Request concerning Alinor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ladril (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alinor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[[1]]

While under a topic-ban from Kosovo-related articles, Alinor did engage in a edit-war in an article related to the same topic (or to be more precise, he edit-warred over the same topic on a related article). Note the current sanction was for edit-warring.

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

March 4, 2011. Alinor was topic-banned from Kosovo-related articles for a period of three months [2]. After this happens:

1. [3] A long dispute over the sorting criteria for List of sovereign states ends in an informal mediation stage. A rough consensus emerges, but two users (Alinor among them) refuse to compromise with the majority. The mediator closes the mediation as unresolved.

2. [4] While moving to close the mediation, the mediator states: "I suggest that a sufficient consensus on sandbox 3i2 has developed here for it to be implemented directly over any objections. Those who might still object are (obviously) within their rights to challenge that action, but I strongly recommend that any such challenge not involve further debate between these participants, but be turned over to third parties via RfC, 3rd Opinion, formal mediation, or arbitration."

3. [5] Indeed, the mediation closes with thirteen users accepting this sandbox as a new version of the page to be improved on. You can see evidence of acceptance here [6] [7] [8]. The "3i2 version" becomes the consensual version accepted by thirteen users, while the two opposers (Alinor among them) continue to object to it without proposing any alternative than convinces the community. Note this sandbox was created and proposed on 21 May.

4. [9] Time is given for the sandbox to be reviewed and objections raised. Since no more users object about it, it is incorporated into the main article space on 29 May. It should be noted that the two opposers made no alternative proposals during this period, despite being repeatedly prompted to do so (they continued to cling to their positions made during the mediation, failing to compromise with the consensus adopted by the other users). The acceptance of this version is not implied to be a claim on ownership of the article or to unilaterally close the dispute resolution process.

5. [10], [11], [12], [13] One of the two opposers begins to edit war over the consensus version with several other users, intending to restore the previous version . An uninvolved administrator intervenes and determines this version [14] is the consensus version.

6. [15] After the administrator has made his call, Alinor continues the edit war, claiming no consensus exists. Page is protected after this.

On the talk page and on the mediation, Alinor has stated repeatedly that his reasons for opposing the consensus have to do in part with how "RoK" (Republic of Kosovo) is portrayed. Three examples: [16], [17], [18]. He is not satisfied with the current consensus but instead of following proper avenues for continuing dispute resolution, has engaged in edit-warring.

Alinor, during the duration of a temporal topic ban, knowingly and willingly engaged in an edit war in a related article, explicitly stating that one of his reasons to edit-war was an inconformity with the portrayal of Kosovo in the page. I argue that this is acting against the spirit of the previous sanction applied to Alinor. I read that in the previous case, where he earned the topic-ban, he edit-warred, tried to WP:BLUDGEON the process and did not engage in constructive listening of other people's points (WP:HEAR). He apparently did not learn anything from the previous AE, because he is adopting the same behaviour in this case.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

At the time of engaging in the edit war (June 1) [19], Alinor was under a three-month topic ban (set to expire on June 4, 2011). Appropriate admin warnings and arbitration decisions can be found here: [20]

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

Extension of the current topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In case somebody wants to argue that Alinor did not "edit war" because he made only one edit to the page, it must be emphasized again that an administrator intervened to restore a page to a consensual version after an edit-war, and Alinor continued the edit war in defiance of the admin action.

In addition, this probably goes without saying, but if my behaviour in this case deserves a sanction I am completely willing to accept it, no questions asked.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21], [22]

Discussion concerning Alinor

Statement by Alinor

Comments by others about the request concerning Alinor

@T.Canens, is there any obvious reason to treat this any harsher than any other 'ethnic' AE area? In other words, is there a good reason to think that this slightly different wording was deliberate? - BorisG (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alinor

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

One second. The drafting of WP:ARBKOS is....not a work of art. WP:ARBKOS#Modified states that "editors of Kosovo and related articles who engage in edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruptive editing, may be banned for an appropriate period of time, in extreme cases indefinitely." What ban are we talking about here? Contemporary cases, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Honda S2000, seems to indicate that "ban" here is used in the sense of a site ban or block and not a topic ban. Has Alinor been warned about WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions? T. Canens (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case log reveals six occasions where bans from Kosovo have been issued since 2006. Principle #3 says "Users who disrupt the editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from those articles, or, in extreme cases, from the site." This suggests that bans from 'a set of articles' were considered doable. ARBKOS makes no requirement to issue a warning before sanctions are imposed and no warnings appear in the log, though warnings might be a good practice from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could say, though, that those bans came under the article probation (Remedy 8) rather than remedy 9.1. I still think the latter is better read as site-banning/blocking provision rather than a topic/page ban provision. T. Canens (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG: date of the decision. The Kosovo case is one of the earliest "ethnic" cases, as you put it. You'll find that early arbcom decisions involved such odd remedies as "banned for one day (!)" and often refer to enforcement actions as bans rather than blocks. The more standardized remedies and discretionary sanctions did not come about until much later. There is also the problem of making remedy 8 superfluous since article probation includes page bans. One can certainly argue that the ARBKOS remedies are anachronistic (no required warning, etc.), and it probably is, but until arbcom "modernizes" it that's what we have to work with. T. Canens (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we formally warn Alinor per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions and call it a day. I find working with ARBKOS excessively frustrating. For instance, which enforcement provision should we follow, Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Enforcement by block or Wikipedia:ARBKOS#Enforcement by block 2? Perhaps we can request clarification from arbcom (except that none of the arbs who participated in that decision are serving), but I don't think it's worth the effort given that the general sanctions of ARBKOS would have been entirely subsumed by ARBMAC but for the additional warning requirement, which is not that big of a deal. T. Canens (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable (use ARBMAC from now on). The two 'Enforcement by block' clauses look to be competing remedies. The arbs should have made a choice and only passed one of the two. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection: I wasn't on the Committee in 2006 but it appears that EdJohnston is correct, that enforcement 1 and enforcement 2 were meant as alternatives but wound up both being passed instead. From the proposed decision page, I suspect that enforcement 2 would probably have been first choice if anyone had asked the arbitrators at the time, but it's too late now. I also agree, individually, that T. Canens' suggestion to use the more up-to-date remedy structure from the Macedonia case makes sense. If anyone wants to post a request for clarification to make this more official, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per T. Canens, Alinor is placed on notice of the discretionary sanctions provisions of WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions (with that notice logged appropriately). I've also, as suggested, submitted a request for clarification with the Committee, in order to determine which of the enforcement provisions of WP:ARBKOS should be used and which should be discarded. AGK [•] 14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Lutrinae

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lutrinae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

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

There are so many violations of the sanctions that I'm struggling a bit to know where to start here. This is a single purpose account who seems to be a textbook example of the kind of tendentious and disruptive editor the sanctions were designed to keep under control. I and others have tried to be patient with this editor but it hasn't helped. Intervention is now required.

This all started at the beginning of February 2011 when the editor started editing the Palestinian people article from dynamic IP's listed below, registered to the University of Hawaii.

• Special:Contributions/132.160.43.101
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.148
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.155
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.156 multiple warnings User talk:132.160.54.156
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.158
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.159
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.161
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.162
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.164
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.169
• Special:Contributions/132.160.54.199

He subsequently registered as Lutrinae on 28 April 2011, two days after the article was semi-protected because of disruption [23], much of which was caused by him.

Disruptive misuse of edit summaries

He has a very bad habit of using edit summaries that misrepresent the nature of his edits.

Here the editor removes reliably sourced, policy compliant material

• [24] ES = "grammatical corrections and a few removals of obviously contradictory information"

He was reverted.

• Reverted ES = "That was a deliberately missleading summary for contentious POV edits"

He repeated the edit together with a few more changes.

• [25] ES = "Khalidi and Sorek are both expressing opinions that contradict the rest of the article. Just because someone said it doesn't mean we can use it as a coat hanger for political opinions. Removed weasel words like "distinctiveness" and "homeland."

He was reverted again.

• [26] ES = "This user is again using deliberately misleading edit summaries in order to make POV edits"

He repeated the edit together with a few more changes.

• [27] ES = "Removing POV material from fringe historians Sodek and Khalidi. Their quotes are both used to imply Palestinians are "ancient" inhabitants of the land. Weasel words, Mr. Roland, look it up. "longing for a lost homeland" is inappropriate"

He was reverted again.

• [28] ES = "rv; your edits do a lot more than just remove two historians you claim are fringe"

I think the cycle was repeated at least one more time.

A particularly disruptive cycle

Here is the beginning of a particularly disruptive cycle. The editor removed information from an impeccably reliable academic source by Assaf Likhovski, a book that was awarded the Yonathan Shapiro Best Book Award in Israel Studies in 2007. He also removed 2 more reliable references.

• [29] ES = "PLO has a dual role. The Syrian-Pally conference was overstated before. The "prevailing notion" weaseling has been removed."

To his credit he came to my talk page to explain. Unfortunately that made matters worse.

• Here is the discussion.

Please read it in full because it provides an overview of everything that is wrong with this editor's approach in microcosm. Can I ask that only admins who are willing to look at the substance of the discussion and spend the time to read it involve themselves in this AE report please ? It isn't very long but it includes examples of the editor's extreme tendentiousness, the disruptive dismissing of reliably sourced information based on his own real world opinions, an admission that he didn't read the source cited, an accusation that I didn't read the source (...somewhat puzzling given that I added the content and source...please note the effort I made to make sure that he could see the source for himself), and the extraordinary degree to which the editor assumes bad faith. The editor has repeated his removal of this information again [30], and again [31], and again [32] (note that he refers to content from an RS as OR, a common theme). Before the last edit I posted a warning on the article talk page Talk:Palestinian_people#Stop_the_disruption at 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC) that I would take this to AE if it continues. The disruption has not stopped. He still went ahead with the last edit and he continues to repeat the false and bizarre accusations about having "caught me in a lie" about the Likhovski source despite the extensive discussions on my talk page where I made sure he could see it for humself, despite me reminding him of that, and despite another editor, OhioStandard, explaining it to him again. I have demanded that he strike the accusations. I don't mind what he accuses me of no matter how ludicrous it is and but he can't be allowed to behave like this in the topic area.

Repeated disruptive removal of pictures

The editor has repeatedly removed pictures, some of which are featured pictures, and has been reverted by multiple users. (see [33], [34], [35], [36] and [37]. I may have missed some. I had a discussion with the editor about this disruption on my talk page early in the cycle. User_talk:Sean.hoyland/Archive_3#Palestinian_pictures. It also been discussed on the article talk page to no avail (Talk:Palestinian_people#A_leaner_article_would_be_a_better_article.)

There have also been various other issues such as objections to his repeated use of the term "Pally" to describe Palestinians, his tendentious style of arguing without sources and what not. I will supply diffs if necessary later.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 6 June 2011 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

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

topic ban...at least for a while. Let him learn to edit in other areas for a while.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is not all bad. Some of his challenges have been useful (e.g. I made some picture captioning changes in light of somne of his comments) but he must not be allowed to carry on as he is right now in this topic area. He needs to learn at the very least to provide sources to support his statements and to stop voicing his personal opinions....and of course not making patently false accusations.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

Discussion concerning Lutrinae

Statement by Lutrinae

Comment by Zero0000

This filing is overdue. Lutrinae is pure disruption with no redeeming features. He can't even bear the word "Palestinian" which he thinks is a "ridiculous phrase" [39], preferring instead the word "Pally" that is popular on racist web pages. Please help him to go away so we can get some proper editing done. Zero^talk 10:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Lutrinae

Result concerning Lutrinae

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

• I will review this request presently. In the interim, I request that everybody only makes comments that relate to the merits or specifics of this request, and that comments by editors involved in the Palestine/Israel topic are kept to a minimum. Thank you. AGK [•] 11:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Having reviewed the Lutrinae's contributions (under all of his account names), it is readily apparent that this editor is a disruptive influence on the articles he is editing. He cannot seem to keep his anti-Palestine bias from affecting his edits. Accordingly, Lutrinae is prohibited (topic-banned) from editing any Israel/Palestine page for 4 months, and prohibited from editing any I/P page from an account other than his primary account for 1 year. (These restrictions are to run concurrently, and are per WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions.) AGK [•] 11:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Editor notified[40] and result logged at ARBPIA. Closing request for enforcement as resolved. AGK [•] 11:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could an admin or someone have a look at this User:86.156.129.169 and this User:86.141.5.100 and possibly this one as well User:86.154.7.171. I do not really know what is happening here but it does not look right.Seem to be new users who head straight to the same article.Some dodgy editing.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like two of them have been blocked just now.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In future, reports of sock-puppetry should be referred to WP:SPI or WP:ANI. Thanks, AGK [•] 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Headbomb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes

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

1. 2011-06-09 HP7 Pt 2 video game
2. 2001-06-09 HP7 Pt 1 video game
3. 2001-06-09 HP7 Pt 2 soundtrack
4. etc. - 5 articles and 1 RM filed as uncontroversial

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. Warned on 2011-06-09 by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)

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

As appropriate.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When I reminded Headbomb of the moratorium, he responded: "See WP:BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. These moves have nothing to do with the ARBCOM mess anyway."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Headbomb

Statement by Headbomb

This is pure sycophancy. These kind of move were never contentious, either pre- or post-ARBCOM crap (which I admittedly haven't followed). Proper titles either use colons or endashes (aka Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1. I can move Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows − Part 1 (soundtrack) (which has a minus rather than an endash for some reason) to its proper title [which is how it all started], but I can't move Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 to its dashed version? That's a textbook case of WP:BUREAUCRACY. We're to have some titles with their improper hyphenated version, and some with their proper endashed version???

Give medals to Sarek for blindly following rules and admonish, ban, or permaban me to your heart's content, but this is as far as I indulge you in this exercise in futility. Deliberate all you want, I won't read it. Enjoy your circle jerk. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Headbomb

• @Courcelles - I filed this because Headbomb claimed those moves weren't covered by the Arbcom restriction. If he had just said "Oops, forgot about that", there'd be no need to act further.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• @T. Canens - I'm not sure you can say there's a strong argument when the motion said "There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange." There's no "controversial" in there -- it's "everyone cut it the hell out until this gets settled". I don't disagree with the moves, just with Headbomb's assertion that they don't fall under the restriction.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it." That's all that was done here; and now the encyclopedia has been made (a little bit) worse through the action being reverted. This thread has to take the biscuit in terms of bureaucratic futility.--Kotniski (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur against any enforcement action at this time. I have no position in the dash wars, but it seems clear to me that these sorts of changes were not what the Committee set out to stop, and constitute just the sort of uncontroversial improvement to the encyclopaedia IAR is designed to be used for (on a once-off basis, it should be stressed). Skomorokh 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Headbomb

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

• Why are we here at the moment? Headbomb may think the injunction was a bad idea, but he hasn't violated it since being informed of it. Unless he does, there's no reason to even consider a sanction, not that I'm particularly comfortable with this being a "sanctionable" action, in the first place. Courcelles 18:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sarek; In my opinion, yes, they are covered by the injunction. the injunction is to STOP the edit warring for now, not to allow debates over what is and what isn't controversial; it is a fairly blanket rule that for the time being "thou shalt not". That said, holding an ArbCom decision in disdain is not sanctionable as long as one does not choose to violate it. Until and unless Headbomb makes further moves, there is no need to act, and no need for this thread. I don't agree with Tim, the injunction is a moratorium, not an invitation to assess what is and what is not controversial. @Headbomb, whether you support the injunction or think it's one of the silliest ideas ever, the rules are fairly clear for this period, and I'd urge you not to continue to perform these moves without first seeking clarification from the Committee, as written, there are no exceptions to this injunction. Courcelles 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Exactly how many pages of virtual ink do we have to spill on the precise variety of short horizontal lines to use? I'm fairly sure that most people, myself included, do not know or care about the fine contours of the dispute that led to the arbcom injunction, but I can definitely see a strong argument that arbcom did not intend the injunction to go further than controversial hyphen-dash changes. I fail to see what exact purpose a sanction will serve in these circumstances (especially in the absence of any indication that the editor has notice of the injunction before the move is performed) if these moves are noncontroversial, as they apparently are. T. Canens (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My take is that the intention of the Committee in passing the injunction was to stop the disruptive prolongation of existing disputes over dashes in article content. Unless I am unaware of other context, this was a correction of a perceived mistake in the title of a new article. Wikipedia articles are often created with incorrect titles, and I view the action of Headbomb here as being no different as, say, moving Obama, Barack to Barack Obama soon after the creation of the former page. Accordingly, as with T. Canens, I do not see what the purpose of enforcement action here would be, although perhaps we might resolve to informally remind the respondent that dashes are generally a contentious issue at present, and that it would be prudent if he were to abstain from similar corrections in future—at least pending the termination of the injunction. AGK [•] 23:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]