From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)
Jump to: navigation, search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Rich Farmbrough

Initiated by Hasteur (talk) at 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Rich Farmbrough arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) Clarifying Motion of April 20th 2014

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Hasteur

I seek clarification as to the extent of which the ban on automation extends. A request was made at Wikipedia:Bot requests seeking a bot operator to design a highly customized talk page archiving bot based on multiple rules and targeting. Based on this I seek clarification as to what line does a completely manual edit flip over to being automation when the edit triggers a automated response. Does a Rube Goldberg invention of triggered automation cross the line over what is considered automated? Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I specifically ask the committee to clarify if the signaling method proposed violates the spirit of "No automation" as explicitly defined by the just recently closed Clarifying motion. I ask that the committee not shirk it's duty by speedy declining this clarification request. It doesn't make sens for me or any other bot operator to code such a complicated archiving bot when there are many other options available for archiving in addition to the very singular use case (to replace a archiving bot that was coded by the topic banned editor wrote). Furthermore, when I read the action (also recalling the recent debate regarding the clarification motion) I saw that this was attempting to push at the edges of automating. Hasteur (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Worm That Turned: I may be a big boy, but as one who was sanctioned by this committee recently, so I am attempting to be above and beyond the minimum standards of complying with the rules. Right now there are very few people who are keeping an eye on the Bot Requests noticeboard (to the point that multiple requests are being archived off without ever having even a simple response to them). So the very small pool of bot operators who are willing to take on tasks that they did not want is even smaller so it's always the same few editors resolving the requests. Hasteur (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

This is pretty much what Femto Bot used to do, with corrections and minor upgrades. The committee seemed agreeable to having another editor run Femto Bot's code last time it was mentioned. This request is for a more robust version, notably it would be resistant to attempts by other users to manipulate it, and would be more scalable, being event driven rather scheduled. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

@Beebelbrox. I have about 90 talk page archives, and it should be about 115, once catching up is done. I am used to a far busier talk-page than you, including matters I want to archive very quickly, and matters that need to be discussed over a period of months.
However that is somewhat irrelevant. You may choose to walk everywhere, and tell the time by the sun and stars, but I prefer to use a bicycle and a chronometer. All the best: Rich Farmbrough22:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC).
In view of the wholly negative response form arbs here I am withdrawing my request at BOT requests.

I will remind Arbs that I have done exactly what they suggested at the original request

  • Request someone else run my archiving bot for me.

  • wait and ask again when we are not so cross.

Of course I shall now have to sign up for a less functional solution. Cluebot III is completely useless if one wants by-month archiving, by the way. I hope Lowercase sigma bot will work, but I suspect it make undesired changes to headers.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

@AGK "I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable" well, you shouldn't have voted for such stupid restrictions in the first place! Instead think about what is good for the encyclopaedia! All the best: Rich Farmbrough23:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

Statement by ErikHaugen

I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort—@Newyorkbrad I sincerely hope you are not saying this in any kind of official capacity. It appears as though you mean to dictate what people spend their time on. Hopefully, you instead simply meant this as an idle expression of bewilderment about something that you don't understand.

This appears to be something genuinely useful to certain people. Not to me; I obviously don't get the kind of talk page traffic that would necessitate this kind of thing. But if someone wants to build it what is the harm in RF outlining the specification? Surely his restrictions don't preclude him from suggesting automation tasks to others?

The idea that RF triggering this bot would be a violation of his restriction is completely absurd. The tool and its effects would be completely someone else's responsibility. His alleged carelessness and obstinate attitude (IIUC the root cause of his restrictions) would not be an issue here at all. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

If the Committee wants to absolve itself of all credibility as a body willing and capable of resolving disputes to the benefit of the encyclopaedia it's going about it in the right way.

On the other hand the Committee could get their heads out of their posteriors and articulate what Rich's topic ban is actually intended to achieve, why that needs to be achieved, and how the restriction is intended to achieve that. Until such time as the community understand the purpose of the restriction (which these endless requests demonstrate it does not) it cannot reliably enforce it. You (the Committee) regularly ask admins to enforce the spirit of the rules, referencing the letter to determine that. In this case we cannot do that - the letter is ambiguous and the spirit changes depending on who asks and who answers.

If you aren't prepared to do your jobs in this regard, you can at least retain the basic decency to answer the simple, specific questions asked:

  1. Is Rich allowed to specify automation tasks that will be run by someone else?
  2. If not, where is the line drawn and why? Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It has just occurred to me that if this is declined then we also need answers to other questions about what is an is not acceptable:

  • If Rich uses an off-the-shelf bot and finds it isn't working correctly, is he allowed to
  1. Enquire about its operation? (e.g discuss which options it has to determine if the bot will do what he wants, and how it will do that).
  2. Report a bug with the bot?
  3. Discuss bugs with the bot reported by others?
  4. Suggest resolutions to issues with the bot?
  5. Request features be added to the bot?
  6. Discuss features he has requested to be added to the bot?
  7. Discuss features others have requested to be added to the bot?
  8. Report bugs with features he has requested added to the bot?

For each "no" answer, please explain why he should not be allowed to do that in terms of benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by lfdder

@AGK: I'd like to hear what's wrong with Rich's conduct, 'cause I (and I think many others) see absolutely no issue with it. To suggest that we ought to ban him for it is utterly bewildering. — lfdder 00:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I still don't understand why Rich apparently insists that automation is necessary to archive his talk page. I have been regularly archiving my talk page for seven years. I am currently up to 32 archives, all done without any automation at all. If someone as technically unskilled as myself can manage that I don't see why Rich is unable to just do it himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I sympathized with Rich's position in the threads we closed the other day, to a greater extent than any other arbitrator, and asked whether applying the no-automation restriction to Rich's userspace served much of a purpose, a question that no one actually answered. That being said, I also do not see why one of the existing archiving bots wouldn't suffice, and I fear that the hypercomplicated signaling protocol that Rich proposes for the bot comes perilously close to self-parody. In terms of the request, I am not sure whether Rich's asking someone else to code a highly tailored archive-bot for him violates the letter of the existing restriction ... but I am sure that it strikes me as a poor use of our bot-coding editors' time and effort. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • @ErikHaugen, my "official capacity" doesn't extend to picking bot tasks, so no worries there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What Brad says: Rich, just use Cluebot III or some other bot like that. Speedy decline. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, in this instance it would violate the restriction. Speedily decline. AGK [•] 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thryduulf: In this case, I am actually thinking the automation restriction is utterly unenforceable, and that Rich's conduct – and the problems with it, as documented in the original arbitration case – can only be regulated with a remedy to exclude him from the project altogether. AGK [•] 23:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This appears to be yet another example of Rich poking around the boundaries of his restriction, this time by effectively pseudocoding a bot. I would encourage Rich to manually archive his talk page, if he desires such precise formatting, or to use an existing bot. I'd also encourage him to quit testing the boundaries, although the number of times this has been said recently is not encouraging. Speedily decline this request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Speedy decline. Others above have made all the pertinent comments. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thinking on it. This isn't a speedy decline from me but it does seem like it's a bit strange for the prior tools to be inadequate. As far as I"m concerned if Hasteur wants to code one, and Rich wants to use it, so be it. But the why is still dubious to me. NativeForeigner Talk 07:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see why the arbs are grumpy about this, since I've been on the committee, Rich has spent about 56 days unblocked and this is the 6th clarification/amendment request. That's an inordinate amount of resources that the committee is having to spend on one person and frankly we don't have time to do so.

    That said, I'm of the same opinion as NativeForeigner - Hasteur is a big boy, if he wants to code a bot to Rich's specifications - it's his responsibility to ensure it meets community guidelines. As such, he'll be the one who gets the come-uppence if anything goes wrong with the bot. Should he decide to do this, then I advise him to write it carefully himself and test it thoroughly.

    Rich, I'm generally unimpressed that you took the tentative agreement by a few committee members to archive your talk page using existing bots as free rein to wander over to the bot request notice board and ask for a custom made bot. It's exactly that sort of behaviour that stops people from assuming good faith with your behaviour. WormTT(talk) 10:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    @Hasteur: Not in my eyes, any more than making an edit that would make User:BracketBot or User:DisambigBot come to my page, or User:SineBot sign an unsigned post. As long as he's not writing the bot and the bot owner takes full responsibility for the bot, a manual edit which leads to a bot action should not be counted as automated. Asking for a bot to be written is close to the banned area, and that's where my problem lies. WormTT(talk) 14:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic ban lifted

Information about amendment request

Initiated by Malke 2010 at 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Case affected 
Tea Party movement arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principle 1
  2. Finding 2
  3. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: [1]
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by Malke 2010

This is a request to lift the topic ban on Tea Party movement. I abandoned the article in December 2010. After that I made rare talk page comments. One of the comments lead to my inclusion in the case. During the case, I participated in the moderated discussion and made positive contributions there. Before, during and after the case, I continued to write articles. The list is here, almost all of them on viruses. I've written 120 in 12 months.

