Request concerning User:Breein1007

User requesting enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Breein1007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, warned:[1] (November 2009)

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

• There has been discussions at the Template talkpage: National Parks of Israel. Anyone can clearly see from the entire discussion there that in the end the majority agreed to have either "occupied territories" or mention the occupied territories by name in the template. Then there was a RfM to move an article List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel to: List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories. You can see the entire discussion here, admin closed it as "no consensus" for the move: [2] After this Breein1007 goes to the template, removed what was agreed at the template discussion and claims "this goes against the consensus of the recent RfC" So with the no-consensus RfM at the article he changed the consensus version of the template to the no-consensus version of the article. I asked the closing admin about this [3] and he said: "I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there." I went to Breein1007s talkpage and told him this, and then he removes it from his talkpage: [4] And then he goes to the template and once again changes it to the same no-consensus version as the article RfM. Against the consensus at the template talkpage: [5] And then at the talkpage he says: [6] "And as discussed at the other article RfC, National parks "OF" Israel does not imply that they are in Israel." (misrepresenting the talkpage) "so please stop making POV edits with no consensus." He calls other peoples edits that follow the template talkpage consensus for "pov" while claiming it goes "against consensus" which is really a no-consensus from another RfM. And he did this after I pointed out to him what the closing admin had said, and he got no new consensus at the template discussion for the change he made.

UPDATE: Breein has continued to edit war and re insert the no-consensus version at the template: [7] He has done this twice now after that I showed him what the closing admin at the other article had said as shown above. He is removing the occupied territories when there is no consensus at any talkpage for them to be removed and then claims that he is "restoring the longstanding consensus." when its clear from the discussion that Breein is edit warring against consensus: [8] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a lot of discussions over several articles to change several mountains in the Golan Heights from the Hebrew name to the Arabic name:[9][10][11] The closing admin said there was no consensus so there was no change:[12][13](At this time the translation of the name was Arabic first, Hebrew second) Then there was talks about adding all the Golan mountains into one single article and having the names with a (/) next to each other. Breein1007 then went and changed the translation to put the Hebrew translation before the Arabic before getting any consensus at all for this change: "putting languages in right order" (once again misrepresenting the consensus at talkpage: "right order") [14][15] three times he reverts this and gets warned by admin, look at the edit summary when he removed it [16]

• At Golan Heights, a user had removed a quote and misrepresented the quote in the text, she changed it from the quotes: "more than 80%" to hers: "sometimes" I changed this [17] and explained this at the talkpage: [18] Breein jumps in and reverts, tells an IP "please stop edit warring, sock puppet. use the talk page as asked". But if you look at the discussion, the version that Breein1007 reverted to had no consensus, and Breein1007 himself did not use the talkpage as he had asked the IP to do: [19] He just reverted, inserting a sentence that the source did not support, that had no consensus, and that Breein1007 himself did not discuss about at the talkpage while asking an IP to talk about it.

• [20] Types "per talk" in edit summary, but if you look at the talkpage there is no consensus for his edit. He is deliberately misrepresenting the talkpage in his edit summary. [21] He also said at the talkpage that Nick did not "address the issue" which is exactly what Nick did: [22]

• Canvassing: A user goes to Breein1007s talkpage and asks him for help to participate in an edit war: "Need help to fight wih PoV"... Breein then goes to the article and helps him out in the edit war: [23][24][25][26][27](and has continued to do so after this AE)[28][29][30][31] And they were also talking with each other in Hebrew, in what appears to be about the article: [32][33][34]

• Makes at least 10 reverts to Gaza flotilla raid in 1 hour: (I have not counted the 1 rvs or 2 rvs so its probably more then 10) [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] (7) [42][43][44](3) When another editor warned him about this he removed the warning and said "ignoring comments from an unwelcome individual" He got blocked for this.

• Some of the warnings he has received:[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]

Incivility/Behavior:

• Behavior (talking about an admin): "There is this one piece of shit idiot admin"... "he has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old"... "I was kind of looking forward to making a fool out of him for a bigger audience and stripping him of his admin powers"

• Behavior: "What the hell are you talking about"

• Behavior: "deleting bullshit. the truth is that you have been brainwashed and it's really very sad to see black people who understand what it means to be oppressed spewing anti-semitic garbage"

• Behavior: "I would suggest that you either speak for yourself, or ask your doctor for an increase in dose of your meds; seems like your multiple personalities are acting up." (Then ads it again [60])

• Connects an ANI thread opened about him by coincidence on a Jewish holiday to: "the brutality and disgusting nature of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War"

• Makes fun of a user who cant speak english well: [61] (Although some have suggested that Ani Medjool faked his bad english, Breein1007 didn't know this. Its the thought that counts.)

• Sabotages a DYK: [62]

• Asks an Israeli admin in Hebrew to give him rollback rights: [63] - [64]

I find it inappropriate that Breein has opened up several long discussions with admins specifically about this AE outside of this AE request, instead of replying here: [65] [66][67] and notifies an editor who edits on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles to one of those off-AE discussions:[68] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[69] (November 2009)

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

Permanent topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles. His editing and behavior has been a long term problem within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. He has clearly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. He has been sanctioned and warned many times, but it doesn't seem like it helps. He has clearly shown that he cant collaborate with other editors within Arab-Israeli conflict articles and he causes a lot of disruption at them.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Breein1007 has since he registered his account in November 2009 been banned 5 times [70] all of these banns are within the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has also been subject to an interaction ban: [71]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Breein1007

Statement by Breein1007

Comments by others about the request concerning Breein1007

I can comment on Ani Majdul case and on asking Israeli admin to give him rollbacks rights in Hebrew language.

First, in the case of Ani Majdul, everyone on the ANI opened against Breein1007 agreed (including one or two admins), after detailed investigation by uninvolved editor was made and presented on the ANI, that he is most probably editor who write in bad English on purpose and that he's not the one he present himself to be (Arab refugee from Lebanon if I'm correct) both because of what seems as delibrate spelling and grammar mistakes, because of his style of editing and because even he presented himself as Arabic native speaker, he seems not to be able to communicate in very basic level of Arabic. Then, some suggested that he's Breein's sock. Breein seem to noticed the suspicious style of editing on Ani Majdul, he might go wrong anyway with mocking him a little, and there is possibilty that Ani is who he say he's, but the case is very complicated and Breein might feel that Ani mocking everyone so he responded accordingly but this case doesn't make it just to cast sanctions on Breein. If I'm not mistaken, it was monthes ago and the ANI case ended with nothing.

As for addressing Israeli admin in Hebrew. First, the nationality of one admin, let us all agree, is not relevant and we excpect admins who are involved emotionaly or at all in certain issues to be responsible enough to avoid any using of sysop tools in regard to these areas of editing or when dealing with involved editors. There is enough place to assume good faith here as I don't believe he realy thought Israeli admin will give roll backs rights without proper process and not according to WP policy. Second, Breein adressed me many times in Hebrew in issues which have nothing to do with Wikipedia, just because he seem to enjoy parcticing the language or something. He do it very frequently on his TP when corresponding with other Hebrew speaking editors in issues concern more with his everyday life than with WP. It's not uncommon that many many editors communicate with other editors in their native language when they have the oppertunity. Most times they even forget to add translation to English. I've seen editors communicating with each other in French, Arabic, Persian and Spanish many times before. No one realy think that it can hide what they write. There are enough very good speakers of Hebrew in both sides of the I-P area of editing and I can even name them. Some of those also have Hebrew tag on their UP. If I'm not mistaken, it was long time ago.

I don't intend to comment on other cases I'm not very familiar with, don't have time to and etc. Infact, these are the two diffs provided by the editor opened this case that I've read --Gilisa (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shuki The past few months had been a welcomed respite from the battleground editing that Supreme Deliciousness and his like brought to the I-P conflict on WP. SD was topic banned on May 1 for 30 days and the quiet persisted. It is apparent though that SD has refused to calm down and decided to turn up the heat again with this frivolous report, somewhat similar to the one he filed on me in April in the hot recent spring. SD is fishing here and with no real point to grab on to. SD was also warned about his battleground mentality a couple of weeks before that in early April. --Shuki (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already received a topic ban for something I mostly did a very long time ago:[72] If I now have done something wrong, file a new enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Breein1007 has just been [banned for 48 hours] so this AE is quite redundant, vague and again, frivolous. There is nothing really here to action on except getting a bit emotional and pushing the limits of civility, nothing to do with the arbitration case. --Shuki (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein1007s ban on June 1 was only for his edit war on Gaza flotilla raid article, what about the other 99% of this enforcement request? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NickCT This is slightly silly. Anyone familair with Breein knows that if one took the time one could provide 1,000s on examples similair to the ones Supreme has offered above. His negative behavior has spanned over a long period of time. That anyone would speak for him here simply goes to demonstrate the disturbing bias that surrounds I/P issues. @PhilK - Sup is right about the recent block being for edit warring. These charges are different. PhilK, I'm a little surprised you were so willing to block me for suggesting Breein was a "bigot", and yet, in the face of the language and behavior above, which seems far further over the line, you do nothing. Is this a double standard? Is there a reason for it? NickCT (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breein's disruptive behavior continues here. This is a pretty blatant edit war against the consensus opinion on the talk page. Can some admin take action on this AE before it goes stale? NickCT (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping

• Just a note for archiving purposes: The editor filing this AE has posted notice at the AN forum[73]. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 20:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more comments by Supreme Deliciousness moved up from below as per explicit guideline

This is not true, read the first part of the enforcement request, his long time behavior problem continued yesterday several days after his latest block on June 1. And that same block on June 1 was only about his edit warring at one article: Gaza flotilla raid, what about the other 99% of things he has done in this enforcement request? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B, all his incivility or the majority of it is related to Arab-Israel conflict issues, he has been warned many, many times but it doesn't help. And can you please comment on the first part of the request, the template issue, the canvassing and his behaviour at the Mountains in the Golan Heights, isn't this covered in discretionary sanctions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer about the canvassing part. Concerning the template, its name had consensus, and he changed it against consensus, the article name did not have consensus. So if anyone is gonna be changed to match the other, its not the one that has consensus that is going to be changed to the no-consensus one. I showed him the involving admins comment, and he still changed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how he can be guilty of canvassing when he was the one canvassed. Blaming him for that is ridiculous. As for the edits themselves, yes, it's edit warring, and if reported, the article could have been locked or a block could have been considered, but it's stale now. --B (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIreland, concernign (1), the majority of things here, he have never been sanctioned for, only the edit warring at one article, gaza flotilla raid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B, there has been many attempts at intervention. Look how many warnings he received, I posted them in the evidence. Look at his many blocks and interaction ban, all within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note for reviewing admins: The people in this enforcement request that have come to defense of Breein1007, (Shuki, Gilisa, Nsaum75, Jiujitsuguy) are people who edit on the same side as him in Arab-Israeli conflict articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• note to SupremeDeliciousness, please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. --Shuki (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The report is not frivolous and referring to it as such is not consistent with granting him the presumption of good faith. You can disagree with SupremeDeliciousness's interpretation of events or proposed remedies without assuming that he is acting in bad faith.--B (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Sorry B, about the use of the word frivolous, that is your opinion and you should respect that I have my own. I have no doubt that especially in this case, AGF is long ago in the past, and now he is acting in bad faith, especially since he does not seem to respect that you and the other admins have put doubts in what he thought was an easy case. He put a lot of effort into documenting old edits by Breein and seeing how doubts of his own intentions are raised and this is being dragged out longer than expected, he evidently is losing confidence in his objective. He keeps commenting here and feels the need to make sure that he is part of the discussion that you admins are having. The above 'note for reviewing admins' is utterly ridiculous and I am disappointed that none of you bothered to comment on this attempt to influence you on disregarding the opposing comments that have been left here by other editors. George actually commented on my page that my edit summary was not civil, but I will quote George about SD's comment above: it increases the level of tension and discord and makes finding solutions for problems harder. Abusive behavior is an indirect assault on the community as a whole. But frankly, how do I identify bad faith? The fact that absolutely no one on 'his' side has come to support him on this, and his demand to totally ban Breein from the I-P area, not merely ask for a cool-down period. SD wants to shut up Breein, and apparently Nsaum75 as well, given the recent comments left on his talk page. --Shuki (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B, if you follow the Wikipedia:ANI#Repeated attempted outing you posted , you'll see that Breein did not violate outing at all for a user that widely uses his real name. --Shuki (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admin please rap this up? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nsaum75

Breein1007's incivil behavior aside, I would like to remind the admins that that some of the POV issues that SD is raising about Breein's editing style, are the same editing styles that helped contribute to SD's topic ban in May[74]. Nobody is perfect and I would ask that the involved parties try to find a solution that doesn't escalate the already tenacious game of "tag" that appears to play out in IP related AE filings. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. I was topic banned for some comments I made at talkpages mostly a long time ago, and the admin who topic banned me said himself that: "the most compelling and disturbing behavior adduced here is nearly a year old." I was not topic banned for anything that I have brought up here about Breein1007. The comments I made at talkpages were mostly a long time ago so that was why it was a thirty day ban. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the admins cited battleground behavior and issues with "naming disputes" on Levant articles, and the POV "re arranging" of WP project listings... which does pertain to part of the accusations against Breein - because he/she himself has contributed to the revert-disruption at some of the very same articles involving naming conventions and translations; That is why I commented on it here. That is also why I think it is important that the admins keep in mind the "tag-team" behavior and editor aggressiveness (fishing, abuse of process, forum/admin shopping, admin canvassing) that has overtake all I-P related AE filings. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He mentioned battleground behaviour, it was some things I had posted at talk pages that was the problem, the things I posted were involving origins of things. And many of them were from a long time ago. I haven't mentioned any WP project rearranging at this enforcement request. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that someone like SD, with his past baggage, can bring a case like this against Breein. It strikes me as a bit hypocritical. I looked at the complaint and it's clear that Breein has already been sanctioned for the subject actions that gave rise to the instant complaint. Issuing a second sanction would be akin to punishing Breein twice for the same alleged offense and that would be manifestly unfair.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, Breein has never been sanctioned for 99% of all things brought up in this enforcement request. And his edit warring at Gaza flotilla raid is unrelated to his general incivility, battle behaviour, and other things he has done at articles brought up at this enforcement request, which he hasn't been sanctioned for. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, interesting comments from Jiujitsuguy who also left these comments at Breeins talkpage:[75] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that comment, and was considering raising it here as an example of breach of BLP, racism, possible libel and other unacceptable behaviour. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think comments on talk pages are subject to those rules RR. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those rules are applicable across Wikipedia, not just on article pages. I suggest asking Jiujitsuguy to remove those comments. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)"The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages". Similarly, racist or libellous comments are never acceptable in Wikipedia. My history with the editors concerned means it would not be a good idea for me to remove this; but I think someone should. RolandR (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected; however, as a rule I'm against policing user pages. I think it rarely serves to elevate the quality of WP. NickCT (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinajad called Zionists “the most detested people in humanity,” referred to the Holocaust as “a myth,” accused Jews of playing up Nazi atrocities in a bid to extort sympathy for Israel, called Israel a “fake regime” that “must be wiped off the map,” sponsored a Holocaust denial symposium, murdered members of the Iranian opposition and used his Basij thugs to terrorize peaceful protestors. Considering Ahmadinajad’s hateful past, the comments I made were complimentary. RolandR and ChrisO do you subscribe to these views?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These alleged remarks were not made on Wikipedia, so they are not relevant to this discussion. My opinion of them is none of your business. RolandR (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left Jiujitsuguy a warning on his talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by unomi

Re Shuki stating please note that absolutely no one on 'your' side has come to support your frivolous report. This usually means that they do not support it at all. above. Wikipedia does not function at its best when it is interpreted as a democracy, having 'X' number of editors jumping in and stating Agree/Disagree adds very little to a conversation and only serves to impede actual decision making, deferring to the mob. In cases such as these the evidence should be at the center of attention. There is simply no point in jumping in and me too'ing when the evidence is this strong, one would hope...

The fact that Breein was blocked for actions on the flotilla article does not in any way invalidate the claims made here,- that Breein is persistently acting in a manner that is in contravention of community norms and is exhibiting behavior that should incur Arbcom sanctioned remedies. Sanctions incurred for past misdeeds do not erase or even negate those misdeeds, only a demonstrated change in behavior can. Remember that we are not here to punish anyone, we are not here to ensure some balance of misdeeds vs sanctions, we are here to ensure a relatively constructive editing environment.

The gross civility violations obviously hinder encouraging a collaborative atmosphere, but the multiple willful misrepresentations of consensus and the actions of other editors absolutely deny it. I could understand if it was a one-off, but as the evidence collected by SD show, it is more of a MO than a slip-up; Specifically, using the 3 oppose vs 4 support no-consensus RfC (on a different article) to muscle through the 'Right ' version on a template is not something that we want to see.

I can understand that there is some frustration, but if editors are not willing to engage in centralized discussion then we are unable to untangle the misunderstandings. The general question of occupied territories has been sought discussed at IPCOLL the discussion has been widely advertised and many of the editors weighing at this venue have also weighed in there, except for Breein.

That Breein has so far refrained from commenting here, and instead engaged directly with commenting admins is, to my mind, deeply inappropriate. I urge all editors to work towards ensuring that our stated community goals and standards are met and enforced. Unomi (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Epeefleche

Applying the Tim Song rule of timely complaints, I fail to see anything here but a stale complaint. I'm having trouble seeing anything actionable within the past two weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But this complaint was made two weeks ago. It is not the complainant's fault that the matter has been strung out for so long. And, as pointed out above, the disruptive behaviour has continued even since this AE was submitted. RolandR (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Breein1007

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

Agree with Shuki - all of this happened before his block, so I don't think any action is required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think some sort of civility probation seems appropriate. With the rest of it, apart from what he was already blocked for, it's hard to make out a definitive "right" or "wrong" party. Some of the incivility is clearly over the top and on at least one occasion more recent than the block a week ago [76]. I would support civility probation. I don't know that a topic ban is warranted, though. --B (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anything is technically covered by the discretionary sanction provision - that's why it's called "discretionary". ;) But in the case of the template header issue, (1) it's silly to fight over the label of the template, (2) it's logical that the template would match the name of the article, whatever that may be, and (3) even if you presume that his preferred title was less preferable, two edits six days apart are hardy sufficient cause to impose sanctions. Regarding the Golan Heights "does Hebrew or Arabic come first" issue, that's (1) a silly thing to argue about, and (2) stale. As I said above, I don't see anything actionable except possibly civility. --B (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afriad I must disagree with B and PhilKnight, above. Although some of Breein1007's actions have drawn sanctions in the past, I think that this report, combined with even a cursory examination of Breein1007's contribution history, demonstrates a persistent pattern of poor behaviour that has gone unaddressed by isolated blocks. In such a contentious topic area, a collegial approach is especially important and edit-warring, incivility etc. is especially problematic. In my opinion, a topic-ban (articles and discussions) of between one and three months is appropriate; had I come first to this report I would have imposed such a ban but, given that other administrators disagree, I'll naturally leave the final decision to consensus. CIreland (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CIreland, having looked at the evidence presented again, I think my earlier comment was hasty. I suggest you go ahead and apply a ban. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree that anything beyond some sort of civility sanction is warranted, but the discretionary sanction says "any uninvolved administrator", not "any uninvolved administrator with the consent of everyone else who happens to be there", so if you think it's necessary, then do what you will. But I would also suggest that there are other remedies short of an outright topic ban. If revert warring is a problem, then a topic 1RR for this user would resolve that problem. Mentoring is available. A topic ban is not really appropriate unless the user is so irredeemably biased/disruptive/whatever that other intermediate steps would be a waste of time. --B (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am concerned that the reporting party has identified only one edit that I can see that was since the most recent block. I asked them on ANI to post those edits which were more recent than the block and they do not appear to have done so. That would tend to make the whole report stale... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My only real worry is the request in Hebrew for rollback privilege. You simply don't use foreign languages on this Wikipedia in those circumstances other than to avoid scrutiny of your request. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know ... people email such requests all the time. I think the only time I've ever answered affirmatively to one that was emailed to me was when it was someone whose rollback I had removed asking that I restore it ... but I do see such requests via email from time to time. Asking for it in Hebrew can't be any worse than an emailed request. --B (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a conflict between two approaches to arbitration enforcement here, both of which are legitimate.

1. One approach treats this in a similar manner to a report at WP:AN3, in which one would not sanction twice for the same incident. According to this approach, we would only give weight to problems since the most recent block.
2. The other approach deals with this report in a similar manner to that used in arbitration - the arbitration committee considers patterns of prior blocks in its findings of fact and imposes remedies accordingly.

When I advocated a topic-ban, above, it was largely on the basis of the second approach because I don't think adminstrators imposing run-of-the-mill 3RR blocks would necessarily look at the overall picture. By contrast, looking at an editor's contribution history overall is what I think should occur at arbitration enforcement. CIreland (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to CIreland --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that option #2 is more appropriate in general, my concern is (1) there hasn't been a real attempt at intervention and (2) much of the conduct submitted seems more along the lines of a petty squabble than a problem that requires a topic ban. That is why I suggest civility parole and topic 1RR. --B (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to B --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:ANI#Repeated attempted outing, I withdraw my objections to harsher sanctions. This behavior is clearly unacceptable. --B (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to B per WP:ANI#Repeated attempted outing --Shuki (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support some kind of strong 1RR restriction or (probably unnecessary at the moment) a topic ban. A quick purusal of Breein1007's editing patterns, even in the last few days (when he must know he's in hot water), shows that he has serious issues with edit-warring on, well, basically every article he chooses to edit. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My collegues above find at least some of this actionable, and I don't doubt that they are right, and have no problem with any action being taken. But I have tried to read and understand it to the degree necessary to come to a decision about the whole picture within a reasonable time, and failed. That's because the request is too long and argumentative and contains too many ill-structured issues and (undated!) diffs and in general is presented in a manner that is not amenable to easy review, especially at the beginning, where it is not made clear why this is more than a number of content disputes. This may be a reason why this case is not moving along. The more complex a case, the more carefully it needs to be presented. In general, with respect to arbitration enforcement approaches, I agree with CIreland that an editor's entire history should always be taken into consideration.  Sandstein  21:31, 17 June 2010 (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 Epeefleche

User requesting enforcement

  Cs32en Talk to me  19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

[84] First revert (of this edit, June 17, 00:34). Among a number of other changes, Epeefleche changed an information sourced to Der Spiegel, writing: "Der Spiegel opined that [...]". Note that the article is not an opinion piece, and that it is not attributed to the journal itself, but to its authors.

[85] Second revert (of this edit, June 17, 18:30). Cites BLP concerns, although the information cannot be in any way reasonably be construed as disparaging or libellous. It also does not infringe on the privacy of the persons.

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

Not applicable. 1 RR warning at the top of the article's talk page.

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

24 hour block.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have restored the previous version of the text after Epeefleche's first revert. Epeefleche does not cite BLP concerns in his first edit.

• Epeefleche argues that Der Spiegel failed to provide a source. Of course, Der Spiegel, as a reliable source, vouches for the accuracy of the information. On the other hand, if Der Spiegel had referred to another source (e.g. "According to Mr. XY, the persons hold friendly views towards Israel."), then Der Spiegel would actually not vouch for the accuracy of the information itself, but only for the fact that XY holds this view. Epeefleches demand that reliable sources would need to provide further sources is unreasonable, because this third source would of course need to provide a fourth source, so we would end up in an infinite loop.
• Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial. This would need to be demonstrated with reliable sources, disagreements between Wikipedia editors do not make an information controversial.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• An analysis published by the BBC states: "And the two foreign observers who have been appointed are seen as friends of Israel." BBC: Israel Gaza probe criticised by Turkey and Palestinians  Cs32en Talk to me  11:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning Epeefleche

Statement by Epeefleche

• First, I agree with the statements by others so far to the effect that there was no violation.

Second, I might as well make a point that the others didn't even see need to get to. As I would hope nom already knows, wp:BLP is not limited, as he would have others believe, to statements that are "disparaging or libelous" or "infringe on ... privacy". Where did that come from? Did nom just make that up?

The guideline itself, which I had referred to, says something quite different. In just its second paragraph, using bolding to aid the lazy-eyed editor, it states:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

And later, similarly, it instructs us (emphasis added, here) to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is certainly contentious material. It is certainly poorly sourced. All for reasons I alluded to in my edit summary and on the talk page.

Those reasons included my observations that Der Spiegel failed to indicate the source for the statement. Failed even indicate to that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to the views of persons (as though they are known by Der Spiegel, and specifically that their current views at the time of the writing/reading are known). Given the circumstances, it of course a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question the persons' objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I removed it, as indeed I or others should have done post-haste earlier. I also offered that others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules.

As wp:blp further makes clear, this applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Nom's misleading statement asserting that it need be libelous or disparaging is simply flat-out wrong.

I wonder if it might perhaps not be better in the future for nom to read the actual language of the guidance alluded to by the editor whose edit he dislikes, and whose editing rights he seeks to chill, rather than concoct new language of his own and pass it off as the guidance.

That might have the additional salutary effect of preventing him from introducing BLP violations into articles, as he has done here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom -- I remain concerned with your having mis-stated what wp:blp says.

As to your more recent comments, which fail to address the points the rest of us have made -- you are correct that I did not cite BLP concerns in my first edit. Rather, at that point I was trying to make the existing language "work" by editing it. But upon my attention being drawn to it a second time, I saw just how unworkable it was from a BLP perspective. I re-read wp:blp, and acted as the guidance directed. Had I been better, I would have immediately seen the problem when I first looked at the phrase.

Reliable sources, when they are doing their work properly -- even in Germany -- indicate who their sources are or the nature of their source in situations such as this. Even if the source is "an unnamed government official", or "a professor who speaks only on a promise of anonymity". Here we have nothing of the sort. Nada. Zippo. Zilch. It is a poorly sourced accusation.

Worse yet, it's an accusation as to the persons' states of mind. Who can know that? They can. But we have no quote of them saying it. Or they could have said that their state of mind is x. Nor do we have that. Where something is true and notable, as well as controversial, you need better sourcing than that. Yet, what we have here is the German paper making an assertion as to their state of mind being known (by whom? how? by the Der Spiegel writer? by their mother? by a fortune teller?) to be x. Simply stated, this isn't only poor sourcing, it is rather embarrassing journalism from the German paper. Try reading the NY Times or the Washington Post one day, on an article relating to this conflict, and see how statements such as this are handled. That's what RSs do, when they are sourcing properly.

Your last point is ridiculous. You write: "Epeefleche has not shown how the information would be controversial." Ummmm .... let's see. These people were appointed to a commission in which the hope would be that they would be "honest brokers". These accusations by the German paper charge that the honest brokers' state of mind is already inclined one way, which is other than what one would hope for from an honest broker. You didn't think that through? Or you're still slapping your hands on your thighs as you think of the absurdity of what you wrote, wondering if you can mislead anyone with it.

You have to re-read wp:blp. The material is ipso facto controversial, under res ipsa loquitur. As the guidance makes clear, the onus is on you to support the controversial BLP addition, something you've failed to do.

In short, you have a German paper stating as fact what the state of mind of these people is known to be. Without saying who knows it. Or how they know it. And the German paper fails to give us any clues in that regard. If it's so well-known, show me an RS that says they said their state of mind is x. Otherwise, its a BLP violation for you to insist on casting aspersions on the character/thought process of these people with a source-less bald statement by the Germans.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Epeefleche

Comment by Malik Shabazz

Can you clarify why these edits are reverts by identifying the previous versions to which Epeefleche reverted? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the generally difficult editing situation at the article, and editors are often trying to evade a narrower interpretation of "revert", a broad interpretation is being applied at this article. Help:Reverting explains that "reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors". Any narrower interpretation of what constitutes a revert would be meaningless, as it could easily be gamed by more experienced editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

In my opinion, the first edit is simply an edit, not a revert. Epeefleche seems to be copy-editing and following WP:Words to avoid. He attributed the view that the observers are considered to be pro-Israel to Der Spiegel, which is appropriate in my view; a statement of fact in Wikipedia's editorial voice that the observers are "known" to be pro-Israel raises a WP:REDFLAG to me, and it should be sourced to something more substantial than a single newspaper article.

The second edit is more "iffy". Stating as fact, in the editorial voice, that a living person has "exceptionally friendly views towards Israel" may be a BLP issue. It seems like gaming the system that Epeefleche decided to remove the sentence rather than revert to his previous version (attributing the opinion to Der Spiegel). Still, I don't see two reverts here, only one. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the interpretation of revert that has generally been applied to the article. It's not necessarily the best interpretation. For example, I would distinguish between changes that push towards a particular viewpoint and changes that aim at finding a consensus between different viewpoints. In this case, it may be appropriate to use an inline citation ("According to Der Spiegel, [...]"), per Wikipedia:BLP#Challenged or likely to be challenged. We cannot write "Der Spiegel opined [...]", however, as this is not an opinion, but a piece of information about the assessment of third parties with regard to both persons.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that "According to Der Spiegel" is better than "Der Spiegel opined", but that seems like word-smithing to me. In my opinion, Epeefleche was correcting a POV problem by attributing the view to Der Spiegel, although (as you say) not in the best possible way. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Der Spiegel opined" would imply that this would be Der Spiegel's opinion. We do not have any information about the opinion of Der Spiegel on this issue, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now think the last point (that we don't know this is Der Spiegel's opinon) is correct. We don't know that it is Der Spiegel's opinion. Nor do we have any clue whose opinion it is. Or whether they are notable. Or whether there is any reason to believe that they know the thoughts of these people. Which is precisely why it is a BLP violation for my German friend to seek to push Der Spiegel's unsourced commentary as to the state of mind of these people into the article as fact (or even as some unknown person's opinion). wp:blp makes very clear what we should do with such poorly sourced aspersions -- they don't belong in wikipedia articles. If it's true, get a good source. If its true, that should be easy enough.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trimble is a member of a pro-Israel faction in the U.K.'s House of Lords, and Watkin has converted to Judaism several years ago. Not a definite proof by itself, of course, but an indication that the information given by Der Spiegel is not in any way far fetched.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Not anything approaching proof. Ever hear about Dan Burros? Bobby Fischer? The founder of Revolution Muslim? Etc., etc., etc. We don't put in "not far-fetched" controversial material into BPS, unless they have good support. This does not.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced to a reliable source, and there are no indications that the information would be wrong. Furthermore, the information does not cast any negative light on the individuals (it may put into question Israel's wisdom to choose these two individuals for that specific task, of course), so an increased threshold for inclusion is not warranted. Having a friendly view of Israel is not a crime, as you would probably agree.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard about Dan Burros, or the founder of Revolution Muslim. I've heard about Bobby Fischer, though. None of these people converted to Judaism or launched a pro-Israeli group, so you might want to explain how they are, in your view, related to the issue at hand.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now you have. Want to read about an entire anti-Israel highly religious Jewish sect? Read about Neturei karta. Your equating Jewish with pro-Israel strikes me as a somewhat sheltered view. Do you by analogy think it might be a bit boorish -- at best, if I were to say that since one is a German, it's an indication that "it is not in any way far fetched" for me to say that the person is a Nazi, or that Der Spiegel says his is known to be a Nazi .... though Der Spiegel fails to say who knows the person to be a Nazi, or even whether they themselves know the person to be a Nazi, or whether their plumber is the one of that view? Of course that would be utterly absurd. I'm sure there are people who conflate German with Nazi, but those people don't belong editing articles on that mistaken basis. Nor does your conflating Jewish with pro-Israel (or Arab with pro-Hamas, or Black with being a good basketball player) belong here. Your comment conflating Jewish with pro-Israeli is, at best, shallow and uninformed. At worst, it's more than that. I'm sure you are a great person, but the comment is far from appropriate, and reflects little understanding. As to why that comment is poorly sourced on its face, I've already explained. It's the sort of phrase the wiki "by whom" tag would apply to if the statement were not relative to living people, raising BLP concerns. Since it does raise BLP concerns, it's improper, and any further efforts by you to include the BLP violation will be an (additional) BLP violation on your part.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to respond to your insinuations here. This is not the appropriate place to discuss them. I'm asking you to tone your language, however.  Cs32en Talk to me  05:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy

Is this really the right place for this? Even if there were in fact two reverts, WP:General sanctions says "Any uninvolved administrator may impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". (emphasis mine)
Is an editor with no prior blocks who made two reverts repeatedly or seriously violating policy? This looks like abuse of process to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was placed under 1RR by NW. PhilKnight (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the article is placed under 1RR. My question is whether Arbitration Enforcement is the right place to deal with a single instance of a possible 1RR violation by an editor with a clean record who has not repeatedly or seriously violated policy. I think you're setting a bad precedent here, but that's up to you. I just want to know what the correct procedures are for future reference. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with my comment below? PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My question is procedural, it doesn't matter if he did or didn't actually violate 1RR. Is this board the place for serious stuff and repeat offenders or just any run of the mill violation of policy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When Elonka placed a page under 0RR, ArbCom endorsed this was a legitimate use of discretionary sanctions, so I don't think a significant precedent is being set here. Also, I think any breach of a 0RR / 1RR restriction can be reported here. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Epeefleche

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

Cs32en, Malik Shabazz is correct. In order for these two edits to count as reverts, you must provide diffs of the action(s) they are reverts of. If such diffs are not provided, this request is not actionable.  Sandstein  21:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat borderline case, both in regards to whether 2 reverts were made, and whether there is a BLP exemption regarding the second edit. Overall I don't think a block is appropriate in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with PhilKnight. The argument that the first edit was a revert is borderline at best, and coupled with the legitimate BLP concerns, I don't think a block is warranted. T. Canens (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2010 (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 Physchim62

User requesting enforcement

Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

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

 

1. [89] This edit was made before the sanctions notice, but it is provided as context for the next diff. The editor is seen dehumanizing one side in the conflict.
   
2. [90] The editor supports the earlier comment (after the ARBPIA notice), and repeats the insults.

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

 

1. [91] Warning by Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
   
2. [92] Warning/request by Zuchinni one (talk · contribs)
3. Additionally, the page has a notice at the top warning all editors about ARBPIA (brought to my attention here)

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

Topic ban or final warning (see comments)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I apologize in advance for making a request two days after the last relevant edit (AFAIK), and for making it at a time when this page is flooded with ARBPIA-related requests. However, I believe that these comments are so far out of line that they had to be reported when noticed. Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol, and I fear that turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at. Since the editor in question is not new on Wikipedia by any means, I believe that he should have known better, but concede that he does not seem to edit I–P articles often and therefore a warning would suffice provided he retracts the comments.

Additional diffs provided by editors here of inappropriate behavior on the same topic area (but happened before the ARBPIA notice): [93] (personal attack), [94] (implying that Israel is an insane country)

Replies to Cs32en

It is incorrect to say that dehumanizing a group of real-life individuals is not a violation of Wikipedia policy; if the editor was dehumanizing only the soldiers involved in the flotilla, then it's a BLP violation, as it refers to a very small group of individuals. In case the editor was dehumanizing all IDF soldiers (as at least one of the diffs implies), then he was additionally making a personal attack against other Wikipedia editors, such as myself, who are either in regular or reserve service with the IDF. Finally, making defamatory comments such as these against any group constitutes libel, therefore automatically against policy (including WP:LIBEL).

Replies to Andrensath

If Physchim62 does not retract his comments, the logical sanction is (IMO) a topic ban from all articles having to do with the IDF for as much as determined necessary to prevent further inappropriate behavior (the sanction should be preventative, not punitive). At the very least, it should cover the time in which the Gaza flotilla still makes news, which is likely to be several months (at least) considering a number of other planned Gaza flotillas. I believe such a sanction would have a positive effect on Wikipedia as a whole, because this editor usually makes constructive edits to other topic areas, and therefore his time and energy is probably better spent there.

Replies to Physchim62

Since the flotilla incident, on the Israeli side (i.e. "one side in the conflict"), involved that small group of Israeli soldiers that you were referring to, I believe that my statement about "dehumanizing one side of the conflict" is accurate. In any case, even had it not been accurate, leveling the statements that you have against only that group constitutes libel and a violation of BLP, not to mention a great insult to a great many people.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Physchim62

Statement by Physchim62

What we have here is deliberate misrepresentation of my edits. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to accuse me of "antisemitism", the usual cheap slur against anyone who dares criticise the actions of the Israeli government, and Epeefleche (talk · contribs) has obliged. It can't be long before someone tries to use this edit as "evidence" for my "antisemitism", so I'll save you all the trouble of looking for the diff!

The deliberate misrepresentation starts with the original complaint by Ynhockey (talk · contribs). I am "seen to be deliberately dehumanizing one side in the conflict;" and then "repeating the insult." No mention that the second diff comes from a conversation on my user talk page in which I try to justify the original words. At the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, I will clarify that my comments were directed against a small group of IDF "soldiers" who were onboard the Mavi Marmara, and ask editors:

What do you call people who deliberately leave wounded prisoners to bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun while actively and callously preventing them from receiving medical attention that was available?

The second round of deliberate misrepresentation comes from Gilisa (talk · contribs), and I apologize in advance for the length of my reply, but s/he has made so many groundless accusations and simple slurs that it takes a while to go through them all!

• Yes, I removed sourced statements about the IHH here, citing WP:UNDUE; WP:UNDUE is meant for exactly such situations, where information can be sourced but is irrelevant to the article in question. I could have cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well, but that takes longer to type; in any case, I explained my position on the article talk page, and have not engaged in edit warring over the matter. No mention from Gilisa of the allegations of previous war crimes by the IDF, which I would also consider as "WP:UNDUE" in the Gaza flotilla raid article [95][96].
• This edit was unnecessarily provocative. I apologise. However, as for the substantive issue of the ITIC report:
• It is not WP:OR to point out that the conclusion that Erdogan knew about "planned violence" before the flotilla set sail is not in the original report. On the other hand, you can see this enormous time-consuming exercise in WP:OR laid on by certain editors to "prove" that a video distributed by Cihan News Agency does not actually show IDF soldiers kicking and shooting an activist, as the RS claims. I concede that Gilisa themselves does not seem to have participated in the "analysis" of the Cihan video. However, s/he did contribute to this discussion about File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg, concluding that it was OK to use dispite the obvious difficulty in figuring out what's going on from the image alone; and also making nice little comments about "global jihad organisations" (implying that that would make it OK to let them bleed to death under the Mediterranean sun?)
• The piece I described as a "sick joke" (and also "not important to the article") was the We con the world video, put togther by a managing editor for a leading Israeli newspaper, for which the Israeli government had to apologise (see this news report from The Guardian). I assume that I must now have the same "political views" as the Israeli government... However, the comparison was made with the Kurdish Freedom Flotilla, an alleged attempt by a group of Israeli students to send a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid to (land-locked) Kurdistan, an "initiative" which another editor compared to trying to levitate the Pentagon!
• Conduct problems are in the eye of the beholder: I consider that the two editors that Gilisa names have conduct problems, but not so serious as to engage in time-wasting WikiDrama over them
• Ben Yishay's account of the boarding has been contradicted many, many times by later reports. Gilisa fails to mention that I was happy to accept a compromise paragraph which links to the account, but which does not include the contradicted details within the Wikipedia article. As above, it is not WP:OR to point out logical contradictions between accounts on an article talk page.

@Andrensath, I'd rather refrain from publically attacking individual editors over and above what is necessary to refute the allegations made against me; I don't think that such attacks are a constructive approach to improving the article.
Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62, I will answer in short as I don't have much time to get into details right now. However, if requested I'll make the efforts to provide additional diffs. First, I didn't fail in nothing, I'm not following all or even most of your edits and I don't know exactly what you did and when in regard to your one (or more?) non representative edit which you cited to argue your editing style is unbiased. I can refer only to cases where your edits were not comptibale with wikipedia guidelines, and there were far too many of these. Many times you interfer to get to consensus on talk pages by making irrelevant arguments and ignoring constructive discussion, for instance, and if you want me to prove it I'll look and find the diffs, you called one Israeli newspaper, listed in the RS list of WP, "liar"-without giving any creditable argument beside your personal opinion. You also wrote that the IDF reports are generally "spins". These two are only very few among many. If you argue you didn't used these words in the context I argue you did, then I will have to spend some time and to bring here the diffs.--Gilisa (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also like to add that in your last edit before this AE was opened [97], it become evident that you keep with the line you took about one or two weeks ago, according which there is no need for consensus on adding content to “see also” sections, although there is clear dispute there and kind of edit warring over some editors will to have the SS Exodus, a ship that deliever holocaust refugees from Europe to Israel right after WWII and was boarded by the British Mandat soldiers, to be included in while others (including me) oppose this idea. We all were advised on the article TP that editing without consensus is in violation of WP:BRD. You argued in this edit of yours that editors who doesn't want the SS Exodus to be in the "See also" section have double standards and that you didn't see any valid argument for not including it. This, inspite maybe dozens of comments by many different editors were made on the TP during the last weeks, you certainly was involved in the discussion and there were many at least noteworthy arguments for why it shouldn't be included. So, while AGF can cover your intentions, we still have a problem with your understanding of what consensus is all about and where it's needed, and that’s very disruptive-and seem as a problem you have in the I-P area only. --Gilisa (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you accused me in your reply here for "deliberate misrepresentation" of your edits. Well, I don't think I misrepresenting you and certainly not on purpose. --Gilisa (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above comments speak for themselves, particularly the last one. I shall reply in greater length in due course, but I feel that we have identified a couple of disruptive editors, and I ask admins to act accordingly. Physchim62 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Physchim62

Comment by Andrensath

I have to agree that the comments by Psychim62 deserve sanction, but the accusation by said editor that similar remarks were made about the IHH is worrying. If he can provide proof of editors making those remarks, I would suggest only a 1-2 day topic-ban. I would also be interested in the length of a topic-ban Ynhockey would push for, if one is applied. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 02:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What remarks about the IHH worrying you and by who they were made? This instance [98] of removal of notable sourced info regarding to the IHH ("WP:UNDUE" according to Physchim62) is very worrying to me.--Gilisa (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was not stating that any such remarks were made about the IHH, merely commenting that the accusation they were made worried me, and inviting Physchim62 to provide proof of them. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance that diff has to my previous comment, but feel free to add it to your comment below. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 08:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cs32en

It should be taken into consideration that the editor has not insulted other editors nor any particular individuals. Also, the first edit that has been reported actually precedes the warnings that have been mentioned in the complaint, and the second is an edit on his talk page, not in article or article talk space. Having said this, the language that is being used in the edits does not help to resolve existing controversies related to the article. Physchim62 should be advised to refrain from using such language.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that severe incivility generally directed is permissible? Racist comments? Anti-semitic comments? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point me to a guidance? Also, I'm not sure what your point is about the harsh insults being on his talk page and not in an article, or article space. Are you suggesting that wikipedia allows such statement in talk page space? If so, are you making that up? Or can you point us to a guidance. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any racist or antisemitic comments. Please point them out. RolandR (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Gilisa

I would like to first make a short reply to Cs32en: Physchim remarks about IDF soldiers are nothing different than similar remarks on US soldiers, they are very offensive to many Israeli editors, especially when made on such a sensitive article. If I'm correct, and I can't find the diff now but I will look further if requested, on 12 July, he also wrote that dogs should be offended when calling them "murder dogs"[99]. In any case, here are few additional remarks made by Physchim62 that may demonstrate better the need for signficant topic ban:

Implying me(?) and Israel (the country) are not sane [100]

He objected to mention the Israeli allegations (but not only Israeli and not published only by Israeli media) according which Erodgan knew before the flotilla went its way there are violent activists on it. Instead of discussing it to the matter of fact he chose to answer in away seem to me as violating WP:SOP and to WP:OR[101]

Continuously expressing his political opinion as a reason for why an edit is not acceptable: (“sick jock”)[102]

And just an instance of what may seem as conduct problem when he reply to Zuchinni who request him to change his rude attitude through him[103] and in his reply to No More Mr Nice Guy [104].

Calling a RS journalist article "propoganda" [105] as excuse to not include it into the article, stating that the journalist couldn't see what he claimed to have seen [106] and taking another source unrelated statement (not refering to Ben Yishay's report) "in contrast with previous reports" as indication Ben Yishay's report is not reliable [107].

I think he's a great contributor in other fields, but should be banned from editing in the I-P area and for two months at least considering previous warnings and his nature as an editor on the I-P as was very briefly exemplified here. --Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, if I may reply to the OP of this AE, my first reply here where I compared the offensive effect of Phychim62 comments on IDF soldiers on Israelis to that American citizens, and others, may feel when the U.S army soldiers are being called "dogs" in insulting manner, I was a bit soft. In Israel the military service is mandatory as we always have someone in the "neigborhood" (and now even in the "city") to fight with and Israel is a small country. So, in principle, almost every Israeli was an IDF soldier or at least relatives who served in the IDF. --Gilisa (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by RolandR

In an earlier case, still live on this page, a couple of editors complained about a remark on a user talk page describing a living person as a "chimpanzee impersonator", and then apologising to the chimpanzees. This, it seems to me, is a far more egregious comment than the one at issue here. The editor in question, who has been blocked several times, in contrast to Physchim's clean record, was given a warning not to repeat such comments. Under the circumstances, any more serious sanction against Physchim would seem excessive and unfair. RolandR (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland, my last comment on this AE, but what about WP:NOTTHEM? I can't see how one editor behavior justify the other one behavior, what more it's not related to any of the diffs here. I agree, as well as this thread OP, that Physchim62 contributions in chimestry relatd articles and so forth are great ones, he's a pro, and there, where most of his activity seem to be focused untill June, his record is clean and no one suggesting blocking him from edit in these areas. However, the concern become clear when one weight his editings in other areas comparing to his behavior in I-P related issues. Clean record give no immunity, certainly not for an editor that was warnned twice before specifically on the I-P topic.--Gilisa (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sean.hoyland

re: Ynhockey's statements, I'm not sure about the "Even in the highly controversial I–P area, regular editors are not used to this kind of vitriol" :) I completely agree with "turning a blind eye to such comments will invite more of them in the future, turning the already problematic I–P articles into an area that no regular Wikipedian can reasonably work at." Anyone foolish enough to try to edit I-P conflict related articles for an extended period will have encountered these kind of WP:NOT issues where editors express their opinions about the real world and/or other editors as if they matter and will probably have not complied with WP:NOT many times themselves. It ranges from polite expressions of personal opinion thru passive agressive (a wiki fav) to attacks, rants, vitriol and general nonsense. I don't think polite expressions of personal opinion about the real world are really any less irrelevant, disruptive and annoying than the vitriol personally but maybe that's just me. Setting aside the details of this particularly bit of drama, something should be done to discourage these shenanigans in general. Something simple, fast, and near zero tolerance/zero redtape based like one warning followed by a short block (e.g. 24hrs) if the warning is ignored might help. Just enough to stop the editor in their tracks, give them and everyone else a break. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jiujitsuguy

I think this diff [108] is relevant to the discussion at hand and speaks volumes of Physchim62's mindset when editing Israel-Arab articles. In response to a vitriolic rant by an IP user, instead of informing the user of Wikipedia guidelines concerning inflammatory remarks, he actually encourages the IP user and makes a crude reference to Israelis drinking the blood of their victims.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by CptNoNo

It is clear that the remarks were inappropriate. This needs to be clear to the editor. I made some bad comments months ago but thought at least some of them were acceptable. I received a sanction to basically not do it anymore or face some stiff consequences. Been doing pretty well at toning down since. Let the editor know that he might find it acceptable but the community does not and if it happens again it will be dealt with. Good form on his part at admitting one of the recent edits was unnecessarily provocative. It was probably the least problematic but it is a start. And since my proposal would be fairly tame any continued behavior like this should get some harsh results.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Broccoli

I don't think that Physchim62 realizes the inappropriateness and severity of the language he used, as this edit clearly shows. I see no reason to believe that a warning or a short topic ban will help in this situation. I believe that Physchim62 should refact "murderous dogs" comment. If he refuses I believe that a topic ban of 6 months would be the right thing to do. Broccoli (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Physchim62

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

The case has been made adequately well that the remarks were inappropriate for the encyclopedia, within the topic area covered by the discretionary sanctions section of ARBPIA, and that the editor still feels that they were behaving well in making them.

I believe that a one-week topic ban on Palestine-Israeli topics (article+article talk) would be an appropriate and adequate preventive measure to prevent a repeat of the comments and establish that the behavior was in fact inappropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (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 Varsovian

User requesting enforcement

 Dr. Loosmark  21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions, User_talk:Varsovian#Arbitration_enforcement_warning:_discretionary_sanctions_.28WP:DIGWUREN.29, ([109]).

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

#

[110] <Accusing other editors of calling him racist, not providing diffs. This entire thread seems like a harassment thread, aiming at driving an editor away from a discussion>

[111] <Personal attack and bad faith assumption - discussing another editor in a fashion that shines bad light on them and is not relevant to the ongoing discussion>

[112] <Unnecessary comments about another editor - borderline personal attacks, poisoning the discussion atmosphere>

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

{{{Diffs of prior warnings}}}

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

block or other sanction which would stop such type of behavior

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that diffs like presented above are unacceptable and I am especially disappointed by such behavior because user:Varsovian was very recently sanctioned by user:Sandstein and advised to stop claiming that people have accused him racism when they did not. It did not stop him.

Reply to Strife: Have you read the Digwuren sanction Varsovian is under? We are not talking about just reasonable civility standards (which is always somewhat personal interpretation) but direct violation of his sanction which requires him to provide the diff at the same moment when he is alleging misconduct of another user. He accused me of trying to divert attention from a warning I received. How exactly was I trying to "divert attention"!? He claimed that Kotniski is making accusation of racism without any diffs, is that not in direct violation of his Digwuren sanction? What exactly is the point of having him under such a sanction if he can freely ignore it!?  Dr. Loosmark  09:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Varsovian's statement: I am not quite sure why is Varsovian providing diffs from 2009. Yes I might have made mistakes in the past but I own my errors and those diffs have nothing to do with request against Varsovian. Just briefly: 1) Kotniski has not accused Varsovian of racism, but Varsovian keeps repeating that. 2) He wrote bellow: How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?. Mentioning that I was warned that week is not a personal attack, however implying that I am trying to "divert attention" from being warned is in direct violation of his sanction. 3) I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source. I maintain that my translation was accurate. 4) Claiming that I have a problem "controlling myself" as he claims bellow is uncivil.  Dr. Loosmark  11:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to V.: Varsovian is now stating that he didn't accuse me of deliberately mistranslating a source. Fine. Here is what he wrote: But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me! Why should I be "happy" that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source? In my opinion his implication is clear: the only reason I could possibly be happy that he didn't report me for deliberately mistranslating a source is if I would have really deliberately mistranslated a source.  Dr. Loosmark  12:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[113]

Discussion concerning Varsovian

Statement by Varsovian

Summary
The best solution here is that Loosmark and I are both completely banned from interacting with each other.

Loosmark's accusations

Third diff he provides. I must admire Loosmark’s front here: the gall he has when complaining about this post is staggering. Loosmark claimed that a Polish source “states precisely that he [the subject of this article] was in the "Belarusian police" ”. The source actually says “Sawoniuk, który w czasie okupacji służył w granatowej policji białoruskiej,". “granatowej policji białoruskiej” actually translates as “the Blue police in/of Belarus” (for details of granatowej policji see this article). It most certainly does not translate to “Belarusian police”. I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake in his translation and state that I am not “accusing Loosmark of misconduct” with his unfortunate mistranslation (despite the fact that Loosmark has translated the phrase in precisely the meaning which supports his PoV). But instead of being happy that I haven’t assumed bad faith and reported him for deliberately mistranslating a foreign language source, Loosmark instead reports me!

Second diff he provides.The same week as being warned he threatens to report me for stating that a if a man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is not Polish, another man who was born in Poland to a Polish mother is also not Polish. How is it a personal attack to mention that he’s been warned that week?

First diff he provides. No diff? Got me on that one. There is no diff: because the post contains a direct quotation from the post immediately above it! Let’s get one thing straight: if one said to somebody “you are anti-negro” or “you seem to have something against black people”, one’d be calling them a racist. Insert the word Polish or Poles in place of negro or black and you have the same accusations of racism. Strangely Loosmark doesn’t mention Kotniski’s repeated accusations that I am not editing in good faith ([114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119], a quote from that last one “That you're putting unsourced facts into an article, or dishonestly citing sources which don't support what you're writing, or putting off-topic information into an article just to smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against.”) or that the first post in that thread is “You have now made your second accusation that I am editing in bad faith. Kindly refrain from doing and strike out your accusation on the WP:POLAND page or I will request that you are warned of DIGWUREN sanctions.” How is a polite request that somebody doesn’t not make accusations of bad faith editing a “harassment thread”? Loosmark also claims I am accusing “other editors” but he has only provided a diff which mentions a single editor. What an unfortunate mistake.

Loosmark’s conduct and a requested solution
Loosmark has been warned of DIGWUREN sanctions ([120]), topic banned under DIGWUREN sanctions ([121]), placed on revert restrictions ([122]) and given a formal warning under DIGWUREN sanctions (“violates Wikipedia conduct norms, notably WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE.” [123]). Since that formal warning, he has in relation to me been warned again for WP:BATTLE behaviour ("Continued misuse of this forum as a battleground will result in sanctions."[124]) and warned again about being civil ([125]). And for good measure a 3RR violation ([126] [127] [128]) while he attempted to keep an off-topic argument with me visible. When I asked Loosmark to self-revert he denied that he had reverted me "even once" and accused me of making "bogus accusation." ([129]). However, after I posted about his behaviour on Matthead's talkpage ([130]), he self-reverted ([131]) claiming "returned the collapse thing to avoid the usual wiki-drama. i still don't agree with it and will raise the issue at an appropriate board later." He didn't raise the issue.

This all suggests that Loosmark has something of a problem controlling himself when it comes to me finds civil interaction difficult when it comes to me. He and I were having problems at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 until I imposed an interaction ban on myself with regard to him ([132]). Loosmark couldn’t resist having the last word ([133]) but since then peace has reigned at the article.

Given that the solution has worked well on that page, I suggest that it be extended: i.e. Loosmark and I should both be topic banned from each other. We will not be allowed to reply to each other’s posts on discussion pages or talk pages, we will not be allowed to comment on each other’s edits. We will not be allowed to edit an article for 48 hours after the other has edited it. We will not be allowed to mention each other or even allude to each other anywhere on WP (i.e. talk pages, discussion pages, edit summaries, AE requests, everywhere!). I believe that this action will solve the problem and am only sorry that I haven’t got the strength to simply ignore Loosmark everywhere in the same way that I have managed at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946.

Further support that Loosmark has 'difficulty' in interacting with me in a civil way come from his reply to my comments. He says "I totally reject the bad faith accusation that I have deliberately mistranslated a source." but I have clearly stated above "I assumed and stated that Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake"! Varsovian (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear: in the above I am not alleging any misconduct by Loosmark. I'm sure that when he read my "Loosmark had made a good-faith mistake" and read that as me saying he had "deliberately mistranslated a source", he made that mistake in good faith too. Varsovian (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kotniski
More of his gems about me smearing Poles (this gave my girlfriend, her kids, my former uni students from when I was working here with Peace Corps and all my colleagues (i.e. some of the Poles who actually know me) a good laugh). I will reply in detail to his comments when I have enough time to (probably not until next week, I intend to be sat in front of the TV this weekend) but could he perhaps quote the part of WP:CIVIL which says ‘It’s perfectly acceptable to be incivil if you are dealing with “people like that” ’? Varsovian (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kotniski “policji białoruskiej” does mean "Belorussian Police". However, the source actually says “granatowej policji białoruskiej” and, as we both know granatowej policji means Blue Police.

Comment by Stifle Please note that the comment from Kotniski which alleged that I trying to "smear a particular nation that you seem to have something against" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski&diff=prev&oldid=367250748), i.e. that I am anti-Polish, which is the same as being racist, was the post immediately above my post on the talk page. You really think that I should have provided a diff in that situation?

I'm reminded of a group of editors from Eastern Europe who used to tag team their opponents: one or more would deliberately wind up an opponent and then another would immediately report the smallest infraction by the wound-up opponent. While clearly Loosmark and Kotniski would never engage in such behaviour, we have [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] from Kotniksi and then Loosmark jumps straight in with a report. Against me of course, Kotniski's self-confessed incivility isn't even worth a mention to Loosmark. Varsovian (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chumchum7 This diff well describes Chumchum7's comments "But in its current state it is too long and argumentative and contains too few relevant diffs. We are not interested in opinions, we are interested in evidence." Despite being told that this page is not for long argumentative opinions, Chumchum7 simply copy/pastes his entire long (2,038 word!)argumentative opinion. Not the most helpful of contributions. Varsovian (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Varsovian

What we have here is a strongly POV-motivated editor who gives a very clear impression that his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to smear Poland and Poles generally (or wind up Polish editors, I don't know exactly what his motivation is). Anyone with an ounce of experience with these issues knows this - we won't make any progress by trying to pretend such things are not so. So frankly I'm not so concerned with the uncivility of his comments (and I'm sorry if people find what I say back to him uncivil, but Wikipedia forces reasonable editors to interact with people like that, so it's understandable if frustration and the desire for simple truth sometimes leads us to call spades spades), as with the inherent and unapologetic biased-ness of his editing. And it's not just him - there are other similar editors (you all presumably know them better than I do) on all sides. If ArbCom and admins really want to solve these issues, they must address the underlying problems of agenda-driven editing, rather than (just) the surface phenomenon of incivility.--Kotniski (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and "policji białoruskiej" most certainly does translate as Belarusian police - maybe it's a simple linguistic mistake on Varsovian's part clamining that it doesn't, but there is no way in the world that it translates to "Polish police" as he originally claimed. But I'm tired talking to him or taking any further part in this debate - any discussion with him (even though civil on the surface) is destined to consist of this kind of untruths and fantastic original theories. --Kotniski (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Chumchum7 here. I recently wrote the following complaint about Varsovian at AE, which I may get round to filing in standard AE format, if I ever get the time. Any or all of it may be used as evidence here:

Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chumchum7 could you please collapse your text? My report is about a very specific violation of the AE sanctions by Varsovian. Your evidence might suggest problems of another nature however I doubt that the Admins will be willing to examine it within my request.  Dr. Loosmark  18:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loosmark, I have no idea how to collapse text so please go ahead and do that if you know how to. I support your request, but repeat the message to administrators that we have a much bigger, long term problem here with Varsovian, who is playing a long-term WP:GAME, as I have detailed in my text above. I may file another AE at any time at my convenience, and anyone else can use the evidence I have earmarked in future AE requests, if the problems continue as they have for the past several months. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed it for you. Regards, AGK 10:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Varsovian

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

• None of those three diffs appear to me to be outside the bounds of reasonable civility standards. On the contrary, Varsovian is expressing himself quite reservedly and straightforwardly. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To Dr. Loosmark: I see now, this refers to [167], an existing sanction, rather than a general request for a new sanction. This is actionable; I will hear editors and other admins as to what might be an appropriate sanction. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not resolved yet. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]