins to stop such behaviour if asked of me. Sepsis II (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Penwhale, I've now deleted my entire talk page as there were still many personal attacks against me on that page. I did not know that the material on my talk page was regulated to the tastes of passing admins. Your idea of using diffs to prove the harrassement I endure may go against the rules Bbb23 has placed on my speech. Sepsis II (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Huldra, I welcome it, the only thing burning me is the behaviour of admins. Sepsis II (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Brewcrewer, that was funny, I opened a few diffs you added, one where I called User:GoGoTob2 a sock, another where I stated Plot Spolier should be banned for an edit, and a few days later he rightfully was! How many socks hound you brewcrewer, how many accounts are created each month to call you an anti-semitic nazi and more? You want me banned for calling a sock a sock, a POV pushing editor a POV pushing editor!?! Have you all lost your sanity? At this very moment Brewcrewer is misrepresenting sources in article space and he has the gull to seek a topic ban because I'm not afraid to point out bad editors? Sepsis II (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Also of note is that those diffs are years old, some from when I had only been editing a few months. revert palsbara troll from my talk page. stay away please -Brewcrewer to an admin Roem, banning me from the IP area would not cause a significant deduction in the number of disrutpive socks, only a small fraction come here only to harrass me, most make racist edits to articles without knowing I would be here to undo them. The only calm you would get from banning me would be that brewcrewer could misrepresent sources and I wouldn't be around to call him on it. If you want calm, block brewcrewer and his group for life. Sepsis II (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Do any of the admins here have experience in the IP area or are they just trying to come up with reasons for how they can deal out violence? It's clear to me that none of them are interested in the actual effects of a topic ban, they will ignore the conseqences, deny their responsibility for the damage done, the damage allowed, I still suggest that a number of admins present here be desysoped per WP:INCOMPETENCE. Will any of them take time to think on my honest words before blocking me? Of course not, they have their personal objectives which are clear to them, furthering wikipedia and it's quality is not among their objectives. Perhaps they are asking me to sock; I certainly would be treated better, no longer burdened by 1RR, free to file complaints at boards, warnings and warnings before any small blocks. No I'm not going to sock, can't you understand the difference of speaking on a matter and planning to actually act? Anyways, admins you are a drain on wikipedia, if you wanted to help, you would block yourselves. Sepsis II (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani Some editors like myself like to conserve hostile comments, and replies, that reflect fundamental clashes of opinion, on the talk page. People who dislike one as an editor should have a chance there at least to challenge you, and likewise, it can help that the talk page editor use the opportunity to clarify his POV, or why he made this or that edit, in terms of larger issues. On the other hand, Sepsis, you do come over frequently as aggressive (I have been myself in the past) and urgent at times, and this impression unnerves fellow editors. Given the chronic bad faith of socks, meatpuppets, IP paladins and what not,- bad faith editing which, to your credit - you're willing to try and weed out (I can't cope with the waste of time their intrusiveness causes and am negligent there)- you really need to grasp that in an area like this, there is absolutely no margin for either rising to the bait, or, alternatively, baiting. Whatever one feels or believes, passionately, should not show up in edit summaries. The fundamental pillar of the neutrality of the article overrides all other considerations. That Brewcrewer however brings a complaint however is not helpful. He too does useful work in riding shotgun to see that his view of that world is given due airing, but quite a few of his edits, and reverts, are questionable as well. Above all, Sepsis, you are too hasty to bring complaints, even when one's intuitions are probably correct. One needs patience here, even if that means putting up with, in the interim, a lot of nonsense. One should only have recourse to these administrative areas when the evidence is fairly solid. I don't think the evidence Brewcrewer provides warrants any drastic action. I do think that Sepsis needs a strong reminder that if he wishes to stay on board, he needs to improve his social skills and learn to (at least) appear less passionate. Sometimes I think the best 'punishment' for editors in these cases is to ask them to edit only articles that represent the 'other reality' (in this case Israel/Judaism; in Brewcrewer's case Palestine/Islam) for a week, exclusively to improve their readability, sourcing and quality.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Comment on Shrike's diffs. This is getting ridiculous. The second diff shows Sepsis reporting the neutral description 'crushed to death' reported by numerous mainstream newspapers all over the world, right wing, left wing, centrist. Cf.Independent 21 May 2014;The Guardian 19 May 2014;Haaretz Aug 28 2012; Fox News 21 May 2014, and it took only half a minute to check by googling that the phrase is ubiquitous. It is not Sepsis's POV or POV pushing.Nishidani (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Huldra The vandalism on the user-page was done by JarlaxleArtemis; he was very active at that period, vandalising the user-pages of Sean.hoyland and myself, also. I noted it on AN/I here: "Well, this guy: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis is extremely active tonight: Please, guys and gals, watch User_talk:Sepsis_II and User_talk:Sean.hoyland." CU User:Alison then confirmed it was him. For some reason only JarlaxleArtemis`s edits to Sean.hoyland and my user-page were over-sighted, and not those to Sepsis_II. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Note to Sepsis: if you intend to continue to edit in the I/P area, you better get used to it. Its like getting used to sand, if you go to Sahara. Statement by Shrike Sepsis right after his block continues his disruptive editing for example he playing WP:GAME with 24h 1RR rule. [44] [45] The second revert is just 1.5 hour after the 24 limit.Also moreover the edit is problematic by itself he deleted information that doesn't suit his POV.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC) He tries to make some WP:POINThere [46]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Ykantor Sepsis latest edit of "Rachel Corrie" article shows tendentious editing. E.g: previous version Sepsis next edit why Sepsis edit is tendentious killed crushed to death emotionally magnifying effect in a combat zone (null) wrongly implies an ordinary location in part of an operation to eliminate tunnels used by terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt into Gaza. (null) wrongly implies that the killing was the main activity during an Israeli military operation (null) ignore to mention the background fellow ISM protestors eyewitnesses implies there were no contradicting eyewitnesses Israeli government eyewitnesses saying Israeli government saying taking advantage of people usual suspicions towards governments formal announcement of what could be their own wrong doing Those samples are are found in the beginning of this long Sepsis edit. There are probably more of those along the text. Ykantor (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Sepsis II This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. Sepsis II, for me, there are very limited reasoning that would make the case for restoration of other people's attacks against you on your talk page. Please don't delete my comments or the attacks; it is important as it is the reason I was blocked, blocked for reverting them, filling an SPI, working at WP:ARBPIA isn't one of them. (You can easily use diffs and such to illustrate the attacks. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC) In my view, the user talk page edits are out of the scope of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. In addition, users have wide latitude about what to retain, or not, on their user talk page. But the remainder of the evidence indicates a generally confrontative and mistrustful approach to editing, which could be grounds for a topic ban. We are a collaborative project, not a wrestling match, and our editors' conduct must reflect this.  Sandstein  08:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Technically speaking, you are correct, Sandstein. However, given that we have the broader problem of sock puppet accusations in the ARBPIA area and that Sepsis II, as far as I know, edits only in that area (or at least principally), there is a relationship between what he did on his talk page and ARBPIA. I wouldn't give it as much weight as other misbehavior more directly connected to the topic, though. To his credit, after an extended discussion on my talk page, Sepsis II blanked his talk page, and it doesn't appear to me to have been done out of spite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I see some evidence of what Sandstein discusses above--the confrontational approach to editing--though, at least in the statements above, there's only a few diffs to work with. I'd be more comfortable discussing a sanction if there was more of a record to go on. Otherwise, I think a warning might be best. If this behavior continues, a topic-ban could then be imposed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I think the additional diffs do demonstrate this consistently combative behavior is unchanged from last year. Even more, I find Sepsis II's reaction ("Have you lost your sanity?") doesn't help his case much. After examining both the new evidence and Sepsis II's reply, I think some time away from this topic-area may stem further disruption in an area that greatly needs calm discussion. I'd support a topic ban with the ability to appeal within six months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I agree that a topic ban is in order, Bbb23's comments in this ANEW report show the problem is persistent. I think a topic ban for three-six months would be better rather than indef with appeal in six months. Other opinions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) That duration works for me. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Sepsis II, openly discussing socking to evade a topic ban, whether you're being serious or not, is not funny. I would advise you to take a hard look at the discussion in this section before returning to edit in this area. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Sometimes I think ignorance promotes neutrality. When I wade into the ARBPIA area, I'm not always sure which "side" some editors are on, even though they're not supposed to be on any side if they want to edit constructively. Occasionally while evaluating a particular situation, it becomes apparent to me, but, then, thanks to my erratic wikipedian memory, I often forget the next time what I learned about a particular editor's bias. Coming after my comments at ANEW and given the nature of that particlar report, I'm assuming that this edit by Sepsis II on my talk page is WP:POINTy. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm in favor of a 6-month ban given Sepsis's disruption and inability to see beyond the end of his nose.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC) In view of the discussion above, and Sepsis II's confrontative attitude on this page, I too agree that their conduct is not compatible with productive collaboration in a highly emotionally charged topic area. I'm closing this request with a six-month topic ban. I hope to find evidence of collaborative, peaceful editing in other topic areas after that time.  Sandstein  13:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod

Lightbreather and Scalhotrod topic banned from gun control for six months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Scalhotrod User who is submitting this request for enforcement Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Scalhotrod (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/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction, and an explanation how these edits violate it Scalhotrod repeatedly deleting the same info, not discussing, using only WP:REVTALK: 08:01, 6 June 2014 [47] First delete of info. 07:53, 7 June 2014 [48] Scal deleting discussion I started on his talk page, without reply (except for snarky edit summary, "Cleanup.") 17:51, 9 June 2014 [49] 2nd delete breaks WP:TALKDONTREVERT 18:51, 9 June 2014 [50] 3rd delete - edit summary: "Clean up" - not how to summarize 22:50, 9 June 2014 [51] Scal deleting second discussion I started on his talk page, without reply, again (except for snarky "Cleanup" edit summary, again). 08:29, 10 June 2014 [52] 4th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT (Consensus-building in talk pages) 08:34, 10 June 2014 [53] 5th delete " 11:59, 11 June 2014 [54] 6th delete " 10:49, 12 June 2014 [55] edit summary: "its only fuel for the fire..." Scal's WP:PERSONAL revtalk and reply to TransporterMan about me after he (TM) asked Scal to talk with me. (I thought Scal was done with this behavior.) 12:42, 30 June 2014 [56] 7th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT 08:05, 1 July 2014 [57] 8th delete - edit summary: "No consensus to keep." 08:32, 1 July 2014 [58] 9th delete again breaks TALKDONTREVERT 08:59, 1 July 2014 [59] 10th delete " 10:00, 1 July 2014 [60] 11th delete - es: "No consensus means no consensus" inaccurate revtalk (after I restored material with es: "No consensus [usually] means keep, not delete.") 13:36, 7 July 2014 [61] Adding this recent edit per Serialjoepsycho. In this one, Scal accuses me of "admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE...." Most of the edit summaries I did not copy have to do with his opinion that OpenSecrets is not reliable. Please see below for diffs to my attempts to talk about dispute. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 6 May 2014 by Callanecc.[62] >>> The following comment added to this section by Scalhotrod >>> resulting from this ANI--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 03:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing complaint 11:30, 6 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on Scal's talk page: [63]. (I also added a suggestion [64] to this discussion about use of the term "clean up," which he continues to ignore, as shown in his edit summaries above.) 19:09, 9 June 2014 - Me starting a second DISCUSSION on Scal's talk page: [65] 09:12, 10 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on the NRA talk page about the OpenSecrets material: [66]. Scal did not reply. 09:27, 10 June 2014 - Me starting a DISCUSSION on the NRA talk page about the Senate confirmations material: [67]. Scal did not reply. 11:45, 11 June 2014 - Me asking for a 3O re the OpenSecrets material: [68] 14:40, 11 June 2014 - 3O editor TransporterMan asking Scal to talk with me: [69] By his actions it is clear that he is not editing "in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect." Also, that he is not allowing the addition of reliable, verifiable, NPOV, and due criticism to the NRA article against WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:DUE. He does not discuss, so no consensus can be reached, and he may be "Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors [me] who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods...." (In case it wasn't clear, the preceding accused him of breaching the Gun control ArbCom Community policies: Purpose of Wikipedia, NPOV, and Battleground conduct.) I have made numerous efforts to work with him, and I'm tired of wasting my time dealing with him. Please help. Was it OK for Scalhotrod to make these edits,[70][71] which modified my section of this discussion/process? Oh, and forgive me, but since Scal found it necessary to drag witnesses into this, I'll ping a few, who can perhaps help to put things into persepective, if that becomes necessary: StarryGrandma, Thenub314, and AndyTheGrump. >>> The following question added to this Section by Scalhotrod >>> * I am familiar with Thenub and Andy, but who is StarryGrandma?