Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:39, 22 April 2018

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Dagduba lokhande

Blocked for one week with a warning that future violations may lead to an indefinite block --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Dagduba lokhande

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dagduba lokhande (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPAK : Topic banned from anything related to B. R. Ambedkar (including family members), Buddhism, Caste in India, politics related to Dalits, broadly construed, applicable across the entire English Wikipedia, including but not limited to articles, templates, categories, images, user pages, drafts, portals, and their respective topic pages.

Diff of the notification of above topic ban, and this action was logged too.

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

Clear violation of topic ban from 11 April: [1] [2][3]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: [4] a block of 48 hours for violating topic ban.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't believe that he understands he is topic banned, despite having been told too clearly. Capitals00 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of topic ban notification and log entry added above now. Capitals00 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff: Given that he edited nearly 45 days after his block on 26 February and he did nothing but violate his topic ban, it seems that one week block won't do anything because whenever Dagduba lokhande returns to Wikipedia, he violates his topic ban despite it has been clarified to him very clearly. His talk page messages show he is capable of understanding what is being told to him[6], yet he continues to intentionally violate topic ban. Just like the recent block on संदेश हिवाळे, I believe Dagduba lokhande should be indeffed too. Capitals00 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [7]

Discussion concerning Dagduba lokhande

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

Statement by Dagduba lokhande

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dagduba lokhande

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

Please add the diff with which the topic ban was imposed. Sandstein 16:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be [8] by @SpacemanSpiff:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a clear violation. Second violation, I suggest 1 week block. --regentspark (comment) 20:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually the third set of violations (set because there are always multiples). I let off with a warning the first time. A one week block seems appropriate now.—SpacemanSpiff 06:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that a one-week block is appropriate. Sandstein 15:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey

No Action Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Scjessey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835905480 (initial addition of "hate group" by Scjessey)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836208995 (initial addition of "anti-immigrant")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835955264 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=835970094 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836162209 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "hate group")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836259284 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=836267518 (incivility "I'm British, which almost certainly means my English is better than yours. And who gives a fuck about..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group")
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=next&oldid=836399003 (Scjessey reverting to restore challenged material "anti-immigrant" and "hate group", removing sources)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=836719692 (gaming - notifies talk of his revert above, but throws in a warning to others not to transgress DS sanctions)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 December 2017 "blocked 24 hours for not gaining consensus before restoring an edit that was challenged, via reversion, in violation of DS at Presidency of Donald Trump."
- 2 January 2018 AE log was later striked by blocking admin, no further explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 30 March 2018.
Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 April 2018
Discretionary sanctions notice was placed on the talk page of the affected article on 14 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I ran across this edit war somewhat in progress. Several editors were tag-teaming with an aggressive IP user (who has already been blocked), but I identify Scjessey as a particularly aggressive participant who exacerbated the edit war and repeatedly reinserted challenged material. I attempted to quell the situation by adding three additional sources and removing all the contentious language that these sources didn't all agree on, and noted this on the talk page as a way to deescalate the edit war. I also contacted Scjessey on his talk page. After a short break, today Scjessey removed our discussion on his talk page, calling it "BS". He then edited the article to remove the additional sources and restore the contentious labeling. This last revert, in particular since it removes the three additional sources, demonstrates that Scjessey is not interested in presenting this item in a WP:VERIFIABLE nor WP:NPOV manner (aka cherry-picking). His edit summary, claiming to be putting back a "consensus text" demonstrates that he sees consensus not as a process, but as the result of having a simple numbers advantage in an edit war. His follow-up Talk: page comment "It is important that we include this context (emphasis his) demonstrates that he sees this action more as a crusade to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to Scjessey's claim below of not knowing this article was under the broad discretionary sanctions which apply to all post-1932 American politics, I find that groundless. His previous report against another user was within that area, and he certainly cannot claim to not be aware as his previous block was within this area also. I reminded him about the discretionary sanctions in our Talk: page conversation also. I think that he is trying to skirt his poor behavior by feigning ignorance is, frankly, insulting to this forum and to anyone involved. He has also just now taken to the article's talk page, seemingly just to notify the other participants in this edit war of this enforcement request. -- Netoholic @ 00:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Added: Starting his statement below with "Sigh" continues the trend of not treating this process with the due care and respect it deserves. Nothing about his statement indicates genuine acknowledgement of the problem and gives me no confidence his actions will change. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: - the article itself has not special restrictions, but all editors are bound by the general expectations listed under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors, which include the requirement to comply with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. The chief complaints in this request are failure to adhere to policies WP:VERIFIABLE, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (RIGHTGREATWRONGS). -- Netoholic @ 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey and MrX (who also participated in this edit war) have asked about "boomeranging". My response is that I have made only 2 changes to the article - one to remove a section of a sentence that contained phrasing which was the direct cause of an active edit war, and the second was to remove the entire line to put the article back to a pre-edit war consensus version prior to its recent inclusion. I am not involved in this edit war in any way other than to see it end. I feel like asking for a "boomerang" on such flimsy reasoning is itself gaming the system, which also goes against Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey has doubled-down on his claim of lack of awareness, but on 29 March 2018, he removed a standard DS notice from another involved user's talk page which reads "the Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". He is well aware that any edits in this area are applicable under DS. More gaming and obfuscation. -- Netoholic @ 01:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: - I don't believe its possible for Scjessey to have "recognized that they acted improperly" when he several times in his responses here has lied (laughably, provably) about not knowing this topic was under general discretionary sanctions. Even if you disagree, the only recognition he's given us for his actions is "my bad". Nothing he's said has given any indication that this is unlikely to happen again. -- Netoholic @ 06:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO has joined us asking why I "popped up here", but let's instead look at how he did. Scjessey contacted SPECIFICO on his talk page at 10:34, 13 April 2018. SPECIFICO had never before edit this article, but did so at 13:03 and then got involved in the talk page starting at 09:133 14 April. SPECIFICO should have recused himself from the discussion, since he was canvassed, but his involvement on that article and now this AE are the result of WP:Canvassing by Scjessey - another example of poor conduct that Scjessey has exhibited in this topic area. -- Netoholic @ 21:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: - While the prior block may or may not be applicable towards escalating action against Scjessey, it is certainly one of many things I've linked here which prove that Scjessey was aware that edits related to Trump are within the general discretionary sanctions provisions. Scjessey noted this himself even as he resumed the edit warring. If you still feel he was unaware, I will be happy to go thru this and more evidence point by point, but I've already provided at least 5 solid instances within the last couple of months that show he must be aware. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Scjessey&diff=836768687&oldid=836716845

Discussion concerning Scjessey

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

Statement by Scjessey

Sigh. To be honest, I did not realize the article in question was under Arbcom restrictions until I noted so here. My bad. I own that, and if administrators believe a sanction is warranted, I will not complain. Prior to that, I made edits consistent with what I believe were appropriate, and I did not violate 3RR (although it is hard to see from the incorrectly formatted diffs above). I explained myself by creating a talk page section (diff) and discussing it with other editors, most of whom agreed with my rationale either explicitly, or in the form of affirming edits to the article. I even checked myself with another editor (diff) to make sure I wasn't on the wrong track. A consensus has formed around this version of the text, with the only dissent coming from the editor with the creative revisionism presented above. I don't have much else to say, other than it wouldn't surprise me if the reporting editor got whacked with the proverbial boomerang. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I noticed it has a little warning template at the top of the talk page that says:

"The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, including this article. Please consult the awareness criteria and edit carefully."

It does not, however, have the "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" I would normally look out for. That is why I did not realize until later that the article (or perhaps parts of the article?) was included. I did not think to check the DSLOG. Thank you for giving a better explanation of the circumstances than I could. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: Just to clarify, the "previous sanction" of mine you highlighted was given to me erroneously, which is why it was struck from the record. Also, it appears I haven't actually violated anything (at least, not to the letter of the policy), but I commend you on your industrious effort to comb through my contributions and look for anything you can bring up here to reinforce your revisionist narrative. I'm still clear as to why you have chosen to go on this fruitless crusade, when surely your best strategy was to start an RfC on the content in question? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: You refer to my "substantial edit warring" in your comment below, but I don't believe it is a fair categorization. At no time did I violate WP:3RR. The incorrectly formatted diffs presented by the reporting editor make it difficult to follow, so I present annotated diffs of ALL my reversions over the five day period to that article with dates and times:

Certainly an argument can be made for a violation of WP:1RR, but the article wasn't (and still isn't) under that restriction. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Scjessey has not violated any editing restriction nor is his conduct violative of the principles or finding of the underlying Arbcom case. Contrarily, Netoholic has edited against consensus, and failed to accept a clear consensus established on the talk page. (See recent article history and recent talk page history). Netoholic is the only editor arguing to omit material, against four editors arguing to include it. That is, if you discount the IP sock who uses web host proxies to avoid scrutiny.

Boomerang? - Mr X 🖋 23:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Scjessey: The article is not under any editing restrictions. It lacks the required edit notice and is not logged at WP:DSLOG - Mr X 🖋 23:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, your explanation of how the edits violate the sanction or remedy (not expectations or guidelines), are "reverting to restore challenged material". There is no restriction on reverting to restore challenged material. You're conflating several unrelated things in what appears to be an effort to gain the upper hand in a content dispute.- Mr X 🖋 00:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, yes anyone can place a DS notice template on an appropriate article talk page. Only admins can place an article under editing restrictions, and they must follow the process described at WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page and WP:AC/DS#sanctions.log.- Mr X 🖋 02:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

The edit-warring IP was banned. There's clear consensus in support of Scjessey's edits among the editors on the article and talk page. There were no page restrictions in effect. The accuser, Netoholic has aggressively edited against consensus with absurd justifications that have been patiently refuted by the other editors on the talk page. He then launched into various forms of personal disparagement culminating with this defective AE complaint. Not sure why he even popped up at this, of all articles. As MrX states, a boomerang is in order for this extreme and entirely unjustified escalation against Scjessey. SPECIFICO talk 18:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not "canvassed" to the article. I was asked neutrally to take a look and I made an edit unrelated to the bit that Netoholic is edit-warring. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After it was clear Netoholic was a single editor against a consensus of 6 others, none of the six escalated by preemptively reinstating the consensus content. It was patiently suggested to Netoholic that his best recourse was an RfC. Instead he chose personal attacks, this bogus AE report on a page that had no DS page restriction, and misrepresentation of Scjessey's record and actions. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Scjessey

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

I think that this article is within the scope of US politics discretionary sanctions, and Scjessey was properly aware of those. It's hard not to see Scjessey's conduct here as edit-warring. In that regard the request has merit. (The rest of the complaints about verifiability, undueness etc. are primarily content disputes which AE does not address; the same goes for claims that "Netoholic has edited against consensus".) Considering that Scjessey has recognized that they acted improperly here, and that they have no prior (unstruck) sanctions, I believe that a logged warning against edit-warring would suffice in this case. Sandstein 06:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that I disagree with the assessments below that no action is necessary. This is quite clearly substantial edit-warring by Scjessey, irrespective of whether others have also behaved badly and whether Scjessey has also engaged in constructive discussion. I think that a warning is at the lower bound of the range of appropriate admin reactions here. Sandstein 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) A few formalities:
- It's hard to see how this article wouldn't fall under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions;
- Scjessey is aware of those sanctions, having been sanctioned under them in the past 12 months (though apparently successfully appealed, this still counts for awareness);
- There are no active page restrictions on this article (no 1RR, consensus required etc).
With that out the way, I don't see a case for action here. There has been some edit-warring on the article, and an IP was blocked for it. How CIS is described in the article is fundamentally a content question to be decided by consensus. Scjessey started a discussion at the TP and that appears to be reaching a conclusion. If others are unhappy with that, the next step is to start an RfC and try to attract a wider audience to the discussion (neutrally, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "previous relevant sanctions" that the OP refers to aren't actually relevant. An admin made a bad block on 23 December 2017, and then after a lot of blowback on ANI realized it was bad and struck it in the AE log, as well as withdrawing it in the block log.[9] It wasn't a question of being "successfully appealed" by Scjessey, as GoldenRing supposes (understandably). The block had more to do with the admin than with Scjessey, and needn't be taken into consideration here. Partly for that reason, I believe Scjessey when he says he wasn't aware the article was under DS. I don't think a sanction, or actually a logged warning either, is warranted. It would be quite ironic if Scjessey got one of those because of a bad old block, which was probably a disagreeable enough experience in itself. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with GoldenRing and Bishonen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree with GR and Bishonen. The incivility is never excusable, but it was in response to a fairly patronising comment from an IP. Scjessy is participating in consensus building, appropriately, on the talk page. No actions are necessary. Fish+Karate 08:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Js82

Not something for AE, no violation of any applicable sanction. User has been issued a garden variety block for unrelated reasons.—SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Js82

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Js82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan :

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

POV pushing: [10], [11]

Edit warring and depending on edit summaries for discussion: [12][13][14]

Personal attacks, incivility, alleging others of assuming bad faith:-

[15]: ignored the question and alleges other editor of "do not like it".
"what I'm seeing here seems to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT"[16]
"I'm trying my best to be nice, but do not make the mistake of construing that as some sort of weakness."[17]
"Are you really asking me to spoon-feed you ?".. " you are displaying a remarkable lack of effort & sincerity really."[18]
"propose your text if you have any, rather than making baseless allegations and asking for spoon-feeding, without even having read the sources. Quit WP:OWN."[19]

Despite objections from at least 4 editors towards his version that includes quote farming, he claims "I have not seen any real reason to exclude the quote."[20] This message shows his complete failure to adhere to consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

October 2015, topic banned from all Indian religions which includes Sikhism for 6 months.
October 2016, topic banned from all Sikhism articles for an indefinite period.
September 2017, indeffed for violating topic ban.

Topic ban was removed in February 2018, but with extreme caution that he will "end up in the same situation, this time with no avenue to return", if he engaged in disruption again.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Sanctioned before in the area of conflict per above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@RegentsPark: by "violation of a sanction", do you mean the two points that you had mentioned here? He has been making blanket reverts of versions by MSW[21][22] very often though, despite having told not to do that. Also the diffs I have presented, shows that he still don't understand that Wikipedia involves team work, and he is frequently engaging in edit warring, making personal attacks. Not to mention that whatever he has been removing/restoring in these diffs doesn't improve the article, but only makes it worse. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified.

Discussion concerning Js82

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

Statement by Js82

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Js82

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

I see reasons for concern here (the slow reversion, the edit summary as discussion) but no violation of a sanction. My suggestion is that this be taken to WP:DRN or, perhaps, an RfC. Js82, though you have no current topic ban, you need to be a little more circumspect in the way you go about editing Sikhism pages. Fewer reverts and more use of the talk page would be a good start. If you find yourself stuck, use DRN or an RfC to get broader input. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@D4iNa4: I don't see a violation of the Indo/Pak editing restrictions or any other sanction that may be in place. Looking through Js82's talk history, I don't even see a recent Indo/Pak editing restrictions notice, a necessary requirement before we can even consider admin action (though, even had a warning been in place, I don't see sufficient reason for any admin action). --regentspark (comment) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly believe in second, third, etc chances in this place. I see Js82 was blocked indefinitely by Bbb23 in November 2015, unblocked by Ponyo in October 2016, blocked indefinitely again by SpacemanSpiff in September 2017, and unblocked again by Dlohcierekim in February 2018. There, now I've pinged all the blocking and unblocking admins, who may perhaps have an opinion here. For myself, I don't see any abuse by Js82 in D4iNa4's diffs. Maybe a little impatience. D4iNa4, is it possible you may have thought Js82's chequered history would be pretty much enough to get him sanctioned here? Because it isn't. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Once again, Bishonen's razor like mind has cut to the heart of the matter, me thinks. If memory serves, there was considerable push-back to unblocking this user. The thing about a second chance is that it is a second chance. Unless problematic behavior has really returned, we cannot haul Js82 in for what they did before the latest block. RegentsPark's reasoning seems sound to me. Js82 needs to temper their passion for Sikhism related articles and be more open to discussion and if needed compromise with others who are as passionate but who have a different opinion. Sometimes is best to just step away for a while.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, RegentsPark had very sound advice to offer at the unblock discussion. I urge Js82 to reread that and reflect on it in the light of the current situation.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Please see my findings and notes at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Js82.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case for AE. The self-admitted socking and deception prior to the unblock has resulted in a new indef, so I'll close this now.—SpacemanSpiff 23:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant

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

Request concerning Anythingyouwant

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

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

April 19, 2018 - Violation of article editing restrictions.
April 19, 2018 - "I am tired of you and your POV pushing. Go away from this talk page, please, and don’t come back, ever. You can see I have cited BLP in my edit summary. Now go away to whatever administrative forum you wish to abuse. If wikipedia had a jury-like system instead of the structure it has now, you would not be able to subvert the rules to advance your POV, as you do incessantly, and doubtless are about to do in the present case. Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you. Cheers." (Personal attack)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

November 27, 2017 - AE sanction for restoring challenged text on an edit restricted American politics article. Used similar reasoning: "Per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP."
January 23, 2018 - AE Topic ban extend by one month (AE discussion)
January 20, 2018 - AE topic ban

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on November 27, 2017 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on January 20, 2018 by Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Related talk page discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#BLP

I'm nonplussed by Anythingyouwant's doubling down on calling me a POV-pusher who abuses administrative boards. As far as I'm concerned, behaviour like this, which has been going on for years, is not going to be quelled by a narrow three month topic ban.- Mr X 🖋 14:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:

Anythingyouwant adds the content: [23]
I remove the content: [24]
Anythingyouwant reverts my edit, effectively restoring the challenged material:[25]

I'm disappointed at the ineffectual proposals by some of the admins below. Anythingyouwant has a history of using BLP as a shield and gaming the system to advance his POV.[26] He has a history of unfounded personal attacks, often far worse than his flagrant assault on my integrity.

How many times do we have to come back to AE and ANI before something meaningful is done to address this long term, recurrent problem. I'm tired of of having to politely ask Anythingyouwant to follow our rules, only to have my hand slapped down as if he has some superior editing insight that the rest of us are too biased or stupid to understand. We have dozens of conservative leaning editors like JFG, FallingGravity, PackMecEng, Springee, Markbassett, Dervorguilla, and many others who manage to help balance content without constantly bending the rules to their favor and attacking other editors. Would it help if I produced a list of Anythinyouwant's personal attacks, or a list of his attempts to blatantly game the system, or a list of his faux retirements? Do we need an American Politics 3 Arbcom case before this will addressed in a meaningful way?

Admins, please help me help you. This falls way short of what is necessary.- Mr X 🖋 12:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: You quoted me and then wrote: "There are definitely editors that are more liberal leaning editors with a strong POV that have repeated been brought to AN/AE for behavior, shall we do the same to them? (obviously not)." ← How is that a logical response to what I wrote about constructive editing from right leaning editors? I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.

On the other hand, the rest of your comment is abundantly clear: that you think I'm trying to eliminate an editor whose POV I disagree with. If that is what you have gleaned from this discussion; the block and topic ban history; the talk page archives; the Arbcom cases; the diffs; the wikilawyering; and your own participation in the May 2017 ANI discussion, then I can confidently say you have no business making any comments below the Result concerning Anythingyouwant heading. Please recuse yourself, or at least move your comments to the gallery.- Mr X 🖋 19:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant

Saying at my user talk page that User:MrX is a POV-pusher and that he abuses administrative boards like this one was intended as an honest opinion, and his complaint here about it only proves the point.

Regarding the other matter he raises, let’s be real. The Trump lead includes an allegation that he may have committed a basically treasonous act: conspiring with Russia to steal the election. That allegation belongs in the lead, and so does at least some brief mention that Trump has denied it, which he has done incessantly and emphatically. My edit explicitly cited “WP:BLP” and I did it only once, here, before taking it to the talk page. BLP is crystal clear about this: “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported”. The more notable an accusation, the more notable the denial.

Sime people at the talk page say it wasn’t really an allegation because it’s merely alleged that he may have done it. Others say that it was indeed an allegation, but still the denial can be put later in the article instead, leaving only the accusation in the lead. That all strikes me as baloney. Accusers don’t have to be 100% certain of guilt, for this part of BLP to apply. Moreover, WP:LEAD instructs: “The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.“ After my one edit citing “WP:BLP”, I was reverted and did not repeat the edit. Instead I went to the talk page to listen to several editors make their implausible, partisan arguments. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN, I hadn’t realized that calling Wikipedia a propaganda outfit at my user talk was blockable. If so, please block me from my user talk instead of from the article that you don’t want me involved with. Until Wikipedia adopts some kind of jury-like system, fora like this one will be sources of abuse. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, I’m well aware that user-talk is not a free-for-all zone. I didn’t call anyone a fucking retard. I said that Wikipedia is propagandistic, and that’s because certain editors make it so. Even if I did call someone a fucking retard at user talk, does that give you authority to dish out topic bans? For stuff I said at user talk? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, do you really think I ever suggested that editors cannot be sanctioned for user talk page posts? I instead questioned whether the type of sanction, i.e. a topic ban, is the proper type of sanction for something I said at my user talk. A proper sanction for calling someone ~~of the anointed ones~~ a POV-pusher at my user talk can take some form other than a topic ban, no? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you will be implementing a three month topic ban on Donald Trump for something that was not said or done at either that article or that talk page. I called someone a POV-pusher at my own user talk. Do anything you want, I suppose. Call me whatever you want, I suppose. Whatever makes you feel good. I can certainly understand why you (plural) would not want a jury-like body to get in the way of your prescriptions. I will say quite frankly that Wikipedia’s most effective means of censorship is not to directly modify content, but rather to get rid of editors. You can judge for yourself how true that is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:NeilN, you say it’s wikilawyering for me to mention that this page is for enforcing arbitration sanctions whereas your only complaint about my alleged “attacks” is one single mild comment at my user talk page which has nothing to do with arbitration sanctions, and which I deleted hours ago. So, it seems you’re just throwing around catchphrases. I’ve already given my opinion above, regarding how and why folks like you operate. It will be very nice to have more space between us. Incidentally, the last sanction that you refer to was simply for an allegedly inaccurate edit summary, not for any edit that I made anywhere. In any event, you know as well as I do that no indefinite topic ban on me will ever be removed, that’s just the way things work around here. Congratulations, and farewell. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RegentsPark, I don’t see any indication that you’re any more aware than User:NeilN that the comment he objects to was at user talk, so banning me from somewhere aside from user talk seems like a misfire. I also don’t see any indication that you’re aware of a BLP exception to the “consensus required” restriction. You all are largely unaccountable and not detached, so none of this is surprising. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Masem, isn’t there a BLP exemption from the page restrictions? If you doubt it, I can provide links. I successfully availed myself of that exemption here at this page in 2016. The article talk page includes a BLP template, saying “This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy”. Also, I took this to the article talk page after citing “WP:BLP” only once, so it’s obvious I wasn’t jamming it back in using “BLP” in my edit summary again. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem, the policy you cite says “Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.” Note the word “biased”. You don’t think I had a good faith belief that omitting a denial of treason is a biased omission? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Repinging User:Masem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mandruss, I agree with you that BLP appears to provide a very limited exemption, but it doesn't include anything one considers biased. So I relied on a very specific form of bias that is clearly spelled out in the BLP policy: describing allegations while omitting denials. They should remove the word “bias” from the list of exemptions, if they’re going to sanction everyone who invokes it, but perhaps that suggestion is quixotic as well. Better to entice people into removing obvious bias, so they can then be selectively sanctioned depending upon the type of bias. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mandruss, see WP:3RRNO. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, 3RRNO potentially applies to 1RR, so I don’t see why it wouldn’t likewise potentially apply to the Trump article as well. See what User:Masem said below. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, if someone switches the top image in the Trump article to an image of a chimpanzee, that is subject to repeated reversion under 3RRNO, regardless of whether a consensus at article talk supports the chimp image. You seem to be arguing otherwise, but that’s the whole point of 3RRNO. The matter about the image can then come here, the admins can identify and ban the vandals, end of story. Same with blatant bias in the lead that violates explicit and specific language in WP:BLP. That’s what the applicable guidelines and policies say, and I’m surprised you disagree. (I don’t care for your sarcastic comments about white knights, by the way.) Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, I entirely agree that most BLP questions are far more nuanced than the chimpanzee example. So the admins here aren’t supposed to just take my word for it that BLP policy requires a brief denial in the Trump lead; they should go look at what WP:BLP says, go look at the lead as it stands now, read the applicable sanctions and 3RRNO, look at the proposed edits, read pertinent discussion at article talk, and reach a neutral decision about whether there’s a bias in the lead that violates BLP. None of that happens here because folks like you say it’s unnecessary to go through that process, and other folks just don’t feel in the mood. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mandruss, you say “AE's function is not resolve content disputes.” Unless it’s a chimpanzee picture, I gather. The discretionary sanctions say, “any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process” can be sanctioned. Blatantly violating a very clear BLP standard seems to qualify, IMHO. Anyway, you say we should all go home if Wikipedia fails. I will take that as very good advice. Wikipedia fails because there is no mechanism for randomly gathering uninvolved and uninterested editors together in a jury to apply BLP rules in disputes like this one, IMHO. Biased editors flock to every proceeding where they’re allowed. See you later, maybe. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bishonen, speaking of “crap”, when did my user talk page become subject to discretionary sanctions? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Sandstein violation of consensus required before restoration per [28] and [29]. (not sure why MrX didn't include those diffs)

Clearly not under the purview of the BLP exemption unlike what Anythingyouwant seems to say. There isn't a vague hand wavy "BLP" exemption; WP:3RRNO is pretty clear about it being of "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in death

Does anyone think Anythingyouwant is going to change his views about Trump in the next 3 months? Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation from Trump will change his editing in any way regarding Trump? Just make the topic ban permanent and be done with this crap. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC) @Masem, I see you missed the second rhetorical question. "Does anyone genuinely think a 3 month vacation will change his editing in any way?". The combination of his POV regarding Trump and his inability to alter his behaviour means that a 3 month topic ban from one particular topic in US politics is unlikely to do anything except push the problem back for 3 months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

There is no exemption to the ArbCom restrictions for opposition to perceived POV-pushing. If there were, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived POV-pushing is rampant. BLP appears to provide a very limited exemption, but it doesn't include anything one considers biased. If it did, the ArbCom restrictions would be virtually worthless, as misperceived bias is rampant. Anythingyouwant seems unable to err on the side of caution when editing under the remedies, which I expressed to them in January. And claiming that the entire system is corrupt is tilting at windmills, pure and simple. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: BLP does not trump CONSENSUS, which is why we go immediately to talk upon a challenge even if we are asserting BLP. Once we got to talk, we saw legitimate opinion from multiple experienced editors that the preceding sentence is not an allegation as intended by that clause of BLP. Hence, err on the side of caution. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: ArbCom restrictions ≠ WP:3RR. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: At great cost to the project, BLP is often used as a weapon by self-appointed righteous Knights of the Order of BLP Protectors—editors who like (or need) to see themselves as the only good editors in the room. Neutrality looks like bias to those who fail to recognize their own bias, and that's a stone cold fact. Whether you are such a knight is really beside the point, as there has to be one set of rules for everybody. BLP cannot trump CONSENSUS, it simply does not and cannot work; if somebody challenges your BLP claim, you go to talk and seek consensus, full stop. If somebody repeatedly forces you to talk with spurious challenges of BLP claims, that's an equally serious behavior issue that warrants a harsh response.
If policy does not make all this crystal clear, we have identified the root of much unnecessary conflict in BLP areas. As I've said before, if CONSENSUS and behavior policy are not enough to protect article content, en-wiki fails and we all go home. I don't rule out that possibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I submit that this BLP question, and most BLP questions, are far more nuanced than your chimpanzee example. And that's the problem, too many editors are unwilling or unable to see the nuance, and every BLP question is a chimpanzee example. They self-appoint as the only editors able to see with that amount of clarity, even when opposed by multiple editors with, collectively, many times their experience. That can't work in a project fundamentally based on collaboration. It never has and it never will. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: AE's function is not resolve content disputes. It is to decide whether you violated the ArbCom restrictions. In my opinion you did, I'm sorry if the rules are unclear, but you knew the quicksand was there and chose to walk into it. Again.
I'm done here unless pinged by somebody else. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER say "I'm done here".
SPECIFICO's "Your 'evidence' seems to suggest" overstates the case, but their interpretation of the cause-and-effect is at least as likely as Lambden's, and that neutralizes both arguments. I don't know the name of Lambden's logical fallacy, but I know a logical fallacy when I see one. Besides, we are hardly going to instate affirmative action for conservatives, so the argument is pointless. It's also meta to this AE complaint and thus off topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

I confess I saw the change made by Anythingyouwant, thought it was accurately in line with BLP so I restored it, not paying enough attention to the regs for that page, that stipulate talkpage consensus must be reached beforehand. Recognize also the reverts mentioned do not involve vandalism reverts and the BLP argument is not strong. To me it seems like an issue of ethical good taste more than anything else. While most may feel Anythingyouwant deserves a sanction here, would prefer they be allowed to participate in the talkpage discussion if they would be willing to self impose a 90 day article space editing moratorium. Just seeking a less draconian resolution.--MONGO 18:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The push to site ban or indef block this editor has all the makings of a rather draconian resolution. The near threats of yet another arbcom case are not pleasing to read either.--MONGO 14:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appalled that MrX would demand that Masem, an 10 year veteran admin, who was supported 50-1 on his Rfa, and with numerous FAs and GAs under his belt, would be asked to not participate in the resolution of this matter in his capacity as an administrator of this website. I dare say that MrX does some heavy pitching here frequently to AE and while some of those he has brought forth here do deserve penalty, his heavy handed approach here and elsewhere indicates to me that the inability to edit collegially may be as much his problem to work on as those he accuses of the same.--MONGO 20:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@NeilN: If the sanction is to be a TBAN, why restrict it to Donald Trump? Anythingyouwant's behavior spans the entire American Politics space, and its gone on for many years. I don't think it really should be a temporary sanction, either, but that is typical of the timid approach Admins have taken in recent enforcement. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden: Your "evidence" seems to suggest that Trump-oriented editors (e.g. ones with pin-ups of POTUS on their user pages) tend to violate DS whereas neutral editors, who generally do not violate DS, are repeatedly brought here on specious, undocumented and generally incompetent complaints. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Some fallacies should not even be dignified by the name logical. It's just a "one of those". SPECIFICO talk 22:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Admins, but I'm going to repeat something I've said on this page several times before: Anythingyouwant got a TBAN from abortion-related topics after some epic misdeeds in that area. The post-1932 politics has become an extension of that battleground. Many pro-life advocates will do anything necessary to sustain Republican leadership that will appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices. Anythingyouwant's behavior in American Politics articles should already have been deemed a violation of his TBAN, but the connection may not be within the domain of mere Admins. I'm sure if we take this to Arbcom, this user would likely be blocked indefinitely from WP. There needs to be decisive action to stop the corrosive misbehavior that has been the core of Anythingyouwant's participation on Wikipedia. A simple AP2 TBAN is required. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

Here are all cases where 1RR/Consensus Required AP2 complaints were dismissed:

Sept 2016 – Volunteer Marek – Complaining party accused of using enforcement to "game" the system and topic banned
Oct 2016 – Anythingyouwant – good faith reverts as potential BLP problems
Oct 2016 – My very best wishes – No action taken
Feb 2017 – SPECIFICO - Questionable conduct by more than one editor, but no action taken
May 2017 – SPECIFICO - No action taken

Here are all cases where they resulted in sanctions:

Oct 2016 – Ihardlythinkso – banned from the topic of post-1932 politics
Oct 2016 – Anythingyouwant – banned from the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States
Feb 2017 – Thucydides411 – 'blocked for one week for violating the page restrictions
Jul 2017 – Neuwert – blocked for 48 hours
Nov 2017 – Anythingyouwant – placed on 0RR for 1 month on Roy Moore
Nov 2017 – Volunteer Marek – Topic ban from Donald Trump and interaction ban for filer
Dec 2017 – DHeyward – topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians

In only one case was a complaint against an editor seemingly advocating the conservative position dismissed, and it involved them removing an unsubstantiated accusation of "child rape" from the lede. Note the editors who restored "child rape" faced no consequences.

In only one case was an editor seemingly advocating the liberal position sanctioned, and the complaining party was sanctioned with an interaction ban.

To editors familiar with the topic the pattern is evident.

I have listed only violations reported to AE. Past decisions and comments have had a chilling effect, and editors in the topic know to avoid disciplinary noticeboards as, depending on the violator, a complaint will at best be dismissed and at worst result in their own sanction.

Here are two examples I've encountered just in the last month of the same 1RR/Consensus Required violation which were not sanctioned: diff1, diff2. If there a question as to whether a complaint would have resulted in action note that one of the violators (who I repeat violated the same policy) feels confident enough to comment here recommending a full topic ban.

To quote Justice Judy's decision in Brawthen, a domestic violence case:

"There are women who worked very hard for decades to create a system where domestic violence is serious business, where people respond to it in a serious way, and when [it's] used as a weapon and not a shield it's offensive to the system."

Unfortunately I have seen more examples of Discretionary Sanctions and enforcement as a "weapon" against editors than a "shield" to protect articles. I expect this will continue absent significant reform.

Note regarding the list above: I have omitted complaints dismissed due to conspicuous policy misinterpretation by the filer. If I have excluded 1RR/Consensus Required complaints with a reasonable policy basis please link them and I will amend the list. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Reading down the page, I found Only in death's comment (in favor of an indef Trump topic ban) persuasive at first, since I think he's quite correct that a short Trump topic ban for AYW isn't going to make much of a difference. Then I read Bishonen's comment (3 month indef block), and that seemed to make even more sense, although I (personally) would still doubt that AYW would change their combative way of editing (on full display here) even then, but a few months in the desert is better than allowing AYW to continue practicing their editing style on other American-politics related topics -- which they would certainly do. Therefore, I would suggest to NeilN that Bishonen's suggestion is the better choice, if we're to have any hope of encouraging AYW to change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

This case moved forward quickly so I apologize for getting here so late. My perception of AYW's attempt to add the denial to the lede was that it was a GF edit based on NPOV and BLP. AYW did go to the article TP in an attempt to discuss the inclusion. I don't think irritating another editor at a TP justifies a block or TB. My interest in this case is more focused on the NPOV argument which I see as being inseparable from BLP. Prior to this case being filed, I posted a tough question on the TP of TonyBallioni hoping to get some thoughtful input. The diff I used in that same discussion included AYW's edit as an example. While waiting for more answers at Tony's, I discovered this case had been filed. I respect MrX, and realize that our Trump-related articles are highly controversial. There also appears to be an expanding left-right divide in RL which may explain why we're seeing mention of party affiliations in the discussion above. Political persuasions should not be an issue if everyone is truly focused on NPOV, but I also understand why some may think political persuasion may create an inadvertent COI, especially if one has a strong loyalty to or hatred for a particular party. I can also see that the results here are not leaning in AYW's favor, but I'm going to ask for leniency anyway. Editor retention is becoming/has been an issue, and as Legacypac pointed out above, we may be eliminating too many editors whose opposing views actually help WP achieve compliance with neutrality and balance. I hope it's a worthy enough point for admins to ponder. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

A quick look at AYW's contributions shows they have interests beyond politics. Their contributions in those areas don't appear to be problematic. An indefinite topic ban from American politics as proposed by User:NeilN, rather than a block, would let them continue to contribute where their activity isn't causing problems.

Admittedly there's a chance that they could cause problems in related areas that fall outside American politics (e.g., British politics or something). But I think it's worth trying a broadly-construed, indefinite AP topic ban instead of a block. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anythingyouwant

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

Given the past sanctions, I am disinclined to overlook "Wikipedia is the biggest propaganda outfit on Earth, thanks to folks like you" and recommend another Donald Trump topic ban, three months in length. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: I don't think you understand user talk pages are in no way free-for-all zones and not subject to civility restrictions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anythingyouwant: Yes, editors can be sanctioned for user talk page posts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: How exactly does the one diff no. 1 violate the article restrictions? Sandstein 14:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Why do we need a novel-length discussion for this? Anyway. BLP is not an excuse, because whether the contested content is needed here is primarily a matter of editorial judment and therefore a legitimate content dispute. But I am generally not a fan of page restrictions, because they tend to create more problems than they solve. Because of this, I normally expect whoever places page restrictions to enforce them themselves. I'll therefore take no action here and have no opinion about whether anybody else should. Sandstein 21:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with NeilN that a three month Donald Trump topic ban is the way to go. Sandstein, diff no. 1 appears to violate the "consensus required" restriction. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anythingyouwant's first addition of this material, prior to the diff identified above. While I am 100% sympathetic towards the BLP argument raised here (including the allegation in the lede but not the denial), this is clearly against page restrictions. --Masem (t) 14:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the material added qualifies for the WP:3RRNO exemptions; the only one we have for BLP is removing obviously poorly or unsourced libelous material. I think Anythingyouwant is fully correct there's a massive BLP problem here, but its not one that can be managed by edit warring. --Masem (t) 15:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I'm aware of. While BLP is very important and particularly in this case, you still can't edit over it. We're not talking poorly/unsourced material (the allegations and his denial are well sourced), so it immediately fails the 3RRNO allowances. I know what you're trying to ask to do, you're hitting a massive wall, but that's not a reason to edit war against clear page restrictions, even if you think you are doing it in the name of BLP. --Masem (t) 15:07, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Only adding a comment that I am concerned about @Only in death:'s suggestion that they don't expect AYW's opinion to change on Trump in 3 months so we should enforce something harder. The last thing we are going to do is block/ban people strictly because they express a certain opinion/POV. It's the combination of expressing that opinion and editing in a disruptive manner to maintain that opinion/POV that causes a problem and where we need blocks. Mechanically, we need to enforce something here against AYW's edits - they were clearly not appropriate and since they have been warned/acted against before, they should know better. But again, those were for actions, not for having a specific POV. Very much particularly at an article like Trump, we should have editors with multiple viewpoints to keep watch to make sure BLP/NPOV is upheld, which may create friction which is why there are the discretionary sanctions on that page to caution editors. --Masem (t) 06:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We have dozens of conservative leaning editors like JFG, FallingGravity, PackMecEng, Springee, Markbassett, Dervorguilla, and many others who manage to help balance content without constantly bending the rules to their favor and attacking other editors. There are definitely editors that are more liberal leaning editors with a strong POV that have repeated been brought to AN/AE for behavior, shall we do the same to them? (obviously not). Given that AYW's concern here is 100% valid under BLP (and as I see from the talk page, has been discussed and implemented), just not an allowance for editing warring, this seems more pleading to eliminate a louder voice in opposition to the majority's POV from the discussion, only readily supported in the fact that AYW has engaged in some disruptive behavior in the past. I know what that looks like, where you are challenging the prevailing editors' broad POV and end up having those editors try to silence you, and I see the same patterns here. We have something we can take action on (exceeding 0RR on contested material), but it's nowhere close to the disruption that a lengthy topic ban or block is required, particularly as they jumped to the talk page to start discussion. --Masem (t) 14:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and continued jibes on display here, I will be implementing a three month topic ban on Donald Trump, broadly construed, unless there is further admin input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't straight-up oppose your plans there, Neil, but I find Anythingyouwant's arguments against a topic ban logical. He questions "whether the type of sanction, i.e. a topic ban, is the proper type of sanction for something I said at my user talk. A proper sanction for calling one of the anointed ones a POV-pusher at my user talk can take some form other than a topic ban, no?" Yes. A three-month-block would be a better fit (proposed block length adjusted for AYWs long history of battleground editing, and for the "one of the anointed ones" crap). Bishonen | talk 20:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think that if this were only the editing restriction violation, I'd argue for leniency; while the disputed text probably doesn't reach the standard of the exemptions in 3RRNO, I do think the is a BLP problem and the exemption was claimed in good faith; that they are also participating in the TP is also good. The aspersions and general battleground attitude on display is deeply unimpressive, though. I agree with others that a narrow topic ban is not the answer here and I'd be inclined towards a shorter block (a month? six weeks?). GoldenRing (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the rationale for the block? If we are giving a three-month block out just for some extraordinarily mild incivility on his own talk page, then that's ludicrous. The community lets far more incivil comments than that go by with nothing done about them every day of the year. Blocks should not be used to punish, they should be to prevent disruption. If the block rationale would be for the problem editing in a single area, then a topic ban is appropriate. As the disruption is in one area, then a targeted topic ban is both less destructive and would solve the problem of disruptive editing. I'd suggest it be to American politics articles, rather than specifically ones about Donald Trump, though, and I'd suggest 3 months would be the absolute minimum length. Fish+Karate 11:16, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen, GoldenRing, and Fish and karate: When considering your comments I had another look at Anythingyouwant's editing history. On January 20th they were given a one month topic ban from Donald Trump. On January 27th they took a break from editing. They returned on April 13th and went back to Donald Trump a couple days after. On the 19th they started the attacks that landed them here. This indicates they will simply wait until their topic ban expires and then continue their disruption. When reading their "discretionary sanctions applies to user talk pages? really??" comments above, I was struck how similar this was to their behavior outlined in the last case here. Same gaming, same wikilawyering. I don't think a short block will work here based on their Jan-Apr editing history but an indefinite topic ban might. Let them edit in other areas to show they can contribute non-disruptively and have them appeal rather than having the ban simply expire. I'd go with a blanket American Politics ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be good with that. The ban formulation should preferably contain explicit advice about how constructive editing in other areas, as well as in the sister projects, would make an appeal more likely to be viewed favorably. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I think that’s a better option then immediately jumping to a full block. Fish+Karate 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy

Blocked for one week for edit-warring. Sandstein 18:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_(2011) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Sanctions_available

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

00:24, 10 April 2018 removes Q2 from an article FAQ that he had been heavily involved in building out three years previously. No discussion raised on talk.
17:59, 13 April 2018 Removes again, again with no talk discussion
17:04, 15 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing
14:49, 17 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing
16:53, 20 April 2018 Removes again, whilst talk discussion ongoing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21:39, 15 May 2017 72-hour ARBPIA-related block

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked under ARBPIA

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These five edits do not cross 1RR, but they constitute a clear and consistent edit-war. Given this editor's long term experience, I would have hoped they could have relied on discussion instead of trying to force through a new status quo.
Whilst these edits were on a talk-page FAQ, and not an article, the general restriction clearly refers to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", not just "any article".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

There is an explicit talk page consensus that the material should be removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#1RR_on_FAQ where 5 editors support removal and only 3 think the material should be included. Note that my reverts "whilst talk discussion ongoing" were per ONUS and CONS to the version the talk page consensus supported.

Please note that Onceinawhile (who has also reverted twice) has not reported editors who support his position who also made multiple reverts while discussion was ongoing (some against consensus), including one who didn't even bother to participate in the discussion. This report is an obvious BATTLEGROUND attempt after failing to gain consensus. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, it's not "whatever consensus your preferred verson might once have enjoyed", it's a !vote in bold right in the discussion I linked to which I assume you haven't even looked at? Also, was I edit warring with myself? Anyhow, I self-reverted my last edit before you posted, for whatever that's worth. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto2012, who commented below, made 3 reverts in 5 days to the same page this complaint is about, despite an explicit 5:3 consensus against the material he inserted, in a discussion he participated in. I think Onceinawhile forgot to report him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address the above diffs in full, the complete order of things is as follows:

I removed some material from a sub page of a talk page (might be important to remember we're not talking about a main page mainspace article here). Nobdy had edited this page in over 6 months. This might technically be a revert, but it is for all intents and purposes a BOLD edit.
Almost 4 days later, Onceinawhile, the filer of this report, reverts claiming "no consensus for removal". [31]
I reverted him. [32]
He opens a discussion (claiming a 1RR violation) on the talk page [33].
Within a day a 3:1 consensus emerges against including the material.
Pluto shows up and reverts, despite said consensus, with a cryptic ES [34]
Some back and forth reverts occur (including by me), including another one by Onceinawhile, the guy who filed this report, again, despite the talk page discussion and consensus.
Some talk page discussion occurs over a couple of days, it is now 4:3 against including.
Pluto again reverts against consensus, with an irrelevant ES [35]
Again some back and forth reverts (including mine).
Some more talk page discussion over 3 days, consensus is now 5:3 against including.
Pluto again reverts against consensus.
I revert. Onceinawhile reports (but only me), I self-revert.

I would also point out that a week block for (at worst) 5 reverts over 10 days to a sub page of a talk page seems excessive and punitive rather than preventative. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 98.159.212.219

@Sandstein: do you also think that a 1 week block would be appropriate for all editors in the edit war? By my count, the OP of this request had reverted twice, Pluto2012 reverted three times, and TheGrecefulSlick twice. Is there any special reason you are singling out No more Mister nice guy, other than your personal history with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.212.219 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

NMMGG is not on wikipedia to participate (constructively) to the development of an encyclopedy. His activity here is limited to bring controversial and useless issues again and again. Here, we are talking about the FAQ and discussions pages that was introduced 3 years ago to summarize discussions. What for ?
But this behaviour has come back recurrently on this board in particular regarding his behaviour against Nishidani but more globally about his general behaviour to import here the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And that is not compensated by NPoV given his uncapacity to follow Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent.
A ban of 1 week blocade is not enough. He should just be topic-banned. Pluto2012 (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NMMGG: I made 3 reverts. You are reported because you made 5. But you and I would have made 10 that it would not change anything. We are not on wikipedia to play with these rules (that I just don't know or follow) and I do not count the reverts that I make. You are not here to participate to a projet and develop and encyclopedia. You are here to defend a point of view and in truth you fight for this. And you also bring huge frustration and agressivty. All this is not compatible with Wikipedia and you shoule be topic banned, if not just banned. For the good of the project and for your good. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

NMNNG was acting inline with talk page consensus - in the discussion concurrent to these edits, more users objected to inclusion than supported this highly POVish faq item in Wikipedia's voice. Per ONUS, the burden is on those who wish to include the material and this has clearly not been met. I would like to point out the following edit summary by Pluto2012, made when TP consensus was clearly not inline with inclusion, diff with the following edit summary: Let's open an ARBCOM case once for all..Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lorstaking

No More Mr Nice Guy is correct with his reverts that the edits had no consensus. Read WP:BRD, this is not a sanctionable conduct. Issue is moot because NMMNG has made a self-revert. Lorstaking (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Yep, pretty straightforward editwarring here. "The others are editing against consensus" is not an excuse for editwarring, and if you keep on reverting many different editors, then that is a pretty good indication that whatever consensus your preferred verson might once have enjoyed isn't so solid any more. I think a one-week block would be appropriate. Sandstein 21:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus is now 5:3 against including" makes no sense. Consensus is not a vote. This situation, together with many people reverting, is rather indicative of no consensus - which doesn't matter anyway because edit-warring is never justifiable except in rare cases not at issue here, see WP:3RRNO. Closing with a one-week block. Sandstein 18:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון

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

Request concerning יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically

Editors counseled

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

17:19, 17 April 2018 Insert serious allegation about links to the Munich massacre..without any source

23:03, 21 April 2018 Reintroduce a source which has clearly false information ("Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque")

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 March 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement
13 April 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Previously blocked under Arbitration enforcement, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

IMO, both of the above edits are quite outrageous...this editor is, IMO, not ready for the ARBPIA area. I suggest a topic ban from the IP area for ...quite a while. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Huldra (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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

Statement by יניב הורון

In this case I haven't broken any rule of Wikipedia. There's no edit-warring in the first place! Here I wanted to show that Kamal Nasser was targeted as part of Israel's Operation Wrath of God, which is a fact, but making sure that his involvement in the Munich massacre is an allegation. You reverted my edit anyway, and I didn't insist. Regarding this edit, the JP source explains that Rachel's tomb wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque" before 1996. You may not like my edits, you could revert them or discuss in talk page, but you have no right to censor me because I disagree with you in an article or two. I mean, are you serious?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: with all due respect, I don't think you are the best person to talk about POV-pushing. I'm no less biased than you, Huldra or many others, but I always try to edit based on reliable sources and encyclopedic value. You can't silence someone because they disagree with your political opinions. In any case, my edits are far less POV than most editors in ARBPIA. But if you don't like them, you are more than welcome to discuss them in the talk pages. So far I haven't enganged with you in virtually any single article or talk page (including this one!), so it seems strange that your are complaining about my way of editing right now. I guess for some people is easier to ask for censorship than debate using actual arguments.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: ~~Maybe it's because of some natural loathing for "Jewboys", but~~ I didn't break 1RR. As you can see here, I was only reverting content removed by SantiLak, which I didn't write in the first place. It was there long before I started to edit the article. And I gave my reasons in the talk page, where you are more than welcome to engange in a civilized discussion instead of harrasing people at AE.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Nice try, but everybody can see that in this case, I was not restoring content that I added, but content that was already there before SantiLak came and removed it. I can disprove your accusation very easily. My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27, right? Well, this version of February 15 mentions exactly the same thing that SantiLak removed in April: "The European Union has been criticized for funding Israeli political non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that attempt to undermine..." Therefore, it's not my content that I was restoring.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I edit in a wide range of topics, mainly Jewish-related. As you can see from the discussion above, I did nothing wrong. I didn't break 1RR, and I was not engaged in edit-warring. Huldra's arguments to censor me are laughable. It's true that in the past I've been blocked for violating the third bullet in ARBPIA articles ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert"), but I was already punished for that and I've learned my lesson. Now I'm familiar with that rule. In the case mentioned by MShabazz, I was NOT restoring content added by myself. In other words, I was not the "original author" of that content. You can check by yourself.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Oh, no. Don't change rules now. The ARBPIA bullet clearly says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." It doesn't say ANYTHING about "by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it." [therefore becoming its "original author"] I'm not the original author, therefore I'm allowed to make a second revert after 24 hours have passed since MY last revert (not SantiLak's revert). This is my first revert, this is my second revert after 24 hours (not 18 hours, since you don't count from other user's revert, unless I was the original author of that content). Also take a look at WP:Civility next time you feel the urge to swear on Wikipedia.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a previous discussion involving MShabazz where he complained about "Jewboys" in Wikipedia. I'm an Israeli Jew, so I hope that won't be a problem for him. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with our present discussion so I'll just scratch it out.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought it was MShabazz who complained about "Jewboys". It was a stupid comment on my part and I apologize for that.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was investigating who is MShabazz, the same way he was checking my edits with a magnifying glass to censor me. I never had a discussion with him before, but I found out that he was removed from his position as administrator a few years ago. Is that right? Nevertheless, the "Jewboy" comment wasn't from him, since he is Jewish himself. Apparently some disgusting racist told him "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." Again, I apologize to him for the misunderstanding. In that case he was the victim.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:: Just to clarify, my previous sanctions were because I was not familiarized with ARBPIA rules. I didn't have experience in Wikipedia before. The first sanction was because I made this edit before I had an extended-confirmed user (while the article wasn't protected at the time, hence my confusion). The second one was because I didn't understand the third bullet of ARBPIA, which has nothing to do with 1RR: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." Nevertheless, when I understood the rule, I accepted the sanction and didn't repeat the violation again. However, in this case, Huldra and MShabazz have no reason to accuse me of violating any rule. I didn't break 1RR nor the third bullet, and I WAS NOT engaged in edit-warring (as you can see here: one single half-revert; here: one single revert; and here: two reverts, precisely because the other user broke the third bullet). How can you call this "edit-warring" or "being disruptive"? I ask you to be fair instead of considering me "problematic" just because other editors -whose political agenda I happen to disagree with- want to have less competitors in a sensitive topic. Please, check my contributions and you will see I'm not here to disrupt anything. All my contributions (mainly in Jewish and Israeli-related articles) are significant and meaningful, based on reliable sources. I understand if other editors disagree with them, and they are welcome to revert me and discuss in talk pages, but that's not a reason to ban me.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:: I'm an Israeli Jew (and proud of it), of course I don't have any "natural loathing" against my own people. On the contrary, I was referring to a comment made by Shabazz in 2015 where he said literally (excuse my language) "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." After that I tried to apologize because I thought Shabazz was the victim of such a disgusting insult, but later Shabazz himself admitted that HE was the author of the racist slur, apparently because he was tired of being "harrassed" by someone of Jewish extraction. In any case, it has nothing to do with our present discussion, except that it shows that those who accuse me of having a "biased" and "POV agenda" are the least suited to speak about such matters. The irony is that I've never had a previous discussion with Shabazz in any talk page. But for some reason he wants to get rid of me based on spurious accusations. In any case, I invite him to have a civilized discussion to achieve consensus instead of resorting to deplorable tactics to censor editors who don't share his views.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: Please, explain me how exactly I broke 1RR. I made the second revert 24 hours after my first revert, not within the 24 hours period.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: What is "gaming the system"? Am I allowed to make another revert after 24 hours passed? Yes or no? Tell me the rules so I'll be more careful next time. I thought 1RR only counts for more than one revert made within a 24 hours period. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

יניב הורון is misinformed when they argue that they have done no wrong because they haven't been edit-warring. They have been engaged in POV-pushing, which is far worse. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of their POV-pushing, consider this edit, which parrots Benjamin Netanyahu's anti-NGO slurs but doesn't demonstrate being here to build an encyclopedia. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of edit-warring, they made that revert and restored the POV-pushing 24 hours and two minutes after they inserted it, and only 18 hours after it was removed by another editor. I believe that is both an attempt to game the system and a 1RR violation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you have a "natural loathing" toward Jews, you violated WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, which says an editor can't restore material they added within 24 hours of another editor removing it. You added the material at 21:33 on 18 April and restored it at 21:35 on 19 April. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did write that. I was being harassed on Wikipedia by a Jewish editor (who has since been perma-blocked for harassing other editors) and receiving threatening e-mails from other editors and from Wikipedia trolls. I lashed out at him because I was frustrated that he was harassing me and engaging in what I consider to be racist taunting and nobody at WP:ANI seemed to give a fuck. I was the subject of an emergency de-sysopping and I resigned my position about the same time ArbCom voted to remove the bit. I have since been offered the bit again without an RfA, but I declined.

To get back to the matter at hand, evidently יניב הורון can't read very well, because they clearly violated the 1RR restriction that applies to ARBPIA articles, which requires a 24-hour minimum before an editor can restore their material to an article. And by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it, so they can't later say "But I wasn't the original authot". Look at the two diffs above. In a space of 18 hours, יניב הורון reverted another editor's removal of material they had added (restored) to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, the old "But he started it" defense is meaningless when an editor breaks a bright-line rule like 1RR. As a sysop, you ought to know better. Please don't insult my intellectual or further embarrass yourself by continuing that twisted "logic". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More smoke and mirrors from Number 57. Are you also arguing that יניב הורון wasn't gaming the system by making the same edit 24 hours and two minutes apart? Your defense of the indefensible here is very disappointing; you never struck me as a partisan editor before. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 1RR violation and system-gaming that I wrote about, and which you appeared to be responding to when you started your section addressing me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your message because I hadn't read it as carefully as I should have. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

Did the user against whom enforcement is requested really just write this, or do I need new spectacles?!? MPS1992 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what you linked is a lengthy polemic from someone called User:JordanGero, who was blocked for harassment more than a year ago, not anything that Malik Shabazz said at all? MPS1992 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But. You also wrote above My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27. This year, 2018. But you are angrily linking to things about "Jewboys" that were said in August 2015. Something's not right here. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you need to spend less time "investigating" other editors, and indeed less time in the topic area altogether. MPS1992 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

I would have settled for the one-week block, but this editor's behavior here and on the topic overall gives me no confidence that it will magically make them change their ways. Their talk page alone is a good indication of how "collaborative" this editor is in this sensitive topic area. Since יניב הורון cannot keep their biases in check, cannot adhere to editing restrictions, and cannot edit collaboratively, they are not needed or wanted in the topic area; it is a priviledge they simply have demonstrated they do not deserve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון you say two blocks like it isn't a big deal yet you have only been here for two months. Considering I could have reported you during this discussion and you would have been blocked, this is not a good trend. I see about five warnings for edit warring, and it is all related to the I/P topic area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

@MShabazz: If you go back to the start of that dispute, the first edit in this chain was by Onceinawhile to remove the source; it was then restored by Icewhiz, then removed by Huldra, then restored again by יניב הורון. If יניב הורון has broken the spirit of the rules, then so has Huldra. However neither has broken the rules as worded, so I don't see this as actionable. Number 5 7 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Unfortunately I think your judgement has been very poor here, as are your comments aimed at myself. The rule is that you can't reinstate your own edit. If it were meant that you can't reinstate someone else's edit, then it would be worded that way. The original rule was worded this way ("In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."), but was amended to the current version (in spite of my objections). It's nothing to do with "he started it", it's a simple case that יניב הורון hasn't broken 1RR as he's only reverted once. Number 5 7 07:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Are we even talking about the same thing here? My comments are regarding יניב הורון's behaviour at Rachel's Tomb (hence the diffs above), where he reverted Huldra after less than a couple of hours. Number 5 7 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Apologies, I thought the 1RR accusation was regarding the edits at Rachel's Tomb. I agree that leaving it a few minutes after 24 hours to make another edit is gaming the rules. Number 5 7 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Huldra raises two issues. Both should not be actionable:

In the first instance Yaniv added information to a non-BLP (died in 1973) that " All three men had made Israel's Operation Wrath of God target list for their participation in the massacre of eleven members of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich." This should have been sourced (e.g. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]) - however this is not a BLP - and the information itself is correct (and was subsequently re-added by Pluto2012 with a source).
The second instance, is a WP:KETTLE situation - as Huldra herself reverted once. Yaniv did a single revert. Huldra misrepresents this this source (written by an expert, published in a RS) - since as Huldra should know we do not use article (or book) titles for sourcing (as they are often sensationalist) - we use the actual contents. The article in question does not deny previous Muslim use - in fact - it actually lists quite a bit of previous Muslim use. It does contend that previous Muslim use was also identified to Rachel and that the identification with Bilal ibn Rabah is very recent - from 1996 - and implausible (as this figure is known to be buried in Damascus). None of the sources presented on the talk-page state otherwise for this structure built by Jews (in the 19th century, and previously in the 17th). In any event - a single revert should not be actionable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Israel–European Union relations - Yaniv actually did not break 1RR there. SantiLak broke 1RR (the "original authorship provision") with Revision as of 11:12, 18 April 2018 and Revision as of 03:36, 19 April 2018 (so authoring (or reverting) - and then a revert 17 hours later). Yaniv asked SantiLak to self revert - user talk page post at Santilak. Yaniv probably should have reported SantiLak to AE or AW on his failure to self-revert (as the violation was quite blatant) - instead he reverted them after 24 hours were up - which was not correct - however this is an inexperienced editor.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: The revert at 24hrs+2minutes was wrong by Yaniv - but the user he was reverting had violated 1RR (17 hours) and was asked to self revert - Yaniv should've held off from reverting and taken it to the appropriate noticeboard (where it was actionable).Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SantiLak: 1RR in ARBPIA is a bit different. See "consensus"_provision_modified "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (it is also in the edit notice). So even if your original edit was not a revert (could be argued), you were the original author of the non-revert edit.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:, Yaniv was correct in saying the other editor broke the "original author clause" of ARBPIA's 1rr. If this were standard 1rr, he possibly (depends what one sees as a revert) would have been incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

MPS1992 and Malik Shabazz's comments are full of sense. This editor arrived 2 months ago and already "investigated" on the past of another contributor. His global behaviour is agressive and suspicious. He games the system in reverting after 24 hours and... 2 minutes. He fails Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. He should be topic-banned of the articles related to the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tritomex

Nothing shown here by Huldra, justifies sanctions against יניב הורון In fact I do not see why Huldra sees Jerusalem Post article as unreliable, nor I see any proves (sources) that the claim sourced with JP [44] is falls. In fact I found many additional WP:RSN that states that the identification of that place as Bilal ibn Rabah mosque dates from 1996. This dosent mean that the place was not considered a place of worship, by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well for centuries. As in the case of all questions that could be related to Arab-Israeli conflict, there is a lot of bias here and very little substantial from editors who could be seen as uniinvolved.Tritomex (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 73.95.138.207

Clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant edit-warring with a battleground mindset. Look at the following edits [45][46][47][48]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6.

Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [49][50] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Suggest ban to give editor time out to think about his actions and a topic ban. Would offer something more but at work and had to rush this as it was. Gotta go.73.95.138.207 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SantiLak

@Icewhiz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand 1RR. You claimed I violated 1RR and יניב הורון didn't because I made a content edit and then made 1 revert yet they just made 2 reverts. That's a textbook case of 1RR by יניב הורון. I didn't make 2 reverts and there is no such thing as the "the original authorship provision." I should have reported them for edit warrring and violating 1RR but I didn't because I felt like following BRD. Like another user said, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, a topic ban is very appropriate. - SantiLak (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning יניב הורון

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

This is gaming the system and I'd be inclined to do a one week block, especially after the last four day block. Also, the behavior on this request itself doesn't give me much confidence that this block will do much, so I'd be amenable to a topic ban in addition too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be confusion on what's what, my opinion/recommendation above is based on the statement from MShabazz above, not the original complaint. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Please fill out the sanctions and awareness sections of your request correctly. Sandstein 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As reported this does not look actionable to me. Diff 2 is nothing more than a content dispute if all that's alleged to be wrong with this diff is that it introduces false information. Whether that is so and whether the sourcing is adequate is a matter for talk page discussion. As to diff 1, certainly a source would be preferable here per WP:V, but it's not a BLP, and there's not been an edit war or anything like that about the content, so I think a {{cn}} tag would have been a better reaction than this report. The report borders on the frivolous. However, @יניב הורון: please explain what you meant with your comment above that you have a "a natural loathing for 'Jewboys'". Sandstein 20:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been here less than two months, has been blocked twice already and still doesn't seem to understand why their behaviour is problematic. A block is indicated, but I think we really need a topic ban here. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite, though I think a block might be just punitive if a topic ban is applied. But this editor clearly is disruptive in that topic area as shown by the previous sanctions, and I think that indicates they need to be removed from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - a topic ban would negate the necessity for a block. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון broke 1RR after incorrectly notifying someone else of breaking 1RR on that page. That's a few days ago, but I don't see how that isn't edit-warring and deliberately and knowingly violating restrictions. Huon (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am technically wrong by two minutes. Clearly gaming the system. Huon (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, thanks for pointing out the specific provision that יניב הורון apparently meant to say the other editor violated; they only referred to 1RR both in the edit summary and on SantiLak's talk page, which doesn't have that clause. That said, 1RR (in either incarnation) clearly isn't meant to have editors sitting around with stopwatches to wait 24 hours and two minutes to revert instead of 23 hours and 58 minutes. This is adherence to the wording of the instructions while ignoring the spirit. Huon (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: Oh, now I understand what you mean. Of course it wasn't my intention to sit around with an atomic clock to revert someone 24 hours and 1 second after my last revert. I don't usually do that. The reason why I made this second revert was because I felt that SantiLak broke the third bullet of ARBPIA (which is not 1RR, my mistake). Besides, I left him a message on the talk page that he didn't answer so far, explaining why I reverted him back. I did it for a specific reason, in a specific situation. And I did it only once. Check all the edits and you'll see I didn't make more than two reverts in that article, which is not so terrible. But maybe I shouldn't have rushed to revert him so fast. Next time I'll try to wait 30 hours or so to avoid breaking the spirit of 1RR, which is to avoid edit-warring. Nevertheless, to ask for a block or topic ban seems a little bit excesive and out of proportion, don't you think? Specially when there's a doubt if the other user actually broke a specific rule (like the third ARBPIA bullet).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 668: / Line 668: @@
 ::OK, I am technically wrong by two minutes. Clearly gaming the system. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 :::{{ping|Icewhiz}}, thanks for pointing out the specific provision that יניב הורון apparently meant to say the other editor violated; they only referred to [[WP:1RR|1RR]] both in the edit summary and on SantiLak's talk page, which doesn't have that clause. That said, 1RR (in either incarnation) clearly isn't meant to have editors sitting around with stopwatches to wait 24 hours and two minutes to revert instead of 23 hours and 58 minutes. This is adherence to the wording of the instructions while ignoring the spirit. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
+::::{{ping|Huon}}: Oh, now I understand what you mean. Of course it wasn't my intention to sit around with an atomic clock to revert someone 24 hours and 1 second after my last revert. I don't usually do that. The reason why I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel–European_Union_relations&diff=837285116&oldid=837165272 this second revert] was because I felt that SantiLak broke the third bullet of ARBPIA (which is not 1RR, my mistake). Besides, [[Talk:Israel–European Union relations#WSJ Op-Ed - Not RS|I left him a message]] on the talk page that he didn't answer so far, explaining why I reverted him back. I did it for a specific reason, in a specific situation. And I did it only once. Check [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel–European_Union_relations&action=history all the edits] and you'll see I didn't make more than two reverts in that article, which is not so terrible. But maybe I shouldn't have rushed to revert him so fast. Next time I'll try to wait 30 hours or so to avoid breaking the spirit of 1RR, which is to avoid edit-warring. Nevertheless, to ask for a block or topic ban seems a little bit excesive and out of proportion, don't you think? Specially when there's a doubt if the other user actually broke a specific rule (like the third ARBPIA bullet).--[[User:יניב הורון|יניב הורון]] ([[User talk:יניב הורון|talk]]) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards