Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339

Plot Spoiler

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs) is strongly cautioned to respect the 1RR and behave with the level of decorum expected of editors in controversial topic areas. There is insufficient evidence and insufficient support among admins for any further action, or for any action against third parties, but this closure is without prejudice to a more detailed complaint being filed against Plot Spoiler in the future nor a complaint about any other party whose conduct bears examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 12 November 2014 (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 Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plot Spoiler (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#General_1RR_restriction :

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

14:18, 2 November 2014‎ Removal of Tikkun Olam (previously reverted by this user here
15:09, 2 November 2014‎ 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for 1RR violation on October 10 topic banned for 3 months Sept 2013 Warned for unilateral reverts July 2014

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (recently, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157#Plot_Spoiler)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Plot Spoiler was previously strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119#Plot_Spoiler). This removal, when it was first made October 17, was discussed on the talk page (now archived here). Plot Spoiler never made a single comment to support his initial removal. Since then he has twice reverted today, again without making a single comment on the talk page. He was just blocked for violating the 1RR, where he again did not discuss any revert, on October 10.

In response to PS's comment, as RolandR points out, the first is a partial revert of this. the second a straight revert of this. and the relevant definition would be found at WP:EW nableezy - 03:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, there may well be cause to remove that source, however that cause was never raised. The blog in question, to me, is like any other op-ed, reliable for the author's opinions. The source is not being used for factual material, but Silverstein is a noted commentator, whose opinion pieces can be found in any number of newspapers (Haaretz, The Guardian among others). It is used as an example of a prominent critic's response, no more, and I think it meets the requirements for use, though I admit I may be wrong. But that's something to work out on the talk page, which until after this report PS was completely absent from. As far as tag-teaming, I would think that would require some coordination, of which there is none. But to the point of this, it is not simply that there is a 1RR violation, and there is obviously one. It is additionally that PS continues to revert without discussion, while others vainly request his presence on the talk page. He was warned for this very behavior in the past, and in both this and the last AE he repeatedly reverted without discussing or even feigning interest in coming to a consensus on the talk page. nableezy - 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really want to spend a ton of time on this, but this is straightforward, and the hand-waving below doesnt change it. There were 2 reverts, clearly so, and no discussion by PS. The user has been, recently, blocked for violating the 1RR, has brought any number of other users to this board for doing so, and additionally was specifically warned about the now repeated behavior of reverting without discussion. Im sorry this turned into a novel, wish it hadnt, but the basic facts are indisputable and hopefully somebody will deal with that. And with that Im out, nableezy - 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

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

Statement by Plot Spoiler

That's not a revert according to the definition of WP:revert. Watch the WP:boomerang Nableezy and flattered you're so closely following my edits. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: Roland et al, a "partial revert" is not a "revert" - see WP:REVERT. This triple team looks like it's just trying to game the system to get me banned. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You presented that body of information months ago here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Sean.hoyland. It's stale, of no bearing to this frivolous case, non-actionable, and further abuse of the WP:AE system to get those banned with whom you disagree. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I don't see how this could qualify as 2 reverts. You point to this edit on October 17 [1] (first, how was I supposed to recall an edit from weeks ago?), but I did not remove the same information in my latest edits - I just removed the Silverstein ref. Therefore, it seems clear to me that it would qualify as a partial revert and not a revert as defined under WP:REVERT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Also consider the fact that Nableezy - who is now barely active on Wikipedia - seems to be focusing much of his remaining efforts on just trying to ban me. He's only made 16 edits in the last month - 8 of them on AE cases against me. He does not seem interested in building this encyclopedia but more in gaming the system. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Cailil, it's not clear to me that my edits constituted a 1RR violation -- though I do leave open the possibility that I'm not interpreting the policy correctly. Not sure how my first edit on Nov. 2 is a "direct reflection" of the edit from Oct. 17. I removed an an entire sentence and all corresponding refs on Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, I removed one of three references and no text in the body of the article. WP:REVERT states, "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." I don't see how my first edit on Nov. 2 was restoring the article to any sort of previous version. This was an entirely new version. And if I was aware that I had violated 1RR, I would not have made the edit in the first place or would have self-reverted if I had made the edit. Nableezy did not give me the opportunity to do so and instead went straight to AE, and blew up a situation that could have been easily resolved without taking to AE. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Would appreciate if you would stop grossly misrepresenting my edits based on your own cherrypicked narrative. Look at your last 500 edits - you are SINGLE-issue IP editor who edits from a very clear ideological stance. I'm proud to contribute broadly to this project and not just in the IP area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: See WP:Revert - "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion" - my first edit did not restore "a previous version". No version existed which included Avnery and Levy's refs, but not Silverstein's. It is a completely new version. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: You should at minimum WP:AGF (people can misinterpret/misunderstand rules) instead of imagining some sort of silly scheme. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You're crossing the line with your WP:personal attacks by accusing me of outright "deception" and consistently misrepresenting my edits to further your witch hunt[2]. My initial objections had more to do than exclusively the matter of WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Plot Spoiler has long been a major problem, and has been remarkably successful in damaging articles, reporting other editors, and enjoying a certain immunity. I don’t follow his contributions, too busy editing, and only come across him when he reverts me on articles I work, as he has been doing recently. In an earlier case mid this year reporting him, he just disappeared, and 27 June 2014 the case was dropped after he failed to turn up, as promised I pointed out in earlier case this year what the problem is, mass erasure of evidence on spurious policy grounds. He uses WP:RS to wipe out pages dealing with Palestinians, but doesn’t apply the same standards to pages on Israel/is et al. As Sandstein noted at the time, I should have made a separate report, been less discursive (WP:TLDR) and provided time stamps. Fair enough.

That evidence is now, I suppose, 'stale'. For the record here it is. Please note that all of these problematica abuses of policy aim to gut pages on Palestinians, while removing anything critical regarding figures from the other side, and took place within just 2 days of his hyperactive editing life here:

(1) 28 July 2014: WP:Coatrack. This is a pretext. He actually removed articles from the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and The American Conservative. Why? Thane Rosenbaum was criticized for seeming to justify killing children whose parents are loyal to Hamas? Those august magazines and newspapers thought this notable, PS disagreed. It was WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(2) 28 July 2014 Edit summary:'removing some advert.' removed material of a Jewish American critic of Israel policies, Mark Braverman. Details of his life in his wiki bio are not advertising: they are documentation of that life.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(3) 29 July 2014: activist sources do not qualify as WP:RS, Egregious falsification. Gilbert Achcar conceded an interview to Electronic Intifada. The RS is Achcar, not the journal he chose to have his views presented in. Achcar a very moderate scholar, just happened to note what he considered a distorting exaggeration in Zionist historiography.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(4) 28 July 2014: need secondary sources commenting on his opinions ... not just op-eds published by the author Guts a page on a Palestinian political commentator, Ahmed Moor. The pretext is spurious. He removed the Huffington Post (3 times), the Washington Post (two times, Al-Jazeera (3 times), the Los Angeles Times. Op-eds in major newspapers by a scholar are not disputed as appropriate to their wikibios, except by Plot Spoiler.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(5) 28 July 2014: activist source not RS. Scott McConnell is a distinguished journalist, and where he voices his articles is irrelevant. The pretext was to remove material defending a Palestinian human rights activist, Shawan Jabarin.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(6) 28 July 2014 activist sources do not qualify as WP:RS. Nigel Kennedy remarked on apartheid in Israel, and the BBC excised it from their coverage of the concert. As my evidence shows, this is a fact widely reported in mainstream articles. Rather than supply the RS for this, PS simply removed all reference to the controversy.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(7) 28 July 2014: wikify, most of these fail WP:RS, WP:EL. Pretext. He removed several mainstream sources (Ynet (2 articles), Haaretz (2 articles)) while objecting to a few others. ‘Most’ is no excuse for removing known RS, unless proximity to challengeable RS contaminates the reputation of known RS. WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(8) 28 July 2014: remove non-RS. Yehuda Kroizer, a rabbi known to support the views of a terrorist, is the subject. He removed Mondoweiss as RS, but retained Arutz Sheva, a settler tabloid. The principle here is not RS failure, but removing a source that cites RS like Ynet, while not objecting to the presence of a settler POV organ on the same page. Failure to observe WP:NPOV by partisan discrimination of sources.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(9) July 28 2014: WP:Advert, WP:Peacock, Wikify.Object: a Palestinian political analyst, Nadia Hijab. Pretext. Removes RS (Institute of Palestine Studies; The Guardian ; The Nation , together with two of her own articles appearing in [Counterpunch]]), the author’s own articles, if a notable person, are cited all over wiki bios By this criterion, most articles on living rabbis would be gutted because of some (spurious) objection that chabad organs are not mainstream newspapers.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(10) 28 July 2014: WP:Advert crap, WP:Peacock, wikify.PS again messes with a Palestinian’s wiki bio. Pretext. Reuters, New York Times San Francisco Chronicle etc. are RS. Once again, a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

In those two days, Plot Spoiler was gutting articles on Palestinians even of known RS, while removing material that might reflect critically on Jewish or Israeli figures. The edit summaries are invariably deceptive, and the intensive POV pushing self-evident. Note also that he almost never 'wastes time' justifying his removalist work on talk pages, whereas most editors think in the I/P area this is obligatory. It's hit and run editing. Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. Tagteaming? I didn't even know Nableezy was editing Wikipedia, fa Chrissake, until I saw this report. I'm not responsible for what others do here. I edit independently, and my correspondence with others is extremely rare, mostly limited to three people who dp not edit this area (correction I have corresponded, mainly to obtain and research inaccessible sources with 2 editors) . For several years I didn't even activate wiki gmail, as archives show, precisely to avoid any off-line maneuvering temptations from others. If any arb wants to, I'll give them my home address so they can send some technician to examine my computer and gmail. The last time I had a note, on a purely private matter, from Nableezy was a year and a half ago, if I remember. The other editor I know only from his inquiries on my talk page. I am acutely offended by the innuendo I tag-team, particularly in the I/P where it has long been deplorably frequent. Nableezy and myself in the distant past when he was active reverted each other when we disagreed, as is obligatory.

The gravamen of my point was this: (a) Plot Spoiler uses edit summaries that suggest he's just eliding non-RS, while in fact, when examined closely, he is taking out considerable quantities of mainstream sources, day in day out. (b) In the specific case of Silverstein, PS reverted while the talk page was discussing the section where Silverstein and several others appear. He doesn't appear on talk pages. His edits are often preemptive erasures of material whose RS status is being collegially discussed, i.e., establishing a fait accompli for one side to a dispute. Thirdly, 15 mainly Israeli blogs were on that page, by my count, when I added Silverstein, not as a single source, but one which formed part of four sources making a similar point. It can go of course, if the page decides. But my objection is to a practice of preemptive reverting when the talk page discussion is still active.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'abuse of the WP:AE system to get those banned with whom you disagree.'

Plot Spoiler. I have been here 8 years. How many times have I personally reported anyone, even the most obnoxious POV pushers we have to edit with? I think once, perhaps twice, with extreme reluctance. Had I wished you to get sanctioned, I would have acted on Sandstein's advice that I make an independent, separate formal complaint against you. I didn't. I'll lay my record for not using A/1 or AE to 'get at' editors against anyone's, especially your own.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WarKoSign. As I have mentioned on the page in discussing this issue, blogs are used throughout this same page. I added Silverstein because of that precedent. On checking, they are used as sources 19 times: Richard Silverstein is the 13th. Extraordinary claims are drawn from an IDF blog, used several times. No one has questioned this, or the use of J.J. Goldberg's blog, or that of Ross Singer or that of Adam Taylor. Plot Spoiler would have an argument were he consistent: he only uses, as far as I can see, the RS challenge on anything that looks 'pro-Palestinian', and leaves all the other blogs untouched. If a principle were at stake he would have removed 19 sources, not one.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. ' this is a forum for enforcement of rules around conduct.' I agree. This is not about a revert of Richard Silverstein, but the correct application of rules, among which is consensual editing, coherence in the application of policy (not using WP:RS to get rid of what you dislike, while ignoring the same stringent reading to retain what you like), not making a preemptive edit while an issue is under discussion. I have no problem with removing Silverstein: I do have a problem with editors who ignore the presence of many blogs, and then object to or instantly revert the one blog source that clashes with their POV. That is what happened there, and my background on his 10 edits earlier illustrate the pattern (in focusing on Silverstein, it is overlooked that in his original revert on October 17, he objected in the edit summary only to Silverstein, but in the actual edit he wiped out Uri Avnery, and Gideon Levy writing for Haaretz, both excellent sources. That is the deception I find objectionable).Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler. Not 'cherrypicked'. 10 samples in just one 2 day period. Can you explain why you consistently erase Haaretz, Ynet, the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and The American Conservative et al. in edits you summarized as failing RS'?

'you are SINGLE-issue IP editor'. That can be verified by looking at the articles I've built substantially at User:Nishidani. I'm semi-retired from wiki. A war broke out in July in an area covered by I/P articles, and I came back and tried to ensure the Palestinian narratives were given due representation, hence my last 500 edits. My POV is simple: I'm interested in anything discursively marginalized by modernity's faith in progress. That means I take a keen interest in Tibetans, or the Barasana, or Aborigines or Palestinians, or Gertrud Kolmar, etc.etc. That is my range of edits indicates.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. It is overwhelmingly against my practice to cite blogs or minor sites. Silverstein here, and Yeshiva World News which I introduced at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers because it had details not available in the mainstream press, are the only exceptions I can think of. My rule is, (a) academic books, scholarly articles and monographs. If not available then mainstream press articles. But that assists WP:Systemic bias. At times, we don't have a cut and dried case, therefore. Mainstream Western-language sources don't cover 90% of what you get in the Israeli/Hebrew press, which covers the area meticulously, and much of the latter is cited in what editors dismiss as 'activist' (eye-witness/on-the-ground reportage) news sites (+972 Magazine, Rabbis for Human Rights Mondoweiss, Counterpunch), or even blogs like Richard Silverstein's. These do air material on, or translate, as Silverstein does, what the Hebrew press is discussing or what the New York Times doesn't care to mention. When Silverstein's blog translates directly from a linked article in Hebrew he is not expressing his personal views. If someone like Silverstein: catches out the way a widely circulated (mainstream) article edited out in the English version material that was 'sensitive' to certain rhetorical interests, as an editor I tend to listen and evaluate rather than mechanically block off the source. When what he states is independently confirmed, we should not suffer from reflex anxiety about wiki's reliability being parlously undermined. In short, it is quite easy for any editor with a programmatic attitude to make a laundry list of sites that might be questioned on RS grounds and then regardless of talk page negotiations, or weighing in each case the individual merits of a source, just running through articles to mechanically erase, revert or cancel at sight any 'suspect' on the hunt list. That, and the documented fact that Plot Spoiler habitually removes not only these challenged RS, but eminently mainstream RS in the same edits, is essentially the issue here. When there is reasonable doubt, discuss, and don't edit out stuff that is being collegially addressed on talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia. I hope my memory doesn't fail me, but I either drew attention to or directly edited in the blog ref re Ross Singer. The textual and technical problem was as follows. Per NPOV, the opinions (know to be true per Yossi Melman's 2011 article) drawing an analogy between what Hamas did in Gaza and what Israeli patriots did in their war of independence (1948), documentable as a talking point of this particular war, made by Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, and Richard Silverstein, required a balancing statement, and the only one I could find was by a blogger writing however for an RS (The Times of Israel), namely rabbi Ross Singer. From Cailil's analysis, I could be faulted technically for this, but my purpose or endorsement of adding Singer was to ensure that this talking point did not appear to be a lop-sided POV weighted to one side (Hamas), but had its critics. I regard NPOV as the more fundamental principle. You are right of course that anyone who objected to Silverstein should have, pari passu, taken out Ross Singer for identical reasons.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HJMitchell. Apropos mens rea, well, I don't think this is quite 'criminal' or even moral 'guilt'! In any case, perhaps this long discussion has been distractive of the issue. A mens rea in the sense that Plot Spoiler knew precisely what he was doing, exists in the record, which I will recapitulate.

Ist revert of this passage 18:13, 17 October 2014‎. I immediately opened a discussion on Plot Spoiler’s revert. Several editors who actually work and build the page, commented, with no clear outcome. Plot Spoiler did not deign to respond. He just ignored the discussion.

2nd revert, cut back to just Silverstein 14:18, 2 November 2014‎ while a discussion was taking place

third revert, 15:09, 2 November 2014‎, which PS did after I reminded him to examine the talk page.

Of course, there is such a thing as amnesia, but 2 weeks separates the Ist from the 2nd and 3rd reverts, involving the same text. It's fair to assume he knew exactly what he was doing, i.e., repeating a revert, twice, of something he objected to just a few weeks earlier.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of 'punishment' either. Anyone can make a slip-up. I added the documentation because, in my experience, this is typical of a pattern in PS's behavior, for which he needs, not some punishing sanction, but merely a stern reminder that (a) reverts are an ultimate resort, not a vexatious right (b) just going through texts to revert stuff is not constructive, esp. on difficult pages where other editors are laboriously trying to write them. (c) It is mere courtesy, if less than obligatory, to participate collegially on talk pages if one's judgement is questioned (d) employing edit summaries which disguise what one is actually doing, i.e., indiscriminately removing impeccable RS while removing less secure sources constitutes deceptive practice, etc. It's the pattern, not just these three edits which illustrate it.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Of course these are reverts. The first is a partial reversion of this edit by IjonTichyIjonTichy on 18 October, which itself reverted your previous removal of sourced content; the second, less than an hour later, is a repeat of the first reversion. RolandR (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Plot Spoiler really beliueves that "a "partial revert" is not a "revert"", then s/he clearly needs to read the relevant policy page again, since this clearly states that "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". RolandR (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

@Cailil, perhaps you're confusing WP:SPS (which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") and WP:ABOUTSELF (which says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). In any case, Richard Silverstein's blog is a reliable source for Richard Silverstein's opinion or anything attributed to Richard Silverstein, so Plot Spoiler's stated reason for deletion, interpretted as a belief that the source was not reliable for the information given, was bogus. You mention ArbCom ruling's counsel to editors in this area. Presumably, you're referring to the part about "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions." However, since the statements in the article were attributed to Richard Silverstein, for whose opinion the blog is a reliable source, the issue becomes not one of source reliability but one of whether what Richard Silverstein had to say was worth reporting, a matter depending on consensus for which Plot Spoiler appears to be in the minority. ← ZScarpia 13:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, you wrote: "A new talk page thread was opened by Nableezy (on November 2nd) citing WP:SPS ... ." At best, what you wrote is misleading as Nableezy did not mention WP:SPS. He wrote: "It's a primary source, and reliable for its own views. So the objection on RS grounds is spurious as it is only being used for its own view." In my opinion, that was accurate and also recapitulates a common way in which opinion pieces are used in Wikipedia articles. The editor who actually cited WP:SPS was WarKosign who produced a mishmash description of WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF which fails to describe how the former is applied. You appear to have borrowed the phrase "no claims about third parties" from him. The part of WP:SPS which comes closest to that phrasing says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Note that it mentions "living people" specifically, not "third parties". Presumably, the point is to avoid potential WP:BLP issues. As far as I can see, the Silverstein extract used nowhere mentions any living people. Nor can I see any other way that it falls foul of WP:SPS. ← ZScarpia 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler, you answered RolandR by quoting a sentence from the Lead of the WP:Revert essay. The very next sentence says: "A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." That describes exactly what you did doesn't it? Note that you quoted from an essay rather than Wikipedia policy. See WP:Edit warring for a policy definition of revertion: "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors." From that policy's definition of the 3RR, we can infer the meaning of the 1RR applied to WP:ARBPIA articles: the 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert (that is the undoing of an action of another editor), in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Note the "in part" bit. ← ZScarpia 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." The edits of mine you've listed are consecutive and therefore count as a single revert. You've also not noticed that the editor I reverted was myself rather than "another user". As to your first comment, WP:ABOUTSELF applies when a non-expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source, WP:SPS applies when an expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source. Silverstein is arguably an expert who is quoted by non-self-published reliable sources, in which case the latter rule would be the one which applied. However, Nableezy's argument is that the blog is not being used as a secondary source at all, but as a primary source for Silverstein's opinion, so that neither WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SPS apply. ← ZScarpia 09:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign, 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC): The 1RR rule does not apply when IP editors are being reverted, which is the case with the second of the two reverts you've listed. ← ZScarpia 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A curious feature of the case is that no mention of the reference, directly after those to opinions expressed by Levy, Avnery and Silverstein, to the article by Ross Singer, in which he criticises comparisons made between the IDF and Hamas, has been made. This is curious firstly because the article is a blog piece (albeit a Times of Israel blog). Unlike the three former writers, Ross Singer doesn't appear to be notable (judged by the lack of a Wikipedia article on him), so, on the grounds of removing references to blog pieces, the one to Singer's article should really have been the first to be deleted. The second curiousity is that the article is referred to without mentioning that Singer confirms that Jewish forces did in the 1940s store weapons in the alleged locations and that his objections to comparisons being made between the IDF and Hamas are based on other grounds. ← ZScarpia 14:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Isn't that a bit of a new departure, excusing editors for breaches of policy if they didn't realise that they were breaching policy, either because of ignorance or faulty understanding? And aren't you making a rod for your own back? Perhaps it would be reasonable to give newish editors the benefit of the doubt, but should it be extended to an editor such as Plot Spoiler who has been editing under that name since February 2009 and has in the past been blocked a few times for edit warring, because they've failed to figure out, as in Plot Spoiler's case, that partial reverts count as far as the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles is concerned? I understand that blocks are supposed to be preventative and that this case is now a bit old, but when you say, "I don't feel a case has been made yet," do you mean that you don't feel that a case has been made that Plot Spoiler breached the 1RR restriction? ← ZScarpia 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

@Cailil and ZScarpia: WP:ABOUTSELF: Bullet #2 says "it does not involve claims about third parties". The statements by Richard Silverstein are 100% about third parties. Bullet #3 says "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". Silverstein was born 4 years after the war of independence so he couldn't have participated in it. “WarKosign ” 15:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: If a revert is any edit that "undoes another editor's work", any edit can be considered a revert. Replacing a single word could be considered a revert since it removed the old word, correcting a typo would be a revert since it undid another editor's mistake. The only way to define a revert is in term of taking the article to past versions, partially or completely.

@ZScarpia: According to your logic you violated 1RR last week:

25 October 2014 deleted part of the reason ("rather than exertion of pressure for other reasons") in the CN tag
25 October 2014 deleted the whole CN tag.

Defining revert as "undoing another’s work" is unusable. It would cause every correction or attempt at compromise to be seen as a revert war. “WarKosign ” 04:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: Indeed, I couldn't find examples in your recent history - you usually make several rapid edits and then leave the article. But if someone happened to make an unrelated edit between any two of your edits it would become an 1RR violation according to your definition, which I see as absurd.

BTW, these two are obvious reverts of exactly the same content 10 hours apart, without any nit picking. “WarKosign ” 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Plotspoiler's notion (it's only a revert if it restores a previous version) would eviscerate the 1RR rule; indeed it would make a mockery of 3RR. Difficult to imagine that even Plotspoiler doesn't understand this; his trying to push the envelope the envelope this way makes it hard to anticipate proper editing in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

As someone who has had multiple run-ins with Plot Spoiler, I dislike this use of a technical violation of 1RR (it is indeed a violation). This could easily have been avoided with a short message on PS's talk page asking him to self-revert. I would suggest no action, or the minimum possible "punishment". More important is a reminder to PS to discuss his edits on the talk page.

For the rest, Cailil's comments are off-mark and not related to the substance of this request. Even if the Cailil is right about the source, that has no bearing on this matter. As Cailil himself said, it is not permissible to edit-war to uphold standards concerning RS. Rule on the conduct and let the content issue be sorted out on the article talk page. There is no evidence of any coordination which is a prerequisite for tag-teaming. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy

I have not coordinated my actions with anyone and I have not engaged in any tag teaming. Cailil appears to be confusing cooperative editing to improve articles with working as a tag team. The accusation of tag teaming has no substance.