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure where Drmies picked up the "verbose" thing, but if that's what Scal is calling me, then it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Take for instance his reply below (04:07, 3 July 2014): almost 700 words, and not one addresses the diffs I gave above. His first two links [72][73] are to me saying I see myself as an article steward, not an owner. The third link [74] is to a nearly 8-month-old ANI that nearly boomeranged [75] on the editor who brought it against me. (It is also another example of pro-gun editors - three of whom are now topic banned - talking about my behavior, without diffs.) The fourth [76] is about what Scal calls my "stance." (Again, Scal is trying to paint me as an editor who has a POV - we all do, that is of no matter - and who can't edit for NPOV, which does matter and in my case is untrue.) Fifth, I don't think he should be dragging behaviors related to his renaming of the Assault weapons ban article [77] (to Assault weapons legislation) unless he wants to put his behavior in that mess under the spotlight. And as for his being the first to extend an olive branch, that was after I took him to ANI for multiple personal attacks without evidence. And I went there as a last resort, after he kept speaking badly about me - as he's done below - at just about every opportunity he had, whether it was an appropriate forum or not. I kept talking to him about this and asking him to stop and he didn't, so I went to ANI. Finally, I do edit a lot of gun related pages, as do many other editors, but I do not edit only gun related article. He has enough WP experience to figure that out, so why does he write that he "can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related"? (Answer, as I have learned: He exaggerates.) Now, can we get back to the items I brought up first? If we're going to talk about me, I'd prefer a separate discussion. (I've made the same request before, but he hasn't respected it. And since he feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women.) Here is an example of the behavior I'm talking about: [78]. If he or Mike has evidence for a complaint, bring it on and quit gossiping about me like children. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested I notified Scalhotrod with this edit on his talk page: [79] Discussion concerning Scalhotrod 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 Scalhotrod Question for the Admins Every time that the accuser makes changes to the Sanction or remedy to be enforced, should I respond again? Is the accuser allowed to make personal attacks (Ad hominem) during this process like she did here where she states, "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women."? Based on Sandstein's comment, I am not sure what to say or if any comment is necessary on my part. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 21:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC) @EdJohnston, In the statement that you cite I was expressing my frustration with Lightbreather's methods and actions over the last several months and her POV that she has mentioned here and here where she states "my observation is that I am the only "pro-control" editor here". This is in addition to her various appearances at ANI starting here as far as I can tell with User Sue_Rangell and the WikiProject Firearms leader Mike_Searson. My apologies to them for dragging them into this, but I am not alone in my frustration with LB. There is further indication of her stance in a Dispute Resolution discussion (which I was unaware of until I began writing this text) here that was taking place during the recent Gun Control ARBCOM. One of the more telling IMO comments made in the discussion was by Ianmacm who states, "...why it is such a puzzle that Lightbreather seems obsessed with adding the much vaguer terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" to articles. This appears to have become something of a personal crusade for Lightbreather, complete with an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it becomes clear that consensus is against him/her on this matter.". This was followed by Aoidh who stated, "...everyone who disagrees with Lightbreather is automatically "pro-gun", only those who agree with them should be listened to? That's absurd. I am not "pro-gun", I am however in favor of concise wording in an article, that is my issue with it and that is what I pointed out. Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related, so this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "they have an opinion on guns so what they say shouldn't count" comes across as a little hypocritical." Speaking of the Gun control article, LB recently made this edit a reversion of one of my contributions that was seemingly fine until her arrival and was under discussion. Her edit summary was a seemingly innocuous, but misdirecting with "removing some distracting, off-topic/related-topic (arms control) material; preserving on talk page". This was one of my earliest attempts at trying to narrow the topic focus enough so that it was not as contentious or inviting of tangential issues. Since LB's arrival, I have been forced into more formal processes (ANI, Arbitration, etc.) in the last 6 months than my entire time on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I am thoroughly confused as to the use and proper purpose of these processes based on my forced experience. This is in addition to the onslaught of edits that LB makes to articles she is focused on that make use of those processes that much more difficult. While I applaud her sheer volume of edits, it comes across as domineering and worse yet she is defensive of her edits and additions and if anyone questions a series of edits on one or across several articles, then its immediately interpreted as a personal attack. Admin Drmies has had first hand experience with how convoluted LB can make seemingly commonplace processes with regard to the Assault Weapons Legislation article move discussions here. In short LB started and RfC, but while it was open, then started a WP:Moverequest process and then changed tactics again with another discussion and went so far as to ask the MoveRequest closing Admin (Drmies) to reverse himself here I pride myself on my ability to converse with all sides of an opinion in order to bring about not only consensus, but quality encyclopedic writing as I did on the Lead for the U.S. Second Amendment article starting here. It took well over a month, but we arrived at a Lead that was constructed through consensus as a true group effort and that has been stable ever since. I have tried to communicate with LB and was the first one to extend an "olive branch" here. But LB's inflexibility has degraded every attempt at communication that does not result in content being exactly how she wants it worded or constructed and using her preference of sources. There have been some exceptions to this, but they are few and far between and rarely do not involve an Admin. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 04:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It took me a while to remember this, but this is not the first occurrence of discussion regarding this source, OpenSecrets.org. It happened back in April at Talk:Gun politics in the United States here and here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Request for clarification regarding result @ Sandstein, EdJohnston, Lord Roem, et. al. I am happy to abide by the recommendations made regarding better use of Talk pages, but I have to say that it is fairly clear by mine and Lightbreather's overall history of interaction that I have made numerous attempts to communicate and collaborate with her on the respective Talk pages. It's only recently that I have tired of the pointless debate, circular conversation, and her inflexibility. As such there are some ongoing behaviors on the part of Lightbreather brought up (by me and others) that I feel need to be addressed such as article ownership, disruptive editing, POV editing, and (as User Sue Rangell pointed out) WP:CRUSH behavior which has affected her choice of articles to edit and how she edits along with Lightbreather's misuse of formal procedures. She's obviously a dedicated editor and I do not wish to discourage her energy, but can someone mentor her so that she understands and can learn to apply WP Policy better than she has in the past? Maybe I'm wrong, but even editors who work often on contentious material do not seem to show up in ANI, ARBCOM, ARE, etc. as much as LB does. This whole issue can simply "go away" or cease to be an issue if I, like Sue Rangell, choose to stop making changes to articles where Lightbreather is actively editing or has on her Watchlist, but I fail to see how anyone would consider that a reasonable, prudent, or logical solution that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. I look forward to your comments. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Fair enough, I will heed the recommendations of yourself and the other commenting Admins as well as Admin Drmies advice. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Question regarding topic ban @EdJohnston Would the topic ban include articles on specific firearms such as Remington Model 1858, Remington Model 1875, and Winchester rifle? I own a fairly decent number of firearms reference books and I would like to continue to edit these types of articles if that is permissible. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 18:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Drmies, on the road I was asked by Scalhotrod to have a look at this, though I am not quite sure why. I don't have the time or the energy right now to look very deeply into the matter. What I see in this edit (picked at random) is what appears to be a possibly valid edit (and the SYNTH note may well be accurate). However, in this contentious subject matter this is something that should be discussed on the talk page, and I don't know if this is a repeated revert or not but if it is that's also not a good thing. What should have happened with this edit is a discussion on the talk page which could have led to an improvement (in terms of who said what) of the text: the sources appear to be legit (Washington Post and SF Chronical). Though I like Scalhotrod fine, I believe he has a certain amount of intransigence. Not wanting to discuss something with a (specific?) opponent cannot be a reason for lack of talk page discussion in articles under arbitration. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Re: Scalhotrod's comments, I agree that Lightbreather has a tendency to be on the verbose side, sure. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Drmies (hopefully you're not on the road) But I was hoping you might comment regarding your observations here unless that was your intention with the above additional comment. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Got home a few hours ago, thanks. Well, I have nothing to add to my comments there, which are critical of Lightbreather, sure--but this case should be judged on its own merits, and that was from a month or two ago. Maybe you and Lightbreather could meet in the middle: you, more process, Lightbreather, less process (and you certainly can't fault Lightbreather for not taking things to the talk page, which I believe was one of the issues here). Drmies (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Hi Drmies Thank you for your comments, fair points and well taken, but as its been demonstrated by the comments of other Editors in other "processes" there are several issues at stake here besides communication on Talk pages. I'm happy to abide by "more process", but more importantly I'd like to see LB abide by "more policy" starting with the 5 Pillars as they are understood by the WP community. The most important of which seemingly in this case and from my experience with LB is "written from a neutral point of view". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 19:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Sue Rangell The editor Lightbreather's COMBATIVE edits are classic WP:CRUSH behavior, and it is Lightbreather who should be sanctioned in some way. I have stopped editing all topics where she involves herself because of this. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I stopped editing the gun control articles because of Lightbreather's WP:CRUSH behavior. I got tired of her pulling me into ANI everytime she didn't like one of my edits. This is the result. Perhaps everyone should simply give up on those articles and allow Lightbreather to have her way with them. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 18:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Lightbreather I hope that it is OK for me to make a statement here related to comments about me. First, regarding Scalhotrod's comments. As I pointed out above, none of his comments address the behavior I brought here. There is one big difference between when he reverts and when I do. When I do, and it's clear someone is warring with me, I start a discussion. He does not. He just keeps on reverting. (Drmies called it a "kneejerk" reaction the last time I asked for his advice. I've had a lot of respect for Drmies, but from my experience Scal's reverts are not kneejerks. They are calculated.) And he misuses edit summaries, often making it personal, or writing "Clean up" when he's making a revert or doing something other than "clean up." Then he drags in (or tries to) editors from old and unrelated disputes to try to back-up his unsupported claims that I'm generally a bad editor. Five days ago, after I started this request, he gossiped about me on his talk page with another editor.[80] And yesterday, this was the "discussion" he started after I restored material that he deleted.[81] If these are the kinds of discussions I have to look forward to - "Forget the bad grammar for the moment," "the piece of information that the User chooses to include (and defensively revert)," "So you're admitting to POV editing and adding content that is WP:UNDUE" - they're not much improvement over the REVTALK. Some of his accusations about me I answered above,[82] but I'll tackle another, even though it's almost three weeks old and unrelated to my complaints. 1. He wrote, "Speaking of the Gun control article, LB recently made this edit a reversion of one of my contributions that was seemingly fine until her arrival and was under discussion," making it sound like I swooped in from out of the blue to remove his addition. First, I preserved the material on the talk page, per WP:PRESERVE. Second, there were several discussions about the material in question, and here are a few:[83][84][85] There was no consensus to keep the material, and a pretty clear consensus that it did not belong in the Gun control article. Why none of the other editors did not remove it, I can only guess. I think the only reason Scal didn't revert my deletion is because he knew the material had virtually no support. If y'all want to give me and Scal warnings, OK. But I want to make it clear that, IMO, I try a lot harder to follow the rules (that's part of why I do end up seeking outside help), and I think current, specific diffs and complaints, as I give, should carry a lot more weight than old complaints and character critiques "backed up" by editors you may not know from Adam. I think Scal has earned a much stricter warning, with specific instructions: Give accurate and appropriate edit summaries. Start discussions, keep them civil, and keep them on content, not character. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Don't know if I did them right, but I just created three RSNs:[86][87][88] Lightbreather (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Sandstein, EdJohnston, Lord Roem, and Callanecc: I realize that Scal has brought up some "new" things and made some new comments. One I missed from three days ago,[89] when he brought up two discussions from three months ago. One was a discussion he didn't even participate in,[90] neither shows evidence of me doing something against policy, and both feature arguments from another editor (on Scal's side of the argument) who is now topic banned from gun control for his behavior. Another, from yesterday, I refute. They are claims without evidence (diffs).[91] Ditto here.[92] Under those last two bullets he has accused me of: not editing in collaboration, article ownership, disruptive editing, POV editing, and "crush" behavior... all without a single diff! Where is the evidence of these? Despite what I've read everywhere, is it simply enough to accuse and judge other editors without evidence? Do I have your permission to do as Scalhotrod is doing here and simply write diatribes about him stating my opinion of his behaviors and motives? Please, may I have some feedback on at least some of the diffs that I have provided in response to his complaints? Finally, re the RSNs I started per your advice. Here is Scal's most recent reply to me there.[93] --Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC) My last request, barring any other accusations by Scal, please check out this discussion, including the edit summary that deleted it:[94] Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC) EdJohnston, please, would you mind being specific about what discussion here does not put me in a good light? (That is to say, discussion backed up by evidence.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Reply to EdJohnston Thank you, @EdJohnston, for your reply. Scalhotrod made many accusations against me without much in the way of diffs, but if it is my diffs that you are referring to as putting me in a "bad light," I can respond to those. Of course I knew it was a risk to come here, because yes, I was the one who restored the content to the article in question after each of his deletions. But, as I showed above, I tried numerous times to discuss the content with him, on his page and on the article talk page. He deleted the discussions I started on his talk page and ignored the ones that I started on the article talk page. Then I asked for a 3O, but that admin declined and asked Scalhotrod to discuss the matter with me, which he did not do; rather, he disrespected me to the requesting admin - without evidence. Since he did not mention my restores/reverts in his reply, I will list them here, with my edit summaries (all between 6 June and 1 July): [95] es: "restoring deleted paragraph; adding sources The Hill and Washington Post reporters; adding ref names" [96] es: "restoring relevant, factual info with three WP:V, WP:RS" [97] es: "restoring relevant, factual info with two WP:V, WP:RS - will add more sources if asked" [98] es: "Undid revision 612294573 by Scalhotrod (talk) - As offered, I will add more sources." [99] es: "restoring expanded Senate confirmations section with nine (9) different sources from the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal" [100] es: "Undid revision 612534585 by Scalhotrod Washington Post, The Hill, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, Washington Times, WSJ, and AP all WP:V WP:RS" [101] es: "Undid revision 615058833 by Scalhotrod (talk) This was discussed recently with no consensus to remove." [102] es: "Reverted to revision 615062221 by Lightbreather (talk): No consensus means keep, not delete." [103] es: "Undid revision 615177221 by Scalhotrod Per WP:NOCONSENSUS: In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept. Pls see 2 discussions on talk page." Surely his edits, which removed content, while refusing to discuss and improperly using edit summaries (often just variations on "clean up"), is far worse behavior than restoring content from reliable, verifiable sources, yes repeatedly - but while trying repeatedly to discuss and using other processes (like 3O) and using very detailed, proper edit summaries. Lastly, though no mention of it is made here, the majority of my edits are what appear to be called gnome edits: copyediting, standardizing source citations, fixing links (to pro-gun and gun-control sources). And I defend articles against vandalism and unsourced additions to gun-control articles, whether they're pro-gun or gun-control. Although Scal and others like to say that I make only POV edits, they provide no evidence that I do this. And, from my POV, many of the WP articles about gun-control are decidedly pro-gun. When I do add gun-control content, it is in an effort to achieve NPOV through WP:BALASPS. I hope you will reconsider your proposal, and please feel free to ask me more questions. I am prepared and happy to defend my editing history. Thank you for your time. I know these things must eat it up and I appreciate it. Lightbreather (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC) PS: And, as a follow-up, the RSNs that I started as suggested were all in favor of keeping the content Scal kept deleting, with a few minor changes. Those discussions are here:[104][105][106]. (FYI: The "Reliable" editor in those discussions was a sock puppet.) Lightbreather (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Reply to Sandstein and Scal This is in response to the discussion started by Scal on Sandstein's talk page. I was going to respond there, but I think it belongs here. Scal's comments here at ARE are his opinions about me, with weak evidence and often presented as fact. But I make one factual observation (that he edits a lot of porn, which is easy to verify by looking at his edit history) and say, "IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women" (based on the fact that A) He knows I'm a woman, B) He refuses to follow the civility policy with me, and C) He edits a lot of porn) - and that may be a personal attack? Since Scal told Sandstein that he (Scal) has "lost track" of how many times I've asked him to keep his comments on content, not character, let me provide diffs here so you can see what he considers me being "sensitive" about the issue. His edit summaries in bold (My comments in parentheses, italicized) Article space 14:07, 5 May 2014 [107] The article is about legislation, not a POV agenda. (I didn't like the edit, but the edit summary is my main complaint on this one) Article talk page 15:04, 5 May 2014 [108] (This one he later struck, at my request) 09:46, 6 May 2014 [109] (Unnecessary and snarky intro) 10:41, 7 May 2014 [110] (Uncivil - and untrue) 09:59, 8 May 2014 [111] 10:33, 8 May 2014 [112] some difs for ya... (Putting words in my mouth) 08:56, 28 May 2014 [113] Scalhotrod's talk page 13:58, 9 May 2014 [114] (Disrepecting me to others; making accusations w/out evidence) 10:49, 12 June 2014 [115] its only fuel for the fire... (After TransporterMan asked Scal to talk with me, and Scal's reply is personal) 07:57, 3 July 2014 [116] (Gossiping about me with another editor) 11:10, 10 July 2014 [117] (Personal) 11:24, 10 July 2014 [118] (Personal and patronizing) 12:16, 10 July 2014 [119] ditto 12:53, 10 July 2014 [120] removing blah, blah, blah.... ANI[121] 07:00, 10 May 2014 [122] (Accusations with weak or no evidence - especially the last sentence) 11:10, 11 May 2014 [123] (When NinjaRobotPirate said, "This is a reasonable request. At some point, it becomes disruptive to continually make the same accusation without any intention of filing a report," Scal's reply was 100% personal - and he wrote as if he spoke for others.) 13:46, 11 May 2014[124] (Uncivil lecturing, and once again stating his opinions as fact) While I was on vacation (Scal knew I was on vacation) All on Talk:Assault weapons legislation in the United States 07:21, 19 May 2014 [125] No reason given for blanking of content, vandalism? 09:00, 21 May 2014 [126] 09:39, 21 May 2014 [127] 09:45, 21 May 2014 [128] 22:38, 21 May 2014 [129] --Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) About "sensitivity" Also, since Scal has brought up sensitivity, and the word "sensitive" came up yesterday in regards to a Teahouse question that Cullen328 answered,[130][131] I might ask y'all to consider whether a forum made up of 85% men might have some issues communicating with women? Maybe, instead of me growing a "thick skin" (as someone once suggested) or external gonads, men on Wikipedia ought to consider whether or not they should modify their behavior for mixed company. Considering that Scal and I had the same number of reverts on the problem in question, they cancel each other out, so to speak. What's left? Civility, on my part - which is a policy - and none on Scal's part. Outcome? We are both warned, maybe even banned, for warring, Scal's incivility goes without comment - and I get labeled a "crusher"? I've asked this question before in a separate discussion, but never received an answer. WP:CRUSH is an essay and a bad one at that. Here is why: Basically, it's an accusation of "uncivil" civility. As Sue Rangell has demonstrated, the charge can be levied without evidence. How does one defend herself or himself from that? --Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Reply to Sue Rangell You made the same accusations without evidence here that you've made elsewhere. I also see you giving Scalhotrod an attaboy for bringing you here - and promising to help him in the future if I complain about anyone else.[132] And today, even though I have not yet been topic banned, you are already changing gun-control content that you and I disagreed about. Just a couple examples: [133] Removing the entire Background section and Legal challenges sections I added (which even now topic-banned Gaijin42 did not dispute) to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban page. [134] Restoring Scalhotrod's gun-control-is-arms-control OR/synth material that there was no consensus to keep. I hope someone will tell me this is not an example of 5P editing. Lightbreather (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Lightbreather, the only reason I left the gun control pages is because of your combative behavior. I've never had any problems with any of the other editors at all whatsoever. I am pro-gun control just like you are, and yet I have no issues with any of the gun-toters, only you, and we are politically on the same side of the fence. I kept trying to mentor you, begging you to step it down a notch, but that never happened. Perhaps after your topic ban is over you will have learned to separate your politics from Wikipedia and learn to edit via consensus. I look forward to editing along side with you when that finally happens. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC) @Sue_Rangel, where are the diffs for this behavior you call "combative"? Everything I read on WP says accusations s/b accompanied by diffs, but when talking about me, neither you or Scal give them. Lightbreather (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC) I am especially concerned about my months of hard work improving articles being wiped out in light of what you've done in the last few days (since the possibility of my being topic-banned was mentioned) and that you have asked to have your rollback rights restored. Before you focused exclusively on my supposed "crush" behavior, you and a few others (three of whom are pro-gun editors now topic-banned from gun-control articles) also accused me of vandalizing - which nearly boomeranged on you.[135] Lightbreather (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Cullen328 If any uninvolved editor, after reviewing the discussions mentioned above, comes to the conclusion that I have been incivil, insensitive or unfriendly to Lightbreather, please let me know. I will apologize and correct my behavior going forward. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Scalhotrod This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. At first glance, the request is not actionable as submitted, because it does not make clear how these content removals of which diffs are provided violate any conduct rule (e.g., edit warring). The arbitration (enforcement) process cannot adjudicate whether these removals were justified as regards the encyclopedic merits of the removed content. If the complaint is mainly that Scalhotrod did not respond to requests for talk page discussion, then it is not clear from the request which policy or guideline would have required Scalhotrod to do so under the circumstances described.  Sandstein  22:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC) In this edit Scalhotrod explained to TransporterMan why he doesn't like dealing with Lightbreather. Not everyone enjoys having to deal with their opponents, but here we have a case where one party (L.) is willing and the other party (S.) is refusing. This situation will probably have bad results if they intend to work on the same controversial articles. Is Scalhotrod willing to voluntarily abstain from gun control articles where Lightbreather has worked, or does he have any other suggestion? If my analysis is correct, we should be viewing this as a case of long-term edit warring without discussion. The edits by Scalhotrod supplied above by Lightbreather (numbered as 'first delete' through '11th delete') appear to be reverts of material that came from OpenSecrets.org. After making these deletions of OpenSecrets.org material from the National Rifle Association article I did not see Scalhotrod going to a place like RSN to get opinions on its usability. The status of OpenSecrets.org as a reliable source shouldn't depend solely on his personal opinion. I haven't checked who was on the other side of all these 11 reverts. If it was the same person in each case we might have to think about this further. There was a talk thread at Talk:National Rifle Association#Deletion 3X now of info from OpenSecrets via Sunlight Foundation and other sources where Lightbreather participated but Scalhotrod did not. It's hard to perceive that Scalhotrod is making an effort to discuss or that he has any concept at all of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I haven't reviewed the evidence in this light, but my comment above should not be understood to mean that I oppose sanctions on the basis of EdJohnston's reasoning.  Sandstein  19:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC) This might be closed with a warning to both Scalhotrod and Lightbreather to make no further reverts of contentious material where the other party is involved, without first having made reasonable efforts on the talk page to arrive at a consensus solution. From the evidence above, neither side enjoys consensus at National Rifle Association. Lightbreather has made better use of the talk page but no third parties have commented, and I don't see a consensus. In a case where no third parties have responded on the talk page to a call for comments, I urge both sides to cease reverting and await developments. If the matter is important, others are likely to participate sooner or later. Failure of either party to observe prudent restraint where the other party is involved could be a reason for issuing that person a three-month topic ban from gun control. On the matter of using material drawn from OpenSecrets.org in National Rifle Association, although LightBreather has tried to get a discussion going she herself has not made use of WP:RSN and she appears to have made nearly as many reverts as Scalhotrod. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I concur in your suggestion for a warning to both editors to the effect you describe above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC) After reading your additional comments, (@Scalhotrod:), I still believe this is the best option at this time. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Sandstein's suggestion seems the best option at this stage. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I haven't made a suggestion. Do you mean somebody else?  Sandstein  11:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, Ed's suggestion re a warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I'm happy that all the nudges have now produced some comments by both parties at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This seemed advisable since the reliability of OpenSecrets.org was mentioned so often in the evidence above. But since the behavior at RSN by both editors indicates we have two one-note editors who are going to make edits favoring their own position on any mainspace articles, I would recommend six-month topic bans from the topic of of gun control. We expect at least a tiny bit of objectivity from anyone who intends to contribute to article space in a contentious area. I was originally doubtful about User:Scalhotrod's good faith but the continued discussion here does not put User:Lightbreather in a good light. A short topic ban might allow both parties to reflect on how their behavior might not be in their own best interest. The scope of a gun control topic ban for both editors would be as defined by Arbcom in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Locus and focus of conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC) @Lightbreather: In your original filing here you identify eleven removals by Scalhotrod of certain material from National Rifle Association during the month of June. If he kept removing the material that implies that someone else kept putting it back. That person was presumably you. It takes two people to make an edit war. It appears that all your edits of article space are going to favor the pro-gun-control side of any debate and that Scalhotrod will be predictably on the opposite side. It does not appear that either of you has the ability to set aside your own POV when you edit Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC) A look through the NRA page the two have been editing confirms your suspicions. Some screencaps of the page history from June and more recently. I'd support your proposal for a six-month topic ban for both editors. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Given their comments I too agree that this is an appropriate and necessary sanction and will impose it in 24-48 hours if it hasn't already been done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

User:Plot Spoiler and User:Oncenawhile are warned for their edits at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings. Any further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning Plot Spoiler User who is submitting this request for enforcement Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Plot Spoiler (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:ARBPIA : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Revert on 25 June after my directly related talk proposal on 22 June went unanswered for three days Revert on 7 June after my directly related talk proposal on 30 May went unanswered for a week Revert on 22 May In return for talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and verification, and lots of patience, Plot Spoiler responds with reverts, silence, reverts, and occasional personal attacks on talk. For the avoidance of doubt I asked Georgewilliamherbert for advice in February re dealing with such behaviour from Plot Spoiler, and have been following his advice to ensure I have crystal clean hands. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any WP:AE/Archive139#Plot_Spoiler Sep 2013 ARBPIA enforcement WP:3RR/User:Greyshark09_and_User:Plot_Spoiler Jan 2014 warning re slow burn edit war Additional comments by editor filing complaint In response to User:Sandstein below, this is a clear case of slow burn edit warring from an editor who should know better. Whilst the slow burn nature means it didn't trip the 1RR 24 hour bright line, it has had the same effect via three reverts, and should be considered as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Hi User:Sandstein, sorry i'm being slow. I have now linked to the specific remedy above. Plot Spoiler was blocked under ARBPIA about 9 months ago, so is well aware of the sanctions. I also reminded him about them on talk between the second and third revert above [136]. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC) And he was notified directly re the risk of sanctions from slow burn edit warring at User_talk:Plot_Spoiler/Archive_3#Discretionary_sanctions_notification. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC) I note that Plotspoiler's statement does not attempt to justify or explain their own behaviour at the article of consistently reverting without explanation and personal attacks. I am very pleased that Plotspoiler has now found the time to do some reading on the topic, because one of the points in his/her post is very constructive (and need to be brought to the article talk page). Plotspoiler has clearly been busy in real life, so my advice to him/her in future when working with me is simply to say "I don't agree with your edit, but I am busy so please give me until [x] to explain", rather than aggressive reversion and personal attacks. Anyway, since Plotspoiler's statement was dedicated to an Ad hominem attack on my editing, I will respond below: The Gat 1988 article Plotspoiler links to was not in the article, and the quote is useful. I have not seen the same in Gat's 1997 book, and I don't currently have access to the 1988 article to confirm the context of the quote. This is a useful contribution and would have been a helpful response to this post from 2.5 weeks ago highlighting my inability to verify where Gat states his "belief" My logic for the change to the lead has always been a very simple one. All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, and then present the counter arguments / alternative theories. When I say "all sources", this includes both of the authors which Plotspoiler references below, and should be the case for our article. This is simply following WP:RS. Plotspoiler is welcome to a different point of view, but cannot evade this question forever. Plotspoiler also questions my inclusion of (i) the views of Iraqi Jews, and (ii) the Lavon affair. Again, all the main authors in the article do exactly the same (as the 4 and 2 citations linked in this reverted edit show), including Gat, and Mendes in the article Plotspoiler links to below On the "calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews", despite disagreeing with Plotspoiler's interpretation of the implication, I responded to his previous objection by removing this from my last (22 June) proposal I am not the first editor on the receiving end of Plot Spoiler's aggressive viewpoint on this article (see Talk:1950–51_Baghdad_bombings#Undue_weight_toward_fringe_claims) from four years ago I will let my edit history speak for itself on Plotspoiler's last point. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [137] Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler 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 Plot Spoiler Apologies, I'm unable to provide a thoughtful and detailed response until at least Tuesday, July 1. I will not be editing in the interim. Your patience is appreciated. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you for your patience. Much appreciated. As I noted on the talk page, I believe it is quite clear that Oncenawhile is engaged in glaring violations of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:LEAD. Let me explain: Oncenawhile's proposed amendments to the lead at Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Revised proposal for lead clearly do not serve as a "concise overview" as a lead should, but cherrypicks information to make it appear that "Zionist agents" were responsible for the Baghdad bombings - i.e. purposely killing other Jews to cause them to flee Iraq. These are very serious charges, and the historiography shows that they are largely without merit. For example: Moshe Gat:"However in light of documents which have been made available by the National Archives in Washington, the British Public Record Office, the Haganah Archive, the Israel State Archive, and documents from the private records of Mordechai Ben-Porat, who was in charge of Jewish emigration in Iraq, we shall see that not only did Israeli emissaries not place the bombs at the locations cited in the Iraqi statement, but also that there was in fact no need to take such drastic action in order to urge the Jews to leave Iraq for Israel." http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283249 Philip Mendes: "Gat also raises serious doubts about the guilt of the alleged Jewish bomb throwers. Firstly, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army known for his anti-Jewish views was arrested, but apparently not charged, with the offenses. A number of explosive devices similar to those used in the attack on the Jewish synagogue were found in his home. In addition, there was a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. Secondly, the prosecution was not able to produce even one eyewitness who had seen the bombs thrown. Thirdly, the Jewish defendant Shalom Salah indicated in court that he had been severely tortured in order to procure a confession. It therefore remains an open question as to who was responsible for the bombings, although Gat suggests that the most likely perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party." Presented at the 14 Jewish Studies Conference Melbourne March 2002 Etc etc etc (I can go back with more) So Oncenawhile's claim that "I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the 'Iraqi culpability' theory have dwindled to zero" - is absolutely false. And given how much s/he brags about comprehensively researching, this is obviously not the case. Oncenawhile further misrepresents research by stating that Gat wrote: "There is wide consensus among Iraqi Jews that the emissaries threw the bombs in order to hasten the Jews' departure from Iraq." In fact, this is a footnote in which he is quoting archived material. It is not his assessment that that is the case. In fact, Gat believed that the perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party. Then Oncenawhile wants to cherrypick information that the Lavon Affair somehow indicates that Zionist agents were responsible for the Baghdad Bombings and because there have been calls to honor two executed Iraqi Jews, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, "whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country", this assumes that there sacrifice was in being agent provocateurs against their own people. Oncenawhile is a single-issue editor that has shown a tendentious pattern of editing. One example is this glaring act of well poisoning and WP:SYNTH, which he insisted on maintaining. Clearly out of bounds. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Plot Spoiler This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. The complaint does not make clear which if any specific remedy should be enforced and/or which if any conduct rule these reverts are deemed to violate. It is not actionable as submitted.  Sandstein  18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Even as amended, the complaint does not specify the remedy to be enforced and, if this is to be a discretionary sanctions request, does not indicate how Plot Spoiler was aware (as required) of these sanctions. Still not actionable.  Sandstein  20:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Sandstein, you issued 3-month ARBPIA ban to Plot Spoiler in September 2013. This should make them sufficiently aware. Though I haven't decided who is behaving the worst at 1950–51 Baghdad bombings we should think about some admin action which is sufficient to be sure that the conduct of all parties reaches the expected quality level for ARBPIA articles. It is tempting to think that a sanction to Plot Spoiler might be what is needed. In the September 2013 case, it was found that Plot Spoiler was applying different standards to the quality of the sources on the two sides of the dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Hm, I'm waiting for a statement by Plot Spoiler.  Sandstein  18:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Plot Spoiler now says he will be away until Tuesday July 1. How about we suspend this with no action, provided he does not edit Wikipedia in the mean time? EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC) OK.  Sandstein  05:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Plot Spoiler told us 'at least Tuesday, July 1' but that date has passed. So far there is no sign of his return. He has not edited Wikipedia since June 27. On July 5, I amended the banner to read 'complaint suspended until Plot Spoiler returns to editing'. We still expect to get a statement from him before action will be taken one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I've restored this as an active request since User:Plot Spoiler resumed editing on 8 July. I hope that he will provide the detailed response that was promised. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC) My assessment of Plot Spoiler's response is that it does nothing in Plot Spoiler's favor, because it consists only of allegations of misconduct by Onceinawhile, which even if true don't count in Plot Spoiler's favor (see WP:NOTTHEM), and which at any rate are not accompanied by actionable evidence and are therefore in and of themselves disruptive (see WP:ASPERSIONS); and arguments about the underlying content disagreement, with which the arbitration (enforcement) process is not concerned. However, I think that three reverts are a somewhat thin evidentiary basis for a sanction for edit-warring, so I have no clear course action to propose at the moment.  Sandstein  09:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I think we should ask both of them to refrain from editing the main article for... Let's say at least 2 weeks. Talk page discussion allowed, but neither PS nor Onceinawhile should be the one implementing edits that result from discussion. Also, PS should be reminded to reply to the article talk pages on a more regular basis, instead of just after Onceinawhile implementing the change (especially since this shows that PS made edits during the week that Onceinawhile waited regarding the June 6 edit). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 09:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC) If you would like to do this, go ahead, but I'm of the view that we should not use discretionary sanctions to micro-manage editors' conduct on individual pages. Rather, I see these sanctions principally as a safety valve for removing editors from a topic area altogether after it is clear that they can't get along with others. I don't have a clear opinion about whether we're at this point already here.  Sandstein  13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I'm of Sandstein's mind on this one. Don't feel comfortable using DS for such a nuanced remedy, especially based on this record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC) It's not that nuanced, page ban for 2 weeks to force them to the talk page not the article. That's the one discretionary sanction the reminder is just that, (non-DS) advice from an admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I propose closing this with warnings to both Plot Spoiler and Oncenawhile, that further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from ARBPIA. The history of the article and the talk page at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings indicates that Oncenawhile made a big round of changes in late May that were intended as improvements. Some of Oncenawhile's reasoning is given in Talk:1950–51 Baghdad bombings#Proposed amendments to lead. Plot Spoiler then made some reverts of Oncenawhile's work that appear to be a reflex action and not carefully considered. The exchange suggests to me that Plot Spoiler may not have read the sources. Typical of Plot Spoiler's response is this comment of June 7: "More grossly unbalanced editing. Try again." The way for both parties to avoid making unilateral reverts is to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and if necessary open a WP:Request for comment. Both parties are reminded that evidence of actually reading the sources will improve your credibility. I agree with Sandstein that short topic bans (or article bans) are scarcely worth it; the minimum that I see reasonable is three months from all of ARBPIA. I don't believe we are yet at the point of a topic ban, but we should allow both parties to show they can behave better before a sanction is issued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) I find myself agreeing with Ed a lot this evening, but yes, I'd favor this over the suggested two-week individual-article ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Closing: The edits of both Plot Spoiler and Oncenawhile at 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings have raised concerns. Both parties are warned that further unilateral reverts may lead to a topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. If you follow the recommended steps of WP:Dispute resolution it's unlikely that you'll have any trouble at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

Closed with no action taken; no violation of topic ban. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Darkness Shines User who is submitting this request for enforcement Calypsomusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Darkness Shines (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:ARBIPA : Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19:34, 8 July 2014 What Darkness Shines reverted was a POV edit (strong POV arguably, but no case of vandalism). Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans 15 May 2014 Topic Ban of Darkness Shines Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings 14 June 2014 Final warning for Darkness Shines If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Final_warnings 14 June 2014 Final warning for Darkness Shines Wikipedia:ARBIPA#Log_of_blocks_and_bans 15 May 2014 Topic Ban of Darkness Shines Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on IPA articles (for example, see above and block log ) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see above https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines 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 I first submitted this report here: User_talk:Callanecc#Topic_ban_violation. Darkness Shines first dishonestly claimed that he "was reverting vandalism, section blanking & introducing deliberate factual errors". This is dishonest, because the section blanking he linked to was actually not reverted by him, but by another user. And what Darkness Shines reverted was not "vandalism" or "factual errors", but only (arguably strong) POV. He reverted the edit that changed the sentence from Saffron terror are acts of violence that have been described as being motivated by Hindu Nationalism. However, in some cases the motivation for the acts has not been clearly determined to Saffron terror is a propaganda launched by enemies of india to malign hindus @Vanamonde93: I disagree that the edit under discussion was "flagrant vandalism". It was certainly POV, unhelpful and in an unencyclopedic tone, but it was not "flagrant vandalism". In any case, topic banned users should not be editing articles falling under the topic ban. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&diff=616888053&oldid=616717781 Discussion concerning Darkness Shines 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 Darkness Shines Statement by Vanamonde93 I am well acquainted with this particular article, as well as with both editors involved here; and in my opinion, the edit that was reverted was flagrant vandalism. The fact that the added content was vaguely topic related does not change that. The article prior to the reverted edit described actual acts of "Saffron terror." Therefore, insertion of "propaganda by enemies of India" cannot be described as anything but vandalism. Also, if you look at the edit history of the article, you can see instances where the editor reverted by DS indulged in section blanking, among other things. Finally, this report was made 6 days after the edit in question, which makes me think that this was not made in response to disruption, but is an attempt to get a topic ban extended on an editor Calypso has not had a cordial history with. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by Collect The OP is here because their prior request at Calanecc's user talk page was not acted upon - but the defence od reverting "vandalism" remains sound. The case at hand is so far removed from a collegial edit in any way attempting to improve an article that it was revertible on sight, IMO. If the claim is made that only "inserting obscenities" qualifies as "vandalism" then that sentence in WP:BANEX needs redrafting for sure. Collect (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Darkness Shines This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. In my view, changing the introduction of an article to "... is a propaganda launched by enemies of india to malign hindus" is obvious vandalism because it is difficult to imagine an editor making this edit in good faith with the objective of improving Wikipedia as a neutral reference work. Darkness Shines therefore did not violate any applicable topic ban or rules pertaining to rollback by rolling back the edit (see WP:BANEX). I would close this request without action.  Sandstein  10:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I agree. Additionally, no action need be taken against the filer at this time in my view. NW (Talk) 13:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC) I agree as well. I'll close this with no action later today. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)