If the topic ban were lifted, I would continue on as I've been doing, focusing on virology and virology related topics, avoiding political articles and politicized articles. These seem to attract editors more interested in engaging in battle for battle's sake, and I've no interest in that. Occasionally, I do vandal patrol and I would continue with that, and the welcoming committee. I'd like to help expand WikiProject:Viruses, but that will have to wait until much later in the year as RL is very busy at the moment.

  • @Worm That Turned:, I do have a specific reason. As I said above, I'm not really interested in political articles, especially the issue based, politicized ones, like Gun control, etc. They're time sinks. But I do have a particular interest in Hillary Clinton in 2016, as I sure most women in America do. I created an article on Buffy Wicks, who is taking part in the run up to Hillary declaring her intention to run. Before I wrote that article, I researched carefully to make sure the Tea Partiers had not taken exception to her in any major way (because of the Walmart thing) so I would not get caught up in something untoward. In doing so, I realized, that unfortunately, the Tea Party movement touches all areas of the American political process. It's ubiquitous, like dog-poop on a New York City sidewalk. They also have an especial dislike of Hillary. It's inevitable that I could come across an article and not knowing, end up in big trouble. That would put me off doing any editing on any articles relating to her campaign, etc.
  • @Newyorkbrad: sorry about the analogy, I didn't mean they were dog-poop, just that they are everywhere like dog poop in NYC. No offense intended on New York City.
  • @AGK: There is nowhere in my editing history after 2010, where I engaged on topics involving the tea party or any other other political arguments, or any arguments on any topic for that matter. There's no temptation there for me, as can be shown by my history. I'm a good editor on Wikipedia and am not focused on political topics. I'm not saying it's wrong for others to have that focus, but your argument seems to suggest that I've always been in the thick of those matters, and I've not been. You can easily see by my record on the moderated discussion, that I was collegial and always looking to compromise and settle arguments. I did not cause problems and did not engage in edit wars or get blocked or restricted, as many of the others did.
  • @Worm That Turned: What should an editor demonstrate in order to have a topic ban lifted?

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Statement by {other user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Malke 2010, you don't seem to mention the reason you want the topic ban lifted - is there any work that it's specifically keeping you from? I'm generally reluctant to lift topic bans without a good reason, as there are many other articles available for you to edit. WormTT(talk) 14:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    I may be naive here, but neither Hilary Clinton, nor Buffy Wicks would come under Tea Party Movement, which you are topic banned from. Therefore, whilst there may be parts of the articles which link through to the TPM and you should stay away from those. You should also exercise extreme care during editing those articles, but given the fact they are about to become very controversial, you should be doing that anyway. At the moment, I'm not seeing the need for any relaxation. WormTT(talk) 14:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Allowing a couple of days for statements from any other editors with relevant knowledge before reaching a conclusion here. My initial inclination is to allow for some relaxation but not a total lifting of the topic-ban. (A restriction against flippantly analogizing any political movement to dog poop would probably remain in place. :) ) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline to make an exception for H. Clinton 2016 or to amend the topic ban at all. This topic area is the object of irresistible, ongoing controversy and dispute; relaxing topic bans willy-nilly is not what we need right now. AGK [•] 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement

Plot Spoiler

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. April 18 Deletes the UN source which states that "the blockade...has to be considered illegal", and that "the interception was illegal." while leaving another UN report which stated the opposite. His explanation for deleting one and not the other was "Largely off topic".
  2. April 20 Same as above, no reason given for deleting one UN source while keeping another.
  3. April 20 he reverts with the edit summary "You" [2] he then reverts his edit, then the same minute reverts his revert [3] just so he can write the personal attack "you are an "obvious" POV pusher" in the edit summary.
In the above edit he does the following; he changes Palestine to Palestinian Authority (to delegitimize Palestine I suppose), changes prisoners to murderers in prison (false, only a few were), changes Israeli citizens to Arab-Israelis, removes source and text on Israel destroying EU funded humanitarian shelters, removes sourced announcement of settlement expansion several times, removed sourced statements on sanctions Israel placed on Palestinians, removed a sourced statement on the illegality of settlements, removed sourced statements critical of Israel in relation to the peace talks, and he adds original research blaming Palestine for killing peace talks and more OR on why Israel doesn't/there is no reason to recognize Palestine. In total, one giant POV push, so giant and obvious in intention that it alone should be ground for a topic ban.
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Warned on April 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
  2. Warned on January 2014 by Callanecc (talk · contribs) (one month after coming off topic ban)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The way he and socks User:Back to the ol' stomping grounds and User:Clintonbear have worked together these last few days is worrying; perhaps an spi is required here, though it is very believable as there are a few prolific anti-Palestinian sockpuppeters out there.

I didn't know that stating that an editor was making the same edits as socks/have their edits reinstated by socks was inappropriate, SPI is useless. Also I've never made edits about Arabs so I really do wonder why Sandstein is asking me to show him cases where I've edited against Arabs.
Sandstein, your argument that if an editor made an equal number of edits positive/negative towards both sides of a conflict the result would be a neutral encylopedia rests on the assumption that the encylopedia was neutral before their edits.
I find wikipedia to be highly anti-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. An editor who brings the encylopedia closer to neutrality would have more edits which add the International and Palestinian viewpoints to balance out the Israeli viewpoints. This week I edited 'Ara to change it from a Palestinian Arab village to an Israeli village, but I would not say that was a pro-Israeli edit, just like how I would not describe my edit from months ago of changing Atarot from being in Israel to being in Palestine as pro-Palestinian. In both cases I edited towards the international viewpoint.
Many Israeli articles used a map which showed East Jerusalem to be as Israeli as Tel Aviv, I replaced it with a map that showed Israel's claim of annexation but coloured the same as the rest of the Palestinian territories. This change was pro-International viewpoint, any characterization of bias relative to Israel or Palestine I reject.
I've made significant edits to reduce POV problems (POV was infavour of Israel) at both Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I ask that a knowledgeable and neutral editor, perhaps Zero0000, review my edits to see if my edits were anti-Israeli or pro-neutrality.
I make many reverts of POV edits made by IPs and "new" accounts in the IP area. Sometimes I revert one who replaces Israel with Palestine [4], sometimes I revert one who uses find and replace to mass change "State of Palestine" to "Palestinian Authority" even in the titles of sources, [5]. I would say that more of these types of edits are reverting anti-Palestinian pushers than anti-Israeli pushers as there simply are more of the former than the latter.
If one article is bias then a neutral editor will make edits to change the article's POV. If a thousand articles are bias then a neutral editor will make edits to change the thousands of article's POV.
Point out where I've deleted UN sourced text to make Palestinians look better, point out where I have added any anti-Israeli terms like IOF, zionist regime, or Israeli terrorist, show me which edits of mine were wrong to make. Sepsis II (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
@JzG: Did I assume bad faith about a sock? I'm sorry, please block me, wikipedia has far too many editors and not nearly enough socks, I'm sorry for biting them away. Sepsis II (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Plot Spoiler

Simple abuse of the WP:AE process by Sepsis II over a content dispute. Some additional points:

  • To accuse me of being an SPI is laughable (and constitutes a shallow personal attack). I have 10,000+ edits to date and 30 DYKs. Sepsis II is a single-issue POV editor. It's only made more ridiculous by the fact that Sepsis II has refused to answer my inquiries on multiple occasions whether s/he has edited under another name. It's quite clear by looking at Sepsis II's contribution history that this editor was not a "noobie". Other editors, such as sean.hoyland, have also requested that Sepsis II clarify his/her past editor history. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In my view, the IHH article should reasonably focus on the organization, and not digress too much into the legality of the MV Mavi Marmara and the Gaza flotilla raid. Gaza flotilla raid and legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid appears to be the more appropriate place for such material.
  • In his/her third point, Sepsis mischaracterizes the revert. It was a revert, I did not individually make all of those changes -- and Sepsis appears to be purposely mischaracterizing the revert to make it seem egregious in some way. There were certain evident issues with Sepsis's version.
  • "Before the peace talks began, both sides offered a gift." Where does Sepsis get this odd phraseology with the term "gift". The term is not used in either of the sources provided.
  • "Some critics believe that Israel is only trying to 'put on a show,' claiming the Israelis do not seek a peace agreement, but are using these peace talks to further other goals, including improving their image, strengthening their occupation of Palestine, and decreasing the viability of Palestine as a state free of Israeli occupation." Clear WP:Weasel wording. The source is a highly biased fringe commentator.
  • "In January, Kerry himself threatened to cut all aid to the Palestinian Authority if a peace agreement is not reached." Sepsis version deletes this sourced material.
  • Insertion of material that clearly does not constitute WP:RS, such as Mondoweiss[7]. And to make matters worse, it's just an editorial piece, not even journalistic reporting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sepsis cites the fact that the revert changed "Palestine" to "Palestinian Authority" as a sign of POV editing. This is ridiculous. The negotiations are between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), not Israel and Palestine. Using the term Palestine creates confusion as to whether Israel is negotiating with the PA or Hamas, or both. These negotiations are exclusively between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In short, this abuse of the AE system by a known WP:battleground editor has to stop. Throwing shit at the wall just to see what sticks is not an acceptable strategy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein, you are mischaracterizing my revert. I did not select the language "murderers", it was a revert of Sepsis's problematic version, which had its own POV issues. I did not yet have the time to improve other elements of the article because Sepsis filed the AE shortly after my revert. Crying wolf at AE within minutes is not constructive editing. Secondly, you are dead false in lumping me in with Sepsis as a single-issue editor. If you take even a "cursory" look at my edits, you can see a broad array of subjects - I couldn't achieve 10,000+ edits and 30 DYKs otherwise (uh, why would a single-issue editor create an article on "Dead baby jokes"?). The same cannot be said of Sepsis, so I don't see the equivalence. Plot Spoiler (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am quite accepting of the fact that I could have approached this content dispute in a better way, in terms of my edit summary and the revert, and I will surely be more conscientious and collaborative in the future. One revert is by no means though sufficient to merit any sort of topic ban. Again, I could not have succeeded in having 30 DYKs and 10,000+ edits in a variety of subjects without respecting Wikipedia rules. On the other hand though, Sepsis has openly stated on this very thread that s/he has no intention to reform his/her behavior[8] and that in fact his/her behavior is perfectly appropriate given the purported gross bias against Palestine on Wikipedia e.g. ":I find wikipedia to be highly anti-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. An editor who brings the encylopedia closer to neutrality would have more edits which add the International and Palestinian viewpoints to balance out the Israeli viewpoints." | "I've made significant edits to reduce POV problems (POV was infavour of Israel)..." Furthermore, Sepsis added on his/her talk page[9]: "we run a 10:1 ratio of bias:neutral sources in the IP area." There seems to be little hope for a single-issue editor like Sepsis editing neutrally and collaboratively given his/her inability to recognize his/her behavioral failings and seek to reform accordingly, as well as his/her ingrained view of how deeply biased Wikipedia is against Palestine. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pluto2012

I haven't followed at all the current "dispute" between Sepsis and Plot Spoiler and I have nothing to say about this one.

Anyway, independently of this case, I want to support the principle that is developed here: each editor, alone, should provide all points of view on any issue and therefore not favor one side or the other in the I-P conflict but favor a fair report of all points of views.

Generally speaking, I think that "topic bans" are not productive. When the idea of a restriction/punishment against an editor makes consensus among you (sysops and referees), I would suggest a different version of the ban than just a ban during a given period. Each conributor against whom "systematical 1-side editing" would be established should be asked to write a section of an article in a neutral way, in introducing all sides points of view on the topic. Until it is done and validated, he/she would be topic banned on all the other articles related to the I-P conflict.

My personal experience with pov-pushers, particularly on wp:fr, is that they reject more than anything the idea of editing pro-the other side. I think that constructive editors would be given the chance to come back very fast whereas true pov-pushers could definitely leave us...

There are some practical aspects to discuss but I think nothing unachievable...

What is your opinion ? Pluto2012 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Two more general statements: As the person who reported Back to the ol' stomping grounds, I suspected that he was the banned user AbdulHornochsmannn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Generally, socks are a big problem in the I/P area. It is rather discouraging to see editors, who you know with 99% certainty are socks, mostly I suspect of banned users, who "win" some advantage in discussion by their deceits. I think that whenever a "new" user like this one appear and participate in revert-wars, they should either be CU, or reverted on sight. Today, to put it bluntly: the structure and rules of Wikipedia favours deceit.

