Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive78
Silver seren
[edit]| Communist terrorism is fully protected for a period of three months. No action against respondent. Courcelles 12:53, 17 December 2010 (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 Silver seren[edit]
The current article makes claims not supported by any sources. Specifically it makes the claim that "organized violence used by Marxist, socialist, or similar left-wing groups is called 'Communist terrorism'". In fact, all sources refer to this type of violence as left-wing terrorism. The arguments for removing the synthesized content have been presented at length on the talk page and the deletion discussion. Despite repeated and extensive searches, no one has been able to find source that would define what "communist terrorism" is, or even to provide any sources for the concept's existence. So far in this edit war I have not made a single revert. In my first edit on December 12. I added tags indicating the disputed content. After my tags were removed by Collect I started a discussion on the talk page, indicating that I would remove the content anyway, unless sources for the content were provided. Today I removed the disputed content, only to be reverted by Silver seren four minutes later. Note that my second edit consists of two parts, done with a 5 second interval. The first part restores tags, the second part self reverts the addition. This is done so, that the article history and the diff would clearly show what was removed and why. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I regularly do two-step edits with tags in the first step. This is done for two reasons:
You will see, that the two-step edits are clearly marked as such in the edit summary (Step 1 of two-step edit:...) and have the same time stamp. The tags are not intended to start a discussion, unless of course that becomes the version reverted to. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Silver seren[edit]Statement by Silver seren[edit]I'm a bit confused about why this section was opened, considering I only made a single revert. This is within the 1RR restriction on the article, which I am already fully aware of (considering it told me so in bright red letters when I edited the page). I felt that more discussion needed to be made on the talk page for these changes, since Petri has only opened a talk page discussion section, but had not responded to others yet. Thus, I reverted him, directing him to the talk page, where I also left a comment a few minutes later. As far as i'm aware, this is all within policy and our rules on the article, so i'm not sure what i've violated. SilverserenC 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]Petri Krohn: Blind revert to previous version - false, the edit was not a "blind revert", in fact it had a detailed edit summary [3] Petri Krohn: without participating in the open discussion - also false. Silver seren's edit was at 2:05, Dec 15th. He made the relevant talk page comment almost immediately explaining the edit at 2:12 [4]. This request was made by Petri at 3:32, hence he had plenty of time to check the talk page. Petri Krohn: So far in this edit war I have not made a single revert. - also false. Petri's addition of tags to the article [5] at 19:38 on Dec 12 was continued with a following revert at [6] at 2:05 Dec 15 [7]. Basically Petri's adding any tags he can think of into the article to make it look like crap, after the AfD for the article failed. This, along with this edit [8] (removing the text he tagged only seconds earlier before allowing for discussion to take place (note that this is another standard tactic of "tag/remove seconds later", [9], [10], [11], which is a clear violation of WP:DR) is part of the strategy he previously outlined here [12] which aims to purposely sabotage articles so that they can be deleted/merged/moved. This appears to be another in a recent line of frivolous AE requests and it seems some people are not getting the message. I'm getting the sense that the situation's slipping out of control here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Biophys[edit]This looks like a content dispute. Why bring it here? Unlike many others, I never had content disputes with Petri during all these years. It was only once that I tried to have a meaningful content conversation with Petri. The discussion was about quoting a Russian philosopher of 19th Century, as I tried to explain [13]. But that is what Petri responded [14] [15]. Osama bin Laden? No wonder, a lot of people have problems debating content issues with Petri.
Statement by Collect (who just found himself being accused without notification)[edit]I find my name bandied sans any notice here. Petri Krohn is a long-term edit warrior in this area, and has unclean hands. The "reverts" do not violate the 1RR restrictons by a mile or so. Nor did I have an "edit war" going on. Ths whole affair is related directly to acts by Petri et al to delete by POVforking the article (Left-wing terrorism), by AfDing the article, by tagging the article (including tagging of single simple English words), and by dab-ing the article. [17] is a falkse use of a "failed verification tag" and Petri had been told that the tag has a specific use noted in the template page. [18] etc. [19] shows the type of Petri's edits clearly. And [20]. And [21]. I would like to AGF that all of these were earnest attempts to improve the article. Others might not do so. The AfD is at [22] in which Petri participated, and where discussion took place regarding all of this. In short, the person who ought to be examined here is Petri, who has an extensive history of notifications, warnings, blocks and bans concerning the topic. Collect (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Silver seren[edit]Comment by BorisG[edit]I think the filing party need to be sanctioned (at least with a warning) for bringing totally unfounded request to AE - BorisG (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Silver seren[edit]
The remedy requested above is to notify Silver seren under DIGWUREN. I don't see why we would do that. The Arbcom sanction which is listed above as being violated is the 1RR rule on Communist terrorism. Silver seren made only one revert, so he didn't break that. Suggest closing with no action against Silver seren. Can something more be done to limit the warring at Communist terrorism? How about three months of full protection? Any changes that have consensus could then be made via {{editprotect}}. Its current 1RR restriction was imposed due to a complaint filed here at AE on 17 November. Two admins already supported full protection at that time. The article has just survived its third AfD, which was closed by User:Sandstein on 10 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Cirt
[edit]| Both users warned by Lar (talk · contribs) per WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban. Per WP:ARBSCI#Uninvolved administrators, "[a]ny disputes about whether an administrator is involved or not are to be referred to the Arbitration Committee". This is generating a lot of heat and virtually no light at all. Claims of post-warning misconduct should be brought in a separate thread. T. Canens (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||
Request concerning Cirt[edit]
(For the sake of brevity, I will not reproduce the evidence already presented in this ANI discussion or the discussions related to this in earlier AE requests. I have linked the most relevant sections under "Background" and assume that anyone commenting here is familiar with that evidence and not simply making judgements based on the limited evidence presented here.) Background:
A relatively concise and relatively recent example: In May 2010, Cirt created the BLP of Michael Doven. Doven is a movie producer and the former assistant to actor Tom Cruise who is well-known as a Scientologist. From the very first edit, the article was riddled with BLP and POV issues. Among the sources used in this BLP:
In the infobox, Doven's "organisation" is listed as "Scientology". There is a rather large "Scientology" footer, and the article includes the "Scientology portal" tag. A few edits later, Cirt adds Category: American Scientologists. This is an apparent violation of WP:BLPCAT. This article had so many gratuitous references to Scientology and Scientologists that it was almost comical. I put this article forward as an example on ANI, but no changes were made as a result. I raised it on WP:BLPN (a suggestion made on ANI). User:Bbb23 reorganized the article into two sections, one covering Doven's career and the other covering his involvement in Scientology. Cirt simply reverted. As Bbb23 said on BLPN, "no one has commented on the changes I made. Cirt, however, reverted them, so I guess that means he didn't like them". User:Maunus, Cirt, and Bbb23 made some changes but left it largely as it had begun, with all of the sourcing and most of the POV problems intact. Maunus, an admin, commented at ANI that "I agree that this article was problematic. It did have the appearance of a Coatrack. I think that it has improved drastically now, with Cirt's colaboration". In a discussion on Jehochman's talk page, Cirt raised the article as an example of their good-faith efforts, saying "As one case study example: Delicious carbuncle raised concerns both at ANI and at BLPN about the page Michael Doven. I worked to improve the page collaboratively, and my efforts resulted in successfully addressing the concerns raised to the satisfaction of Maunus ...". When I questioned the lede included a reference to the sister of Beck (himself a Scientologist), Cirt removed the literal phrase, leaving the sister's name (unlinked, since she does not have an article here). This article is nothing but a coatrack to identify Doven as a Scientologist and to imply that his career is inextricably linked to Scientology. A really short and pointed example: Amy Scobee is a former member of the CoS and now a critic of that group who has published a book about her experiences with them. Cirt interviewed her for Wikinews ("Author Amy Scobee recounts abuse as Scientology executive"). In this edit Cirt identifies the genre of Scobee's writing as "destructive cults" and the subject as "Scientology". An example of mind-boggling pettiness: Knight and Day is a movie starring Tom Cruise. Even before its release, Cirt was already adding negative press ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Following the release, Cirt makes dozens of edits, adding negative reviews ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc). All of the additions have cherry-picked quotes such as Lexi Feinberg of Big Picture Big Sound gave the film a rating of one and a half stars, and characterized it as an "asinine, action-adventure dud", with a "stupid plot". Having not seen the movie I can only speculate about its quality, but both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic suggest that there are about equal numbers of positive and negative reviews. I can see no reason for Wikipedia to have such a long and detailed negative article about what is a very unimportant movie. The history of the article is useful for examining Cirt's ownership tendencies.
Addendum: Some of the same information in diff:violation format
Addendum 2: Violations made after formal warning given Cirt copied a section of List of Scientologists to List of Scientology officials (leaving the material duplicated in the original article). According to the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Despite all of the discussion here, Cirt made no effort to ensure that the article they created used only reliable sources and was not in violation of WP:BLPCAT, which states that inclusion in lists or application of categories "regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...". Additionally, there is the use of clearly unrelaible sources (including the "unauthorized biography" already discussed in this request). Gratuitous references to Joseph Feshbach in the section on his daughter seem to violate WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Cirt[edit]Statement by Cirt[edit]I would have very much liked to have discussed the substance of the individual and specific complaints about various articles raised by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), and I would have appreciated being given an opportunity first to work to address these issues. Unfortunately, Delicious carbuncle refused to even attempt to address any of these issues at their respective article talk pages. This problem was pointed out in replies to Delicious carbuncle at BLPN, by multiple editors including Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) diff and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) diff. I reached out to Delicious carbuncle multiple times, requesting that he be more specific in his complaints about certain articles, but unfortunately he refused to discuss at article talk pages, see diff and diff. Though I really would like to help cleanup the pages in question, it becomes very difficult to do so when the only time Delicious carbuncle brings issues up is when escalating them to ANI, BLPN, or AE - and repeatedly refuses to engage discussion, content talk page engagement, or prior dispute resolution of any sort - on article talk pages. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I really would have liked to have been able to discuss these issues with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) on the respective article talk pages. However, as he has raised them here, I have tried to address them:
I will strive in the future to be more receptive to feedback and open to pursuing forms of dispute resolution such as Third Opinion processes (I recently received a barnstar for work in this area diff) and Request for Comment - however at no point did Delicious carbuncle even attempt to pursue resolution of any of these issues through talk page discussion or content dispute resolution. -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I was motivated to report Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to AE, due to WP:BLP violation at page Jamie Sorrentini and then reverting against consensus from multiple editors at WP:RSN diff, diff, diff (later found to also be WP:POINT violation deliberately as an attempt to provoke me diff), and WP:FORUMSHOP issues on the same topic, and disruption on the same topic at ANI diff diff. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there does not appear to be any evidence about this particular issue presented by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs). The only instance in which I was mentioned by the Arbitration Committee in the Scientology case ruling was to state: "From careful examination of the submitted evidence, the committee concludes that, since his request for adminship in September 2008, Cirt does not appear to have deliberately misused administrative tools." I appreciate that ruling from ArbCom. Since that case, I have strived to avoid using admin tools in relation to this topic. I will continue to avoid acting as an admin in this arena. -- Cirt (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This comment is incorrect, this is not a violation. I would appreciate if we could move on from this. If concerns are brought to the talk page, I will swiftly address them promptly. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Delicious carbuncle[edit]
In an attempt to keep this as concise and clear as possible, I provided links to the evidence already presented at ANI, and focused on three examples which I felt were representative of the issues. This could have been an extremely lengthy filing, but I did not want to overwhelm anyone. I find it perplexing that Jehochman would encourage me to file an arbitration request and then attempt to summarily quash it. I also question his impartiality, given the circumstances. As for his reasoning, he is incorrect. Under remedy 8 of WP:ARBSCI (which may be remedy 7 mislabelled), there is no requirement to warn editors: "Any uninvolved administrator may on his or her discretion apply the discretionary sanctions specified in Remedy 4 to any editor failing to comply with the spirit or letter of these instructions". Additionally, it says "In case of any doubt concerning application or interpretation of these restrictions, the Arbitration Committee may be consulted for guidance". I believe it is time to involve ArbCom in this matter, since we all know that is where this is heading anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Question for Cirt: Cirt, I asked Jehochman this question but have received no reply as yet, so I will ask you - did you and Jehochman discuss this arbitration request prior to his attempt to close it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Simple diff:violation format: As requested in a comment by Jehochman, I have created an addendum with some of the evidence as simply diffs and identification of the specific violations. It strikes me that this is a terrible way to lay out a case about what is a larger pattern of actions, but obviously from comments like those of Shell Kinney or Jusdafax, people seem to be glossing over the fact that there are obvious BLP violations included in that evidence, among other things. I didn't want to waste too much time on this so I only included a representative sample. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC) You can lead DocJames to water, but you can't make him drink: DocJames, perhaps you missed the sentence where I said "The history of [Knight and Day] is useful for examining Cirt's ownership tendencies"? I assumed anyone who was interested enough to comment would actually take the time to look at the things I have singled out, rather than talking out of their ass. If you had done so, you would have quickly come across the edit I have added to the diffs section. An IP editor changed the runtime of the movie from 110 minutes to 109 minutes (the time given by IMDB, Box Office Mojo, and Metacritic). Cirt reverted that edit as vandalism and gave the IP a "level 3" warning. Is that appropriate? It wasn't vandalism, it was a valid correction. If you looked a little further into the history, you would have seen this edit by an IP cutting down the ridiculously long "critical reception" section with the edit summary ("way long"). It was reverted by another user who apparently thought better of it and restored the edit. Then Cirt reverted and warned the user for "vandalism" (which it clearly wasn't). I encourage you to actually look at the history of that article, although it is clear you have already made up your mind and will not be swayed by either evidence or sound arguments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cirt[edit]I wish to add the following diffs to those provided by Carbuncle above for the community's consideration.
I believe there is an ongoing and serious problem here, comprising both BLP violations and advocacy. Under Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas,
The Dickson case and other evidence posted by DC establishes that there is such an agenda. It involves writing puff-pieces on perceived Scientology opponents – see e.g.
and it involves writing consistently unflattering portrayals of Scientologists, or scholars asserting that Scientology has religious character, per
What remains is to establish that Cirt is "focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists". This is arguably so: per their top 100, Cirt is mostly focused on Scientology and Werner Erhard/est (a Scientology offshoot), both here and in other Wikimedia projects (see e.g. [53]). Indeed, perusing Cirt's contributions history in sister projects shows a remarkable body of work that is acknowledged in the anti-Scientology community. --JN466 20:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC) While the above-quoted ARBSCI remedy authorises a full topic ban, without warning, I am unsure if this is in the best interest of the project. There are several reasons for this. For one, it is undeniable that Cirt has authored some top-quality content in this area. While still often combative, Cirt has shown signs of being more responsive to feedback, and of having acquired an ability to write more neutrally than in former times. In my perception at least, these were the result of a good-faith effort that can't have come easy to someone with such strong views. When Cirt first arrived here, first as User:Smeelgova, then User:Smee, then User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage, they quickly acquired block logs and within weeks were involved in an est-related arbitration case. The development since then has in many ways been a positive one. The sanctions proposed by DC above, i.e. a topic ban on editing Scientology-related BLPs, ban on use of admin tools on Scientology-related articles (widely construed), and a 1RR restriction on all Scientology-related articles (widely construed), may serve the project better. However, it would be nice to see an honest acknowledgement of the problem from Cirt. --JN466 21:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Jose Peralta is another flattering bio of a politician whose opponent anti-Scientologists did not like. --JN466 23:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt writes "Though I really would like to help cleanup the pages in question, it becomes very difficult to do so when the only time Delicious carbuncle brings issues up is when escalating them to ANI, BLPN, or AE" This is a somewhat curious framing as it was Cirt who escalated:
I would like to ask Cirt what moved him to open the AE request. un☯mi 21:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Comments by Shell Kinney[edit]It's always disappointing to see reports that feel the need to include phrases like "mind-boggling pettiness" and only have ANI reports to show for attempting to resolve the dispute. Since Cirt seems to have responded to feedback in a variety of those cases, it's confusing that a ban is being asked for rather than simply addressing any concerns directly first. Shell babelfish 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Momento[edit]Could Jehochman explain what format the "prior warning as required by WP:ARBSCI" takes.Momento (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by The Resident Anthropologist (talk)[edit]I am trying to avoid conflict as much as possible here and trying to stay out of this. I said much earlier a WP:RFC/U could do a lot of good here. I am not sure Arbitration Enforcment is the proper venue.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I discovered this matter because I have Cirt's talkpage watchlisted. I have not been contacted on or offwiki regarding it, and indeed have not communicated with Cirt at all for many months, though we have found areas of agreement in the past. Cirt's many contributions [59] are extensive to an amazing degree, and I am hardly alone in respecting his accomplishments. As Will Beback notes above, Cirt edits across a wide range of articles. I feel strongly that Delicious carbuncle is clearly the dubious party here, and agree that the lack of talk page discussion by Delicious carbuncle is highly noteworthy. Because Cirt is a high-profile editor on one of the touchiest subjects in Wikipedia, he comes under various forms of attack for doing what I and many see as a very good job. He merits our deepest thanks, and I ask in all fairness that this matter be dropped as what it is... patent nonsense. Jusdafax 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Formal warning(s) given[edit]I have given formal warnings to Cirt [60] and Delicious Carbuncle [61]. It is my sincere belief that they comply exactly with the requirements given at Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Discretionary_topic_ban but if someone wants to quibble, I'm certainly amenable to revising them to meet whatever jot and tittle requirements are advanced. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Cirt[edit]
Well this sounds familiar. Does this happen often? If it does, there may be procedural improvements to be had to ensure people don't waste their time. If it's just this case, it does have an element of poetic justice, but it's hardly satisfactory. Could someone perhaps give both parties (Cirt and DC) the appropriate warning and tell them not to appear before the bench again? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Why are we still at this? Warnings are not appealable, and I could never think of an instance when a warning is "revoked" or whatever, so this discussion is not going to get you any meaningful result. If you think there's a problem with it, arbcom is that way. Something is seriously wrong when enforcing administrators at AE start to behave like the parties. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Note: I have refactored my remarks suggesting that JEH is involved to remove that suggestion, based on Wikipedia:ARBSCI#Uninvolved_administrators. Sorry for editing a closed section but I felt it was important to correct myself. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Cirt II
[edit]| No action taken. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Cirt[edit]
Cirt copied a section of List of Scientologists to List of Scientology officials (leaving the material duplicated in the original article). According to the policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Despite all of the discussion here, Cirt made no effort to ensure that the article they created used only reliable sources and was not in violation of WP:BLPCAT, which states that inclusion in lists or application of categories "regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief...". Additionally, there is the use of clearly unrelaible sources (including the "unauthorized biography" already discussed in this request). Gratuitous references to Joseph Feshbach in the section on his daughter seem to violate WP:BLP. Although Cirt did correct ([70] & [71]) the specific violations that I highlighted after I originally posted this evidence, they made no attempt to prevent the situation even those they had been involved in several discussions of these very issues and warned about the possibility of sanctions. Cirt appears to have made no attempt to address the issues more generally and has left unreliable sources used in this list. It seems unreasonable that an admin involved in the creation of lists of living people associated with a controversial topic should be allowed to violate our policies unless and until someone tells them specifically that they have done so.
Discussion concerning Cirt[edit]Statement by Cirt[edit]Almost immediately after Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) made his complaints, I substantively addressed them. Please see post to the article's talk page, acknowleding this. Yet again, Delicious carbuncle has failed to attempt any form of talk page discussion or dispute resolution whatsoever. Please also note my recent comment on my talk page diff. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Cirt[edit]
Result concerning Cirt[edit]
Please people can we not end this for a couple days. Cirt is obviously willing to address the shortcoming. Can people who are interested in this topic not work together and improve it rather than returning here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC) I agree. I am encouraged by Cirt's statement here; more time needs to have passed, and more support and assistance needs to have been given, before it is possible to say that there are ongoing problems that merit further examination here. --Slp1 (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Per my comments to Shell, above, I too think this should be deferred for a reasonable period of time. Suggest a close, for now, without prejudice to reopening in, say, 2 weeks time if there has not been substantial improvement (as Cirt themselves undertook in their talk page comment) ++Lar: t/c 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
|
Jalapenos do exist
[edit]| User:Jalapenos do exist is placed under a new 1RR restriction on all I/P topics for three months with details as provided within. EdJohnston (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | |||||||||
Request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]
Short version of evidence[edit]Since some users have complained that my evidence is too long, here's the short version:
So hopefully now the situation is clearer. Jalapenos nominated an article to DYK that numerous users found problematic; I worked on that article for 8 days to NPOV it so it could be promoted; J. made no attempt to challenge any of my edits for any of those 8 days, except to comment that he saw only one minor issue that was "no big deal". He confirmed at the end of that 8 days in response to my query that he had no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors; EdChem approved that same version of the article on the basis that it was NPOV and stable; and then, 15 minutes after the article was promoted to the main page, Jalapenos made wholesale changes that essentially restored his own version of the article which had been headed for rejection 8 days prior. Jalapenos subverted the DYK quality control process by allowing me to bring the article to a state where it could be approved at DYK, only to revert back to his own heavily contested version a few minutes after the article was promoted to the main page. That constitutes an egregious violation of WP:GAME. He also clearly negotiated in bad faith for an extended period, staying silent through all my changes except to indicate at one point that outstanding disputes were "no big deal", and leading me to believe at the end of that process that he had no substantial objections to the article "in its current form" in order to gain my consent for the article's promotion, only to restore virtually all the contested content when the article went to the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Response to Tznkai[edit]In response to your questions Tznkai - this case is not about the content of Jalapenos' edits. My references to the content were simply a means of supplying some background information about the origins of the dispute. There are two issues at hand in this case:
I consider the first issue above to be an egregious breach of process since it affects content which appears on the main page. His edits made a total mockery of DYK's quality control processes. If we were to allow this sort of thing, we might as well just ditch the DYK process altogether and allow users to promote their own articles with no scrutiny. The second in my opinion represents an unacceptable breach of faith. But both are clear breaches of GAME. One additional clarification. J. and brewcrewer have both attempted to rebut my case by arguing that J. did not delete all my edits. But I never claimed that. What I said is that J. reverted almost all my edits pertaining to Israel. He restored almost in its entirety his version of the Israeli section of the article, which he knew had been protested at DYK by multiple users, which he knew I had deleted or refactored for NPOV reasons. The only part of that section which he did not remove, presumably because he could think of no grounds for doing so, was the subsection I added on the 1982 Lebanon War, but even there he made a deletion.[125] However, he in fact went even further than that, restoring virtually all of the material he knew was contested - not only in the Israeli section, but also in the lead, restoring kalder and dershowitz, and in the NATO section, restoring Oren. Kalder and Oren, moreover, were disputed not only by myself but also by Philip Baird Shearer on the talk page, so that these last two edits were made not only in subversion of the DYK process and in violation of GAME as described above, but also against talk page consensus. The fact that he left some other material I added to the article is irrelevant. The point is that he restored virtually all the contested content, knowing that content had already failed to achieve consensus at DYK, doing so a few minutes after the article's appearance on the main page when he had had the opportunity to contest those edits for more than a week, and after assuring me disingenuously that he had no objections to the article in its current form. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC) BTW, Jalapenos' claim that the article appeared on the main page at 6:00 am 14 December is incorrect. The article appeared on the main page at 0:00 14 December,[126] and J. began his reverts 14 minutes later.[127] Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Suggestion[edit]Regarding the proposed remedies, why not simply make it that he can't edit articles in the topic area at all so long as they are on the mainpage? It's hardly an onerous restriction, and it would completely prevent any further attempts at gaming. Gatoclass (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Response to EdJohnston[edit]First of all, let me say that I'm not fussed whether Jalapenos is sanctioned for his gaming or not. My primary concern in bringing this case to AE was to send a message to Jalapenos and any other editor contemplating gaming the DYK process as he did that it is unacceptable behaviour. In that regard, I will consider the purpose of this case served if J. is warned against any repeat of this conduct. However, I must take issue with Ed's suggestion that the case may not fall under the purview of ARBPIA. I don't know what he means by this, but Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions clearly states amongst other things that serious breaches of any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in the topic area are actionable. J.'s edits were self-evidently related to the topic area, so that's not an issue. The question then is whether or not his conduct constituted a "serious breach" of expected standards of behaviour or normal editorial processes. Obviously not everybody is familiar with DYK's processes but I would have thought the GAMEing aspect would be clear enough to anyone who gave it a moment's thought. If an article has been through a review process that clears it for mainpage promotion, and then someone comes along and restores large slabs of contested content that had previously been removed as a result of that review while the article is on the main page, of course that is gaming. Otherwise we might as well just scrap the review process altogether and let editors promote whatever they like to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Response to Tznkai's proposed remedy[edit]While the issue of individual sanctions is very much a secondary concern to me in this case, in relation to Tznkai's proposed remedy below, I feel obliged to point out that a proposal to place J. under 1RR is no sanction at all given that all articles in the topic area are already covered by such a restriction. IMO it would be just as well to impose no sanction at all rather than a faux restriction of this type, which may end up sending entirely the wrong message. What I would like to see in any remedy is at least a clear statement that his reverts in this instance were "a clear example of disruptive editing" to borrow Slp's phrase, and for him to be cautioned against future misconduct of this type. Gatoclass (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Discussion concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]Statement by Jalapenos do exist[edit]This is my first time here, and I'm kind of taken aback, so I may be missing something. I understand that Gatoclass is accusing me of having violated WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions with one edit to World Conference against Racism 2001 and nine edits to Civilian casualty ratio, which I authored. But none of these edits were made to articles that were under ARBPIA discretionary sanctions, so how could I have violated them? Civilian casualty ratio is about a general military history topic. Its only relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular is that one of the ratio's extreme values appears from the data and is explicitly stated by a notable observer to have been achieved within the Arab-Israeli conflict. Why should it be under ARBPIA sanctions? When I checked a few minutes ago, I did not see that anyone had ever put an ARBPIA warning tag on it or expressed in any other way the notion that it should be under these sanctions [129]. Similarly, World Conference against Racism 2001 is about a United Nations conference on racism, not about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Here, too, nobody had ever put an ARBPIA warning tag on the article or expressed in any other way the notion that it should be under ARBPIA sanctions. After I made the edit in question, someone did put an ARBPIA warning tag on the article. The person was - you guessed it - Gatoclass himself [130]. I fail to see the logic of placing the tag on this article, but that's a discussion for another time. The point is that I had no way of knowing that Gatoclass would, in the future, put the tag there, and I had no other reason to suspect that anyone would consider this article to be within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I should note that the third article mentioned in Gatoclass's accusation (in the additional comments section), Durban III, which I authored, is exactly like the second one in these regards. In no way is it evident that someone would consider it to be within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its only connection being peripheral. And nobody had ever expressed the notion that the article should be under ARBPIA sanctions until Gatoclass himself placed a warning tag on it after the edits for which he accuses me of violating ARBPIA sanctions [131]. Gatoclass's various charges in the "additional comments" section are as empty as the accusation itself. I'll respond to them, too, because I want to protect my reputation. The edit I made to WCAR 2001, supposedly "highly tendentious", was: "The conference included distribution of the antisemitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, portraits of Adolf Hitler, and expressions of hatred for Jews." This was virtually a quote from a news article by Gloria Galloway in the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, which said, in the voice of the writer: "The initial conference in 2001 included distribution of the Chronicles [sic] of the Elders of Zion, a fake text purporting to be a Jewish plan for global domination, portraits of Adolph [sic] Hitler, and expressions of hatred for Jews" [132]. (Interestingly, the Globe and Mail paragraph has since been changed online [133] to the point where it does not support my original edit. This may be why Gatoclass challenged it, and if that's the case he was right to do so.) The edit was improper, Gatoclass says, because it "was made less than 40 minutes before the article was due for (proxy) promotion, leaving almost no time for anybody to see it and prevent it going to the main page". Huh? WTF is "proxy promotion"? This article, several years old, was not up for promotion. A different article, Durban III was up for DYK promotion at around the same time, a fact that I was not even aware of. Am I supposed to constantly check DYK so that I can avoid making edits to any article related to an article about to be promoted there? Next we have the suggestion that I gamed the system with my behavior regarding Civilian casualty ratio and the process of its DYK promotion. I'll ignore Gatoclass's extremely long prefatory attempt to discredit the article itself, because it's irrelevant. His point seems to be that I deceived him about my position on his series of changes to the article in order to get him to support it for DYK promotion. Here is my position, which has never changed and which is shared by other editors (who are not "one or two of my buddies", by the way): some of his edits were bad, but these bad edits were not so significant as to make the article unsuitable for DYK. I happened to have stated this position to Gatoclass, both on the DYK talk [134] and on his talk page [135] (cited, oddly, by Gatoclass). If I had wanted to deceive him about my position, I probably would have said something - anything - to him that was actually inconsistent with my position. I did not. Gatoclass's notion that I deceived him also seems to rely on the fairly solipsistic assumption that his opinion is what decided whether the article would go to DYK. Since I don't and did not share this assumption, I had no reason to care an awful lot about his opinion, and thus no reason to try and change it through deception. In fact, seeing at the time that he was the only editor to object to the article's promotion (after I had responded to concerns by other editors), I thought that an article would not ultimately be denied DYK because of a single editor objecting. But I was frustrated that the discussion had been dragging on for so long because of it, so when Gatoclass came around, I happily reported it on the talk page. The idea that I was negotiating in bad faith by making treacherous concessions seems very odd to me, for the simple reason that we were never negotiating and so I made no concessions. Next there are the edits that I made countering some of Gatoclass's changes to Civilian casualty ratio. There are so many falsehoods and half truths here that I'm going to have to move to bullet points.
His final point is that I've authored articles that have been nominated for AfD. First, a couple of minor corrections: I am not the author of Latma TV, and I requested deletion myself for Claims of Israeli organ harvesting in Haiti. More to the point: yes, I've done a lot of things on Wikipedia, and authored many articles. Some of my articles, especially among the ones that actually are about the Arab-Israeli conflict, have been nominated for AfD. (Gatoclass didn't list them all. I don't know what criteria his selection is based on.) Those who have had shared the misfortune of editing in this area know that pretty much every article is nominated for AfD at some point. I'm proud of the fact that the community consensus on most of those articles was that they should be kept. After reading the accusation again and again, I can't escape the feeling that Gatoclass is making it with unclean hands. He is accusing me of violating ARBIA sanctions. Why did he omit the fact that he is the (only) one who said that the relevant articles should be under ARBPIA sanctions, and that he did so after the edits for which he accuses me? This fact is, after all, clearly important to understanding the accusation, and he must have been aware of it. For that matter, why did he place the tags after I made the edits for which he's accusing me, when he was involved in both articles and was clearly aware of their nature before I made those edits ([138] [139] and see history)? Finally, why did he immediately run here without so much as telling me that he thought my edits were improper? After all, we had recently interacted in a collegial way. And since he clearly did a lot of research on me before making this complaint, he must have seen that I've received compliments and barnstars for my work from editors with diverse POVs (the barnstars are displayed on my user page). If an editor is in good standing, wouldn't it make sense to at least talk to him before filing a formal complaint? Jeepers, that took a long time. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Interim questions[edit]
Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Comment on Tznkai's response[edit]To my mind, the response reflects and relies on a misunderstanding of what happened at the DYK talk page. The opposition to the hook was clearly an application of a standard that does not and could not apply to article content. Specifically, the standard that a significant view published in a reliable source should not be in a hook if it is partisan or arguably partisan. However, WP:NPOV directs editors writing articles to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. In my actions at the DYK I immediately accepted these editors' standard in practice as a matter of compromise, suggesting an alternative that was unanimously accepted, and upon reflection accepted it in principle as well. In my actions at the article I operated according to a clear and consistent principle of including all significant views on the topic of the article published in reliable sources (and available online), according to WP:NPOV. None of my edits to the article were contrary to any view expressed by any editor other than Gatoclass, either on the article talk page or on the DYK talk page. The question "so what did I actually do wrong?", the core of this whole affair, still stands. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by EdChem[edit]I was the editor who approved the DYK nomination and hook. I did so having previously expressed severe reservations about the article and its content. When I approved the hook, I checked to see that the material in the article that concerned me had been brought into compliance with policy. I congratulated Gatoclass on his work and also added a DYKmake credit for him, in recognition of the work he describes above. I would not have approved the nomination with the article changes that were subsequently made in place, and I consider the actions of Jalapenos do exist to be very poor editing behaviour. EdChem (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
EdChem (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC) copy edited EdChem (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]I was involved with the World Conference against Racism 2001 and Durban III articles and the AfD and DYK nominations of the civilian casualties articles and endorse Gatoclass' account of Jalapenos do exist's conduct in relation to these articles. My proposal to add some balance to the Durban III article by including a mention that the references quoted in the article [which were added originally by Jalapenos and were, in several instances, conservative opinion pieces rather than neutral RS] had stated that most UN members had voted in favour of the conference being held were dismissed by Jalapenos do exist as part of me "being silly": [143]. I walked away from this article as I've got no interest in being involved in the Arab-Israeli edit wars. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC) I too have worked on articles that JDE has submitted for inclusion at DYK as well as elsewhere. I also endorse Gatoclass' report and would like to also point out this edit made to exploding animal which was extremely POV and unsourced and which they were happier to edit war over than discuss (see their talk and the article history). The changes made to the CCR article, partcularly reinserting the comments by Alan Dershowitz, whilst on the main page represent an unbelievable gaming of the system. SmartSE (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Brewcrewer[edit]Gatoclass says: essentially restoring in its entirety the original version to which I (and a number of other users) had strenuously objected 9 days before. This does not appear to be true. JDE's final edits to the article appear to have included many of Gatoclass's substantial edits. See the difference in nine days of Gatoclass's and JDE's latest edits.[144] Also JDE's comment "I have no objections to the article in its current form that exceed the usual disagreements between editors", gave a greater indication that he was unsatisfied rather then satisfied with all of Gatoclass's changes to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Unomi[edit]
Re Jalapenos and Civilian_casualty_ratio[edit]Leadup[edit]03 December AfD concludes, noting that there was not a strong consensus for keep. According to the DYK thread: 17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Jalapenos states: "Let's do this. After making his own changes to the article, Gatoclass has told me that he thinks it should be promoted[1]. So do I. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)", at that point the article looks like this. 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Mbz1 states: "I see no problems with the article. It should be promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)"
10:45, 13 December 2010 User:EdChem accepts the article on behalf of DYK stating: "I am now satisfied with the article and with ALT1 about the international red cross. I have also added a DYKmake for Gatoclass, who has made a substantial contribution to the article. EdChem (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)". At that point the article looks like this. The diff between the state of when Jalapenos intimated consent and EdChem granted DYK is negligible Thoughts on Jalapenos Comments[edit]Jalapenos seems to plead ignorance on the requirement that articles to be shown on the frontpage are relatively stable and uncontested, this seems an unlikely condition as he, at the very least, must have read "The article has three dispute tags, and the DYK rules disallow any dispute tags in articles going to the main page. EdChem (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)" on the DYK thread, reinserting information that he knew was contested prior to a discussion that settled the matter would certainly achieve that. Jalapenos writes above "Again, I did raise substantial concerns, including the specific concern that another editor was correct in characterizing some of his edits as WP:SYNTH", but submits only: At which point the article looks like this At no point in this period is "Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harward Law School" in the article, much less the lede, no additional content has been offered for discussion, none have been boldly edited in. Not a single comment regarding specific issues that Jalapenos, or Mbz1 wanted addressed seems to have been forwarded. The substantial concerns seem to have been the no big deal headings. Yet, 8 days after the Dershowitz section was removed Jalapenos reinserts it verbatim, minutes after the article is on the frontpage[145]. Note that Jalapenos did not argue against Carwils objection to Dershowitz at the AfD, he did not contest the removal by Gatoclass nor the specific issues that spurred it. The same goes for the remaining edits that are plain to see from the recent edit history, I see no point to analyze them individually other than to say that they do in fact support Jalapenos statement of "Perhaps I reverted "almost all" of his edits pertaining to Israel." - all content related changes were to Israeli related sections, and the majority went directly against concerns raised at AfD and DYK, as well as the talk page itself. un☯mi 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it welcome that new options for remedies are explored, I do think that it will leave the parties that felt directly wronged in this unsatisfied, I know I would ;) Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see how it ends, so how can I not support it. Welcome to the ARBPIA grind Tznkai. un☯mi 19:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The proposed one. Have a look at the state of the article when it was mainspaced. Compare that to the current, which was the state that it was in when it was on the frontpage, the material relating to Israel is nearly identical, terrorists has become millitants, at least in some cases, and the lede has become slightly more fluffed, that is *all*. None of the issues raised at the AfD, were addressed, at least not long enough that it mattered for the 1.8k viewers that now might be led to believe that this is the standard to which we hold ourselves. If we really think that this is a Hanlons razor issue, we should likely issue a topic ban out of sheer WP:COMPETENCE concerns. If on the other hand we accept that the user had no intentions of letting other people influence the parts of the article that they were concerned with, and that they also did it solely for the purpose of maximizing exposure, (as he would know they would be reverted when discovered) then where are we at? un☯mi 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The DYK process concerns both the hook, but also the article as it will have maximum exposure on behalf of wikipedia. It was not Jalapenos responsibility to fix them, it was not anyones responsibility, but as shown here, if the issues were not fixed then it would simply not be suitable for displaying on the main page, by consensus of the editors there as noted by Schwede66. Gatoclass took it upon himself to fix the issues, and the editors involved seemed to agree that there were no outstanding issues, including mbz1 and Jalapenos, so it was approved by EdChem. 14 minutes after the article has gained maximum exposure, Jalapenos starts editing it away from the consensus version, and after 26 minutes of being on the front page all the Israeli related contested elements are restored. un☯mi 11:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Jalapeno writes: What did actually I do wrong? I think that this statement shows that Jalapeno has no intention of taking editor concerns seriously. He downplays the extent of the text reverted, reducing it to the Alan Dershowitz quote, when it has been shown that within 26 minutes of being on the front page all the Israeli related contested elements are restored. He also stated that only Gatoclass objected to that content, which is specious framing. Excerpts of comments from the AfD regarding issues:
He goes on to write: It seems that my stated concerns of unclean hands and dishonesty in Gatoclass's accusation are supported to some extent or another by four participants in this discussion so far: Brewcrewer, BorisG, Cptnono and Epeefleche. (Original version of the accusation before being "shortened", with my response, here: [117].) I am a bit confused at these allegations to be honest, I would like to ask Jalapenos to distill evidence of "unclean hands and dishonesty", as near as I can tell they center around 2 items: 1. Gatoclass did not immediately add the ARBPIA tags.
2. Gatoclass stated that he believed that Jalapenos had no objections, to which Jalapenos states that he did say he had substantial objections.
All of Arab-Israeli articles are already under 1rr. Please see this discussion and this notice. So at best it simply means that it takes effect for him even if the template has not been added by a user yet, not quite sure of the net value. Anyway, I too grow weary of this AE. un☯mi 05:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Sol[edit]In regard to the below question of actual damages, I think the idea is that editors agreed to the removal of the POV material only to side-step administrative procedure and quickly re-inserted it after the article was put on the main page which, if that's the case, would be blatant gamesmanship. Regardless of how it happened, WP ended up featuring an article with a healthy serving of POV-pushing. Whoops. Sol (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by BorisG[edit]When I read Gatoclass's statement, I thought it was a serious attempt to game the system, but upon reading JDE's defence, I see this is not so at all. The whole thing is very confusing (with walls of text from both sides), but it seems that Gatoclass has deliberately misquoted JDE at least on one occasion. If that happenned, then he may not be with clean hands. Not to mention that there is nothing wrong with writing articles that are later deleted upon consensus. I think there is no obvious case against JDE.
Statement by Cptnono[edit]I can see how gaming could be interpreted from the actions of both editors. Not sure what (if anything) should be done about Gatoclass but this being the second time DYKs in the topic area have brought criticism of him here, Sandstein might have had the right idea if he was being a little wary.[146] Removing him from DYK or topic baning him would not be beneficial to the project but restrictions on his work (not talk page use) on DYKs in the topic areas might be something to consider. Not sure if that is even warranted but there were some concerns raised that appear to be partially valid. In response to Tznkai's suggestion, AGF could show that JDE was not gaming the system but AGF can only go so far. You are correct that the insertion of material after multiple objections was a problem even if it wasn't gaming. Since multiple reverts can be a bad thing, as NW brings up, it could be simplest to make it a 1rr/48hr while editing DYKs in the topic area. It will be easy enough to tell if he is gaming if he pops in a minute after two days have elapsed.Cptnono (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Statement by Epeefleche[edit]First of all, this does not seem to be the correct forum for this complaint. Secondly, having parsed through this great deal of material, I don't see an actionable violation. I am also concerned with the misquoting of what J actually said, but would simply caution that editor to be more precise in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by Mbz1[edit]I concur with Boris."that this request is inappropriate and should be dismissed. Gatoclass needs to be sanctioned for bringing inappropriate request here". I also believe that Gatoclass should be topic banned on reviewing I/A conflict related articles. He is gaming the system and holds DYK nominations for those article hostages. There are many even recent examples of such behavior.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Statement by MalcolmMcDonald[edit]Unless there's something I'm missing then Jalapenos is incapable of editing responsibly on this topic. Almost anyone who has defended his conduct over this affair must be nearly as unfit. The personal attacks on those trying to deal with the problem is particularly disturbing. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Result concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]
Question. What exactly is the harm complained of here? I've looked at the evidence, and I'm still confused. The diffs paint the picture that Jalapenos do exist (from now on "Jalapenos") has some sort of editorial "take" on the Israel/Palestine conflict, which while moderately annoying, is a content disagreement and thus generally dealt with outside of AE until it gets too bad. The part I'm not understanding is the involvement of DYK. Is the argument basically that Jalapenos waited for the article to be linked from the main page and then started editing with his/her editorial take?--Tznkai (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Regarding what to do next, I hope that Tznkai will make a further proposal. I note that Unomi made this suggestion on my talk page: "Ok, how would you feel about an instruction that all I/P related articles submitted to DYK, that a given editor works on, must be listed by them at WP:IPCOLL at earliest opportunity?" This is a reform that would best be left for the community to make. Somebody who feels that DYK is being abused due to controversial I/P articles could open an RfC and recommend a new policy or guideline. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Responding to Jalapenos' questions: 1. While they did object to it specifically as a hook, they also described the statement as "agenda driven" "potentially not meeting NPOV" and "obviously wrong." Furthermore there was the comment that "Given the serious concerns raised about this article in its AfD, I don't think that it's at all suited to appearing as a link from Wikipedia's main page." An editor working at Wikipedia must pay attention to concerns like this. 2. The principle of unclean hands comes from the maxims of equity, a fine and under appreciated tradition in common law jurisdictions. We are not such a jurisdiction. Separately, my review of the incident did not suggest that Gatoclass has crossed boundaries that would invalidate this complaint or justify to a separate sanction on Gatoclass. And, in so far as borrowing from the Maxims of Equity is a good idea, the balance of the equities weighs against you in this case. At this point, we need to close this issue and quickly. Aside from the interests we all share in having quick and resolution, I don't know about the rest of you, but I spend the waning days of the year with family and friends when I can. Because of the split in administrator opinion on this issue I'm going to go with the following: A sanction that Jalapenos falls under 1RR for all edits within article space, so long as the content of the edit has to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed. This would essentially extend the global I/P article 1RR to I/P content in general, which is probably how the sanction should have been devised in the first place. This sanction would run three months. In the alternative, Jalapenos can agree to not edit any I/P content at all, broadly construed, linked from the main page for 9 months, in which case this enforcement request would be formally closed without action. Unless there is a strenuous objection, I intend to invoke the traditional privilege of AE admins to enact measures without waiting for consensus--Tznkai (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed result (1) concerning Jalapenos do exist[edit]
Given the totality of the evidence presented, and the totality of Jalapenos do exist's conduct, I believe that a 1rr restriction is appropriate. This is specifically in response to the combination of inability and/or unwillingness to recognize the proper way to handle controversial material when multiple users point raise concerns, especially in forums designed for such purposes, such as Articles for Deletion and Did you know nominations. Therefore:
This restriction is no way a comment on the conduct of any other parties in this enforcement request, nor to preclude whatever actions the community wishes to take.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC) |