I rarely edit in the Israel-Palestine area, especially in the last few months. I edit in a wide range of areas that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and my total number of edits in the I-P area constitute a very small portion of my total number of edits. However, I do enjoy discussing books and articles on Nishidani's talk page in an effort to place the I-P conflict in a far larger global historical, social, economic and cultural context. I am a native speaker of Hebrew and read several mainstream Israeli newspapers (online) every day, and almost every day I come across some reliable source containing severe criticism of the Israeli government including the IDF as well as prominent, powerful Israeli persons. But only very rarely have I translated (an extremely small portion of) these articles and cited them in Wikipedia articles.

I have spent several hours going over Plot Spoiler's edit history. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he is gaming the system. His modus operandi is to selectively excise sources and citations that paint the Israeli government (including the IDF) or prominent Israeli figures in a negative light, while leaving intact original research or non-RS-cited or uncited content that paints Palestinians in a negative light, or that paints Israel or Israeli figures in a positive light. His edits make a mockery of the spirit of consensus and Wikipedia policy.

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th[3] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[4]. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war. The latest sanction against Plot Spoiler is not June 2014 its October[5] where they were blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR (this also shows his awareness of the case for the purposes of WP:AE/WP:AC/DS). This is a second breach within a month. I'd suggest a 48 hour block as a minimum.
There is however more to this. Plot Spoiler is raising an WP:RS issue with his first revert in October. Because WP:RS violations are not exempt under WP:EW Plot Spoiler was indeed edit-warring, however in an area under such a high-level probation the repeated insertion of blogs that do not conform to WP:RS is not only unhelpful it ignores the ArbCom ruling's counsel to editors in this area. The fact that this was done by 3 others (Nishidani[6], Nableezy[7] & IjonTichyIjonTichy[8]) is prima facie tag-teaming. Nableezy's revert of Plot Spoiler directs the reader to the talk page archives where a discussion of the content was had in October 2014 - one that ended without consensus[9]. A new talk page thread was opened by Nableezy (on November 2nd) citing WP:SPS, however the material in question isn't talking about itself thus such an assertion is a stretch. This bears discussion as much as Plot Spoiler's actions--Cailil ^talk 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and will not argue the merits of content - this is a forum for enforcement of rules around conduct. I see wikilawyering and I've called it. For clarity WRT WP:SPS, the "about self" exceptions ONLY apply when there are no claims about third parties and the material "does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" - what makes the source in question problematic is the bit following "But imagine if..."[10] that's a supposition, a claim, about third parties and events, it is not about the author. This might be ok in the Tikun Olam (blog) article but not in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. In this case, the subject of the article is the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict not Richard Silverstein, better sources can be found and should be used for this subject and for other topics like the Jewish insurgency in Palestine. While I understand that it is not 1950 anymore and that blogs are becoming more acceptable as news sources, these are wikipedia's standards for verifiablity and reliability. Trying to find loopholes in policy in order to include questionable material is a bad idea. And group edit warring to keep it in is a worse idea--Cailil ^talk 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits by Plot Spoiler listed at the top of this report *do* appear to be a 1RR violation so I'd be OK with a block for that. If we were only considering those reverts here, any greater sanction that a short block would be unjustified. It is argued above that the use of blogs and possible tag-teaming could have justified one or more of Plot Spoiler's reverts. I don't find these arguments persuasive. Blogs by qualified experts along with newspaper editorials and the work of opinion columnists are often cited in ARBPIA articles, subject to consensus as to weight and relevance. I don't see how WP:RS can be an argument against the citation of opinion if consensus agrees that the opinion is important enough to be quoted. But the long list of reverts tabulated above by User:Nishidani on November 2 (items 1 through 10) look to be more serious. If someone has time to go through them all carefully they might add up to a case for a topic ban of Plot Spoiler. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with short block for PS (I suggested 48 hours earlier) on this matter and concur that Nishiani's list is worthy of examination. Above I'm not saying the RS issues "justify" PS's actions at all. My point is that the wider issue here is caused by use of (and pushing of) poor sources when better ones can be used.
Self-published blogs (even by experts) are not RS just because consensus says lets ignore/bend policy. Self-published blogs are only acceptable within strict criteria and in this instance those points of policy have been broken (because the material is making an exceptional claims about 3rd parties). I agree that it's too much of a hot-potato to sanction anyone in this case but long term it's bad practice--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unclear on whether Silverstein's blog is being used as a source for any matters of fact. There's a lengthy discussion at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#Revert on whether the hiding of weapons in synagagues in the 1948 war deserves mention in this article. That's a problem of weight and balance and doesn't seem to depend on who is correct about facts. Nothing short of consensus would be enough to resolve that, and I agree with Cailil that this thread did not reach a conclusion. Opening an WP:RFC would be one option. Reaching NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This AE thread is not the time or place to settle the 1948 matter, but those engaged in the debate need to behave properly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what purpose would be served by a block so long after the fact. Is there any evidence that PS knew the first edit was a revert? To take the definition of a revert to absurdity, and removal of content is a revert, but by a sensible definition an editor could come to an article, read content they believed was inappropriate and remove it in good faith without it being considered a revert in the context of a 1RR (or indeed 3RR). To descend into legal terminology for a moment, we've established the actus reus but not (or not obviously) the mens rea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A week has gone by since this was opened and admins have come down on all possible sides. I think may be time to consider closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Nishidani's post above, I'd be unhappy with a result of 'no action'. I could live with closing with a warning to watch the reverts and engage on talk pages. I'm not saying I wouldn't support tangible sanctions, but I don't feel a case has been made yet (and, as you say, this has been open a week). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piandme

User:Piandme is warned not to cite facts about persons to non-RS fansites. He is also warned against disruptive editing and abuse of multiple accounts. Future violations may lead to admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Piandme

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sandstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Piandme (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:NEWBLPBAN

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

21:31, 8 November 2014 Adds a reference to a BLP article that is (a) to a non-reliable self-published source, to wit, the blog-type fansite "http://watchersonthewall.com/", and (b) that does not even mention that person and is therefore unsuitable as a source for that reason also.
21:28, 8 November 2014 Same problem, different BLP article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Piandme has so far made 216 edits, and many (or even most?) of them have been to add links to the fansite "watchersonthewall.com" to articles related to the TV series Game of Thrones (e.g., [11], note the misleading edit summary). I and others have repeatedly reverted such additions, and I recently warned Piandme not to do this again. In response, Piandme reverted with apparently disruptive intent two of my own content edits to unrelated articles ( [12] and [13]), made a complaint that was closed without action but in which they wrote that "I understand that the website actually shouldn't be used", and then nonetheless made the edits at issue here referencing that website.

I conclude that Piandme is either associated with that website and is trying to spam links to it in high-traffic articles, or that they lack the competence required to contribute to articles about living people, or both. I recommend banning them from BLP content and/or blocking them.

I don't have a good feeling about this even after Piandme's statement. They do not address the edits at issue here and do not explain why we should trust them to understand BLP policy when they obviously do not; and they don't explain why they have made the edits at issue even after writing on a noticeboard that they understand that this site shouldn't be used as a source. Sandstein 14:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to closing this as suggested by EdJohnston, thanks for processing this request! Though I note Piandme has also not undone the disruptive reverts mentioned above ... I do hope we're not back here pretty soon. Sandstein 15:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 22:38, 8 November 2014

Discussion concerning Piandme

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 Piandme

Hang on, wait a minute what on earth have I done wrong. Yes, I admit to perhaps wrongly citing websites, but not only am the only one who cited that particular website, but I have also stopped. I have had a lot of problems with Sandstein , and reported him in the wrong place. I had then decided that I wasn't going to report him anywhere else because I thought he deserved another chance. I do feel I have been bullied a little bit here, and had I beeen spoken to in a slightly more sympathetic way in the first place (as you have done here talk) I might have understood things better, but it has always been quite aggressive from Sandstein, which I'm sure wasn't intentional; it was just how it came out. I will do my best to follow all the rulees in future, and would be very upset if I were to get any sort of ban. I know fully comprehend the rules, and will follow them completely as I have spent the last day going through everything. I will copy this comment in the arbitration as I am not sure where it is supposed to go.

I will also add here that I have nothig to do with watchersonthewall.com They have nothing to do with this, and they probably don't even know about these edits as I rarely comment there. I made the edits because I thought it was OK. I have felt that it perhaps wasn't explained to me in the right way, but I understand that it just the way it is. I promise you I will not do it again, and would from this comment, and if I do I would fully accept the consequences (and obvious ban).

Most of my edits have been made to Game of Thrones articles, as I am specialised in taht area from the books, TV series and fandom. I ahve made others though, none of which have references to wotw (which would be vandalism).

A ban of any sort would be very disappointing as I don't feel the rules were explained in the correct way, and if they had of been it might not have reached this scenario.

The reason I thought it would be OK is that winterisocming,net is frequently refernces in previous season articles. This website was, at the time, owned by the same people wo edit watchersonthewall I'm not sure why that site was fine to include, and this one isn't and I that wa why I tried to argue for its inclusion.(note, now that site is owned by Fansided, who have excutive control of the site, which would obviously make it OK, but at the time it was the same people as Watchers). Believe you me, if I had ever known that it would get a ban for this I would have stopped. I am absolutely devastated by this, which is why my statement is probabky a bit of a ramble.I am not inocent, but have learnt my lesson ( Please also note that I ceased edit warring and sockpuppetry after my previous indiscretiosn).This won't happen again. Thank you. Piandme (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Sandstein's reponse I will add a couple of clarifications. Firstly, although I think others have added links to watchers, I have neither asked nor requested them to. Secondly, the reason I made the links was as I mentioned because the site winteriscoing,net had been cited in previous yeras (and not by me). Thirdlt, iwatchers is not the last site I linked to on the Game of Thrones (season 5) article, as I cited Entertainment Weekly on Wednesday when there was a similar article on Watchers (signalling that I was already changing my philosophy). I realise that I am not going to convince Sandstein, but I don't see a ban being in the best interests of Wikipedia. The only issue I have had on Wikipedia is because of Watchers, and y edits to other articles have received no criticisms. As I sai=y if I do it once more I will accept the severe puishments, Sandstein I'm sure will be closely watchig my behaviour. There's no way I'm gping to be able tp get away with it anyway, so it would be the sensible thing to do to give me a final warning. II honestly wish I had never linked tp them as it has caused me so many problems and effectively wasted my time, responding to these disputes. Piandme (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I will just make some brief statements about your statements below talk. I have kept them very brief as I have already mentioned most of it before, but I accept all of them completely.

promising not to cite fansites such as watchersonthewall.com for any information about living people, such as future appearances of certain actors in the show,

I promise to not do this, and realise why it can't be included (reliability issue)

not to try to force your material into an article by reverting

I have never done this as, and will be very careful not to do this in the future

not to undo the work of another editor just because you are annoyed with them (as at Expanse, Saskatchewan)

I'm sorry for undoing these edits, and will not do it again in future at all.

not to abuse multiple accounts.

I receiveed a ban for this in Seotember, and regret being involved in such a dispute. I have not abused multiple accounts since, and will continue to not do this in the future.

I hope have convonced you of these things. I promise not to do anything at all that is against rules in the future. I understand that if they do so the ban will be very severe, and that I will have no right to appeal as you are giving me this chance, which you don't have to, so thank you#

Sorry for the inconvenience this has caused both talk and talk. I will now aim to start fresh, and I will endeavour that I will not cause any problems in the future.Piandme (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits I made to Natalie Dormer and Gwendoline Christie as per yur request. I hope we can now draw a line under the matter, and move on. I absolutely realise that if I break any of the rules that you mention I will receive a severe ban without warning, or further chances. Thank you for giving me this chance talk.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Piandme

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

This complaint is filed under WP:BLPSE. We should take whatever action is needed to ensure that the problem won't continue. I suggest a one-year AE block with the user being restored to editing if they agree to knock it off. The user was previously blocked one week in September for socking per WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Piandme reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked). The original 3RR complaint was due to the same issue as here: edit warring to add information about a living person from a self-published site. The user seems very resistant to persuasion and will not listen to advice. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piandme, you can avoid a block if you will agree to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. That includes:

promising not to cite fansites such as watchersonthewall.com for any information about living people, such as future appearances of certain actors in the show,
not to try to force your material into an article by reverting, and
not to undo the work of another editor just because you are annoyed with them (as at Expanse, Saskatchewan)
not to abuse multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To show that he understands the fansite problem and will not repeat the mistake, I recommend that User:Piandme undo these two edits that he made on November 8, which add cites to http://watchersonthewall.com for facts about living people:

–EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since User:Piandme says that they 'will not repeat the mistake', the way is open for this to be closed, probably with a warning against any resumption. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poeticbent

No action taken. Not a personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Poeticbent

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Poeticbent (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:ARBEE :

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

In order to learn how poverty looks like in leading world economies, for example in Canada and the U.S., one needs to travel the world, and stop aggrandizing his own sorry ass. See also: dumpster diving. 6 November 2014]

A gross personal attack during discussion of economy of Poland, especially troublesome as the original comment user Poeticbent was responding was posted on 22 May 2014. The user uses vulgarism and personal attacks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Poeticbent was mentioned in ARBEE

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's decision in ARBEE.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Poeticbent was previously warned several times against this type of behavior. It is counter-productive to the spirit of engagement with other editors and I deeply believe such personal attacks shouldn't be used. What troubles me the most that Poeticbent has decided to post such attack months after original comment was made. I believe Poeticbent to be positive contributor in many ways, but he needs to control his language when discussing economy of Poland where he pushes a very one-sided view. I propose a 12 hour block and warning not to use personal attacks such as these and vulgarisms again. Subsequent personal attacks and vulgarisms should result in longer blocks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Poetibent notified

Discussion concerning Poeticbent

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 Poeticbent

User:MyMoloboaccount keeps stabbing in the dark. I was not sanctioned at ARBEE five years ago. However, he was! He was unblocked on condition "to a limit of one revert per page per week". But he keeps on edit-warring now as if his own ARBEE promise did not matter. See: the Economy of Poland, first revert, second revert in one day, etc. The revert-war spilled over to article Poland I recently improved, with a lot of WP:SHOUTING in talk. – A balanced response to a citation from a reliable source is a reasonable expectation. Instead, he replies: "I can give you 100 citations confirming what I stated" ... while giving no citations. MyMoloboaccount makes editing in Wikipedia unpleasant for anyone who disagrees with his negativity. I did not offend him, nor anybody. – This report is frivolous and it goes way beyond what Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines recommend in the spirit of collaboration. Poeticbent talk 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment. I refuse to be goaded into any further pointless bickering with this user, with irrefutable facts presented by him as false allegations. The link provided above as proof of Molobo's editing restrictions resulting from history of edit-warring originate from the same ARBEE case linked by him. Enough is enough. Poeticbent talk 16:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Oh please. It's pretty obvious from the context (which MyMoloboaccount fails to provide) that Poeticbent's remark is not addressed at MyMoloboaccount personally but refers to the economic situation of a hypothetical, abstract, person which MyMoloboaccount was first to bring up. No personal attack here.

Here is the context of that remark. Poeticbent was responding to a statement by MyMoloboaccount which said:

"I am seriously considering removing the Businessweek article.I read it, and it presents such a distorted, completely false image of Poland that I have trouble accepting it as a reliable source.As a person living in Poland all my life, I can assure that you are more likely to see people trying to scavange food from trash cans(in fact I can see them every day in my home town) and lines of people in tattered clothes lining up to unemployment office with despair in their eyes rather than people driving in Ferrari's. This article isn't even a fairy tale, it's complete fantasy."

In other words, MyMoloboaccount was saying that he is going to remove text and reliable sources from the article because... it doesn't fit in with his personal experience. MyMoloboaccount has been on Wikipedia for a very long time. They know very well that this would constitute disruptive behavior and violate half a dozen Wikipedia policies. More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources. Note also that they were the first to try and bring up "scavang(ing) from trash cans". Poeticbent's reference to dumpster diving is obviously a response to that. And that means that what Poeticbent is referring to is a hypothetical person's "sorry ass" not MyMoloboaccount's ... ass, sorry or not, specifically.

One can agree or disagree as to whether people who dumpster dive or who are unsatisfied with the economic condition of this (or any other) country are bad or good. One can agree or disagree as to whether the Polish economy has done well or not. But there's no personal attack here, just misrepresentation of the statement and incomplete information (original statement which is being addressed is not provided). Volunteer Marek 00:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, saying "More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources" is NOT a "personal attack", it's simply a criticism of your actions. Criticism is not the same as a personal attack, especially when it's well founded. I have not claimed you are "falsifying sources" (this is an accusation *you* have made against others, but failed to back up). What I said is that your edits contradict sources. Not the same thing. And I *have* pointed this out several times on the relevant talk page.

BTW, here's a piece of well meaning advice. Before you run to WP:AE and report people (who at some point considered you a friend), as an inappropriate means of getting your way in a content dispute, make sure your own ducks are in a row first. As in, make sure first you haven't been up to sketchy behavior yourself. As in, you haven't been violating restrictions - specifically, your 1RR restriction - left and right. There's been a dozen instances where I could've reported you here in the past few months and easily gotten you sanctioned but I didn't, because I honestly wanted to believe that despite the the recent change in your behavior you were still acting in good, although misguided, faith. The fact that you filed this report over something so stupid and so petty, pretty much establishes that I was wrong. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see, as I am not under any 1RR restriction Marek - ah, I see, I guess the restriction was removed here [14] (though that was the removal of the 1RR per week restriction, I though there was also a 1RR per day restriction you were subject to which was never removed but I might be confusing things). That restriction was lifted because you promised that you would, quote, "focus completely on writing and expanding articles and watching for vandalism and blanking. ". Instead, once the restriction had been removed it you used it to engage in edit warring over content disputes and POV pushing - like these right here. The edits under discussion are definitely not "vandalism and blanking". You also promised, quote, "I think that after 5 years I am more serious and completely calm editor, I certainly see my role on Wiki as encyclopedian and disputes or conflicts aren't of interest to me, expanding articles and knowledge is". That last part does not appear to be true. Note that numerous editors supported that restriction provisionally. As in... well, let me quote:

"Provisional support per WP:ROPE. Lift the restrictions for a month or so, and at the end of the month check back to make sure there's been no recidivism, and if there hasn't, extend the lifting indefinitely then",

"I'd support lifting per PA. Give then a chance. If it fails, it can always go back on. ",

"WP:ROPE obviously applies, especially in regards to the Eastern Europe restriction though",

" Molobo should be allowed to edit as long as he obeys the rules"

And that's just some of the supports for removing the restriction. I'm not even going to quote the opposes (some of which were completely bogus for reasons unrelated to this dispute).

So... should I file an AE report to reinstate your original restriction since you've clearly failed to live up to the promises made when it was lifted? Volunteer Marek 02:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nymoloboaccount, the problem is that Poeticbent has made no personal attack against you. They were responding to a comment *you* made about "scavenging from dumpsters". They were speaking about a hypothetical scenario *you* presented. And when they made that comment you went running here to AE shopping for a sanction. This was clearly an instance of you acting in bad faith. And it would be bad, even IF you hadn't been sanctioned before. BUT. It IS relevant to point out that when your previous restrictions were lifted, you promised to limit your reverting to "vandalism and blanking" and to "avoid disputes" which you claimed where of "no interest" to you. The fact that you filed this bad faithed report is a clear indication that you have failed to live up to the promises you made when the sanctions were, provisionally, lifted.

Anyway, at this point it's probably better to let the admins sort it out. Volunteer Marek 02:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that arose when I got out of your off wiki email group - I'm sorry, I know I said it'd be best to let the admins sort it out but... hahahahahahhaaaa, snort, chuckle, hahahahahaha... wait, are you serious? Hahahahahahahahhaha. Pshaw! Lol. Lol. Super lol. Hahahahahahhaha. No, seriously? Ay ay ay. Oi vei! Ok. ok. ok.... Now that I've been able to control myself, I got to say, that honestly, that is the most dishonest thing I've read in a long time. Volunteer Marek 03:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

Response to Volunteer Marek: Editors should be aware that Volunteer Marek is engaged together with Poeticbent in POV pushing in articles related to Polish economy since a long time, and he is not a neutral party to this dispute.The article in questions was quite shocking to me as a Polish person because it implied Poles are rich beyond belief and their problems consist of what Ferrari to buy, which was quite opposite to reality in my country. Nevertheless I was willing to discuss it first. Volunteer's Marek defense of partner in edits on Economy of Poland is just that, one can see beyond this that Poeticbent comment was directed at me. Also as a person who experiences poverty daily, I feel offended by Marek's abusive comment "One can agree or disagree as to whether people who dumpster dive or who are unsatisfied with the economic condition of this (or any other) country are bad or good", which just demonstrates how difficult it is to debate economic condition in Poland is with him and Poeticbent.Poeticbent's offensive remarks are not appropriate and using vuglarisms should not be allowed at Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"More generally on the article talk page and the article itself they have engaged in tendentious POV pushing which contradicts the sources" That is a serious personal attack and I suggest you remove it immediately.All of my edits are backed by reliable and trustworthy sources, for example World Bank reports. If you have a problem with any of the sources I use, bring it up either on article page or on discussion page and I will deal with it straight away. By claiming here that I am falsifying sources you are engaging in serious accusation. If this is correct why haven't you point this out earlier in the article page? Why have you tolerated supposedly falsified sources up to this discussion? It's obviously dubious accusation to divert attention from Poeticbent and his offensive behavior.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see Marek is continuing to try to divert attention away from Poeticibent and continuing to use false accusations and attacks.

"As in, you haven't been violating restrictions - specifically, your 1RR restriction - left and right. There's been a dozen instances where I could've reported you here in the past few months and easily gotten you sanctioned but I didn't" It would be interesting to see, as I am not under any 1RR restriction Marek.

"make sure your own ducks are in a row first".

Perhaps you should apply this sentence to yourself before throwing false serious accusations like the one above. Continue to due so, and I will be forced to settle this matter in Enforcement as well, as you have been warned often against this kind of behavior.

Now shall we focus on Poeticibent uncalled for offensive remarks? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)' My Marek, you found that lifting of restriction real quick-much longer than it took me to find it to be honest when you mentioned it. Of course there is nothing here but continued attempt to try to shift focus from Poeticibent's vulgar and offensive language towards my person(and who knows maybe by you mentioning it I might be put on restriction myself now,but I am sure it isn't your intention or anything your hope for). But if you believe I should be placed on any restrictions, start appropriate debate, and don't use it as ace in your sleeve to protect editors who have acted wrongly. I have seen it all too often, somebody does something wrong, gets called on it, and then discussion is being diverted into attacking the person who brought it up. "So... should I file an AE report to reinstate your original restriction since you've clearly failed to live up to the promises made when it was lifted?" Personal attacks and an open threat now based on month's provision overview two years ago. Dear Marek, if you believe you have material to support you, you are free to start any AE report you like. I am sure it won't be connected to me reporting Poeticibent for his offensive behavior and vulgar behavior.MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" The fact that you filed this bad faithed report is a clear indication that you have failed to live up to the promises you made when the sanctions were, provisionally, lifted".

I personally long time ago came to the belief that it is better on Wikipedia to let administration handle cases of offensive and vulgar remarks, instead of getting into flame wars with users who contribute vulgarisms and personal attacks, it is more efficient and there is less potential for escalation. Poeticbent has clearly acted offensive and incivil.The fact that you are trying to turn this around to defend him and try to sanction person who pointed this out and asked for enforcement is not really something new and original. No, pointing out that somebody is incivil is not something wrong, asking for enforcement is not something wrong. Instead of keeping Wikipedia safe and clean of such behavior, you try to defend somebody at all cost just because he is your "friend"(as you named once me when I agreed with your views and edits) and try to sanction those who try keep an civil and orderly discussion. If you believe there are grounds for AE against me, do it. I have nothing to hide and will gladly defend myself from your accusations and constant incivility(that arose when I got out of your off wiki email group).In fact, do fill the AE report, instead of threatening me. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC) EdJohnston:My apologies, I thought ARBEE is used as sort of general rule that can be invoked to call for enforcement of rules against person acting offensive in topic connected to Eastern Europe. I didn't mean by that any specific issue that was raised at the start of the case.Kind regards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Poeticbent:"User:MyMoloboaccount keeps stabbing in the dark. I was not sanctioned at ARBEE five years ago. However, he was!"

It's a false personal attack again, I was never sanctioned during ARBEE, also I didn't say that Poeticbent was sanctioned but that he is aware of sanctions. "He was unblocked on condition "to a limit of one revert per page per week"." This sanction was in 2008(6 years ago!), and lifted long time ago. It wasn't connected to ARBEE. Before you throw baseless and false accussations please research the subject. "But he keeps on edit-warring now as if his own ARBEE promise did not matter" Again a false claim, and shopping for sanctions.Poeticbent's refusal to apologize for rude and incivil behavior and instead attempting to attack others with false accussation is not promising. In regards to Poland article, I have added numerous sources to the article to balance the POV, based on reliable sources such as World Bank, Warsaw Business Journal. All of them are being removed.As a result the information is completely distorted and the section mentions nothing about Polish economy problems in unemployment, debt and wages-despite this being sourced by reliable sources from mainstream publications. Poeticbent and Volunteer Marek are instead pushing a version which presents only alleged positive vision of Polish economy without adding any balance to the article. In fact information about unemployment being problem in Poland was deleted completely by VM under false pretense that this is not discussed on discussion page[15] with added false claims that "this is nonsense", despite the information coming from reliable sources as well as official government sites. Pushing forward articles that present Poland only in positive light is nothing new. VM and Poeticbent have engaged in such activity before. "My final comment. I refuse to be goaded into any further pointless bickering with this user, with irrefutable facts presented by him as false allegations" You realize that you are linking to restriction from 2008? Around 6 years ago? And that there were different restrictions in different situations. All of which have been lifted long time ago.Throughout your whole comment you didn't even once apologize for using offensive and vulgar language towards me and poor people.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

As a note of order, I previously voted on ANI to lift editing restrictions for Molobo. However, I think that the comment by Poeticbent was obviously insufficient to bring this complaint here, and Molobo suppose to know it very well after his previous experience. Therefore, I suggest to restrict Molobo from commenting on AE in the future or indeed reinstate his previous editing restrictions in EE area. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston. I do not really see how this battleground request by MyMoloboaccount about Poeticbent may be related to the content dispute between MyMoloboaccount and VM about economy of Poland. Other than that, whatever you and other admins decide is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Poeticbent

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

I recommend that this report be closed. Editors are expected to have their own skills for resolving disputes and not appeal to admins as the first resort: "I personally long time ago came to the belief that it is better on Wikipedia to let administration handle cases of offensive and vulgar remarks". If you bring old ARBEE disputes back to AE, the very simplest thing for admins to do would be to reimpose the old restrictions. I hope we are all too smart now to let that happen. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a difference of opinion at Talk:Economy of Poland. User:Piotrus offered a list of suggestions for how VM and Mymoloboaccount could resolve their dispute. I recommend that both parties follow up on this. Piotrus said, "Overall, I really don't see what you guys are quarreling about, you are expanding this article in a good way." Since I don't perceive Poeticbent's comment on talk as an actual personal attack, there does not seem to be much point to this AE. I suggest this report be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No other admins have commented in this thread, but I'm not seeing that the original comment by Poeticbent (said to be a personal attack) needs any action here. The comment was at Talk:Economy of Poland. There is a content dispute at Economy of Poland involving User:Poeticbent, User:MyMoloboaccount and User:Volunteer Marek. The dispute began in late May but flared up again in November. I don't see an edit war, though there is some bad feeling. In the above comments on this AE, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount have criticized each other's behavior in a wide-ranging fashion but I don't see how these comments justify any enforcement under WP:ARBEE. In June, User:Piotrus made a proposal on the talk page for how the dispute might be resolved but so far nobody has responded to his idea. Anybody who sincerely wants to find consensus might consider using that proposal to get the discussion going. If disagreement persists, an WP:RFC is something to consider. I'm planning to close this soon. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium Dragon

Closed with no action, but without prejudice against action by ArbCom or clerks, since the alleged misconduct took place on an arbitration request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 10 November 2014 (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 Titanium Dragon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Titanium Dragon (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:Editing restrictions#Current BLP-related discretionary sanctions :

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

05:18, 10 November 2014
05:26, 10 November 2014
05:29, 10 November 2014
05:33, 10 November 2014
05:55, 10 November 2014
06:29, 10 November 2014
06:34, 10 November 2014
06:38, 10 November 2014
07:09, 10 November 2014
07:10, 10 November 2014
07:13, 10 November 2014
08:47, 10 November 2014
08:49, 10 November 2014
09:13, 10 November 2014
All of these are edits to the RFAr case on the subject of Gamergate, from which Titanium Dragon was topic banned "on all edits (both content edits and discussion, in all namespaces)" (see diff below).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11:34, 18 October 2014 Original notification of topic ban from Future Perfect at Sunrise

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 11:34, 18 October 2014 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: To clarify, again, less than a month ago Titanium Dragon was banned from anything involving the article Gamergate controversy, and despite being contacted by the filing party editors [16] it is my understanding that he is still restricted from involving himself at all in this debate, not to mention many of his statements are problematic and resemble the very kind of edits he was banned for in the first place, such as everything before and after in this diff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Titanium Dragon

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 Titanium Dragon

The arbitration is in regards to administrative enforcement actions on the article in question, as well as the long-term conduct and content disputes which have been raging on the page for months. My presence in the arbitration was requested. It is my understanding per the rules of topic bans that you are allowed to appeal your topic ban, and given that one of the issues which has been brought up is my topic ban, and its relationship to the actions of several users who have been involved in long-term disputes as relates to the page and questionable administrative actions, I think this falls under the category of appealing the ban, given that allegations of abusive use of admin tools at the urging of several users is part of the dispute.

This is most appropriately addressed in the arbitration. (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

[Speaking as the admin who imposed the original sanction, but at the same time as somebody currently named as a party to that same requested arb case:] I've often gone on record saying that I believe Arbcom pages ought not to be treated as a general exemption area where topic-banned editors are given free range to pursue their agendas and keep fighting the same fights they are no longer allowed to fight out elsewhere. If somebody has been topic-banned, it means their participation in a given field of dispute has been deemed to be so deeply counter-productive they ought not to be engaged in that field of dispute at all, anywhere, including Arbcom proceedings. That said, there is of course the necessary exemption that people must be allowed to appeal their sanction, but when doing that, topic-banned editors ought to restrict themselves as much as possible to discussing whatever is narrowly necessary for explaining their appeal; they should not be engaging in general debate about the content matters under dispute, accusations against third parties unrelated to the immediate situation of their own sanction, and so on. In this sense, I do believe that T.D.'s involvement in the current request could, in principle, qualify as a legitimate sanction appeal, but I also believe that the over-long, content-focussed arguments he posted there are very much not what an editor in this situation should do (not to mention that it's really nothing that anybody should do in an Arbcom request anyway.) T.D. should be firmly instructed to shorten his posting to what is immediately pertinent to a proper appeal of his own sanction, and/or a pertinent complaint against the administrator iin question (i.e. me), if that's what he feels necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

While I don't disagree that this seems like a clear violation, part of the issue that I have presented at the ArbCom is that there are established editors that are attempting to control the article, one way through silencing the wiki voices of those that disagree with them such as through bans like this; those editors include those that pushed for TD's topic ban to start with. This does not necessarily excuse TD's BLP violations, or imply the ban was wrong, however, it was also made in the heat of the argument on Gamergate, and as such, I do believe TD has a seat at the current ArbCom case discussion (but nowhere else) if we are talking on the actions of the editors that got them topic banned (obviously not Fut.Perf., they were just following the obvious problem as presented at ANI). --MASEM (t) 17:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Titanium Dragon

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

User:Titanium Dragon is banned under WP:BLPSE which comes from Arbcom, so we have jurisdiction here to consider violations. I don't believe he should be participating in any case in front of Arbcom unless he is there to appeal his own ban. For example, it would be OK for him to go to WP:ARCA to ask for his ban to be lifted. Certainly if he were to come here at WP:AE to complain about someone else in a Gamergate matter we wouldn't allow it. I'd be OK to close this with no action if he will withdraw or strike out his RFAR posts. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since the edits were made on a ArbCom case request, shouldn't we leave it to the arbs? I'd be uncomfortable sanctioning somebody for commenting on an arbitration request unless the comments were grossly inappropriate. Both because I don't want to give the impression of suppressing comments or questions about admins/sanctions, and because ArbCom has repeatedly made it clear that it and its clerks reserve the right to enforce standards of conduct on arbitration pages and are perfectly capable of doing so if they wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, if you want to close this I won't object. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. R.R. Pickles

Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk · contribs) blocked for a week for personal attacks and battleground mentality (independently of this report). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 10 November 2014 (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 Dr. R.R. Pickles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dr. R.R. Pickles (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:ARBPIA :

The user repeatedly personally attacked me and other editors.

November 3 "I support the move and support Mevarus being blocked as his other accounts, such as User:Wlglunight93, have been" - using sockpuppetry accusations as an argument in a discussion
November 5 "Stop trolling Warkosign, no one likes your politician, "I am the consensus", "you mad bro?" shit." in response to my comment to another user.
November 7 From an IP user's talk page: "It's one of numerous racist vandalism only accounts coming out of Israel, it seems like being a racist Israeli is okay around here so I'm not sure what to do." "Your behaviour reflects on Israelis."
November 10 Replying to me: "What the fuck is wrong with you? [content argument] Why is racism so prevalent on wikipedia?"
November 10 "It should be noted that Irondome as well makes terrible edits such as [17] where he purposefully puts a place in the wrong country for ideological purposes. I suggest they both be blocked." On HJ Mitchell's talk page. Accusation of bad faith editing and suggestion to block a user based on a content dispute, without any attempt to resolve it.

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

The user was discussed here and lack of DS alert prevented an action. Here is the DS alert. Here is an AE request the user submitted themselves.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recent edit history of the user consists mainly of edit warring with an IP user over addition of Arabic names to Jewish politicians. User's page declares that the user is not here to write an encyclopedia.

@ZScarpia: First diff: Dr. R.R. Pickles used an ongoing SPI as an argument in an article move dispute. Sockpuppetry has nothing to do with whether the proposed move is right or wrong, and mentioning sockpuppetry as a fact rather than a suspicion before SPI is complete is a personal attack that serves as a logical fallacy: "a user who opposes the move did bad things, hence a decent person must support the move". SPI concluding that there was indeed sockpuppetry does not undo the personal attack.

Fourth diff: ZScarpia themselves wrote "The shooting was headline news around the world" as the main attribute of the event, demonstrating my claim that the event is mostly notable for the media coverage it received. There is nothing "deluded" in suspecting Hamas of intentionally putting children in harm's way. Here is not the place to discuss the event, but no matter how strongly you disagree with a fellow editor, there is no justification to personal attacks and vulgar language.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles

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 Dr. R.R. Pickles

"Recent edit history of the user consists mainly of edit warring with an IP user over addition of Arabic names to Jewish politicians." -WarKosign

This is a fair example of WarKosign's dishonest editing and writing on wikipedia. He doesn't mention that I also "edit warred" to return the Hebrew translation to Arab politicians. He also doesn't mention that they are Israeli politicians. He condemns me for doing the right thing, for making edits that any sane and fair editor would be proud to make. He does not mention the racism I endured from that IP. He does not mention that admins on wikipedia refuse to block the edit warring IPs. I keep "edit warring" with these racist IPs hoping that someone else would notice and would help me. That no one has done so still, proves that wikipedia is a shithole. Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

Some context for the first diff:

On 10 October, Wlglunight93 (block log) was blocked for breaching the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction.
To evade the block, Wlglunight93 switched to editing under the Veritnight username. An SPI report was posted. On 29 October, as a result, a block was placed on the Veritnight account and the block on the Wlglunight93 increased to 2 months.
Protracting his block evasion, Wlglunight93 switched to using the Mevarus account. An SPI report concerning this was made on 2 November, the day before Dr. R.R. Pickles made the comment in WarKosign's first diff.
On 3 November, the day after the SPI report concerning Mevarus had been placed and after Mevarus had canvassed users to become involved in a dispute concerning the article's title, Dr. R.R. Pickles made the comment concerning Mevarus on the Gaza beach explosion (2006) talkpage which is the subject of the first diff.
On 6 November, Wlglunight93's block was increased to 3 months for continued socking.

← ZScarpia 11:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the fourth diff, the conversation is revolving round the killing of a thirteen-year-old who strayed into an unmarked area in Gaza which runs along the border with Israel in which the IDF automatically shoots anyone who is clearly not Israeli. The shooting was headline news around the world. In the diff, Dr. R.R. Pickles is responding to a comment by WarKosign in which he makes the totally unsupportable suggestion that the victim was deliberately sent into the zone (by Palestinians) to be killed. WarKosign also suggests that the event wouldn't be noteworthy but for attempts to publicise it. That is, he's suggesting that the killing was a cynical plot (by Palestinians) designed to show Israel in a bad light. I and, I should think, quite a few other editors view WarKosign's comments as more than "a bit off" (as well as more than a bit deluded) and, in light of that, Dr. R.R. Pickles's response actually fairly restrained if anything. Besides being unpleasant and far-fetched, WarKosign's comment is also a misuse of the article talkpage, soapboxing specifically. ← ZScarpia 12:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A response to WarKosign's (unsigned) comments of 15:02 and 15:25, 10 November 2014:

The purpose of giving the context behind Dr. R.R. Pickles's first diff comment was to show that he, as well as other editors, had very good grounds for believing that the Mevarus account was being used as a sock and to show that, as the outcome of the SPI report showed a couple of days later, what he believed was correct.
Contrary to what WarKosign states, I did not write that it being "headline news around the world" was the main (that is, most notable) attribute of the shooting. However, unlike WarKosign, I do think that the fact that it was so widely covered justifies having a Wikipedia article on the shooting.
In order to justify as reasonable his claim that Palestinians deliberately sent out a 13-year-old to be shot in order to produce bad publicity for Israel, WarKosign produces this, a 2014 comment piece, albeit in a British newspaper, by an Israeli cabinet minister who was in office during the time concerned alleging that Hamas forced civilians to put themselves in harms way during the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. As the article on that conflict describes, Israeli claims were disputed, with human rights organisations criticising the Israeli position and reporters, including ones from the New Statesman, The Independent and The Guardian saying that they could find no evidence to backup Israeli claims. I would say that WarKosign has not managed to produce one of the most copper-bottomed justification for making a fairly extreme claim that I've seen. His justification lacks specificity to the case in question and relies on a first-party, non-neutral, source.

← ZScarpia 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dr. R.R. Pickles

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

Tarc

ANI is perfectly capable of dealing with conduct issues at ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 10 November 2014 (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 Tarc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tarc (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/Banning_Policy#Tarc_restricted :

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

12:11, 10 November 2014 Tarc makes an ANI request for the NPOV tag of GamerGate. Tarc has been aware that he is banned from editing any noticeboards except for the circumstances regarding his ban and makes this request regardless.
12:26, 10 November 2014 See above, however this time he is adding a comment.
13:54, 10 November 2014 Another comment on a noticeboard. Tarc tries to use WP:BANEX as an excuse to violate the remedy, but deliberately omits the next line.
14:05, 10 November 2014 Tarc makes one comment on the noticeboard again, swearing in the first line. He attempts to justify his original posting on the noticeboard by the nature of the GamerGate article. These diffs are all of him violating this remedy that ArbCom has restricted onto him. He has unambiguously violated it.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Tarc_topic-banned Tarc has been sanctioned by the committee before, and has now undergone two sanctions as the result of the committee.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning_Policy
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 17:54, 28 October 2014
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:42, 9 November 2014.

I do not believe discretionary sanctions apply here, but I filled these out in case that I am wrong.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do sincerely hope that ArbCom simply does not let fragrant violations of its final policies and remedies be justified or even encouraged. Remedies need to be enforced, and Tarc has violated it. Thank you.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18]

Discussion concerning Tarc

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 Tarc

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tarc

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

This has already been handled conclusively at ANI itself [19]; this extra filing is nothing but cheap forum-shopping. Recommend speedy close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 10 November 2014 (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]

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