Secondly, about editing a subject in a neutral way: absolutely. But there are subjects which are "inherently biased" (for lack of better words): take List of Israeli price tag attacks‎ vs articles on Template:Terrorist attacks against Israelis in the 1980s. I hope that editors who edits articles which are "inherently biased" are not sanctioned.

On the other hand, take Benny Morris´s two books from 2004 and 2008: Morris gives hundreds of examples of #1: instances of where Israeli/Jewish groups attacked Arab/Palestinians communities, and #2: instances of where Arab/Palestinians groups attacked Israeli/Jewish communities. Today, an editor could go around inserting information only from one of those two categories into articles on Wikipedia, and not be sanctioned (or, at least, that is my understanding). I would hope such an editor would be given a topic ban. Huldra (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland

This report seems to be a consequence of ineffective protection of articles in the ARBPIA topic area from new users who start fires. In both of the articles for which diffs are cited, conflict was triggered by "new" editors with less than 20 edits. I don't have the IHH (Turkish NGO) article watchlisted so I didn't see events there, but I saw what was happening at 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. That Clintonbear's clumsy editorializing and POV pushing triggered a conflict that ended up here is not surprising. Without those new editors there would probably have been no trouble and no report. Will topic banning Sepsis II and Plot Spoiler make the topic area better or worse ? Probably worse. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

My initial impression is that this filing reflects what is mainly a content dispute between two long-term partisans of the opposed sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with each of them attempting to make articles reflect their respective point of view, talking points, terminology and sources. It is difficult to address a motivational problem of this kind appropriately on the basis of the few (incompetently presented) diffs on offer here, but even the edit by Plot Spoiler cited in the complaint, at [10], reflects at least two conduct problems: the personal attack in the edit summary, and the use of the emotionally charged term "murderers" for the 104 prisoners at issue, with no sources supporting the assertion that they were indeed all convicted of murder by a court. On the other hand, in their complaint, Sepsis II engages in the inappropriate casting of aspersions by alleging sockpuppetry without any evidence. But more broadly, even a cursory look at their article contributions reveals that both editors each edit articles nearly exclusively to make them more sympathetic to their respective point of view in the Arab-Israeli conflict and related issues. Such a pattern of editing violates the conduct aspect of the core policy WP:NPOV, which provides that "all editors and articles must follow" our policy of neutrality, which is incompatible with editing exclusively in favor of a particular point of view. On this basis, I favor a lengthy topic ban for both editors, with the instruction that, after the topic ban ends, they must edit in this topic area in such a manner that an outside observer would not be able to tell from their article-space edits which if any side of the conflict they favor.  Sandstein  10:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, I'm not saying that either of you are single-issue editors (I haven't checked that), but that to the extent to which you edit in the Israeli-Arab conflict area, you each appear to do so only or almost only to advance the position of the side you favor. Or can either of you convince me otherwise by giving recent examples of edits in which you improved an article by removing material that favors Israel's position (in the case of Plot Spoiler) or the Arab/Palestinian position (in the case of Sepsis II), or by adding material that favors the other position respectively?  Sandstein  14:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Without expressing an opinion yet on the substance of this complaint, I'd like to agree with Sandstein's thinking on a pattern of editing that always favors one side of the dispute. Regardless of their personal loyalties, editors are expected to be able to make neutral edits to articles. If they can't achieve that, they should move to another topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Two editors with obviously strong opinions, edit war over opposite extremes. The diff cited by Sandstein above is enough to satisfy me that this area would be better off without Plot Spoiler. Sepsis II has virtually no history outside of this contentious area, and their edit summaries are liberally sprinkled with accusations of bad faith. A plague on both their houses, I say. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nado158

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Nado158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22 April 2014 Removes official (referenced) Hungarian name from Temerin
  2. 22 April 2014 Removes official (referenced) Hungarian name from Srbobran (twice) [after a swarm of IPs had been doing the same]
  3. 22 April 2014 Moves Mitrovica, Kosovo back to Kosovska Mitrovica after closed RM
  4. 16 March 2014 Removes Hungarian name from Ivanovo (Pančevo)
  5. 22 April 2014 Edit-wars to remove {{WP Hungary}} from a talk page
Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) 
  1. Was already topic-banned for a year per WP:ARBMAC/WP:ARBKOS 23 Feb 2013[11]; informed by KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I think that virtually all (except those football-related) contributions of Nado158 demonstrate that he's WP:NOTHERE to build the Encyclopedia, but to make it an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND. Since his previous topic ban from the same area did not produce a correction in his approach, an indefinite topic ban might be in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Nado158

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Nado158

Why must stay Hungarian Name in Pancevo? The are not majority there or 20 %. The another towns you are rigth, i didnt new that can stay Hungarian names, if the population are minimum 20 %. I dont have problems with Hungarian name, be sure, but if stay Serbian name in Vukovar? Or serbian populated towns in Croatia? No. Why? Tell me why???? Dubble moral or what? I removeds this without much thinking, because the onother user was a know Hungarian nationalist who try to hungarized Serbian, Croatian, Slovakian and Romanian towns. Thats all and i did it in a effect like a reflex. If i remove Hungarian name form Subotica? no? Or Backa Topola, or Palic? If i edit in Hungarian towns like this guy in Serbian, Slovakian ect every time again??? He removed Serbian names and Romanian names....look his edits????? Nobody charged him on WP no one, but me, yes. Are the Serb name in Hungarian towen where life Serbian or Romanians? No. So what is the real problem? About Mitrovica what is your problem too? I didnt revert anymore, because i understand the result till now.--Nado158 (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user

It should be known that No such user himself is problematic user and political POV-pusher. Reverts of No such user in Srbobran article are of pure political nature and are not examples of any improvement of Wikipedia, but are rather examples of political POV-push. Nobody actually removed Hungarian name from that article because article have “Name” partition where Hungarian name stands. The dispute is about use of that name in infobox. Both, User:No such user and User:Brianyoumans pushing their political POV that infobox about town in Serbia must have name in other language, but in same time infoboxes about towns in Croatia where Serbs are majority or significant minority have no Serbian name in their infoboxes or in any other part of the article. And if one try to add Serbian names there, he is immediately reverted by nationalist Croatian users (or users hiding behind Croatian IP-s). Is this a fair situation? Any Serbian name from any article related to Croatia is removed from that article in the moment it appear, but in same time Croatian and Hungarian nationalist users and their “allies” like No such user and Brianyoumans push their POV that articles about Serbia must have foreign names (but they are not troubled by the fact that articles about Croatia do not have Serbian names and that Serbian names are all removed from these articles entirely, not only from infoboxes). I want to ask administrators here is this in accordance with NPOV policy of wikipedia? What else is this if not ultimate hypocrisy and implementation of double standards? The last thing about User:Thehoboclown. He is Hungarian nationalist and most probably new incarnation of one of the blocked Hungarian users like User:Stubes99. In practice, User:Thehoboclown post tag “wiki project Hungary” to numerous articles which are not related to Hungary in any way. These articles are only related to nationalist perception of User:Thehoboclown of what borders of an Greater Hungary should be. The second problem is that User:Thehoboclown also include Hungarian names for various towns outside of Hungary into many articles, again trying to push nationalist POV about “supremacy of his culture” and about perceived “future Hungarian living space”. All articles about these towns already have Hungarian names for them listed and there is really no any logical reason for one to use those names in other articles where those towns are mentioned especially because this is wikipedia in english language and because Hungarian names for towns in Serbia, Romania or other countries are unknown and irrelevant in English. If administrators apply any sanctions here they should apply them against other parties in this dispute too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Statement by User:Brianyoumans

It looks to me like Nado158 has made some mistakes; if they promise to be more cautious and non-partisan in the future, I think we should definitely give them another chance. I think they have done reasonable work in the past. After reviewing some of their work, I think both User:No such user and User:Thehoboclown are valuable editors, although possibly THC should be a bit less blunt in enforcing policies on sensitive articles. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nado158

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

This is not actionable based on the submitted evidence. The request does not make clear how these edits indicate a conduct problem, rather than a content dispute, which can't be resolved through this process. It alleges edit-warring, which is a conduct issue, but one diff is not enough evidence for an edit war. However, on this page, Nado158 and have engaged in prohibited misconduct, namely, personal attacks ("the onother user was a know Hungarian nationalist", "He is Hungarian nationalist"). For this, I am blocking them each for 48 hours.  Sandstein  17:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons License