Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the automated editing program, see Wikipedia:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Dalai lama ding dong

This has been open for a long while, and I don't see any major consensus developing. There is no action taken on Dalai lama ding dong, but he is advised to be cautious editing in the topic area and to be especially conscious of properly representing sources. He is further advised that infractions in the future will most likely lead to stiffer sanctions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Dalai lama ding dong User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ankh.Morpork 10:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 21:49, 30 May 2012 Adjusted from 95% to 91%, not contained in any of the cited sources. 00:08, 31 May 2012 Altered language prompting this talk page disagreement 17:58, 31 May 2012 Amended to 91%, which misrepresented a source (see @Tom Harrison), and amended language which was disputed here 01:48, 1 June 2012 Altered language Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 16 September 2011 by EdJohnston (talk · contribs) Warned on 18 February 2012‎ by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) Additional comments by editor filing complaint Dalai Lama Ding Dong has been repeatedly warned and banned for a 1rr violation and for violating a topic ban three times. Immediately after this ban ended, DLDL again violated 1rr. Further disruptive editing DLDD has continued to make egregious false claims to justify the removal of content and support his POV, which I feel mandates an indefinite ban. The examples below all occurred after the filing of this report. DLDD removed article content and an accompanying source, stating that he had "Removed claim which is not in tne source" This is false; the source refers to "the left-wing soldiers’ protest organization Breaking the Silence" which directly supports the content that DLDD unilaterally removed. DLDD also removed a Times paywall link and inserted a meaningless tag as a source. When questioned on the talk page by a third party, he justified this by stating: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with [not in citation given] or removed", referring to WP:SOURCE. This is false, the source in question was captured by Archive.org and clearly supports the content it was cited for. DLDD removes the content "as part of a goodwill gesture to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas" in this edit. He falsely states that "Removed text that is not in the sources. " The source states that "Israel’s repatriation of the bodies is part of a goodwill gesture to Abbas." @Tom Harrison DLDD has tried to minimize the significance of the Camp David negotiations by different means. The source that he introduced in this edit states that Barak finally acquiesced "to the mid-90s range" which was subsequently improved upon and "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank". Instead this source was solely used to expand the lower limit to 91%, something which only constituted an initial proposal but was later increased: "Barak and the Americans insisted that Arafat accept them as general “bases for negotiations” before launching into more rigorous negotiations. According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank" Additionally the selective use of the phrase "bases for negotiation" and the original research insertion of "via the U.S." inaccurately portrays this major trilateral convention in which both parties directly discussed these issues. @T.Canens Wiki policy states: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. I refer to Sandstein who agreed with Ed Johnson among others: "WP:3RR provides that "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors," (in this case, Shuki) "in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone." I note that you and others have disagreed with this though the reasoning offered of constructive "tweaks" is not applicable here as DLDD's edits misrepresented the source asides from introducing a disputed POV text, within a 24 hour period. This issue constantly rears its head at AE and I am surprised that once again you see fit to ask this question. Various AE's demonstrate how this policy has been approached. What exactly about this revert policy requires clarification and can you specify why you are of the opinion that this does not "reverse the actions of other editors"? @BHB These events directly ensued from the Camp David summit and are connected in the source presented and many others. Please see the Israeli–Palestinian conflict article and you will see that these proposals have received no mention at all and have conveniently been omitted. @The Blade of the Northern Lights You state: "2 was a separate wording fix". It was not a fix, it was a hotly disputed change and I remind you that a revert "reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Edits 2 and 3 were clear reverts of previous material. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning Dalai lama ding dong Statement by Dalai lama ding dong Entering new text is not a revert. Editor Ankmorpork makes continual changes to articles. I am not aware that there is a limit to the number of times thst you can edit an article, and add new information. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC) There is no false use of sources, as suggested below. The 91 per cent comes from another wikipedia article. The RS used was only for the re wording as to whether or not an actual offer was made by Barak, to Arafat, or whether there were merely 'bases for discussion' relayed via the U.S, a claim which is fully supported by the RS. I have self reverted the 91 to 92 per cent. The important point is that there was concensus, (including from the originator of this AE) for a range, not a single figure. Reference the claims above. See this source which I added in. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2001/aug/09/camp-david-the-tragedy-of-errors/?page=4 The figure of 91 per cent is on page 3. Therefore Shrike should revert the claim that I falsified what the source said. I have been asked where the 91% came from. It come from an update I made at the the 2000 Camp David Summit page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2000_Camp_David_Summit&diff=prev&oldid=495200868 The change I made there was to add in the figures 90–91%, and I based those figures on an existing source, this is the source. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/rossmap2.html From below. 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy. 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources Please note that the change made at 17:54 should have included the source, but I clearly missed it out, and did not realise for 4 minutes. It was added at time 1758, ad is as follows. Comments by others about the request concerning Dalai lama ding dong Statement by Shrike There also apparent source falsification with this edit [2] as changing from 92% to 91% but the source only mention 92% [3]--Shrike (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @dlv I don't see it on P.168 of the source the quote you brought--Shrike (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @dlv2 That not the source that follow 91/92 figure but this one [4] hence the falsification and appearance that Karsh support the 91% while actually he says 92%. @Sean I let the admin to look into this.In my opinion if there different figures each figure should followed by its own source.Moreover I think its WP:TE too change one figure for another while one of the sources support still support the former figure.--Shrike (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Tom That not the edit I cited .About the reverts as he changed the text of other editors is considered a revert from WP:3RR Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Statement by DLV999 @Shrike: From the cited source "According to those “bases,” Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967". In fact the the unsourced claim here is the 95% which has nothing to support it from what I can see. But for some reason this does not seem to be an issue for Shrike and the complainant. Dlv999 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Shrike: It appears on page 3 of the article [5], which is the cited source for the edit you are alleging was falsified. In fact the source says what the edit says. The source goes on to discuss further proposals that were made in December 5 months after Camp David which led to the Taba summit in January the following year. That is where the 94-96% figures come in, but to try to say these numbers were on the table at Camp David is misrepresentation of sources. On this detail Dalai Lama Ding Dong is quite right and the complainant is in the wrong. Dlv999 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Shrike, what are you saying? It was already discussed on talk [6] that sources do not give the exact same figure and that we should give a range based on what reliable sources say. In light of that discussion DLDD adds a source and amends the range to reflect his cited source.[7] and you say this is falsification? In fact the issue here is that the 95% claim added by the complainant is totally unsupported, but I suspect this detail will be ignored in the proceedings. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Shrike has refused to withdraw the accusation and now adds a new one. Now apparently it is tendentious to change "between 92% and 95%" to "between 91% and 95%" (supplying a source supporting 91%) because there is another sources that "still support the former figure". This, despite the fact that it had already been agreed on talk to give a range representing what different RS have said.[8]). I believe these unfounded accusations and refusal to withdraw them reach the level of tendentious behavior and I think this kind of WP:GAMEing of the ARPBIA administrative environment is a far more serious problem to the topic area than the alleged 1rr violation brought against DLDD. Dlv999 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC) User AnkhMorpork is misrepresenting sources in his statement. He quotes DLDD's citation for the 91% claim as saying "under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank" but misses out the all important context prior to this statement, "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended....The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank." [9]. To try to use this to say that the offer on the table at Camp David was for 94-96% is a blatant misrepresentation of the source. DLDD quoted the correct figure, for Camp David, which is the topic of the section in question. Dlv999 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by BHB @Shrike - That's a ridiculous allegation. The source given by DLDD was the correct source (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495330341&oldid=495329787) and it fully supports his contention. His initial insertion of 91% was made before Karsh had been inserted into the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict&diff=495200592&oldid=495199550) so the idea that he is trying to support that figure with the reference someone else added in later is complete nonsense. BothHandsBlack (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @AnkhMorpork - That is a gross misrepresentation of the source. It reads: "Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President’s proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians’ direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory." The 94-96% figure you keep stressing came five months after Camp David and not from Barak at Camp David. There is no reason anyone should take those figures into account when describing the completely different offer made at Camp David. Indeed, the source even stresses how much of a departure from the Camp David position these figures are. BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Ankh - I don't dispute that there is a place for these later developments in the article but you are misrepresenting them by placing them in a context that suggests that this is what was offered at Camp David and this makes your criticism of another editor for failing to include that information in an inappropriate context doubly problematic. BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Tom - That PBS transcript is a terrible source and surely can't be relied on for that figure. 94.5% is not reported by a journalist but is a number pulled out by a talking head over whom PBS has no editorial control. Further the 94.5% figure is not directly said to have been offered by Barak and is nowhere included in the news report section of the source but is, rather, a figure used when the talking head hypothesises about what someone in Israel might say if Barak returned with a deal. If that is the only source for the 95% figure then that figure shouldn't be there at all. The passage reads: "And [Barak's] going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank, you're - the refugees - and go through a whole long list -- and you're not getting closure on Jerusalem. So we really don't have the end of the conflict. And so basically he's going to get massacred at home, but so far he hasn't accepted the proposal in totality, and I don't want to suggest that everything's hunky dory on the Israeli side. But he's going forward." So it's just a hypothetical list of things and not even a list that the speaker claims has been accepted by Barak. It certainly shouldn't be used to support a sentence claiming that Barak made such an offer. BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @T.Canens - Tom's analysis suggested two reverts but you have said that you yourself don't think the first one is a revert. That leaves only one revert, which is an acceptable number. What exactly is the crime for which you are suggesting a 6 month topic ban if he did not breach 1RR?BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC) BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @JJG and RSA - DLDD's edit summary stating that no evidence was supplied to support this particular claim is perfectly true, as the diff shows. Indeed, there isn't a single source cited in the paragraph he edited. Now, it's also true that two paragraphs further on seven citations are supplied to support the sentence "His call was echoed by a huge volume of Twitter users" and that the information supporting the material DLDD removed is in one of these. However, it hardly seems reasonable to expect that someone editing the first paragraph should have to look for support for the statements there in another place entirely. So yes, the information could be found by following a link somewhere in the section but since the source to which you refer isn't mentioned anywhere near the claim that was edited it seems ridiculous to refer to the edit as source falsification. The statement he edited just wasn't supported by a source at all although it could have been and should have been. @JJG His actions certainly come nowhere near to the level of active source misrepresentation you have engaged in during this process.BothHandsBlack (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC) @Biosketch - The second edit might be thought to be gaming the system if it involved edit warring and waiting until the 24 hours were up to restore his previous version. But no such thing happened. He waited 24 hours to make an edit that was completely different to the one he made 24 hours previously, that took account of and maintained the input of the previous editor, and that sought to find some middle-ground between two sources. BothHandsBlack (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Sean.hoyland Shrike, what you are doing is wrong. It's misrepresentation. You have made a patently false accusation against an editor of "apparent source falsification" at AE, repeated in bold, when the evidence clearly shows that they didn't do anything wrong. Here is Dalai lama ding dong's edit. They put the citation at the end of the sentence rather than mid-sentence just like hundreds, if not thousands, of other editors. The source cited supports the edit. You should withdraw the accusation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC) This is the sorry state of the topic area. Shrike accused DLDD of misrepresenting a source when he put a source at the end of a sentence rather than right next to a number and JJG+RSA (is RSA even allowed to be here?) accused him of misrepresenting a source because he removed material that didn't have a citation next to it. The Fox source is 2 paragraphs away. People can do better than this. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Re. Jiujitsuguy's "Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. There is no need to elaborate" comment at 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC). There is a need to elaborate because the statement is a half-truth. The normal editorial process is breaking down in the topic area in several articles because editors prefer to revert rather than discuss. This instance cited by JJG an example. There is a lengthy discussion about this "invaded Palestine" vs "invaded/intervened in the area of the former Mandate" wording, see Talk:1948_Arab–Israeli_War#15_May_1948_-_Invade_or_intervene:_description_of_where_Arab_forces_invaded_or_intervened. JJG knows about it because he participated. The last comment about the wording is by DLDD on 1 June 2012. There were no replies. DLDD waited until 12 June 2012 to implement the edit here with the edit summary "as per talk page". It's remarkable to finally see some patience in the topic area. This is good. However DLDD didn't update the sourcing to reflect the change despite listing plenty of sources on the talk page. This is bad and it does raise valid concerns about whether DLDD is sufficiently careful about WP:V compliance to edit in the topic area. Rather than using the talk page to continue the discussion, JJG simply reverted to his preferred wording here with the edit summary "source does not use this wording". Although this is true (seesource) it is disingenuous in that it ignores the lengthy talk page discussion and the other sources available. It's an example of an editor deciding to edit aggressively rather than discuss and the all too common technique of cherry picking and the use of skewed source sampling to POV push. It's what advocates do and it's bad for the topic area. This style of editing needs to be eradicated from the topic area. DLDD reverted JJG here with the truncated edit summary "change is as per talk page, what thecsource says is irrelevant. See talk page n make your". It's obvious that "what thecsource says is irrelevant" is a reference to the existence of many other sources and alternative wordings as noted on the talk page. And it is a request for JJG to rejoin the discussion. There isn't one right way of wording this content. There isn't one source that faithfully represents the variety of wordings in the large number of RS that discuss this. It's not something that is going to be resolved by edit warring below the 1RR bright line. It's an example of something that can only be resolved by following WP:CONSENSUS. DLDD is trying to do that. JJG is not. No More Mr Nice Guy reverted back to JJG's version with the edit summary ""what the source says is irrelevant"?" Since NMMNG didn't participate in the discussion it's unclear the extent to which he was aware of the background but I think he too should have joined the discussion rather than reverting although I can understand why someone would revert if the only thing they saw was an edit summary that said "what thecsource says is irrelevant". Sean.hoyland - talk 09:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Tom Harrison This edit[10] cites page 4 of the article. The 91% figure appears on page 3. Conceviably this might have caused some confusion, but Dalai lama ding dong did not falsify the source with this edit. The four diffs don't appear to be reverts; I'd need a longer explanation of how they they violate the remedy. Tom Harrison Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) And one of these diffs[11] was rewriting an extremely clumsy and badly-written POV sentence, which should have been reverted when it was added in February. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 21:49, 30 May 2012 - DLDD changes 95% to 91%, saying that's what's in Wikipedia's camp David 2000 article. That looks like a revert under the definition, and it's a bad edit because it now makes it look like the existing source "Online NewsHour: Peace Talks Continue" supports the 91% figure instead of 95%. If an anon had changed a number like this without providing a source, reverting it would not have triggered 1RR. The article now misrepresents the source cited. 21:56, 30 May 2012 - GHcool changes 91% to 92%, and gives a source. A revert because it undoes DLDD, but not a bad edit that I can see, though it doesn't restore the 95% figure, which is what the existing PBS source says (rounding 94.5 to 95). 23:47, 30 May 201 - AnkhMorpork changes "approximately 92%" to "between 92% and 95%" A revert, and a good edit becuase it restores the 95% figure. The article now correctly reflects the sources cited. 00:08, 31 May 201 - DLDD changes wording. If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 01:29, 31 May 201 - GHcool reverts DLDD. That looks like two reverts in 24 hours, and so a violation of the 1RR remedy. 17:36, 31 May 2012 - DLDD changes 92% to 91%. A revert, and still not supported by a source. The article again misrepresents the sources. If DLDD's edit at 21:49, 30 May 2012 is a revert, and it does seem to be undoing someone's work, then DLDD violated the 1RR remedy. 17:54, 31 May 2012 - DLDD replaces "offered" with "put forward the following as 'bases for negotiation', via the U.S. to". If that's to be a revert, I'd need to see a version reverted to. 17:58, 31 May 201 - DLDD adds a source supporting 91%, though he gives the wrong page number. The page no longer misrepresents the sources. I don't think DLDD deliberately misrepresented the sources, but he was negligent. Because of his sloppy work, and his reverting to that same uncited figure, the article misrepresented the source(s) it cited for some time. This is more serious than violating 1RR, and I'd sanction him for this alone. His edits at 21:49, 30 May 2012 and 17:36, 31 May 2012 did violate 1RR. I'd sanction him for that also. I'm more sympathetic for GHcool, who seems to have been trying to correct DLDD's edits. He does appear to have violated 1RR, but he might reasonably argue that his edit of 21:56, 30 May 2012 should not trigger 1RR. It shouldn't be possible for someone to change a number without providing a citation and force others into 1RR when they revert. Tom Harrison Talk 15:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Jiujitsuguy I find this diff by Dali very troubling. Having reviewed the source twice, I could find no substantiation in the reference for Dali’s claim of 91%. Regarding percentages, the source states as follows; And he's going to get massacred when he gets back. People say run this by me again, you're giving up 94.5 percent of the West Bank Perhaps another source might say 91% but in this specific diff and with this specific source, the edit doesn’t jibe. I’d like to hear an explanation for this discrepancy. Perhaps I just overlooked something.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Moreover, I find this edit by Dali to be equally troubling. He again adds the 91% figure and that is adequately supported by page 3. However, he omits content from page 4 which states Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank The deliberate omission is misleading in the extreme and violates WP:TE--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Blade, can you please respond to Tom Harrison's very detailed analysis, specifically as it relates to source falsification by DLDD.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I would have initially been inclined to accept Blade’s view of the mountain/molehill analogy but for the fact that this particular user has an awful block record, all pertaining to edit warring and violations of P-I topic bans and all issued within a relatively brief time frame. His Talk page reminds me of my test scores in elementary school, full of red marks and slashes. And in my case, red was not a good color when it came to test scores. Moreover, No More Mr Nice Guy has pointed out something interesting and rather disturbing about DLDD and his editing habits [12]. During DLDD’s T-ban he edited articles on the periphery of the topic area, a dangerous game indeed. It’s quite obvious this user seems to have a rather unwholesome obsession and he will continue to engage in these types of shenanigans unless there’s some stricter enforcement other than a slap on the wrist.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC) So while this AE is pending and DLDDs edits are being scrutinized, DLDD again engages in source falsification as pointed out by Red Stone Arsenal here. So the first time he does it, it's attributed to "sloppiness." What's the excuse now?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC) This AE documents two instances where DLDD was either “sloppy” with his sourcing or worse, engaged in “source distortion.” Either case is bad though one is admittedly worse than the other. Now we have this gem from DLDD where he reverted to a version that was less in conformity with the source with the following comment change is as per talk page, what thecsource (sic) says is irrelevant Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. There is no need to elaborate.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 This is a very poorly supported complaint. The percentage thing (91 or 92) is an easily solved triviality; different sources give different numbers, big deal, and people who want to write 95 are simply mistaken. The last diff given is in fact a very good edit. The fact that AnkhMorpk thinks "The Palestinians have had their continuing incitement to violence against Jews and Israel harshly criticized by Israeli officials and other political figure" is better than "Israeli officials and other political figures have harshly criticized what they regard as Palestinians inciting violence against Jews and Israel" shows that AnkhMorpk has not yet learned about fundamentals of Wikipedia such as the requirement to attribute opinions to their sources. Zerotalk 16:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) It is a big deal, a very big deal because it involves source falsification and DLDD did it twice as Tom Harrison points out with a very detailed analysis. Also, you gratuitous ad homenims do little to bolster your argument.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I see no reason to disbelieve that DLDD copied the 91 from the specialist Wikipedia article just like he said. The proper response was to ask for a direct citation. Zerotalk 16:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC) You look at the source first. Then you make the edit. Not the other way around. I once got sloppy like that and did 6 months hard time.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) In fact, as DLDD makes clear above, s/he made the original edit to the other WP article, citing as source the Jewish Virtual Library. So s/he did read the source first, before adding it to two WP articles. RolandR (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC) Is it only me that finds it ironic that 91% is supported by the sources currently cited and 95% is not reliably supported by any of them?BothHandsBlack (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC) JJG, you are guilty of a far worse source misrepresentation here at AE than the one you allege against DLDD, and yours was not made in the process of good faith improvements to the project, it was made in the process of building a case to gain sanctions against a fellow editor. In your statement you quote the DLDD's source, saying that he omits material from page four saying "Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank", but what you fail to report is the all important context that this was made 5 months after Camp David so would not be suitable for introduction into the passage that related to the proposals made at the Camp David Summit. Dlv999 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @T. Canens: I don't see any serious breach here. At most some carelessness. Your proposal seems to me excessive. Zerotalk 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Question by Beyond My Ken Since unsourced derogatory statements about living persons are forbidden anywhere on Wikipedia, and since the Dalai Lama is a living person, and "ding dong" is a playground expression meaning "idiot" or "fool", why is "Dalai lama ding dong" a permitted username? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC) @Blade: I've raised he issue at WP:UAA, but I don't see much wiggle room in "Do not register a username that includes the name of an identifiable living person unless it is your real name." from WP:NAME. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Comment by No More Mr Nice Guy Here's a list of articles DLDD edited while topic banned - Jewish culture, The Holocaust in Norway, Antisemitism in Norway, Septuagint, Purim, Book of Esther, Slavery (guess by whom), Origins of Judaism, Noahide laws, Mehadrin bus lines (probably a topic ban violation), Hebrews, Shechita, Kashrut, Antisemitism, Conversion to Judaism, Chabad, Holocaust denial, Brit milah, Messianic Judaism, Sacred prostitution (guess relating to what religion), Shomrim (volunteers), Criticism of Holocaust denial and Names of the Holocaust. I may have missed a few, but you get the gist. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Red Stone Arsenal I have no opinion on the diffs reported bu the original complaint, not having looked at them in detail. BUT - while all this is going on, DLDD has on at least one occasion misrepresented sources: here he claims that " No evidence or source provided for the claim that the tweeter claimed that the child was killed in an IDFairstrike." , and then removes the material base don this. but in fact, the source cited - Fox News did explkcitly make that claim "The Twitter message, which was a huge hit, claimed that the Palestinian Arab girl had died from an Israeli airstrike the day before. ". Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment by Biosketch See also the Dalai Lama's edit here yesterday, which tried to piggyback on a disruptive IPs edit at Right to exist in disregard of the consensus-building dialog taking place on the Discussion page. The Dalai Lama removed a passage he considered to be unrelated to the article; I restored the passage and expanded it to demonstrate its relevance; Dalai lama reverted my edit with no discussion; two editors restored the article to its long-standing consensus version; Dalai Lama reverted again despite the fact that discussion was still ongoing. Dldd didn't violate 1RR – there were more than 24 hours between his reverts – but he did lose patience and continue to edit-war instead of opting for the collaborative approach as the topic area and cases such as this demand.—Biosketch (talk) 09:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC) See these two edits at Racism in Israel. The first is a revert that disregards information on the Discussion page crucial to keeping the article NPOV, but Dldd doesn't care about NPOV when it diminishes the claim that Jewish soccer fans initiated a violent confrontation with Arabs. The second revert, 24 hours and 13 minutes after the first, not only is a gaming of 1RR but demonstrates further POV pushing, preferring the more specific term "Palestinian Arabs" over the general "Arabs" when the sources disagree on the terminology. When an editor places his POV-pushing agenda above the priority of editing neutrally in the topic area, this is what happens. The six-month topic ban proposed initially doesn't seem like excessive measure to me anymore.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Excuse me, why is User:RolandR defending an editor who won't engage in discussion relating to out-of-date sources when the newer sources present a completely different picture of a confrontation between Jews and Arabs? Why is RolandR defending an editor who makes two reverts in 24 hours and 13 minutes at an article clearly related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Why is he assuming bad faith to the effect that I had time yesterday to find sources in English but didn't because I was more interested in removing content from the article when in fact all I did was transplant it to the Discussion page in the hope that a collaborative user who did have time would do a search himself for something like "malha mall police" in Google and be able to improve the outdated content over which I had raised valid concerns? And why is it that every time RolandR has something to contribute at AE it is consistently on one side of the dispute in the topic area? It is exceedingly disruptive.—Biosketch (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by 99.237.236.218 I don't have an opinion on this and don't fully know the process, but I notice that it has been a week now since any admin posted in the result section. Isn't it time to take some action about this case? It seems the evidence has been presented and several options have been suggested. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by RolandR AnkhMorpork added a complaint above about alleged "further disruptive editing" by DLDD. In fact, DLDD self-reverted both edits complained about, one after a few hours, one after a few minutes, and both several days before AM complained. RolandR (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC) And Biosketch complains above about two further edits by DLDD. In one of them, twenty four hours ago, DLDD reverted Biosketch's removal of well-sourced and relevant content. Biosketch complains that DLDD did not also add further material, apparently only available in Hebrew, challenging the original interpretation. In that case, Biosketch should himself have added reliable sourced material in the first place, rather than remove what was already there. There is no breach of Wikipedia policy or guidelines here by DLDD. Biosketch's second complaint is even more worthless, complaining that DLDD followed the usage of one of the two sources cited, rather than the other. This is, at best, a content isue, to be discussed at the article talk page. Again, no breach of policy or guidelines. It is ridiculous to suggest that either of these edits, or the two cited by AM above, should attract any sanction, let alone the six-month topic ban proposed above. This complaint has dragged on for well over a week now, with some editors ever-more-desperately scraping the barrel in the vain hope that they may dig up some mud that sticks. Please can an admin step in and close this now. RolandR (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Statement by Nishidani Generally, the IR rule, though salutary, appears to be used to trap editors one dislikes, usually by tagteaming. As here, context and the talk page are ignored, and editors revert without examining either the talk page, assuming good faith, or doing some homework. This continual bickering is making the I/P area almost impossible to work, because the alacrity with which reverts are made, with edit summaries that are unsatisfactory, or in defiance of plain facts on the talk page, or in clear ignorance of the content in RS, means complaints arise out of a battleground mentality, rather than a concern (often speciously voiced) for the efficient functioning of this encyclopedia. I think it would be wise to look at the revert records of everyone complaining about DDLL here, and where edit-warring occurs, look at who works with whom, in order to clarify what's going on, and impose some general sanctions. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Apropos "battleground mentality", why should only the edits of "everyone complaining about DDLL here" be looked at? 1RR is only a "trap" for people who can't wait a few hours before doing something they really really want to. Assuming most editors are over 10 years old, it really shouldn't be a problem to avoid the "trap". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Both admins who have commented on the case say they see no 1RR violation. Dlv999 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The 1RR violation is the trees. Try to see the forest.—Biosketch (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I am in agreement with Nishidani on this one. DLDD's actions are the trees, those constantly agitating for sanctions against editors who they disagree with on content issues are the forest. Dlv999 (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The trees are caviling over whether this or another incident of dishonestly summarizing an edit, edit-warring against consensus, gaming 1RR, etc. violates Wikipedia's policies. The forest is that this user does nothing else with his account other than make tendentious edits related to the State of Israel, Jews and antisemitism. Users like this who focus all their energies on advocating for one side of the dispute that divides the topic area are bad for the Project. Their presence demands that other editors, instead of using their resources to improve Wikipedia generally, have to monitor these users' actions and ensure that guidelines and policies are upheld, because when left to their own devices they can't do it themselves.—Biosketch (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Their presence demands that other editors, instead of using their resources to improve Wikipedia generally, have to monitor these users' actions and ensure that guidelines and policies are upheld Translation: the lack of article construction is due to the fact that some editors feel obliged, to defend wikipedia, to spend large amounts of their time monitoring 'pro-Palestinian' editors for the damage they may cause! Oh really? I can't recall anyone making this kind of complaint successfully unmasking any of the numerous sock- and meatpuppets infesting the I/P area. Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Oh really? Would you like a list of 'pro-Israel' editors that were found guilty of being socks based on secret evidence presented at secret trials? Ask your buddy Nableezy or maybe administrator T. Canens. Go have a look at what DLDD was up to when he was topic banned. Let me know if you see a problem or not. This will be an interesting experiment. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC) This tit for tat is neither here nor there for the present deliberation, and I suggest we drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC) That's amusing. Unsurprising, but amusing. Do continue to support DLDD with your eyes closed as strongly as possible while accusing other editors of battleground mentality. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I'll amuse you further. What I have seen of DDLL's edits about a year ago left me unimpressed. But I could say that of the edits of a very large number of plaintiffs here or I/P editors generally (and they would say the same of me). Today I improved 3 articles with quality sources, that's the only thing that counts. Not AE grievances.Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC) What I found amusing is that you bring stuff up but then want to drop it when you get a reply. That you came here to support an editor who "unimpressed" you is not amusing at all. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC) I've bolded because you evidently miss the point. No need to continue this.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Dalai lama ding dong This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. What are the four edits alleged to be reverts of? T. Canens (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I generally agree with Tom harrison's analysis, with one exception: I don't think DLDD's first edit is a revert. AE has repeatedly held that edits falling within the technical definition may nonetheless not qualify as a revert; in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73#SlimVirgin, for example, the first edit at issue removed an entire section, but it was nonetheless held to be not a revert. In this case the 95% number was in the article since at least April 2009 and there does not appear to be any recent edit war on this point before DLDD made his first edit. It is my longstanding view that for an edit to qualify as a revert, the editor in question must have intended it to undo a particular edit, in whole or in part. This can be shown either by directive evidence such as use of undo or rollback or the edit summary mentioning revert, or by circumstantial evidence such as a recent or ongoing edit war on the matter or restoring an old revision of the page that is unlikely to have occurred from normal editing. In this case there is evidence of neither. The xRR rules are intended to constrain actual edit warring, not traps for the unwary or invitations to do hypertechnical parsing of edits in search of reverts to "win the battle". I'm not inclined to sanction GHcool, whether or not there is a 1RR violation. For DLDD, maybe a 6 month topic ban? They just recently come off a 3-month one, and should have known better. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) I'm really not seeing it here. In order of diffs; 1 looks like a standard change, 2 was a separate wording fix, 3 was perhaps 1 revert, and 4 was another wording change unrelated to the other diffs. Unless I'm completely misreading something or the wrong diffs are linked, I don't see where 1RR was breached. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken; I think that was discussed on his talkpage at some point, and it seemed that the people who initially expressed concern were all right with it. If you still have a problem with it, the venue to raise it at is RFCN. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) I've thought about this for a while, and I'm thinking that if this had happened someplace that wasn't so emotionally charged, it probably would have been chalked up as a simple mistake and left at that. I obviously understand why this topic area raises hackles, but I'm somewhat inclined to lean towards applying Hanlon's razor and leaving this as a molehill instead of building it into a mountain of sanctions. However, I haven't made up my mind, and I will revisit this tomorrow when I'm not feeling lightheaded from 6 1/2 hours of inhaling chlorine. Comments from other admins would be really nice too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC) Inclined to agree with The Blade here. The evidence of true reversion is open to question, as per the above. That being the case, I can see how letting this one incident "slide", given the details involved, wouldn't be unreasonable. Having said that, if that is the option taken, I hope it is understood by all, particuarly DLDD, that this is a one-time opinion based on the specific and seemingly original details here. Even if the same circumstances were to arise again with him/her acting similarly, I would probably support at least a six-month sanction. There are other ways of doing this, particularly for editors who, under the circumstances, should know better. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou

Esoglou (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles and discussions pertaining to Abortion for 6 months, broadly construed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Esoglou User who is submitting this request for enforcement –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Esoglou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Editors reminded Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 2 June 2012: writes that Catholics for Choice "is referred to as a Catholic organization" (cited to a reliable secondary source which just calls it a Catholic organization) "in spite of" the self-published opinions of certain bishops that it is not, and "in spite of" a section in canon law that makes no reference to CFC (with additional citation to an opinion column on an openly agenda-based website). Other issues with the edit as well, including the addition of unsourced text which claims that CFC's aims are against the Catholic faith, etc. 6 June 2012 (post-new-warning): same edit with non-substantive changes to wording 7 June 2012 (post-warning, post-AE): same edit with non-substantive changes to wording (removes "in spite of" but maintains the original analysis of RS text, the claim that there is some contradiction between the group being Catholics and the bishops campaigning against them, etc.) - Esoglou was blocked for this edit, but the block was reversed after admin (Sarek) decided he was too involved to block 7 June 2012 (post-AE): user posts a sexual image to my talk page in what seems to be a harassing attempt to make me uncomfortable and get me to drop the issue Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required) Warned on 27 December 2011 by WGFinley (talk · contribs) (an official warning pursuant to extensive evidence detailed here) Topic-banned for three months 17 January 2012 by WGFinley (talk · contribs) (having continued the same disruptive behavior after warning) Warned on 2 June 2012 by Roscelese (talk · contribs) (after user resumed the same disruptive behavior; user blew this warning off and repeated the edit, as linked above) Previous warnings (pre-topic ban) linked in earlier AE case. Additional comments by editor filing complaint These two edits alone, looked at out of context, may not look like much - poorly sourced original synthesis with a POV aim, to be sure, and repeated after a warning, but only two. However, this user has already been topic-banned for several months because of his repeated and persistent attempts to engage in original synthesis and analysis in order to get Wikipedia to conform to his anti-abortion views. These recent edits demonstrate that he has not learned his lesson and that further preventative measures are required. Reply to Pseudo-Richard: as Binksternet points out, the question of whether the organization should be described as Catholics, its members as "self-identified" Catholics, etc. has been debated over and over, always with the result of maintaining the usage found in reliable sources (ie. that it is, and they are, Catholic). If that's the point you would like to focus on, I would suggest reading these previous discussions. My point of focus, however, is the synthesis - the "reliable sources say they're Catholic, but we know better." As I said, if this were the first time then AE would be bringing the hammer down too hard. But if you'll look at the previous AE case, Esoglou has a long-standing habit of making exactly these sorts of edits in order to push his POV, and the first topic ban was evidently not enough of a deterrent. (I do also happen to think that the self-published criticism is being given grossly undue weight in the lead as it stands and belongs, at most, in the body, but IIRC I can't revert it back to where it belongs.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Like I said: it would be different if this were the first time. But Esoglou has a long history of making POV, synthetic edits to the point of being topic-banned for it, and the preventative measure has obviously not been preventative enough. If I wanted to get into the content question here, I would get into the content question, but that's not what AE is for. And I don't see anyone claiming that the edit wasn't synthetic or POV, or that he hasn't repeatedly made it against consensus...just that, y'know, he's a bro or something and we shouldn't punish him because of some chick. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Marauder40: It's a shame that you see Wikipedia in terms of personal disputes, rather than an attempt to produce the best-sourced and most neutral encyclopedia. Unfortunately, given that Arbcom banned Esoglou in the past for exactly this behavior, they would seem to disagree with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) It's about editor behavior because that's what AE is for. It's not for content disputes. And I'm not sure why you're arguing that Esoglou's past behavior is not relevant. If Esoglou were not behaving the same way as in the past, there would have been no need to bring these recent edits to AE. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV (hint: it's not about making sure all POVs are represented), but that is neither here nor there, since this case is not about you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Esoglou: you know very well that you were formally warned before your topic ban and continued the behavior anyway, the diff of your warning is linked above. It's nice that you "chose" not to make a fuss, but it's not like it would have done anything given the enormous amount of evidence of your misbehavior and your obvious knowledge of the fact that it was wrong. The same is true here: you know very well that these sorts of edits are against WP policy, both because you were banned for such edits in the past and because we warned you about these particular edits before you repeated them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Balloonman: This is not the place to discuss a content dispute. If you do not have anything to say about Esoglou deciding to continue his previously sanctioned pattern of original synthesis to push a POV, please go to the article talk page, not here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Balloonman, your comments are not supporting your cause; they are only making it clear that Esoglou and most of his supporters here are more interested in promoting a POV than in following WP policy (the latter being the subject of this AE case). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to 209.6.69.227: You're exactly right that the conflict here is between "Truth" (subjectively) and WP policy. Please read WP:TRUTH so that you understand why this puts editors injecting their personal religious beliefs into the article the wrong thing to do, even if they very strongly believe them. Thank you for so clearly illuminating the problem here, even if you didn't mean to. I will not engage your content questions here; although they are incorrect and problematic, AE is not for content disputes. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Elizium23: as I've said, if this were only a content dispute, then there would be no need to come to AE. Instead, it is about a pattern of policy violation in an ArbCom sanctioned topic area that has been severe enough to lead to a topic ban and that has continued after the topic ban ended, and that has been aggravated by an attempt to harass an opposing user. You seem to think that if you can "win" the content dispute, Esoglou's misbehavior will become moot. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Timotheus Canens: how many such edits would you consider necessary for Esoglou's behavior to be brought here again? Would it have to be the same or similar number as in the previous AE case, or is it to be assumed that, as he has been banned in the past for this behavior, a lower threshold will suffice? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Query: would it be proper or improper to seek comment from WGFinley, who moderated the previous case? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [13] Discussion concerning Esoglou Statement by Esoglou I thank Roscelese for giving me the possibility of responding to her accusation. Previously, I (alone) was topic-banned without any such discussion as a result of interaction with her and I chose not to make a fuss about it. In this matter, it seems to me that Roscelese and Binksternet should be reprimanded for non-collaboratively reverting everything instead of entering a discussion aimed at reaching an agreed text. This is the third such action on their part on the same article. After the first reverting I initiated a discussion (Talk:Catholics for Choice#Reversal), which happily concluded with an agreement to remove an inaccuracy that I wanted remedied. After the second reverting I began another discussion (Talk:Catholics for Choice#The "ban" of latae sententiae excommunication), which ended, thanks to the intervention of a neutral observer, in acceptance of the explanatory wikilink that I thought was needed. I am hopeful that, after discussion, a similar agreement can be reached this time too. I think that there (Talk:Catholics for Choice#Catholic organization), not here, is the place to discuss details of wording. I would welcome interventions of all kinds there. Esoglou (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Perhaps I should have stated that my two edits of 6 and 7 June were each a modification of the preceding edit, done for the purpose of taking account of observations on Talk and to end discussion of turns of phrase that I had agreed to remove. Thinking that this was obvious, and that making such edits, far from contravening Wikipedia rules, was instead in conformity with a spirit of collaboration, I did not mention it. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Roscelese's reply to Esoglou (above): My humorous comment on your Talk page about you having me tied up was in imitation, even in wording, of the humorous comment that I noticed you had made on Pseudo-Richard's Talk page. Yes I was blocked, again alone, though only briefly, on grounds of "edit warring"; your renewed reverting does not count as edit warring; in view of the support you seem to enjoy among some Administrators, it is wise for me to make no fuss about being tied up. As you say, "it's not like it would have done anything". Commentators here do seem to disagree with your claim that the edits I made were against WP policy. Esoglou (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Commentators do seem to dislike my touch of humour ("tying me up"), which was intended as imitative, and take it to have been meant as baiting. I am sorry for doing something that, contrary to my intention, could be interpreted in that way, and I will, of course, accept whatever tying up is dealt out to me as punishment for my fault. Esoglou (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC) The comments in the Results section seem to be heading towards some punishment for my idea of humour or rather for the interpretation that some people put on it as "a deliberate act clearly intended to be unconstructive and rude", and on the basis of an earlier topic ban that I thought (and think) was unjustified, but did not appeal against. Where did I get the image? From the humorous essay Wikipedia:WikiSpeak. It caused amusement also on the Talk page of that article. But not here. Pity. I think I'll put it on my own Talk page. I wonder what the punishment will be. A renewed topic ban on abortion? I haven't been following that topic. On the "Catholics for Choice" page, there were three points, and only three, that I wanted fixed. I have succeeded in two. As for the third, even with the help of several other editors it seems impossible to get Roscelese and Binksternet to accept that Wikipedia neutrality policy does not sanction the presentation as fact of the description of CFC as a "Catholic organization" (without distinguishing between an organization of Catholics and an organization that is itself Catholic), despite the denial by the Church itself that CFC is a Catholic organization in the second sense. Two out of three isn't bad. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Comments by others about the request concerning Esoglou Esoglou performed these changes in the face of previous discussions (Talk:Catholics_for_Choice#.22Catholic.22_in_Lead, Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_2#The_lead_paragraph) determining that the CFC was a "Catholic" organization because of self-identification, and that official Catholic Church sources were not able to take away that self-determination. Esoglou represents the Church's official position on Wikipedia; in that sense he is an activist rather than a neutral editor. I do not wish to have the encyclopedia become the voice of the Catholic Church. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose - Ugh... I confess to not having read all the previous Talk discussion about the usage of the term "Catholic" in this article. However, I will point out that what Roscelese and Binksternet seem to be objecting to is the linkage of "The group is called Catholic" (sourced to Reuters) with "the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization" using the words "in spite of". It should be noted that neither Roscelese nor Binksternet seem to be arguing that the sourced opinion of the USCCB and CCCB should be removed from the article. Their reverts seem to be solely around the removal of the linking phrase "in spite of". Personally, I don't think Esoglou's edits are that POV but, even if they are, I don't see the need for Arbitration Enforcement here. It seems to be a case of "I'm tired of having to deal with the other POV, so I'm going to call the cops on this guy." If I were writing the sentence, I would say something more along the lines of "Despite the fact that the group's members are primarily Catholics, the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization citing the canon law which prohibits groups from claiming to be Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority." In summary, I oppose Arbitration Enforcement in this matter although I think a bit of copyediting could improve Esoglou's proposed text. At the end of the day, the point is the CFC claims to represent a number of Catholics but the Catholic Church objects to the use of the word "Catholic" in the organization's name because it does not represent the Catholic Church. This point can and should be made in an NPOV manner. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Roscelese has responded to my comment with a rebuttal of my assertion that this incident is "not a big deal" and is more of a small content dispute than an action worthy of Arbitration Enforcement. I do not think it is appropriate to get into a discussion of content in this forum so I will simply urge any administrator reviewing this AE request to look at the article's Talk Page to see that there is a reasonable argument for Esoglou's proposed edit. IMO, Esoglou's major failing is his inability/unwillingness to explain the rationale for his edits in a collegial and collaborative way. That combined with a tendency to edit war rather than discuss on Talk Pages tends to lead to contention rather than collaboration. IMO, a warning to Esoglou admonishing him to discuss disputed edits collegially is more appropriate than a ban. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose - This seems to be a case of two editors guarding an article and instead of discussing and working collaboratively with an editor that has a different viewpoint from them, they do wholesale reverts with comments like "rv BS POV", and "rv POV-pushing OR, misrepresentation, undue weight...SPS crit already grossly undue" only taking things to the talk page AFTER the editor puts something back in after 3 days of no discussion. Eventually things worked out in the "latae sententiae" topic but instead of working together in the second discussion Roscelese FIRST comment in the thread is a threat of a topic ban and then Binksternet comes in to parrot the threat. This after another threat on Esoglou's talk page. This sounds like trying to ban someone just because they have an opposing viewpoint instead of trying to work with the person. I echo Richard's comment that this appears to be a content dispute, not something needing AE. Marauder40 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Comment - Based on repeated comments by Roscelese, it seems she repeatedly wants to have this item judged wholly based on past behavior not based on what is actually happening now. There are only two people within the article/talk space that have been addressing personalities/editors instead of content and that isn't Esoglou. It is very telling that the person that brought this request has only ONE edit on the talk page before bringing up this action. Again it sounds like trying to silence those viewpoints that may not agree instead of trying to write a balanced NPOV article.Marauder40 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose Self-idenfication does not determine if a group is part of a larger established group---especially if the governing body of the larger group has said otherwise or has rules for inclusion. A person can't simply start a group, claim to be part of a larger group, and then have that self identification taken as the determing factor. The governing organization to which the group identifies has to accept said group... this is particuarly true when the governing body has specific rules for inclusion or has multiple splinter groups claim affiliation. If the USCCB has said that a group is not Catholic, then they are the arbiters in this matter. A group can claim to be part of a larger whole, but the the larger group doesn't accept them or acknowledge them, then guess what... they aren't pretty simple.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 16:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Your personal analysis is interesting, but we have been using reliable sources which plainly see CFC as a Catholic group. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC) irrelevant content You mean like the CFC being excommunicated?[14][15] Or the Diocese of Venice declaring, "'Catholics for Choice' is neither Catholic nor supportive of authentic human choice?" Or The Archbishop of Milwaukee declaring Or the Catholic League Catholics for Choice, a notoriously anti-Catholic front group? Or how about A Brazilian Catholic bishop has filed a $328,000 lawsuit against “Catholics for the Right to Decide,” the Brazilian version of America’s “Catholics for Choice,” for moral damage due to the misleading use of the name “Catholic.” A group whose fundamental principles are condemned by the group to which it claims and the group to which it claims membership has decreed that such groups are not part of it... I think it's pretty clear. CFC is a group of Catholics; but it is not a Catholic Group. Like it or not, the Catholic Church gets to decide who/what are Catholic Organizations. To say otherwise simply defies logic and reason---regardless of what some non-authoritative source might say.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Hell, the president of the CFC acknowledges that the group that is responsible for determining what is a catholic group, the USCCB/NCCB, stated: “On a number of occasions the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) has stated publicly that [the group] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.” The bodies whose compromise the leadership of the chuch in the US, the USCCB/NCCB issued an edict, which explicitly states, CFC "is not a Catholic organization" and "Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization"[16]. That is a primary source from the defining group. Any reporter/newspaper which says otherwise, is interjecting their POV/Bias/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge into the debate.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 18:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I have no problem with the content being collapsed, but I do have a problem with letting the statement that we have sourced materials stand unchallenged. The governing body in the US for the Catholic Church, has explicitly stated otherwise. Any "source" that says they are a Catholic Organization, is not accepting the position of the body that matters on the subject.---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 19:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Oppose Esoglu is in a classic battle between what is True, and what Wikipedia rules allow. What s/he says about the rulings of the Catholic Church are true, but poorly reported in the secondary media. While there may have been legitimate claims of confusion back in 1984, there are none now. Problem is, it is easy to find articles where newspapers carelessly call CFC Catholic, and CFC's self-identification is crucial to its mission. The assertion that rulings by Bishops or the Vatican are mere opinions or WP:SELFSOURCE is naked POV; they have the rule of law, but are arcane and of little interst outside of Catholic media. The accusation of WP:OR would be OK if Esoglu were cherry-picking random rulings, but s/he is not. There are no rulings that do not assert that CFC cannot be considered Catholic. Overzealous application of Wikipedia rules leave the absurd finding that the New York Times, not the Catholic Church determines who is Catholic. The Talk page is the appropriate place to sort out how to distinguish between the weight of sources. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Comment A helpful analogy would be the WP reporting of a trial. Esoglu is sorting sources as to weight based on 1) The actual verdict in court of the case, previous verdicts, and appeals (to say that these are just one person's opinions or it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the judiciary would not be allowed) 2) Commentary from law journals and expert popular law sources (analysis by experts, or those who have a persistent interest and expertise in law - again, saying they are not as widely-read as a daily newspaper is not the same as making them not WP:RS) 3) Newspapers, blogs, popular magazines - general commentary on what the ruling might be, details that may have been relevant, articles on details that might attract the interest of a general audience, or if the party might be running for office, reporting on the existence of a case. In general, the analogy to verdicts is obvious, the analogy to Law journals is to Catholic media, which best report on the details of Catholic issues, and Newspapers are newspapers, with one caveat. Generally, newspapers report politics, not religion. They are often mistaken about details of Church doctrine, as reflects their focus. A Newspaper reporting on politics is not going to use a quote from CFC if they understand that they are non-Catholic (and CFC exists primarily to involve itself in politics, not Church). By definition, if a newspaper wants a quote, and uses one from CFC, they either don't understand its nature, or have an interest in not caring; they get a controversy, which sells papers. Rosecelese and Binksternet are promoting a measurement of WP:DUE that does not make sense in the real world.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Roscelese. I think taking the attitude "I will not engage" and just declaring anything you don't like as "incorrect and problematic" is the essence of your complaint against Esoglu, simply having a cooperating editor does not make arguments better. Again, the ruling of a judge in a criminal case is not just one person's personal opinion, worthy of no more consideration than an article in the Enquirer, nor is the an NPOV statement of the ruling of the Vatican just "personal religious beliefs". The problem I alluded to was that the better the source with regards to Catholic religion, the more emphatic the declaration that CFC is not Catholic. Using the yardstick of reliability with regards to local political news on an issue of Catholic doctrine and ignoring the reliability of a source with regards to Catholic doctrine is the essence of your arguments that CFC might be Catholic. They are two very different yardsticks. As regards WP policy, you are disregarding WP:RS policy that states "The reliability of a source depends on context" and reliability should be determined not just by publication but by "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, ". In both, Esoglu's sources trump all others by a wide margin. You can't get more authoritative than the Pope (by definition) on matters of what is Catholic. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Dear Roscelese, and others, this dispute is not about religious belief at all. Kindly remove religion from the equation when arguing your case, because you are steadily painting a picture of your opponents as religious zealots fighting a lone bastion of Wikipedia policies, when in reality both sides have provided policy-based arguments for our proposed wording. Once again: this is not about religion at all. It is about an organization with a governing body which has competent authority and jurisdiction over groups within that organization. It is about the right of a group to label itself as part of the organization and it is about whether so-called "reliable" sources can be relied upon so much that we must parrot their usage in the first sentence of the article, yet relegate the facts about the judgement by competent authority to a "criticism" paragraph later on. You are attempting to label said judgement as "criticism by a special interest group" when it is in fact a judgement by competent authority with proper jurisdiction to give or take the right to use a name. Nowhere in our argument do we rely on religious belief, Church doctrine, revelation by the Holy Spirit or anything religious. This is not a religious question. Allow me to quote the governing section of WP:NPOV so that you can easily read it. Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. All we are asking is that the text conform to NPOV. Elizium23 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Reply to Roscelese: not at all. I don't support Esoglou's behavior and in fact I think he probably deserves any sanctions that he gets at this point. But I don't think he alone is at fault. You and Binksternet have participated in the edit-warring, admittedly in slomo in view of the 1RR restriction. And you continue to frame this debate poorly. I object to the framing of the content dispute in terms of "religious kooks not following policy vs. Wikilawyers who unequivocally have policy on their side". I object to the description of a legal body with jurisdiction and authority as a "political opposition group" and the depiction of their stated position as "criticism" with "undue weight" by which you imply it is a minority viewpoint - you have 15 references pro-CFC, yet there are 272 active bishops in the USA; until you find 2,720 reporters willing to call CFC "Catholic" then the USCCB is definitely not in the minority here. As far as building consensus goes, you are in the minority, yet for months you have won the edit war by defending your preferred wording. Now that you have dragged Esoglou here, you'll have to pardon me for questioning your motives. It seems that all you want is to silence him and his POV rather than work collaboratively with the other editors who have come in good faith to inform you that you just might be on the wrong side of this. Elizium23 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know if I am involved or not, although I don't think that I am directly. I tend to agree with Seraphimblade's comments below. Talk page comments which are all but impossible to be seen as being constructive from an editor already under sanctions is to my eyes sufficient cause for the imposition of some form of sanction. Based on what little I know as a relatively infrequent contributor here, three month sanctions seem to be among the shorter duration sanctions we offer, and I think might be one of the more reasonable choices available here. John Carter (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Result concerning Esoglou This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. As a procedural note, this forum is not WP:AN/I. It's useful to hear from other editors, but we should avoid a Support/Oppose type of voting structure here. Outside input on the underlying content issue (such as Balloonman's post) is welcome and even essential to resolving the dispute, but that input needs to go to Talk:Catholics for Choice, not here. As to the user-conduct issue, I'll defer to other admins who may wish to comment here. MastCell Talk 17:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC) The Support/Oppose type voting is not helpful. This is basically a content dispute. The user talk comment is in very poor taste, but I'm not particularly convinced that a sanction is needed. T. Canens (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC) After thinking about this some more, I agree with Seraphimblade, but would go for something longer than three months. Perhaps six? T. Canens (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) I'm not big on getting in on a content dispute, and I think there's enough space here for reasonable people to disagree on the content issue, so I don't think sanctions are due for that. I would hope the editors here can come to a reasonable compromise, describing the situation (X says they are, Y says not) without taking a side on it ourselves. I think, though, especially for an editor already under sanctions in the area, that type of talk page post is a deliberate act clearly intended to be unconstructive and rude. I would be inclined to impose a three month topic ban on the basis of that. In an area that's already this inflamed, the last thing we need is deliberate provocation and baiting. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) I agree with T. Canens on duration. Unless anyone disagrees, this has been open for a while, so if no one disagrees shortly, I'll close it out with that as the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC) Given [17], and the behaviour on the article talk page, a topic ban for User:Roscelese should be considered. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Pretty much agree with Timotheus Canens' latest comment on this. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Go ahead and shut it down. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)