→Comment by Gatoclass: Replying. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 387: | Line 387: | ||
*Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
*Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? [[User:T. Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:T. Canens|talk]]) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*:It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{tl|ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use ''Mein Kampf'' to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
*:It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{tl|ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use ''Mein Kampf'' to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
==RolandR== |
|||
''Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.'' |
|||
===Request concerning RolandR=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : —[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|RolandR}} |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. --> |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ezra_Nawi&diff=442192534&oldid=442190878 30 July 2011] – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism |
|||
#[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Zionism&diff=442983749&oldid=442983194 4 August 2011] – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Wikipedia's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website |
|||
; Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) : |
|||
<!-- Many arbitration remedies require a prior warning before sanctions may be imposed. Link to the warning here. --> |
|||
#Blocked on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=422909711 7 April] by {{user|Magog the Ogre}} |
|||
#Blocked on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR&diff=prev&oldid=432049951 1 June] by {{User|Courcelles}} |
|||
(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARolandR Block log]?) |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment you have here --> |
|||
Firstly it should be noted that I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RolandR&diff=prev&oldid=443219416 tried to engage] {{User|RolandR}} on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE. |
|||
Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through [[User:RolandR]]'s edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him. |
|||
To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 [[Ezra Nawi]], an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. ([http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/world/europe/04ireland.html See the ''New York Times'', for example.]) Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism. |
|||
At [[anti-Zionism]], RolandR reverted an edit by {{User|Wikifan12345}} such that he attributed to Wikipedia's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references, ''[http://jewsnotzionists.com jewsnotzionists.com]'', isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists. |
|||
Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—[[User:Biosketch|Biosketch]] ([[User talk:Biosketch|talk]]) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request, and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning RolandR=== |
|||
====Statement by RolandR==== |
|||
====Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR ==== |
|||
===Result concerning RolandR=== |
|||
<!-- Use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed.--> |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' |
Revision as of 19:53, 5 August 2011
NickCT
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning NickCT
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- NickCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12 July – editor accuses me of being "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior," with no accompanying evidence
- 13 July – editor repeats the accusation, again with no accompanying evidence.
- 15 July – editor accuses me of concealing previous accounts, with no accompanying evidence.
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Blocked on 21 December 2009 by Ged UK (talk · contribs) for harassment
- Notified on 2 March 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) of ARBPIA ruling
- Blocked on 27 May 2010 by PhilKnight (talk · contribs) for personal attacks
- Enforcement action requested
Topic ban for a duration of one week to one month, per escalation from previous.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
For the past month or so I've been having to put up with increasingly hostile and personally oriented rhetoric directed against me by editors in the I/P topic area. When at this very Noticeboard Tarc (talk · contribs) thrice accused me of sockpuppetry without citing a single diff as required per WP:NPA#WHATIS, I let it slide. After Nableezy (talk · contribs) attributed to me a batshit insane obsession with his edits for two edits I made, he redacted and I accepted. More recently, Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) called me an ass on his Talk page for trying to engage him in a calm one-on-one discussion; but he too struck the remark per my request and the matter has more-or-less been settled. NickCT (talk · contribs), on the other hand, not only called me "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior" without any evidence, but into the bargain has been repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet or hiding previous user accounts, also without any evidence. I insisted that he withdraw his original comment or substantiate it in three different places to avoid creating a scene – but to no avail.
If people have a problem with my edits in I/P or have gotten into their heads that I'm a sockpuppet, it doesn't excuse attacks against me that violate WP:NPA and WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded. I understand Decorum isn't as strictly enforced as other ARBIA principles are, but specifically in the case of User:NickCT, he has been sanctioned here before for his hostile interactions with editors he disagrees with in I/P, so either he genuinely doesn't understand what these policies entail, or else he's incapable of abiding by them. Either way, considering the perpetually tense atmosphere at I/P and NickCT's problematic conduct in the topic area in the past, I am requesting enforcement in this case. Every other means of reaching an understanding with this user has been exhausted in vain.
Appendix: In anticipation of the some of the comments likely to follow, I offer these preformulated responses. It isn't essential that the Admins considering my request read them.
- "This is a frivolous request, only one attack." First of all, it wasn't one attack. The first time he attacked me, I templated his remark with Template:RPA, but he removed the Template and reiterated his attack. Later, when I tried in the gentlest way possible to communicate to him the problem with his remark, his response was to attribute bad-faith motives both to my initial comment on User:Malik Shabazz's Talk page and to my comment on his own Talk page. And then, when I took the matter to WP:WQA for community input, he began with his string of allegations that I'm a sockpuppet. These aren't frivolous attacks. They are textbook personal attacks against me relating to an active-arbitration topic area, without evidence to back them up and serving only to discredit me and disrupt my interactions with other contributors. Secondly, the pattern of recurring personal attacks doesn't need to be established by my diffs alone. It is already established by his block log.
- "AEs should not be filed against editors one is in conflict with." The response to that is simple. NickCT and I weren't in conflict anywhere in the Project; indeed, as far as I know, this was only the second time he and I ever crossed paths.
- "If all these people are attacking you, maybe you're the problem and not them." I'm open to criticism relating to how I edit, as anyone who contributes regularly to I/P should be. I'm also aware of WP:BOOMERANG. If someone's convinced there's a case to be made that my edits are a problem in I/P, let them make it like through the appropriate channels. Otherwise, shifting the blame onto me and making ad hominem remarks in my regard is counterproductive and needs to be identified for what it is – a sordid red herring. This is an AE about NickCT. Any comments not directly relating to that user and his remarks toward me don't belong here.
- "This isn't within the purview of AE." The language and context of the attack make it related to the Arab-Israel conflict, broadly construed. If this were an I/P-banned editor, he would not be allowed to attack another contributor as "a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior." Furthermore, NickCT was sanctioned at AE before for similar infractions.—Biosketch (talk) 07:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- In reference to the forum shopping charge, that's an exceedingly slanted interpretation of what led to this AE. It says at the top of this page, "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution." Had I come here immediately following the I/P-related personal attack, it might have been considered impulsive and premature. Instead, I tried resolving the incident where it initially took place; then I tried at the editor's Talk page; and then I tried at WQA. So I think I followed procedure to the letter and even showed more restraint than other people in similar situations have.
- Additionally, in coming here I also relied on the comments of several Admins in good standing, which indicated that personal attacks are sanctionable at AE – for example, Gatoclass (talk · contribs), "Speaking of which, gratuitous comments on contributor are sanctionable in this topic area, so I strongly suggest you avoid making them", and Zero0000 (talk · contribs), This is your only warning, next time I'm filing a report, who rebuked editors for remarks that were far less severe than what I endured.
- Lastly, regarding the wikilawyering charge, that's also detached from reality. WP:NPA is unequivocal: "Serious accusations require serious evidence" (emphasis added). And WP:ARBPIA ruled, "Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited." It could not have been stated any more clearly than that.—Biosketch (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified at user's Talk page: "You have demonstrated to me that you either do not understand WP:NPA or do not see yourself as needing to comply with it. I have requested enforcement of ARBPIA rulings against you here."
Discussion concerning NickCT
Statement by NickCT
Not sure how seriously I should take this, so I'll just make several quick points -
- 1) People should probably review this conversation as example of the kind of complaints Biosketch seems to have a penchant for.
- 2) re "repeatedly suggesting that I'm a sockpuppet" - I never suggested Biosketch was a sock. I suggested he had an account previous to his current account, which he almost certainly has had and additionally, has made no attempt to deny. I explained the difference between those two things here. I'm not sure why he repeatedly mischaracterizes my comments.
- 3) Bio initially filed a Wikiquette complaint for the material above, which didn't seem to gather any momentum. He seems to be going to multiple places now trying to get someone to agree and act on his complaints. As such, I think AE request could justifiably be called forum shopping.
- 4) Biosketch really represents the worst of the Israel-Palestine wikilawyers. This kind of "throw some accusations around and see what sticks" tactics has got to stop. It's a waste of time, and distracts from WP's core mission. I think a clear message could be sent here with some punitive anti-wikilawyering measures.
Thanks, NickCT (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning NickCT
- I see that the two admins commenting have had plenty of breathing room which is rare here. So disregarding everything else, all I want to ask is if making the charge with the wording:
- "...a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior, simply seeks disparage the actions of an admin that Biosketch regards as too neutral on his pet position."
- is OK. It wasn't an article's talk page discussion but it was an unprompted comment on a user page discussing the topic area that did nothing but rock an already unstable boat. Overall it was rude which was not the editor's first breech of WP:ARBPIA 4.1.2: "Decorum".
- It doesn't matter if Nick assumes it was one thing or the other. Was that comment acceptable?
- Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the third diff, I think it is important that the etiquette rules be relaxed on administrative pages like that one and this one. There has to be a limit, of course, but these are places where editors should be able to express their opinions honestly without fear of sanction. Zerotalk 09:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- I totally agree that editors have more leeway in discussions here or on noticeboards. The first diff mention above twice for the admins wasn't either of those though. It was on an editor's talk page. Nick wasn't even involved in the discussion but decided he wanted to start talking mean. So if the final decision is that we are allowed to ignore decorum as long as it isn't on an article's talk page I am down. I have a lot of things to say to some people here and if saying whatever I feel about them on talk pages with no regard for decorum is OK then I look forward to it.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning NickCT
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Not sure what to do here, and the situation is a bit more complicated as I haven't dissected it all... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Looked Over Zero0000's link; agree on principle (I actually don't find anything in that diff to be out of the ordinary.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Decorum is tricky. On one hand we don't want the already fragile ARBPIA editing environment to deteriorate even further, but on the other hand we don't want occasional slips to be used as "weapons" to "win" a content dispute or "neutralize" perceived "enemies". Certainly we don't want to encourage AE reports every time someone made a slip. Still thinking on this... T. Canens (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
JerryDavid89
Indef blocked due to violation via multiple accounts, confirmed by CheckUser here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 17:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning JerryDavid89
Anything that will get him to finally pay some attention, and stop ignoring what other people have been telling him.
Also resorted to anonymous IP socks to get get his precious sentence into the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine article (as can be seen from the article history), which takes it far beyond 1RR. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_bad-faith_and_slow_edit-warring In response to his comment below, "05:29, 31 July 2011" minus "06:24, 30 July 2011" is 23 hours and 5 minutes, obviously less than 24 hours. This incident could be viewed as relatively minor in itself (if the anonyumous IP edit-warring is ignored, that is), but it's symptomatic of his general disregard for community norms and the concerns of others, and so in that respect is not "frivolous" at all... AnonMoos (talk) 06:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JerryDavid89&diff=442314110&oldid=442072335 Discussion concerning JerryDavid89Statement by JerryDavid89It's one revert for 24 hours right? More than 24 hours relapsed - so there's no violation. Right? Now, as for the accusation that I've used "anonymizing socks" or whatever, I invite any admin on Wikipedia to look up my technical details (if they have that facility) to verify that I haven't been using any additional computers. I have nothing to to with those 174. IP edits. Either they are just someone who agrees with me, or, judging my AnonMoos evidently unstable temperament, probably him trying to set me up so he could file this frivolous Enforcement Request. Will s/he be punished for this? (also AnonMoos, I'm female) (JerryDavid89 (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Sean.hoylandI have to say, you look like a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Are you ? You're female you say ? Ever been to Bisbee Arizona ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Zero0000JerryDavid89 edits in an arrogant uncooperative style that will cause endless dispute if it isn't moderated. Take this example [1] where her response consists of "You seem to be unaware of basic historical facts" and an accusation of lying. She seems to have one or two books which she copies out of with little understanding, consider "The [Zionist] movement effected British administration of the province during World War I, resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1917", while everyone knows that the Balfour Declaration preceded the British administration of Palestine (which hadn't been a province since Roman times) by many months. Sometimes appears to have good sources, eg here but actually just copies them from her book (Rose) in violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (leading to an incorrect report of the source). Here we see her making a major edit without comment and marking it as minor. Zerotalk 07:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking further back in the contribs (but only 3 days), this personal attack deserves a block by itself and illustrates the attitude which JerryDavid89 brings to Wikipedia. Please do something about it. Zerotalk 11:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I'm sure you will enjoy exercising your "higher ethical code" somewhere else. Zerotalk 11:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning JerryDavid89
Hi JerryDavid89. Was wondering if you could you explain how you initially came across the articles on Gilad Atzmon and gender apartheid? Thanks. ← George talk 10:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
JerryDavid89 has accused other editors of being disliking Jews. Here (vs. me) with a long paragraph saying things like: Do you have some problem with Jews? You think too many Jews live in DC? He then admitted it was a personal attack, saying he didn't care about Wikipedia policy here. He later made an implied insult in reply to User:Malik Shabazz here, saying I don't think Malcolm Little was very fond of Jews either...]. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning JerryDavid89
|
Wikifan12345
Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is warned for the 1RR violation, but no further action is taken at the moment. T. Canens (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Wikifan12345
This editor was topic-banned for eight months. The topic ban expired yesterday, and he is already breaching the 1RR policy, of which he is well aware.
Given this editor's long history of edit-warring, his several blocks for this, and the previous AE case, a warning is unnecessary.
Topic ban should be reinstated.
Discussion concerning Wikifan12345Statement by Wikifan12345
Comments by others about the request concerning Wikifan12345Comments by Malik ShabazzPlease note that Wikifan identified the first edit above as a revert of this edit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by GeorgeHmm, am I the only one concerned that less than two hours after Wikifan's second revert to that article, All Rows4—a user with only 20 edits ever, from two days in May—shows up to revert back to Wikifan's version? ← George talk 19:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by ZScarpiaApologies for making what may be a digression, but I'd like to comment on one of Wikifan's comments. Wikifan wrote: In any case, the content itself mostly remains because Avraham rewrote it using a better source. I thought Jewish Virtual Library was a reliable source and used it frequently prior to my talking ban (largely because they cite secondary sources - Bard just hosts the site). As can be discovered easily, the JVL has been discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on a number of occasions, such as this occasion in 2010 and this occasion in 2008. It's clear that there is significant opposition to the use of The JVL as a reliable source. At best, the consensus is that JVL articles should be judged, according to who their authors are, on an individual basis. Specific objections were made about articles by Mitchell Bard, the author of the article Wikifan was using as a source to validate his edits. Strangely, even though Bard is clearly credited as the author of the source, Wikifan is claiming that "Bard just hosts the site." In the RS Noticeboard discussions, no evidence has been produced which indicates that any kind of editorial oversight is carried out. No evidence has been produced which supports the view that the organisation behind The JVL, American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, should be accepted as a publisher of reliable material. According to one comment, some of the articles on The JVL are lifted from Wikipedia, which, if true, indicates clearly that The JVL should not be accepted unconditionally as a reliable source. In any case, for anything apart from proof of the opinions of the authors, The JVL cannot serve as anything but a tertiary source for which it would better to find reliable secondary sources. Adding text in ignorance that identical text was deleted by another user at some time in the distant past is one thing, but from Wikifan's comments it's clear that he knew that he was undoing a previous user's edit. Probably, in the same situation, it would have occurred to a less rash editor, particularly one who has just completed a long ← ZScarpia 02:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by ZeroI don't know if Wikifan broke 1RR or not, but I know he is pov-pushing just like he always did in the past. This Mitchell Bard thing is a typical example. Is it reasonable to cite the Executive Director of a major advocacy organization as if he is a reliable third-party source, without as much as an "according to..", on a subject well covered by independent academics? Is the Pope a Lutheran? Zerotalk 13:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer MarekWarn and close this quickly before it gets ridiculous. If he does something like it again, folks can link back to this very discussion then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Result concerning Wikifan12345
This falls rather neatly into the grey area of xRR rules. I'm of the view that we do have a 1RR violation here (i.e., the first edit is a revert), but that the situation is sufficiently ambiguous that only a warning is required. T. Canens (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
|
Frederico1234
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning Frederico1234
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Frederico1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA#Decorum/WP:ARBPIA#Editors_reminded
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 18 July 2011 Voted on deletion request for Mein Kampf in the Arabic language assuming a bad faith and demonstrating a battleground mentality "Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there." As it is seen from deletion request pratically all uninvolved editors including a few administrators voted to keep the article.
- 04:14, 27 July 2011 First revert
- 28 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
- 13:45, 26 July 2011 Misrepresents the source that clearly states "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed to London shops towards the end of last year and have been selling well."
- 20:52, 26 July 2011 first revert
- 04:14, 27 July 2011 second revert less than 24 hours later
- 17:40, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
- 17:41, 4 August 2011 Removing sourced information with edit summary "Undid revision 443046855 by ברוקולי (talk) The WP:LEAD should summarize the article, not add new stuff"
- 08:54, 19 July 2011 comment on the deletion request and states that his point "commenting on this AFD" " to prevent serious editors from wasting their time, as the article will be kept no matter the quality of their arguments. A secondary point was to protest how inherently flawed Wikipedia deletion "discussions" are when the subject article is in the domain of the I-P topic field, and thus subject to all its glory of sock-puppetry, off-wiki-canvassing, tendentious editors etc."
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Topic ban for a month.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Today the article was at the main page and a few IP users and users had some questions about the article. They posted their questions to the article's talk page here and here. I added required information that I believe should go to the lead. Even if this information should not be in the lead Frederico1234 should have discussed where is the proper place to add the information versus simply removing it.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- diff link
Discussion concerning Frederico1234
Statement by Frederico1234
I'm aware of the 1RR rule and agree that the article in question is covered by it.
3. Broccolo is mistaken. The edit did not occur within 24h.
4. This was an error of mine. Sorry for that.
6. This is a 1RR violation. In this case I thougth it would be easier for everyone to just use the edit summaries to do the explaining. In hindsight, I should probably have taken that to Talk.
7. and 8. Should count as one revert as they were made directly after each other. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Frederico1234
Comment by asad
Besides the reverts dealing with the Palestinian Authority publishing the book, I can't see how anything else relates to ARBPIA. -asad (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Volunteer Marek
While strictly speaking this may not be in the IP topic area it does appear to be some kind of a proxy war related to it. Having said that I don't see anything wrong with the comments in the first and last (#1 and #9) diffs provided. Being critical of Wikipedia or, in particular, of the atmosphere in a specific Wikipedia topic area is not objectionable. Neither does someone *have* a battleground mentality simply because they point out that a particular area *is* a battleground (more so if it happens to be true). Likewise, it is not forbidden to assume bad faith for editors who have substantial experience and interactions in a particular topic area - especially when the comment is not directed at anyone in particular.
Diffs #7 and #8 appear to be a content dispute (Frederico1234 is essentially right with regard to the letter of MOS but there could be exceptions).
Diff #4 is also a content dispute and, in case he's wrong, could be just an error on F's part - it would be more troublesome if this was a repeated edit, but as far as I can tell it's not.
This leaves diffs (3,4) and (5,6), which are potential violations of the IP 1RR restriction - assuming that this article does indeed fall under that topic's scope. Ok, then, just to make sure, is Frederico1234 aware of this restriction? I don't see the "Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) " section in the above report but given that F seems familiar with the topic area perhaps it wasn't required here. Still, in cases like this the usual practice is to give the user a "standard warning" from one of the AE admins before imposing any sanctions. Maybe that's all that's needed here.
Ok now to the diffs themselves. First problem is that diffs 2 and 6 are the exact same diff. This is a revert but it also appears to be a rephrasing and an answer to PlotSpoiler's question. Second is that these concern different material. Overall I'd call this a mild violation of 1RR. Additionally, if these edits are in breach of the 1RR sanction (if this article is indeed covered by the topic area), then so are those of PlotSpoiler from 20:20 July 26 and 2:13 July 27.
So at the end of the day what you got here is a possibility of a somewhat mild transgression, combined with a whole bunch of diff-padding to make it look much worse than it is.
I'd warn Frederico and PlotSpoiler and remind them of the 1RR restriction again, and warn Broccolo for perpetuating battleground in the topic area by filing somewhat spurious AE requests full of diffs that don't show much of anything. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Wikifan12345
Fred doesn't have a history at ARBPIA log and he has zero blocks. I know I/P has tighter rules than other areas of wikipedia but for a first offense a topic ban seems rather excessive even assuming he has done the things he is being accused of. I guess one could argue from a behavioral standard but I'm not the best judge. I think this should be closed with a mild warning to all parties involved. Anything beyond that would be unfair IMO. WikifanBe nice 09:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Gatoclass
In response to T. Canens' query as to how this article relates to the A-I conflict, to quote just one paragraph from the article in question:
The distribution of Mein Kampf has been pointed to by Israel as an example of the influence of Nazism for Arab nationalists in their war against the Jewish State. In a speech to the United Nations immediately following the Suez Crisis in 1956, Golda Meir stated that the Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was found in Egyptian soldiers' knapsacks.[9] Historian David Dalin wrote that during the 1967 Six-Day War, many Egyptian soldiers were found carrying an Arabic edition produced by the Arab Information Center in Cairo.[10]
I think that quote speaks for itself. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The first sentence wasn't supported by the sources. I had added a citation request to it earlier, but it was removed at some point. In any event, I've refactored the sentence to something that the sources cited can support, and moved it to the appropriate section. Whether or not mentions of Egyptian soldiers carrying copies of the book in their bags makes this article a part of the A-I conflict, I'll leave up to admins to decide. ← George talk 09:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what Golda Meir said in her speech to the United Nations, but it's hard to imagine the PM of Israel bringing up such a factoid for any other reason than to discredit her nation's adversaries. Apparently she had no doubts about its relevance to the conflict. Zionist propaganda has for decades sought to delegitimize Arab grievances by blaming Arab hostility to Israel on antisemitism. The alleged popularity of Mein Kampf in the Arab world is a regularly cited example of that. So yes, I think this topic falls squarely within the purview of ARBPIA. Whether Frederico's edits to the page in question fall within the topic area, I don't know since I haven't looked at them, so I might leave that to others to decide. Gatoclass (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would group this with articles like Hummus - very loosely related to the A-I conflict in reality, but having their connections magnified by Wikipedia editors. After reading through the sources, Mein Kampf was most notable for its role in the Arab nationalist movement of the 1930s. Modelled on the Nazi movement, Arab nationalism had its own twinge of hatred of Jews and racial superiority (the irony of course being that the Arabic translations had to be modified to remove racist remarks directed at the Arabs themselves). I know that some use the terms "Jew" and "Israeli" interchangeably, but I'm not one of them, so I'm somewhat disinclined to consider something that largely pre-dates the state of Israel a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't have strong opinions on the subject, so I'm fine either way. ← George talk 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, George. It's not appropriate to post this here, but reading the article I was reminded of something I read from a vol. I noted, and browsing, bought, in a secondhand bookshop while travelling in the antipodes this summer:
- 'The life of the villagers was dominated by their feud with a neighbouring Arab village. They seemed little concerned with the Jewish presence in Palestine and, although they had heard of both Hitler and Churchill, they did not know which of the two was the leader of the British war effort.' K. A. Lodewycks, The Funding of Wisdom: Revelations of a Library's Quarter Century, Spectrum Books, Melbnourne 1982 p.67. Apologies for the interruption, but that's just too good to be true. Nishidani (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment by ZScarpia
From appearances, item 4 should be discounted. Firstly, the quote starts: "Copies of the translation are understood to have been distributed ... ." What the word 'understood' means is that the writer was unsure about the veracity of what followed or had been unable to verify it. That sentence, therefore, can't act as a source of validation for the statement of fact made in the Wikipedia article. Secondly, the quote is about a delivery to London bookshops. It specifically mentions London, it specifically mentions bookshops, it doesn't say who the books were sold to (Arabs aren't the only ones who can read Arabic), it doesn't even say that the bookshops were supplying the books to UK customers. The sentence that Frederico edited read: "... and sells well in Arab neighborhoods of Great Britain." Somehow, a previous author invented the concept of Arab neighbourhoods in the UK. Perhaps that editor thinks that the UK is like the West Bank, but with Arab settlements. Or maybe London was being confused with Paris. In any case, the source says only that the books were supplied to London bookshops. It says nothing about the locations of those bookshops or the ethnic composition in those areas. Frederico was certainly correct to say that the Telegraph article in question didn't support the statement in Wikipedia. ← ZScarpia 17:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Result concerning Frederico1234
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
- Can someone explain how this article is related to the A-I conflict? T. Canens (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- It appears that this article was created just 3 weeks ago on July 16 and was tagged on the talk page just 2 hours later by the creator with {{ARBPIA}}. I'm not sure if this truly should be covered by ARBPIA or not; I do not have a long history of monitoring ARBPIA, but I haven't seen anything that defines exactly which articles are subject or lists them. Broadly construed, I think that someone could assert that Arab nationals and Palestinians might use Mein Kampf to support Anti-Jewish beliefs. --After Midnight 0001 14:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
RolandR
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Request concerning RolandR
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 30 July 2011 – POV-pushing: editor reverts reliably-sourced information added to an article and describes the reverted edit as vandalism
- 4 August 2011 – POV-pushing: editor attributes to Wikipedia's voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
- Blocked on 7 April by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)
- Blocked on 1 June by Courcelles (talk · contribs)
(Is it necessary to copy-paste the diffs to all the other blocks at his Block log?)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Firstly it should be noted that I tried to engage RolandR (talk · contribs) on his Talk page prior to coming here in the friendliest and most nonthreatening way possible. I was more than willing to assume good faith on his part and offer him the chance to explain his edits. But hardly did 15 minutes pass and he reverted my query, basically leaving me with no other alternative but coming to AE.
Now, I'm not a believer in drawing conclusions regarding an editor based on a superficial glance at his contribs; on the other hand, I'm also not about to spend hours going through User:RolandR's edits to cherry-pick the ones that support labeling him a Marxist anti-Zionist. I suspect, rather, that he himself will embrace that label as applying to him without considering it an affront to his identity. If not, though, I'm perfectly willing to strike out the suggestion and apologize to him if in the event that I've misjudged him.
To the matter of the diffs. In 1992 Ezra Nawi, an activist for various Palestinian causes, was convicted by an Israeli court of statutory rape of a Palestinian boy. It was in the news extensively then, and it's all over the news again now because of the presidential elections in Ireland. (See the New York Times, for example.) Yet there's no mention of Nawi's conviction anywhere in his article. No, it's not that no one ever tried to add that information to the article. On the contrary, many have. It's that RolandR has been repeatedly thwarting their attempts. In the diff that I've cited, RolandR reverts an exceedingly well-sourced addition to the article by another editor – and to make matters worse, he labels the other editor's contribution vandalism.
At anti-Zionism, RolandR reverted an edit by Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) such that he attributed to Wikipedia's neutral voice a claim made or implied by a fringe website. According to his edit, some Jews are anti-Zionist, from which it follows that anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. This is a problem because the website he references, jewsnotzionists.com, isn't a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. What it is is an advocacy site for Jewish anti-Zionists.
Taken together, these diffs represent problematic behavior on RolandR's part, of projecting his personal values and beliefs onto the Project and disrupting sincerely constructive edits of other contributors. Again, I tried to seek clarification from RolandR regarding his behavior at his Talk page, but to no avail.—Biosketch (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning RolandR
Statement by RolandR
Comments by others about the request concerning RolandR
Result concerning RolandR
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.