Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46

Mythdon 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Mythdon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I can't see how anything short of a longer block is going to convince the user to engage in hte community in a proactive and not combative manner.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Mythdon

Statement by Mythdon

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

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

Comments by other editors

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

Result concerning Mythdon

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

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

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

  I tried to stay out of this as much as possible, but the only possible way for Mythdon and I to have absolutely no interaction would be the topic ban that he attempted to get out of with one of the previous requests for clarification, and an ensuing drama on ANI after it was brought up on WT:TOKU. I have still yet to see anything constructive come about from his editing the same pages I do. Even after the block and Nathan contacted him on his talk page to voluntarily choose a different area of interest, he does not understand that there should be a different topic area he should edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  How about: (1) Ryulong (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Mythdon (talk · contribs). This applies anywhere on Wikipedia, except at the following pages, when Ryulong requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon. Except when responding on those pages to such a request filed by Ryulong, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed." and (2) "If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year. If Ryulong violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 week per violation, with the third violation resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 month." Obviously, this could be tweaked, such as with a timer on the topic ban. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

  The reason I included it was more for in the unlikely case if you end up on the same article as one he's edited; it's just to highlight the limits of interaction. To be frank, I'd personally be comfortable not formalising via sanction for those same reasons as you stated. In the case that others supported the idea that part was not formalised, I already have an alternate wording ready: Unless Ryulong (talk · contribs), on the following pages, requests arbitration enforcement, amendment or clarification, with respect to both the case, and any finding, remedy or enforcement directly pertaining to Mythdon, Mythdon (talk · contribs) shall not directly or indirectly, interact with, or comment about Ryulong, at any time, anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to this, Mythdon (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing any page that falls under WikiProject Tokusatsu (including articles), and any discussions relating to those pages, broadly construed. If Mythdon violates this sanction, he will be blocked for up to 1 month per incident, with the third incident resulting in a ban from Wikipedia for 1 year." Again, thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pmanderson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I request that the 12 month topic ban from all MoS pages and their accompanying discussions be restored on PMAnderson, since he has demonstrated that he cannot control his rhetoric.

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

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

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

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

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

Comments by other editors

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

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

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

- "Masters of MoS",

- "...prejudices of six editors",

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 HWV258  06:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am sure there are other pertinent examples, but I would just make the observation that a similar pattern of incivility was deemed to sufficiently demonstrate the lack of good faith, resulting in the 6-month topic ban of another editor who sought to further his own agenda through personal attacks and verbose wikilawyering. A similar sanction may be a appropriate in this case. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• This editor has been involved in a heated discussion for several days at WP:NCON where he makes substantial edits to the guideline before any consensus has formed to change it. I also see the edit summary comments here , though perhaps toned down a little. His comments on the talk page are also bordering on uncivil. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is the problem with AE; it attracts all sorts of irrelevant complaints. I surreverted a direct reversion (once) on a page which has no consensus - indeed, as many editors object to it as defend it. I may do again, or leave it to others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The behavior I'm referring to is not related to a dispute. Please don't play this off as "some editors who disagree with your edits coming to attack you on AE". I'm merely commenting to let people know that a there's similar behave pattern in other pages that might otherwise be overlooked. And it was clearly not one edit, as anyone who looks at that page history can see. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Per [12] and specifically "(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion...", as well as the original terms of enforcement for all restrictions in the Date delinking case, allegations of incivility and edit-warring on style guidelines by editors under restriction can and should be addressed here. Nathan ^T 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
  • However, note the intention of ArbCom: this case deals with MOS and progeny; not with other guidelines - and WP:NCON is a naming convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• I was about to file an enforcement request against Ohconfucius for this edit, when I noticed Pmanderson had mentioned it above. Pmanderson objects (I think) to being called an anarchist, but what caught my attention was Ohconfucius referring to Pmanderson as "Pam Anderson". This is, in my view, a deliberate dig by Ohconfucius at Pmanderson. To realise this, you need to know some of the history here, including a recent exchange (from July 2009) where Pmanderson asks people to call him either Septentrionalis or Pmanderson, and not any of the various quasi-derogatory nicknames applied to him by those he has been in dispute with. The recent background to this is here, a few paragraphs down: "editors should not willfully distort other usernames, as in this edit (I say willful to exclude typoes, which this is not). Ohconfucius and GregL have picked up this minor obnoxiousness from Tony, who seems to have reformed." Then scroll back up the page to the statement by Lar, and you will see Pmanderson saying the following: "Either Pmanderson or Septentrionalis will do; wiki-friends have nicknames. But "Mandy" or "Manderson" are intentional pinpricks". In the same vein as Ohconfucius's earlier use of "Mandy", I submit that Ohconfucius's use of "Pam Anderson" here is an 'intentional pinprick'. If so, then this is classic baiting on the part of Ohconfucius, trying to provoke a response from Pmanderson. Whether this needs enforcement against Ohconfucius or not, I leave up to the admins reading this section, as I may be reading too much into this. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pedrito

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Pedrito

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Pedrito

Statement by Pedrito

Comments by other editors

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

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

untwirl(talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Result concerning Pedrito

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChildofMidnight

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning ChildofMidnight

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

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

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

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

1. [17] - Comments on Obama pages and on interaction-restricted editors by comparing those editors to Nazis
2. [18] - Restores Nazi accusations after they were removed following discussion
3. [19] - updates Nazi comparison after being warned by Newyorkbrad
4. [20] - comments on talk page of Grundle2600 (talk · contribs) (who is on community ban from editing Obama pages) regarding Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies and Grundle's Obama-related comments on other editors' talk pages
5. [21][22][23][24][25][26] - comments extensively on editing history of Obama pages and editors there, forum shops Obama Arbcom matter to Jimbo Wales' talk page
6. [27][28][29][30] - commentary on Obama editors being like Nazis, "bullies and liars", "thugs", his editing restrictions being "censorship", the "content position" of Obama articles containing "false, misleading and innacurate information" and "skewed and biased information", his interaction over Obama pages and with Obama editors being "incessant harassment and stalking", "barage of abuse", "censorship and propaganda pushing", and "hounding"
7. [31][32] - further commentary about edits, and editors, on Obama pages

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

1. [33] - Warning by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs)
2. [34][35][36] - Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) asks ChildofMidnight to remove Nazi accusations
3. Other editors asking for Nazi accusations to be removed: Caspian blue (talk · contribs),[37] Soxwon (talk · contribs),[38] Roux (talk · contribs),[39] Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs),[40] Unitanode (talk · contribs)[41]

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

1. Injunction across all pages to remove and not repeat comparisons of Obama editors (and in particular, interaction-restricted editors) to Nazis, thugs, bullies, censors, stalkers, harassers, etc.
2. Injunction across all pages not to further discuss Obama articles, their supposed bias, or their editing history - This is probably covered by existing remedies, but if necessary, clarification that above behavior is a violation

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

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

These edits are also violations of his community sanction not to interact with Baseball Bugs (which is more specific as to prohibited conduct), and general behavioral policy (e.g. WP:NPA). Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

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

I have notified COM of this report. [51] Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning ChildofMidnight

Statement by ChildofMidnight

Comments by other editors

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

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

Both Wikidemon and C of M technically interacted with one another on the ArbNoticeboard, and this report could, as you say, also be viewed as a violation by Wikidemon. But I think it's best to ignore all that, and it's understandable (I think) that Wikidemon would want something done about this situation, given that the Nazi references were clearly directed at least in part at him (C of M did not say so explicitly, but the context is rather obvious).

I would have to agree though that the Arb Enforcement board is not the right place for this, and really Wikidemon should not be filing the report. I have been considering filing a user-conduct RfC on ChildofMidnight given that editor's long-term behavioral problems and might still do that if others were willing to certify it, but it's an unpleasant prospect so I've been hesitating and may decide it's not worth the trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning ChildofMidnight

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jayjg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Jayjg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Jayjg

Statement by Jayjg

Comments by other editors

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

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

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

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

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

I disagree. I think the edits are clearly within the area of the conflict, broadly interpreted as the ruling states. Islam and Ahmadinejad as topics are plainly part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND over which editors on different sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict are prone to war, and for reasons that ought to be obvious to anyone. I think that needs to be clarified to the user in question. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)Defaming of Muslims and Arabs is a well known tactic employed by advocates of Israel in the I-P conflict… is an opinion, Gato. Discussing a particular Arab or Muslim person's belief about Jews is not an I-P issue. Discussing that same person's belief about the status of East Jerusalem, is an I-P issue. Making the assumption that a particular Arab or Muslim's beliefs about Jews is a direct outgrowth of their belief about Israel is 1) an opinion, aka WP:OR and 2) potentially insulting to the Arab or Muslim in question by intimating that they cannot separate those issues in their mind and are willing to judge one group by the actions of another. The logical reductio ad absurdum of that line of reasoning is to judge all Muslims by the actions of Hamas or Taliban suicide bombers—an abhorrent comparison in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, but in what universe is anything related to Muslims or Arabs part of the I-P conflict? Does this mean for example that he can't edit say al-Khwārizmī? Would that extend to History of algebra for example? The claim that any edits pertaining to Muslims or Arabs should be off limits seems to do a decent job of indicating the extreme absurdity of the position that these edits go over the line. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment: Some of you may have missed point 4 above (understandable, as it was added only 30 minutes ago). MeteorMaker (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a distinct field that overlaps in part the Israeli-Palestinian topic area, but is not part of it. As a parallel, nuclear weaponry is salient to the countries and conflict, but I would not necessarily consider the remedy proscribed Jayjg from editing on nuclear weaponry in general, the nuclear policies of either Israel or Iran, or their religion's views on nuclear warfare. As to the diffs:

• [68] is about the Unification church antisemitism controversy. It is not an "an article in the area of [the Middle East] conflict". Part of a quote within it relates to the conflict. But the article is not in the area of conflict, and that is his restriction. I also note this was part of a larger (permitted) edit to the article - Jayjg may have seen the entire page as a religious topic cleanup and overlooked the 2 sentences in one quote which related to the conflict.

• The others are fine both on subject matter and nature of edit: [69][70] as topics are more about religious views and social persecution than about the conflicts, and Jayjg's edits related to religious viewpoints, religious material, and its (non-conflict) interpretation. It skirts the proscribed topics but stays just within the restriction I think, it's more about religious views than the conflict though they overlap. [71] is the view of a notable individual in respect of their putative antisemitism, it's fine. [72] is not about the conflict, though I find the description as "unsourced" a bit at odds with the edit.

That said concur with Coren and Jpgordon; Jayjg should continue to take care, and should avoid or consult if there is a serious concern an edit may stray over the line. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont really care about this, but the topic ban is not just on articles within the topic area, it includes "any edits on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project". I think edits involving the so-called Israel lobby in the US are on that subject. The ones about Holocaust denial and antisemitism in my opinion are not. nableezy - 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this, a paralel discussion involving another editor included in the topic ban, and edits he made to The Independent, is helpful and is seen here. Note that the complaint there was also brought by an editor included under the topic ban, that the discussion was generally hostile to any attempts to distinguish a separate editing interest, and incidentally that the connection to the topic ban also involved Ahmadinejad and Iran to the extent that's an issue here. As to these edits, the first comment about Ahmadinejad may be incidental, but could have been avoided; however, the fourth edit seems to be a clear violation. More generally my understanding would be that if Jayjg would like to continue editing related to a topic which often intersects with the Arab-Israeli conflict, then ultimately it is up to him to ensure that he avoids those intersections entirely, broadly construed. Mackan79 (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The diff you linked to has a incidental relationship to the I-P conflict because of a single sentence (describing the background of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith) in a section. Otherwise, he removed a side discussion of the Israel lobby and the allegedly pro-Israel bias of the Washington Times from an article that isn't about either - and is about antisemitism. If you exclude Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, Israel and Iran based on the IP conflict ban then you are effectively (by expanding the scope of the decision) banning him from anything related to Islam, Judaism, the Middle East and a major span of human history. I just don't think that was the intent of the decision. Nathan ^T 18:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point, that's not his restriction. He is restricted from editing articles in the area of conflict, and I cannot conclude that the article concerned is in the area of conflict, or that having a citation added that references the conflict automatically causes the topic of the article to be "in" the restricted topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That isnt accurate. He is prohibited from any edits about the topic area anywhere on Wikipedia, not just on articles within the topic area. See the second half of the definition used for "area of conflict" in the remedies. nableezy - 19:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't find these charges to have particular merit. More significantly, I am concerned that User:MeteorMaker has returned to Wikipedia after a several month hiatus apparently for the sole purpose of getting Jayjg sanctioned or banned. This is, at best, extremely unhelpful. Also troubling is the use of the phrase "Jews (and by extension, Israelis)" as pointed out above. 84.228.230.47 (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's important to note that these are MeteorMaker's first edits with this account since June 14; it seems to me that the purpose of the I/P ban was not to act as a "trap" for editors who are otherwise doing good work. It would be unfortunate if it were interpreted to encompass everything to do with Judaism, antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Holocaust denial, because these are issues Jay knows a lot about. I suggest he constantly ask himself how a reasonable opponent could view his edits, and always err widely on the side of caution; anything to do with Iran, for example, straddles the ban because of current animosities. Although I agree Jay needs to be careful, I hope the ArbCom won't let a situation develop where he's too nervous to edit in case some otherwise unused account pops up with a report. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Please forgive my stopping by here, but on the issue of the topic ban extent I found Gwen Gale's comment at AN/I persuasive: "..anti-semitism and anti-zionism are often conflated as one in the same. Mistakenly so, from my outlook, but then, that's a slice of what these I-P PoV kerfluffles on en.Wikipedia have been all about." The article ban (not a topic ban as such) concerns "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles", broadly construed. As such, histories of holocaust denial or persecution of jews are too far attenuated to be considered even broadly about the AI conflict. Unification Church antisemitism controversy seems to involve Moon's statements about Judaism in biblical times and as a religion, not (as far as the article says) about Israel's modern conflicts. Thus, in principle any edit to those articles, even on the subject of AI matters, would be exempt. However, Islam and antisemitism is much more closely related to the AI conflict because it deals in large part with the modern vehemence of Israel's neighbors towards Jews in Israel. One of its major sections, "Antisemitism in the Islamic Middle East", is mostly about warfare, terrorism, and hostility by Muslim states in the region, which is the core of the AI dispute. As that article's lede says, the subject includes "the attitudes of the Muslim world in history to Jews as a people". Per Islam by country, Islamic population of the middle east represents 17% of wolrd Muslims and 91% of the Mideast population (more if one omits Israel). Per Historical Jewish population comparisons Jews in Israel make up 76% of Israel's population, and something like 40% of the world Jewish population. So the mideast conflict between Israelis and non-Israeli Arabs is very much a conflict between Jews and Muslims, if not by logical necessity, by demographic fact. Back to Gwen Gale's comment, even though it morally and perhaps logically should not be the case, the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbors is very much entwined with the attitudes by Muslims in the region towards Jews (and by extension, Judaism, zionism, and various other identifications that are associated primarily with Jews). Even if every last person who abhors Israel had no prejudice at all against Jews or the Jewish people, the fact that many people think so makes the two subjects related... if not by birth, by adoption. A clarification would be useful. Should Arbcom decide that this one article (or more) out of four is covered, I don't think Jayjg had adequate advance notice because it is not a clearcut case. So unless there has been a pattern of prior violations, testing the limits, or otherwise refusing to heed Arbcom a caution seems more appropriate than a block. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is not so much about what sanctions if any should apply, it's about how one should interpret the statement the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted. As you have correctly noted, the Arab-Israeli conflict is "very much a conflict between Jews and Muslims, if not by logical necessity, by demographic fact". Since that is the case, then edits pertaining to the relationship between Jews and Muslims (or Arabs) are always at least potentially related to the conflict in question. The simplest way to avoid problems in future then, is simply to take broadly interpreted to mean any edits that pertain to the relationship of Arabs/Muslims to Jews and vice versa. I would also suggest that any edits tending to disparage one ethnic group or another would also be in violation of the spirit of the sanction and should be avoided. Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, what about Maimonides? I'm also a bit worried by your idea about general edits about ethnic groups. So is Jayjg now not allowed to edit an article about Berny Maddof if it discusses claims that Jews are more likely to commit fraud? Or for that matter if it is any ethnic group, would that mean he can't make edits discussing the fact that say sickle cell anemia is more common in certain racial groups? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

When I said disparaging comments about an ethnic group, obviously I was talking about the ethnic group on the other side of the conflict. No-one is going to get upset if he edits the article about Bernie Madoff. Gatoclass (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't obvious to me given how general you seem to want to extend this. So, what about Maimonides? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I know very little about Maimonides, so I'm not sure why you are bringing him up, but in relation to the general question, again I think it's fine if he edits articles about Jews or Jewish topics, as long as he steers away from material relating to Arabs or Muslims in such articles - much as Malik Shabazz has suggested in the comment below. Gatoclass (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Maimonides was Jewish. His philosophy was heavily influenced by the Muslims he lived in. He's very clearly in the set of articles that connect Islam and Judaism. So, in your vieew is he covered by the topic ban? (Incidentally, the notion of restricting each side in this dispute to its own group is really, really bad. The end result of that is just going to be massive whitewashing. There's a set of topics that are not ok. Something is either in that set or not. It isn't connected to what side people took prior to their bans). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article in question and don't have time to do so today. However, if the point you are making is that the life of Maimonides is so enmeshed in Islamic culture that one can scarcely edit the article without making reference to that culture, then yes, I think it would be better if Jay did not edit it. It's not as if there aren't countless other articles on Jewish topics that aren't in need of attention, after all.

And again, I'm not sure where you get this notion that I am advocating "restricting each side in this dispute to its own group", I've said no such thing, I am simply commenting on how a particular sanction imposed on a small group of editors should be interpreted, and how you have concluded that this must lead to "massive whitewashing" I cannot imagine. Gatoclass (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but any universe in which Maimonides is part of the Arab-Israeli conflict is not the universe the rest of the universe operates in. And the fact that your interpretation mandates that sort of inclusion demonstrates pretty well how absurd it is. Regarding the restriction of each group, you seem to be saying that the "pro-Israel" side should not edit Arab articles while the "pro-Arab side" (God, I hate both these terms but they seem to be ok shorthand for now) can't edit anything related to Israel or Jews. Aside from the general problem again of conflating Jews with Israel, this handling each side separately. And a likely result will be that each side will try to remove negative content abouts its own group if you insist on pushing them in this direction. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be expanded to include Judaism- and Islam-related articles. However, I think Israel- and Arab-related issues that are discussed within Judaism- and Islam-related articles should be off-limits. For example, editing Holocaust denial in general would be okay, but the section concerning Holocaust denial in Arab nations would be off-limits. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that the scope of the ban should be more clearly defined. I also agree that Arab/Israeli conflict does not encompass all of the articles involving Jewish and anti-semitic issues including Holocaust denial. Jayjg has been an exemplary voice on those issues for a long time although he might become more circumspect in the future, I hope his input continues...Modernist (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me invert things apropos what Jayjg is said to have remarked on Al-Baqara. Moses Maimonides in his Guide to the Perplexed (3:51, from memory) defines blacks as a halfway breed between men and apes. Many pages dealing with rabbis in the West Bank could bear annotations to their writings equating the Palestinian Arabs with the Amalekites, and thus, in halakhic law, as codified by Moses Maimonides, subject to annihilation. It would be very easy for anyone with a polemic design on wikipedia, to annotate many such pages with reliably sourced material no less injurious to Jewish sensibilities that the crass and contemptuously illiterate characterization of a very complex civilzation like Islam Jayjg enunciated here. Reimagine this discussion were someone like myself editing in potentially offensive material about Judaism. What would your respective positions then be? When I once added just one such snippet to the page on Baruch Goldman, impeccably documented, Jayjg simply wiped it off the page as untrue. When I mentioned the above datum about Maimonides to him as an aside on a discussion page, to get him to stop introducing smear material, he again denied this was true. Christianity's history of antisemitic antipathies is neglected everywhere, yet the Muslims are fair game.

My own rule, as former editor, was to refrain, even when I had full liberty to edit in whatever I thought worthy of note, from adding such uselessly inflammatory material readily available from Christian, Muslim and Jewish cultural and religious traditions to articles. To do so is to open up a can of emotional self-defensiveness and counterattacks. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for notes on the stupidities, crassness, bias and hatreds of the past and present. With due respect to my admired former colleagues who differ with Gatoclass, I don't think the gravity of the point made in that remark is understood. Jayjg, like myself and others, should just shut up and edit, if we wish to edit, articles that do not lend themselves to such suspicions.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Nishidani, it is good to see you around. Would it be wiser for all involved, including JayJg, to err on the side of caution and to stay away from all articles that may be related? Yes, I agree with you in that. However, there is a difference from people exercising self-control, as you have done, and people being improperly forbidden from areas where they are technically allowed to edit. I've counseled Jay to be very careful in these areas, and I think he is better off voluntarily restricting himself in the main, but the bringing of this report concerns me as it appears to be an attempt to widen the boundaries of what already is a very broad restriction, thus my comments. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Avi. To explain. I thought I'd drop a note because MM's bona fides in raising this were questioned, while no attention was being paid to the serious misrepresentation Jayjg made of an entire faith and its world by selective use of the Al-Baqara remark. I believe MM, like myself, took the ban to mean we're to stay off anything that could be interpreted as bearing, directly and indirectly, on the I/P dispute, i.e., though having read Sari Nusseibeh's autobiography recently, and with my files full of material about his life, as a Jerusalemite, I have refrained even from editing into his (hopelessly bad) wiki page the fact that he is married to Lucy Austin, the daughter of the phyilosopher John Austin, because he is a major actor in the I/P conflict. MM is as rigorous as they come, and his restrictive reading of the ban mirrors mine. I just dislike suggestions that he is motivated by arrières pensées of the type, 'get Jayjg'. I've never seen MM make anything more than edits that speak to substance, nor caught him working away ad hominem. There is a zone of ambiguity in that ruling and I think MM does well to raise his point in order that it be clarified. Best regards and keep up the fine work.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We'd all be better off if we exhibited more self control (myself at the forefront ). -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit yes? It seems like all he did was undue to the blanking of sourced content by an anon. He doesn't seem to be going out of his way to add material about the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Avi: We are mainly discussing this edit. Apparently it's not erring on the safe side of caution to edit sections that discuss a particular newspaper's alleged pro- or anti-Israel bias — just ask Nickhh, who was slammed with a pre-block warning for mere talk page edits at The Independent. Furthermore, at the time he got the warning, the topic ban scope was "the Palestine/Israel dispute" rather than "the Arab-Israeli conflict". Given that the scope was expressly broadened to cover Nickhh's edit, that Jayjg edited in the exact same topic area, and that his edit was in article space, Jayjg should get at least the same punishment as Nickhh, a final warning and a block next time. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The matter of the Independent was concering specifically the Independent's coverage of accusations that Israel used specific types of weapons against Arabs. It doesn't seem hard to distinguish that and a set on a newspaper having a pro-Israel bias. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read the talk page, you will notice that the discussion was about whether or not to include citations that accuse The Independent of an anti-Israel bias — and Jayjg's edits were to remove citations that accuse Washington Post of a pro-Israel bias. Apart from the inverted bias signs and the fact that Jayjg edited an article whereas Nickhh merely posted on the talk page, no difference at all. If Nickhh deserved a warning, so does Jayjg. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that same thing. The issue with The Idependent was in the context of its coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. There's no aspect of the Israeli-Arab conflict being discussed in the Washington Post context. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read the talk page thoroughly. The context is the newspaper's alleged anti-Israel bias, which one editor (who incidentally escaped the blanket topic ban by the slimmest of margins) sought to prove with various citations, mainly about its coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict. Quite the same context as Jayjg's removal of various citations that demonstrate Washington Post's alleged pro-Israel bias. MeteorMaker (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's worrying that there's an effort to extend the scope again. Common sense has to kick in at some point. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This is completely absurd, and does a disservice both to Jay and Wikipedia. You cannot contort language and reason to bring issues like antisemitism and Holocaust denial within a narrow category of "Israel-Palestinian conflict". Those who assert this is not a "get Jay" vendetta protest too much. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They certainly do, considering that the person bringing the action has not edited since June, and has not had a substantial mainspace edit since April. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the evidence instead of dismissing it with ad hominems and appeals to authority. Also note that until last week, Jayjg hadn't edited at all since early April, so your argument applies equally well to him. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg didn't come back to launch acussations. He's primarily been doing work on various religion stubs and synagogues. Lots of mainspace edits about many different topics. And he's been here for about two weeks back. Not at all the same. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

To repeat. Some of those under the ban took it literally to mean they could not edit in the area they had concentrated on. MM, like myself, thought that the only appropriate response was to withdraw from wikipedia. Hence the argumentum ex silentio, with its culture of suspicion, is wholly misplaced. All talk here of a 'get Jayjg' vendetta is cheap and reflects poorly on the judgement of those who push it. I don't include Avi in this. His comments reflect a legitimate worry I think however misplaced here, and he will, admirably, defend, and yet criticize, a friend, who certainly has made substantial contributions to this encyclopedia, and yet who has often lacked the detachment and discretionary judgement Avi has distinguished himself for. The issue raised is raised because there is a grey zone, and, it is par for the course in wiki to clarify greyzones in arbitration. So kindly stop the innuendo, and what Herzl would call 'Tändelei. It's unbecoming a member of Arbcom Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

Bah. WP:DUCK. Harassment is harassment. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pfui.Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas, wjhich in layman's terms contextually means, never let the sympathies of friendship blind your eyes to the aim of drafting an encyclopedic.Nishidani (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There may be two separate issues here: It may well be that Jay has gone over the line (certainly he is close to wherever it is). It may also be that Meteor is harassing Jayjg and that other people are in this thread to harass. Any combination of the two is logically consistent. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) reply to MM: But he hasn't brought a complaint. You have. And the fact that your account was otherwise unused for months begs the question as to how you even noticed Jay's edits. It would be somewhat unfortunate to have Jay admonished by someone who is himself in violation, so please appreciate that the reason for concern is valid. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

R to SV: Kindly refrain from unfounded insinuations and focus on the evidence. In your opinion, was it correct to warn User:Nickhh for discussing inclusion of citations that that accuse The Independent of an anti-Israel bias? MeteorMaker (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jayjg

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

I am closing this request without action because the discussion is starting to become unhelpful and because consensus (among uninvolved admins, at least, and notably including two arbitrators) is that the edits - including edit 4 - did not violate the topic ban. However, FT2 and arbitrator Coren have cautioned Jayjg that, in FT2's words, "Jayjg should continue to take care, and should avoid or consult if there is a serious concern an edit may stray over the line."  Sandstein  21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Corrected, I'm not an arb - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SlimVirgin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning SlimVirgin

User requesting enforcement:
Leatherstocking (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Post-decision motion passed

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

1. [73] Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
2. [74]) Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
3. ([75] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
4. [76] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
5. [77] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
6. [78] Giving undue weight to obscure critics
7. [79] Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
8. [80]Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

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

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

Additional comments by Leatherstocking (talk):
An important tenet of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people is WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. In my view the various LaRouche articles have been fairly well balanced and stable for a substantial period of time. There are published sources available which contain both extravagant praise and extravagant criticism of LaRouche, but the articles were not dominated by either.

Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 69 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. The edits are so numerous that it is difficult to unravel the overarching trend. However, the examples that I have given characteristic. The general effect of these edits has been to eliminate well-sourced material that presents LaRouche in a favorable light, while giving disproportionate amounts of space to highly derogatory criticism from obscure individuals, in a manner that overwhelms the article and appears to take sides.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
notification diff

Discussion concerning SlimVirgin

Statement by SlimVirgin

Comments by other editors

Result concerning SlimVirgin

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

• Nothing enforceable here. The remedy you note specifically refers to actions of LaRouche supporters that disrupted the encyclopedia with POV-pushing and original research. Clearly, that is not the case here. Also, coming on the heels of your failed request for blocking SlimVirgin under the 3RR, this seems a bit like forum shopping because you disagree with her edits. Probably a good time to take a break from editing the subject if its starting to get to you. Shell ^babelfish 05:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dilip rajeev

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

Request concerning Dilip rajeev

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User requesting enforcement:
Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Article_probation: "Falun Gong and all closely related articles are placed on article probation. It is expected that the articles will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and that information contained in them will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. Passed 7 to 1 at 06:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Point_of_view_editing
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Falun_Gong#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba#Removal of poorly sourced negative information
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba#Removal of poorly sourced information

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs) has been editing Falun Gong articles (almost exclusively) since February 2006. He has a habit of disappearing (i.e. not editing in article space or talk space) for weeks on end. When he returns, he frequently reverts to the last version he feels comfortable with irrespective of the individual merits of each of the changes because the changes which took place were not to his liking. Such reverts are usually done without due reference to the discussions which have taken place during his absence. Some diffs immediately below, show this modus operandi

• this one single edit, made following an absence of 12 days, undid 36 intermediate edits made by others during this time.

His habit of making radical reverts is a matter of historical record. Some examples of this tendency are below:

• This is his first intervention as Diip rajeev since the blocking of Inactive user account. He reverted 43 edits made by others while he was away for 26 days' absence.

• reverted 44 edits by others in one fell swoop after 7 days' absence

For myself and a number of neutral editors who have joined the Falun Gong wikiproject, Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles have become the last straw in our tolerance of his disruptive behaviour.

NPOV at Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident

The following is a brief history of the significant edits which took place after the article was declared a Good Article through collaborative work by me and User:asdfg12345. The radical changes put through by Dilip rajeev to a good article were all done within a period of about a week, without prior substantive discussion to speak of:

• This exchange shows clearly how Dilip rajeev railroaded changes against all other opinions, including that of asdfg. The information about the victims deleted was just one of many very overtly biased changes made to the article. That information was sourced from Xinhua in much the same way as Dilip rajeev's stuff sourced from Faluninfo, and has every right to exist in the article. To omit it introduces undue bias. Furthermore, of the material which I "blanked", there was considerable repetition. We only need grouped representative opinions, and there is no rhyme or reason why we need to collect each and everybody's opinion. Below, I have a collection of the significant diffs where the unacceptable bias has been introduced, comments and objections, as well as his accusing EgraS and me of engaging of sockpuppetry:

• this demonstration of bad faith
• another demonstration of bad faith
• this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
• gratuitous accusation of 'vandalism'
• citing his favourite FG-aligned journalist
• removal of text 'Later reports' without summary
• added one partisan text and cherry-picked another
• deliberate introduction of weasel words without changing attribution/refs
• this series of edits introduces very obvious pro-FG bias.
• revert of Egra's edit "EgraS / Oconfucious. Stop vandlaizing the pages. You cannot accusse material from reporters such as Ian Johnson of being "biased" and stop misusing the NPOV tag. " (note: Ohconfucius' last edit dates to 6 August 2008)

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

1. Dilip rajeev block log
2. Inactive user account 001 block log

• He was given this final warning on 16 May 2009.

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

Falun Gong

He is a habitual disruptive editor whose aggressive and partisan edits have been the subject of numerous comments and complaints from other users, including fellow practitioner User:asdfg12345. Dilip rajeev has been warned repeatedly against edit-warring, and has been blocked a number of times - the last time was a 3 month topic ban; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. I believe that, in view of his continued disruption since the topic ban and the total lack of any mitigating collaborative successes, an indefinite ban from Wikipedia editing Falun Gong-related articles or their talk pages. would be in order; he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Falun Gong, for example on the Communist Party of China, Jiang Zemin, Cult suicide, Censorship in the People's Republic of China etc.

Sathya Sai Baba

In view of his disruption at Sathya Sai Baba articles as demonstrated above, as well as by User:Radiantenergy below, I request a ban on editing of all articles related to same to minimise Dilip rajeev's disruption to the project overall, and serve to protect his personal safety and that of his family against the wrath of Baba supporters. I also request that he should also be banned from any edit which potentially touches on Sathya Sai Baba. This would appear to be justified as Baba is another 'hot topic' which has already been the subject of two Arbcom cases.

Additional comments by Ohconfucius (talk):

Background

There is a protracted, large-scale propaganda war between the spiritual movement and the Chinese regime. The polariation makes it much, much harder to deal with, as there are activists on both sides. Both sides use exaggerated 'evidence', borrowed 'experts', sensationalist claims and other forms of propaganda to attack each other. "NPOV" becomes very delicate - as both sides clearly have an agenda against the other, there will be routine disruptions from both sides. No revision of articles is ever stable.

The propaganda war manifested itself on Wikipedia in 2006, with anti-Falun Gong activists and pro-Falun Gong practitioners constantly opposing each other and engaging in disruptive editing. To my knowledge, after arbitration, all of the anti-FLG editors (Sam Luo, Tomanada, etc.) were banished. As a result, since June 2007 and until mediation in July 2009, the Falun Gong family of articles have become unmistakably dominated by pro-Falun Gong activists. These articles all suffer from serious POV issues heavily biased in favour of Falun Gong, and are used as direct advocacy for the Falun Gong movement; users from all backgrounds (including those who are anti-Chinese gov't) have raised concerns - but all have been either discouraged by the drama, or their attempts at other means of dispute resolution have failed.

Conflict of Interest

Dilip rajeev is a Falun Gong practitioner, and edits Falun Gong articles almost exclusively since 2006 along with a team of 3 other very easily identifiable FLG activist editors - asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), Olaf Stephanos (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). After the ban of Anti-FLG users Sam Luo and Tomanada, this group of Falun Gong practitioners have seemingly taken over all Falun Gong-related articles. All four users, to varying degrees, erase critical content, engage in lengthy advocacy commentary on talk pages, tag-team against other editors. Rajeev in particular shows very little respect for any users who wish to bring balance to articles, by sundry disruptive tactics and tendentious editing. These 1

• 2 attempts (amongst others) by fellow activist asdfg to rein him in have never had much effect.

In my experience, Rajeev has shown great animosity when non-FG devotees edit this article. There has been a long history of unchecked edit warring, even over the placement of {{NPOV}} tags. Such tags are routinely removed (as here) with not so much as a 'how do you do', as if the contents suddenly become neutral when the tag disappears. Reverts are usually very provocatively done - blind and wholescale, often destroying many intervening edits which have accurate and well-reasoned edit summaries - and any ensuing discussion makes clear that the user is always 'right' and anyone who opposes him 'wrong'. Anything which is sourced from sources he approves of have a right to stay and any sources he disapproves of are "CCP propaganda" or somesuch. Dilip rajeev's tendency to introduce ironic quotes (like here) and weasel words are already mentioned above. Not only is he completely and blindly partisan, Dilip rajeev often expresses points of view which are unique; his style and content introduced have been frowned upon from time to time by most others, and also by asdfg.

In all Falun Gong articles, misrepresentation of sources has been endemic, and these four abovenamed editors are known to back up each other's problematic edits. They occasionally concede when it is clearly demonstrated that misrepresentations exist. However, more often than not, the neutralising revision provokes another flurry of introducing "highly sourced material" ostensibly to 'restore balance', but which usually tilt bias back in favour of Falun Gong; some such introductions give their cause the last word. Adding, removing, restructuring, moving, or otherwise changing any material that appears to upset the pro-FG bias in any of the articles is met with the same tactics.

Dilip rajeev's stated view that nothing from the Chinese authorities is worthy of citing because it is unreliable propaganda demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what is WP:NPOV. He is known to endlessly pontificate on moral questions, and lawyer around citing paragraphs of WP:RS and WP:NPOV to support whatever position he favours in regards to a certain link or source. He maintains a website which he uses as Falun Gong advocacy. It seems that he passionately believes the persecution of Falun gong practitioners at the hands of the Chinese authorities, and is unable to put these views to one side when he is editing; and when he edits, it is with such great fervour and aggression that leaves little or no place for others who wish to contribute.

• pontification of 'Persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
• Here, he uses moralistic arguments in an apparent defense of denying platform for the "lot of mis-information and lies on Falun Gong" spread by the CCP
• again here
• In this edit, he apparently argues "highly sourced" is sufficient to achieve WP:NPOV
• here is another example.

I would add that the above edits from the 'self-immolation' article demonstrate a pattern of behaviour which can be seen throughout his editing in FGverse. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with inserting text favouring one viewpoint, to continue to do so and to ignore the other viewpoints (and all those who support it) when an article manifestly lacks balance is problematic. There are numerous discussions in which he openly advocates Falun Gong, the principles of "truthfulness, compassion and forbearance". He appears only to able to observe only twoone of the three 'virtues' ("truthfulness"), and even so, he appears to do it with his rose-coloured spectacles.

Sathya Sai Baba

Arbcom will already know about sockpuppet account. From this, it can be seen how he ran User:Inactive user account 001, the sock apparently to protect himself against members of the Baba cult.

• this edit in Jan 2009 demonstrates the same modus operandi (insertion of bias, use of ironic quotes) as in the Falun Gong articles. The account was blocked indefinitely in May 2009 after edit warring which resulted in his real identity being outed here by his adversary there.

After said sock account was blocked, he continued to repeatedly edit war at Sathya Sai Baba

• 1 2 3 edits in an edit war in Baba article (he crushed 13 explained changes with revert number 3)

Dilip rajeev creates an ambiance of intolerance and hostility, leaving behind a trail of breaches of WP:NPOV, 3RR and other guidelines wherever he goes. He is responsible, in whole or in part, for driving away a number of neutral editors from the Falun Gong articles. His editing Sathya Sai Baba demonstrate his propensity to be controversial; his forays there are nothing short of spectacular drama. He has demonstrated that he is incapable of working with others who do not share the same views as himself, and I am regrettably of the conclusion, after observing numerous attempts by myself and other editors to discuss, negotiate and mediate, and after many months of suffering his various antics and POV-pushing, that Wikipedia is best off without him. A wholescale indefinite ban is warranted to end this editor's disruption of wikipedia, once and for all. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:

• Notification has been served Ohconfucius (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Because of his habit of frequent absence, I also sent him the following email:

Arbitration enforcement‏

From: oh confucius ([email protected])
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:19:41 AM
To: [email protected]

I wish to inform you that an arbitration enforcement case concerning your behaviour has been filed here.

Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I continue to be baffled by the discussion below concerning the scope of authority of admins in this matter. I would just point out that in January 2008, Dilip rajeev was topic banned for 3 months without coming to AE; prior to that was a block of 55 hours. Olaf Stephanos was also given a 6 month topic ban recently here at AE for just such a violation. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Per Shell's comment, I have now realised that Samuel Luo was only topic banned indefinitely, but though it was a site ban. I have now amended the request above. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Reaction to asdfg's comments: My only ideology is WP:NPOV. If Dilip's latest reverts to the 'Self Immolation' and 'Organ harvesting' articles are part of Dilip's latest "improvements", I would hate to see what getting worse is like. He may be good at sourcing, but note that he frequently hides behind the "highly sourced material" as defense against removing any text which he wants to stay. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Dilip rajeev

Statement by Dilip rajeev

Well, a lot of accusations and all of them absolutely baseless.

1. Clarifying the Sock Accussation

I'll start with the sock accusation regarding the Sai Baba page. The "Sai Baba" topic being an extremely sensitive topic here in India, and any criticism of which could potentially result in threat on my safety as well as my family's safety, I had wanted anonymity when contributing to the pages( Ref: BBC Documentary, Secret Swami)( Even 70 year olds have been attacked in the very state where I live for exposing critical information on this person.) All my contributions there has been well sourced - to the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, The DTV, etc. It was a legitimate alternate account. Admins had also agreed there was no evidence of abusive socking from that account. Further, I had informed the arbcom, in a mail in February, regarding the account.

A newly registered editor, wanting to find out the real identity of the alternate account, started an SPA case against me - admins who were mislead by the manner in which the user presented the case initially mistook my account for a sock, revealing the identity of my alternate account. Shortly following this revelation of info, people related to the sai baba group had a large scale attack launched against me on several blogs and website.

Admins suggested that I rename the original alternate account and I did. That I "returned to edit warring" on the pages is a baseless mis-characterization. It is not uncommon on wikipedia for editors to get cornered and attacked when their contributions are not in- line with other's POV.

The above user had attacked me with claims along the same lines here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dilip_rajeev/Archive

And he was clearly told by the admins that I had not operated any abusive socks.

2.The Tiananmen Square Page

The article had remained stable in this version for over a year : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident&oldid=300212095

The above User, Ohconfucius, came and and reverted it to a two year old revision - ignoring the pages of discussion that resulted in the newer version.

The user refuses to focus on the content being blanked out by his revision while attacking, personally, editors like me who bring up concerns on such a revert - chosing to base it ona "good article" comment.

The information and sources that got blanked out in the revert to the two year old version includes:

• Clive Ansley's statement from the CBC documentary
• Ian Johnson
• Danny Schechter
• RSF ( Reporters Sans Frontiers )
• Beatrice Turpin of Associated Press
• Ownby
• A centrally relevant image (which was part of the article for years).

And above are among the best sources and most notable sources available to us on the topic.

None of this removal was on the basis of any consensus. I had raised my concerns to the effect on talk, pointed things out clearly, requested that if any well sourced info from the two year old version ( which is extremely biased on builds on CCP propaganda ) be missing in the newer version, it be identified and incorporated into the newer article. PLease see my comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip

I attempted a single revert to the stable version with the comment:"Please see talk page. The revision of the stable article to a two year old version, with no consensus/discussion, had blanked of several prominent 3rd party sources. Kindly see talk."

I was quickly reverted back by the above user, who, refusing to focus on the content, cast a set of baseless, distorted and misleading accusations against me. I refrained from any further revert to avoid a meaningless revert war.

3.The Organ Harvestation Page

It is true that I reverted to an approx. 10 day old version. But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert. Over 40 KB of centrally relevant, well sourced information as from Amnesty, Kilgour Matas, US COngress, etc., I had noticed, was removed in a series of edits. All images on the pages, showing statistic from the KM reports etc. had gotten removed as well.

I brought up the issue on the main page of Falun Gong article. I reproduce my comments, requesting admin attention, in their entirety below. I had pointed out I did the revert and was requesting admin attention to the revert as well as to the current state of affairs in the article.

Requesting admin attention on the organharvesting sub-page

Kindly review the flurry of changes that have happened in the the past couple of weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&diff=309220914&oldid=309152359

A 66 KB article, every sentence in which had been highly sourced, has got reduced to a 26 Kb stub. Could admins kindly review such changes - the article comes under the probation placed by the ArbCom on these pages.

I have attempted to restore the page as of around Aug 8th, when this flurry of removal started -and not just info sourced to Amnesty, Congressional Reports, Kilgour Matas reports, etc. have been blanked out but several centrally relevant images from the KM reports have been blanked out as well.

Requesting kind attention on the issue. Dilip rajeev (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Kindly see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. The page was reverted to a two year old revision - in the process blanking out several pages of content sourced to western academia. I merely restored this removal of info on a stable article, requesting that we discuss and make changes based on consensus - incorporating stuff from the two year old revision that might be missing in the stable article. While the user accuses me of "blanking two weeks of work" on The Tiananmenn square page, he choses to ignore that what I did was merely undo the user's revert to a two year old version ( an edit that ignored completely years' of work on the page).

I request admins to kindly go through/ compare the revisions and see for themselves.

The same pattern has occured on almost all related pages - and by the same set of users in the past two weeks. Li Hongzhi article has had info removed , addition of several paras of info irreleavent to the individual's notability, in violation of WP:BLP , etc. Persecution of Falun Gong article has undergone such changes as well.

I'd also like to point out that these flurry of changes started at around the same time as these comments were made by the same users involved in the changes. The "discussion" and "consensus" that resulted in the removal of all this info has been largely between the editors engaged in the below exchanges.

• Seb az86556 on Ohconfucius' talk page: "you did well in keeping the this Olaf-guy at bay, and I can see now why the Falun Gong thing you emailed about will be "total war"..." [81]

• Colipon on Edward130603's talk page: "Anyway, do you have e-mail?" [82]

• Colipon on Mrund's talk page: "I'd sent you an e-mail today. Please check! :)" [83]

• Ohconfucius on Mrund's talk page: "I'm glad you're back. Drop me an email, I'd like a private chat with you." [84]

I'd also like to point out that am not accusing all editors involved in the conversation. Mrund, for instance, just received these comments on talk and there is little evidence of him being involved in the recent removal of info on these pages.

As regards the removal of info on a 66KB stable article - reducing it to a 26 KB article, another stable page being reverted to a two year old revision ,etc. I'd like to point out that the very majority of info removed in the process are material centrally relevant- sourced to western academia, Human rights bodies, etc. - Amnesty, AP, Congressional Reports, a Yale Univ Thesis, Kilgour Matas Reports,etc. I point this out because, in the past, we have witnessed such blanking being covered up by claims to the effect that it was primary sources such as ET or Faluninfo.net that was removed. Demonstratably, and very clearly, it is reliable 3rd party sources being blanked out here. In all of these pages, primary sources such as Faluinfo.net are very sparingly used ( despite that they are identified as being reliable by scholars such as David Ownby.)

Dilip rajeev (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I was reverted by Ohconfucius , whose edit summary ran: "rvv - where's the discussion?". I pointed out I had brought up the issue on the main page [85]. When I was reverted again, I refrained from doing any more reverts, again to avoid an unnecessary edit war and thought would bring up the issue in detail on the article's talk when I find more time.

The 10 day old version I reverted to is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309225056 ( 66KB article, content stable for a almost a year )

The version from which I reverted ( the current version, after removal of 40 K info and ALL images) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China&oldid=309223036 ( 26 KB article )

If reviewing admins even causally compare the two versions, what motivated me to attempt restore all the info removed would be apparent.

Comments by other editors

Comment by antilived

I cannot express how much I appreciate User:DilipRajeev's effort to copy his rant verbatim to here, it makes life so much easier. As he himself said it, he was unaware of the talk page discussions (which should mean he is aware now?) and reverted a whole bunch of well discussed changes on the organ harvesting page. That itself is typical of WP:OWN behaviour, which seemed pandemic across all the FLG pages. But not only that presumably after he has become aware of the discussions he did not revert back his own edit, did not participate in the discussion, and instead posted a long winded rant on an unrelated page requesting admin intervention. The same thing happened last time I dealt with him, moving the issue right up to the WP:AN/I, accusing me of "adding in material from a clearly propagandistic video", "vandalism", "dis-information", the lot, while we were carrying out a conversation to resolve the matter. This, in my opinion, is clearly disruptive, inflammatory (that incident partly caused my hiatus on Wikipedia) and completely without remorse. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Asdfg12345 If by having an ideology of that an encyclopedia should have a neutral point of view opposes Dilip's ideology, I'll gladly be his "ideological opponent" (unless you are accusing every one of us being CCP propagandists?). The only criteria for his edits is to improve the outlook of FLG in Wikipedia articles (I can go add lots and lots of poorly written, poorly sourced text that praises FLG and he'd have no problems for it). By his criteria there can never be enough "discussion" to warrant a change that puts FLG in a more negative light (although I can hardly say it's specific to him, it's certainly the most prominent).

a small side-note: Asdfg12345 raises a good issue here, it's quite obvious that all the people that regard Dilip highly are FLG-practitioners. Maybe it IS an ideological issue after all? --antilived^{T | C | G} 07:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by PerEdman

Dilip rajeev states that he was unaware of discussions going on in talk when he reverted two weeks worth of good-faith collaborative edits. He could have investigated it and being the one who performed the revert, he should have created such a discussion, but he did not. Because this is not the first time he has done so, it is far too late to claim ignorance as a defense. I don't know what to make of this. I suppose it's possible, as Ohconfucius writes, that he's a devoted Falun Gong practitioner who cannot bear to see other sources represented and therefore acts in this way. What I can say is that it's disrupting a volatile subject matter. The terms in which he defends himself above are sadly typical. The edits made are "attacks", he is being "attacked" when demands are made that he follow WP:BRD or WP:NPOV. Such partisan behavior can be handled on many subject matters, but in the Falun Gong articles, on probation, with a very strong partisan conflict between the Chinese Communist Part and Falun Gong, it is extremely disruptive. I'm sorry to say that I believe the editing climate on these pages will be improved without the poorly-motivated reverts and deletions repeatedly made by Dilip rajeev in the past. As a final note, I do not believe a blanket ban is necessary at this point - an indefinite subject ban from all articles on Falun Gong and possibly China subjects would allow the editor to grow into a well-rounded, constructive Wikipedia contributor in areas where he can maintain a semblance of objectivity.  / Per Edman 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to comment by HappyInGeneral

If Dilip has the time to be Bold and Revert, it is not unreasonable to expect hir to take the time to Discuss as well. To revert without discussion can obviously be quite disruptive to a probationary article that needs no more drama.  / Per Edman 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Respose to comment by Asdfg12345

This is not a place of discussion, but the claim that critics are "ideological opponents" of Dilip rajeev begs the question: what ideology would that be?  / Per Edman 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

Confirming that there is a group of editors resisting the insertion of any criticism in Falun Gong articles, that this has stalled editors who keep trying to balance that articles (myself I tried to make a few changes), and that the articles have benefited from boldly ignoring unreasonable objections raised by these users. A topic ban of Dilip rajeev from anything related to Falun Gong would help improve those articles and would reduce the level of persistent advocacy. Topic ban should include making any edit that makes reference to Falun Gong stuff in any article or talk page in any namespace, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See clarification, admins can impose topic bans of their own. Can someone hand the topic ban to Dilip rajeev and close this? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by PCPP

I was involved in long term edit disputes with Dilip, who has has demonstrated his lack of good faith previously by:

• [86] has a habit of continued edit warring
• [87] running false checkuser claims against Ohconfucius
• [88] accused me of being an "vandal" and "propagandist" over content dispute at FLG articles
• [89] bad faith attacks against Antilived, accused of being a PRC propagandist
• [90] another bad faith attack against bobby_fletcher, using an external source that accuses him of being a Chinese spy.

Most of the other issues were already mentioned by Colipon and Ohconfucius above. Basically, his method of destructive editing involve:

• Persumed ownership of articles. He often adds large chunks of material without discussion, while revert edits he doesn't like on sight. This often involves simply article tags, particularly in the Tiananmen Square self-immolation and organ harvesting articles. He cannot seem to grasp the concept of discussion before inserting controversial edits.
• Wikilawyering. He demonstrates a clear disregard for wikipedia guidelines, particularly WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. His arguments often involves soapboxing [91] and the such. He also has a habit of removing anything from Chinese sources as "propaganda" [92], while hold FLG sources as the gospel truth.

Since mediators become involved in the FLG articles, the users of both sides have became more cooperative, and dilip's continued disruption and violation of the arbcom ruling damages on the mediation, and as such warrants a topic ban or block .--PCPP (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Mrund

The best that can be said about Dilip rajeev, and the one thing that makes him only the second most disruptive editor on everything having to do with Falun Gong over the past few years, is that he isn't there all the time. His contributions take the form of drive-by shootings. He cares only about Falun Gong, which in his mind is all good and whose reputation must be boosted, and the Sai Baba cult, which he used to fight on Wikipedia. Dilip is not primarily interested in making a good encyclopedia. He actively disrupts attempts in that direction. I am not optimistic about his willingness or ability to do any productive work here. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

It is not clear to me that this is a case for arbitration enforcement. Which remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong allows uninvolved administrators to enact the requested "indefinite ban from Wikipedia"? Unless this request is amended to cite an actual arbitration sanction or remedy that has been violated (as of this writing, it cites only principles enunciated by the Committee, which are not by themselves enforceable), it may be closed without action.  Sandstein  15:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Article probation, which has now been added to the request, places the article on article probation (which would allow topic bans by admins), but also states that "The articles may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review." I understand this to mean that under this remedy, any topic ban may only be imposed as a result of action by the Arbitration Committee. If so, admins on their own can't do anything here and a request to the Committee would be required.  Sandstein  15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to John Carter below and Ed Johnston on my talk page, yes, a case can be made that ArbCom meant to enact standard article probation, but if so, why the confusing extra text about review by the Committee? On the face of it, that would appear to be a lex specialis limiting the terms of article probation for this case. Absent clarification by the Committee, I am not ready to enact a sanction that is not authorized by the remedy (assuming any sanctions are required at all; I've not looked at the merits of this request).  Sandstein  16:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Edward130603

I would support a topic ban or a block of Dilip rajeev. He is a disruptive editor and often edit wars to get his way. Dilip simply has no care for the good faith work of other editors if they don't match with his POV.

Sandstein, I think that the Article Probation remedy allows blocks/restricted editing for disruptive editors. --Edward130603 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This enforcement case has been out for quite a while now. Can a administrator come and close the case now?--Edward130603 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Seb az86556

I find it difficult to convince myself that a Francophone soccer-player, a piano-player from North Carolina, an archaeologist and convinced atheist, a Hong Kong resident, and an art-instructor with a staunch belief in Judeo-Christian deism would manage to agree on and produce one-sided, slanted revisions — unless one subscribes to the notion that all those who do not cheerfully support every source which celebrates the accomplishments and wisdom of a controversial religion must be part of a great heathen-conspiracy led by Hel and the time of Ragnarök has finally come to pass.
I have yet to become familiarized with the new rule which explains to the underlings exactly how long they would have to wait before Dilip descends from his watchtower to approve of the changes that had been thoroughly discussed before being implemented to the articles he apparently owns. It becomes terribly frustrating when, upon finally coming to some agreements in the course of tough discussions, one knows that said debates take place under the auspice of an omnipresent divine eye that will fire its wrath-filled flames of destruction down to earth should the inferiors' actions fall into disfavor. Just as there should be no cabal, there should not be a god-like Übermensch with no need for explaining or justifying his actions, either — especially when he himself has been warned and informed of the fact that not everyone in the pool of unworthy minions follows the creed of Dilipianity.

The behavior is clearly disruptive and violates remedy 1) of the Arbitration Case closed on 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC) which states "Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review". Seb az86556 (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Jayen466

Sandstein is correct: as written, the remedy does not appear to support direct admin action, but asks for a review by the arbitration committee following a corresponding motion; bans or restrictions should result from such a review. --JN466 15:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• John appears to be "more correct". The remedy links to WP:Article probation which in turn redirects to Wikipedia:General sanctions, authorising the community to place sanctions. I'll shut up now and leave it to smarter heads to sort this out. --JN466 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• As it appears that this may be falling under AE jurisdiction after all, I would like to add that I and several other otherwise uninvolved editors found Dilip Rajeev's editing at Sathya Sai Baba deeply problematic, as attested to by several WP:BLPN threads (e.g. the two Sai Baba threads in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive60, both of which centred around material introduced by this editor). --JN466 00:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

The existing remedy includes a specific link to Wikipedia:General sanctions, which, in the second paragraph, specifically does allow for parties other than the ArbCom to impose general sanctions, although it also permits such sanctions to be revoked later if so desired. I have to assume that the presence of such a link indicates that it would be possible for uninvolved administrators to place sanctions, effectively at the community's request, on such topics. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein: I understand your reservations about placing such a ban without a clear mandate in the existing ruling. I am therefore requesting clarification of the existing ruling, specifically regarding whether uninvolved admins would be acting within the ruling placing such a ban, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by HappyInGeneral

1. Ohconfucius claims that Dilip is disruptive, but if he only edits once a week, how disruptive can he be? As I see it Dilip wants to contribute to these pages, just that right now he does not have the time to keep up with the huge amount of changes that are happening and that are driven by about 10 dedicated people. Plus Dilip did not engaged in any revert wars he only made some WP:Bold changes which correspond to the WP:BRD cycle.
2. If the admins would like to understand how the team play is played, please see here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Situation:_A_Summary reading even just this thread alone will give a good idea. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what PerEdman suggests, I see that he engaged in talks: Talk:Tiananmen_Square_self-immolation_incident#Carification_from_Dilip. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Vassyana

My comments are mainly procedural.

• The remedy has been treated as a standard probation with an additional option for ArbCom review. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Log of blocks and bans. This interpretation has generally been upheld by ArbCom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Falun Gong.
• The editor under scrutiny received a "final warning" over three months ago.[93]
• If reviewing administrators feel the editor in question has engaged in explicit misconduct, contributed to a poor editing environment, or otherwise inhibited productive discussion and editing, he should be sanctioned to permit continued improvement in the topic area.
• Reviewing admins may find that other editors' conduct raised or exhibited here, or noted through examining the evidence of this request, is problematic and counterproductive to the topic area. If this is so, I implore the reviewing admins to issue final warnings to help future enforcement in the Falun Gong topic area. Anything that helps highlight and resolve counterproductive behavior is a boon for the area.

Thank you for considering my comments. --Vassyana (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• The drafting arbitrator has clarified the intent of the arbitration remedy, in line with my interpretation.[94] --Vassyana (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Colipon

Dilip Rajeev is a very difficult user to work with. He was the primary user that drove me away from working on Falun Gong articles in 2007. After my two-year hiatus from the FLG zone, my first attempts to make good faith changes over at ‘Organ Harvesting’ in July 2009 was directly met with a horde of personal accusations from dilip. Dilip’s style of disruptive editing and disrespect for users who do not share his POV has been a serious detriment to improvement to Falun Gong articles. Note in his defense, he writes “But I was unaware of the discussions going on talk when I did the revert.” I am baffled he is able to utter these words as a form of defence. This type of blatant disregard for other contributors' edits is not acceptable. He also often throws poorly argued but very offensive accusations at people who are displeased with his disruptive behaviour.

Although there seems to be an on-going debate about the semantics of sanctions, a long-term topic ban for Rajeev serves the basic spirit of the arbitration – that is, to foster a more cohesive and productive editing environment. Dilip’s past behaviour has undoubtedly turned away and frustrated many good faith editors and significantly hindered progress in the Falun Gong articles - to a degree no less severe than now topic-banned user Olaf Stephanos. Olaf and Dilip's argumentation on talk space differ in that Olaf responds directly to comments by other users while Dilip simply uses overarching statements to conclude that he is 'right', and then engages in edit-warring and reverts regardless of other users' input (as shown in evidence above) - this is the reason dilip has many more warnings against him than other Falun Gong SPAs. In all this adds up to make dilip the most destructive user on these articles. Similar to Olaf, if dilip was truly interested in working on the project rather than pushing his views on two controversial movements, he can still remain a valuable contributor outside the realm of Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. Colipon+(Talk) 19:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Outside Editor:Radiantenergy

I have n't followed the Falun Gong article closely. However I will like to share Dilip Rajeev's role in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Dilip Rajeev using the account 'White_Adept' added several unreliable sources and material banned by second arbitration commitee in the Sathya Sai Baba article since Jan 2009. He made 200+ edits in 10 days and changed a neutral article to NPOV nightmare. He always edit-warred with other editors who tried to remove the unreliable sources which he added. I had put an arbitration enforcement case here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive36#I_seek_Admin_help_in_this_case:_White_Adept_and_Arb.com_rulings where he was warned of sactions if he added questionable sources into the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Even after this case Dilip Rajeev still continued to add the same banned material in the sub-article '1993 murders in Prashanthi Nilayam'. I have always wondered why Dilip Rajeev was not afraid to break wikipedia rules or even arbitration enforcement rules. Many co-editors had become frustrated unable to stop his POV pushing and edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

If you ask me if Dilip Rajeev disrupted the Sathya Sai Baba article? My answer is definite Yes. He did a lot of damage to that article. It has taken me and other editors almost 6 months to get rid of the unreliable sources Dilip Rajeev added into the Sathya Sai Baba article and bring it back to the original neutral state. Lately in the last 1 and 1/2 months after Dilip stopped interfering in the Sathya Sai Baba article the article has tremendously improved and has become more neutral and well balanced. I hope that the Sathya Sai Baba article will stay that way in the future instead of becoming a NPOV nightmare once again. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Outside Editor: J929

Hey, sometime in 2008 i came upon the Wikipedia Sathya Sai Baba page. The page at best was poorly written and lacked any real coherancy and information. Sometime later, in 2009 i read the page again and was disgusted with the way Sai Baba was presented. i know people have different opinions but it seems there lacked any human dignity or neutral presentation of a living person. That is when i signed up for a wikipedia account. 16:07, February 15, 2009 . i couldnt make any changes as the page had been blocked.
i'm not familiar Dilip Rajeev or his writing as he stopped around the time i began, but i do know the article in early 2009 was, in my opinion, horrendous. you will have to consult the history of the page to see who made the contributions.

J929 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Asdfg12345

I've been involved with these articles for a long time. I believe Dilip is editing in good faith. Much of the calls for a ban here come from Dilip's ideological opponents, who of course find his presence a nuisance. I agree that Dilip's editing is unthoughtful in the cited instances, and I don't know why he annoys people like that when he doesn't have to. On the other hand though, he is improving, and he has made good contributions to these pages in terms of research and finding sources, and that shouldn't be discounted. His once a fortnight changes that get reverted in ten seconds aren't what is making or breaking the editing environment on these pages--they are minor, and he only did it a couple of times, and I'm sure he won't keep doing them after this incident. He notes, in his defence, that he was undoing changes that he felt had been pushed through without discussion, and were often cases of vast deletions of material referenced to reliable sources. There is actually nothing wrong with doing this. This is merely the bold-revert-cycle. It would only be a problem if he edit-warred, and I see no evidence of that. Mostly this seems like a difference in taste. People disagree with each other all the time. There should be a plurality of views on wikipedia. If there was some genuinely disruptive activity coming from Dilip's corner I would want him banned too, but I don't see evidence of it.--Asdfg12345 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Dilip rajeev

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

• We can't site ban someone as nothing in the Arbitration case went that far, however, a topic ban could be considered. Sandstein, there's an open amendment in which another editor was topic banned as a result of this case; not sure why the funny wording, but the Arbs seem to support standard discretionary sanctions here. I've asked Vassyana if he wants to comment on this request as well. Shell ^babelfish 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  Also, given the repeated blocks for 3RR on these articles and a prior topic ban (logged here), a revert restriction might be appropriate as well. Shell ^babelfish 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • And the the winner is...??? Ohconfucius (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  I might be counted as "involved" in this matter, so I won't act directly. However, I would like some clarification as to whether this request is for some form of topic ban on both Falun Gong and Sathya Sai Baba. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  Clarified in request above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• After a rather exhaustive review of User:Dilip rajeev's contributions, I do see the problems that were brought up in the report here, however, I also see that since the end of July of this year, Dilip rajeev has mostly refrained from reverting and engaged in discussion. Since the reversions happen so infrequently (3 times in 2 months), a revert restriction would be of very little value. The other examples given in this report show that Dilip rajeev is at times incivil and has strong feelings about the subject, but I don't believe this rises to the level of requiring additional sanctions at this time.

  It appears as if the editing climate surrounding Falun Gong articles is rather tense at this time and a lot of involved editors have been far too focused on each other rather than content. Maybe if a few uninvolved admins could put articles on this topic area on their watchlist and help keep the lid on any disruptive behavior, the editors involved in the dispute could be strongly encouraged to either work out their issues, or take a step back from the topic area for a while. Shell ^babelfish 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pmanderson

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

Request concerning Pmanderson

User requesting enforcement:
Tony (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date_delinking#Pmanderson_topic_banned
• Amendment - User:Pmanderson restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption. Enforcement report

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

1. [95] Mr Anderson removes a reference and link to MoS from the Naming conventions policy on the day ArbCom's original restrictions were reimposed (August 28); the edit is similar or identical to at least two of his previous attempts to remove mention of MoS from this policy.
2. [96] First in a series of diatribes against the Manual of Style, using the Naming conventions policy talk page as a soap box to denigrate the MoS and its editors: "MOS:DASH, as usual, covers dashes badly; it's an unsourced bunch of rules of thumb made up in school one day."
3. [97] "... MOS is; a crusade by a handful of Language Reformers to impose some provinciality on the whole of Wikipedia - as harmful as Anglo-American warring and without its excuses in childhood patriotism.... a half-dozen editors have hammered one together out of bits and pieces; the result is not anybody's usage - some would call it dubiously literate."
4. [98] "... there is only one reason why literate editors care what those non-consensus essays say: to avoid having prose incompetently reworked by junior high school students who believe that MOS knows what it is talking about or represents an agreement of Wikipedia."

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction):
I believe it is reasonable to widen Mr Anderson's topic ban to include Naming Conventions and its talk page, to protect the project from incivility and disruption.

Additional comments by Tony (talk):
ArbCom's remedy did not include a topic ban on policy pages. WP:Naming conventions is the only significant policy page related to article style, and the user is clearly (1) violating the remedy by making edits that change the relationship between that policy page and MoS, and (2) gaming ArbCom's remedy by using the talk page to denigrate MoS and its regular editors, while recently having been banned again from participation at MoS itself.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested:
The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.
diff of notification Tony (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Pmanderson

Statement by Pmanderson

This is an effort, like the previous request for arbitration enforcement against me, to use claims of incivility to silence a voice that simply disagrees with a guideline with which Tony has a strong emotional identification.

The way to get more respect for the "Manual of Style" is to write one worth having: one based on consensus, not on revert-warring; one based on English style guides, not on the opinions of a handful of Wikipedians who assert ownership of the page. This will never be done until more Wikipedians want one; but that does not change its condition; and criticisms of text are not criticisms of persons.

I would prefer a first-class MOS, which would be concise, contain only the guidance that was necessary for Wikipedia, reflect the consensus of Wikipedia as a whole, and be based on sources. That would be brief, coherent, and stable.

As for the claim made here, ArbCom decided while the full extent of the date-delinking decision was still in effect on everybody, that editing or discussing Naming Conventions had nothing to do with date-linking. The edit that gave rise to that discussion was my edit of the same clause now at issue.

I therefore request that if any administrative action be taken, it be taken against Tony1. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other editors

The reported diffs do not concern date (de)linking and thus do not violate Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Pmanderson topic banned. The "extension" of this topic ban at [99] does not appear to be provided for or allowed by any arbitration remedy or other Committee action. Such an extension would need to be made by the Committee itself, through motion or amendment. Because the extension is not founded on Committee authority, it is void and unenforceable, at any rate here at AE. This means that this request, in my opinion, is not actionable. If Pmanderson's editing is deemed to be problematic, I recommend requesting a community sanction on WP:ANI (after a WP:RFC/U) or Committee action.  Sandstein  11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Shell Kinney had re-imposed a full topic ban, and could do so as an admin. Can we please have a clarification of the situation? Tony (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No individual administrator has the authority to impose a topic ban except where a Committee decision delegates such authority. In this case, the Committee has not delegated such authority to administrators, which means that the supposed extension of the topic ban is without effect.  Sandstein  12:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, Sandstein. I originally lodged a complaint about PMAnderson's behavior at the discussion page for the Arb Motion that narrowed his restrictions. I was told by administrators that it wasn't the correct venue and was directed to Requests for Enforcement. Indeed, at least one Arb (NYB) was aware that I was directed such. I re-filed the complaint and it was answered by an impartial admin who, in my opinion, acted correctly and remedied that particular problem. There is no clear venue for such requests, so we used the best available. PMA's behavior creates an exigence that cannot wait for systemic reviews at set intervals; he quite actively drives editors away from the pages he participates on. We now find ourselves debating process instead of debating the actual problem at hand, which is that PMA cannot behave himself on any page where style, semantics, or conventions are discussed. So none of us waste any more time, where is the correct venue for requesting a broadening of his ban to include all such pages? --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not AE, because this page is for the enforcement of Arbitration Committee decisions, and the supposedly extended topic ban is not an Arbitration Committee decision. The only advice I can give you is to proceed per WP:DR. This page is not part of the dispute resolution process.  Sandstein  07:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can tell us where we ought to go, and there are only suggestions where we might try. This is a worryingly huge crack in the floorboard where things are allowed to fall through. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, if you believe that my decision based on the latest motion by the Committee (vis a vis re-widening the sanctions if the behavior became problematic) was incorrect it would be productive to bring up your concerns with me or the Committee. It seemed to me in reading the latest motion that several members of the committee specifically noted that a return to disruptive behavior would be looked upon badly and be reason for additional sanctions; I believe a "re-widening" was specifically mentioned but I'll have to go look through the discussion again. I could very well be misreading the intent of the motion, but only the committee could tell us that; snide comments here that you feel bounds were overstepped won't actually do anything to resolve any concerns you may have. Shell ^babelfish 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Pmanderson

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

• I agree with User:Sandstein above. The "extension" to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking is not an Arbcom decision and should not apply here. The scope of the restriction was explicitly reduced ([100]) less than two three weeks ago, and it was stated that the situation should not be reviewed again for at least 30 days. Based on that it seems inappropriate to expand it here. I don't think Pmanderson's edits as presented above cross the line in terms of policy. If his behavior has changed significantly in the past three weeks perhaps an amendment is warranted despite the length of time that has passed, but as it stands this is not enforceable. Of course it's somewhat open to interpretation; I wouldn't raise any objection if someone were to enforce a topic ban for disruption, but that would not involve Arbcom. Evil saltine (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It was indeed narrowed, but was widened again for PMA because of some other incidents of incivility. Shell Kinney logged it in the sanctions section of the case page. The widening was specific to PMA and was subsequent to the narrawing. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The expansion was an admin action, not an Arbcom decision. Evil saltine (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for replies. Evil s, does that mean that Mr Anderson is indeed not permitted to edit or discuss style guides, and that ANI is the proper place to take this matter (since there do appear to be breaches if that is the case)? Tony (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I think it means it's outside of the scope of anything Arbcom ever intended, so this is not the place. However, as there may be some breaches of WP:Civility, you should take it to the relevant forum, WP:ANI. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)