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	340
341

TripWire

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 TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

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

9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."

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 3 July 2015 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 April 2016 and 19 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun comment: I am afraid TopGun throws up a number of red herrings to obfuscate and derail the case. All the reverts mentioned above are to the content contributed by me or Bharatiya29, not those of any socks. And, I am not raising content issues, but those of conduct. Yes, DRN is an appropriate venue when there is a genuine dispute. But if TripWire throws up nationalistic POV on a daily basis, DRN doesn't have the manpower to deal with it all. As for my taking responsibility for "sock edits," I only did so for MBlaze Lightning edits. I am sure TopGun would have done the same if people reverted Mar4d's edits when he got banned for socking. All this is irrelevant to the issues at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown comment: SheriffIsInTown is absolutely right that I edit all South Asia topics with the same "state of mind," viz., NPOV. I am not sure why we are talking about me here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [2]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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 TripWire

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.

And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?

9 July 2016. This Asian Human Rights Commission edit was neither RS nor encyclopedic. How can a petition/appeal posted anonymously at an 'Appeals Website' be reliable or encyclopedic? This was amply explained to Kautilya3 in the edit-summary and even at the talk page that AHRC isnt reliable nor official as the website itself states in its "About Us' that it is "non-governmental body" which he conveniently ignored.

I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.

It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?

Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.

Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?

8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???

For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):

02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?

Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.

Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.

8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:

Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:

Freedom Mouse a banned sock added POV and then opened a talk-page discussion: Content removal. This led to exhaustive discussion just because the sock was supported by Kautilya3. Had he not done so, precious time could have been saved. Thanks that Freedom Mouse got banned soon and the duel ended.

The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.

Now most recently his third sock 2a00:11c0:9:794::5 re-added the same content which led to six talk-sections, namely Chuck Hagel, James Dobbins, Siraj Akbar, Kulbhushan Yadav, Israel, and even an Rfc!.

All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.

That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.

Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?

The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?

Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?

AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.

Kautilya3's Selective/Discreet Approach to push Nationalistic POV

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

Kautilya3, apart from supporting socks, always advocate other editors not to use WP:NEWSORG to construct articles as he considers them to be unreliable. Two latest instances are on GB page and BSO page (more examples can be dug if required). What Admins should take note of is the second, BSO page example. He tells me not to use reliable WP:NEWSORG like BBC, Al Jazeera to add content, but at the same time he totally reconstructs the entire BSO page from WP:NEWSORG including blogs and unreliable websites which totally aligns with the Indian government's POV on the Baloch issue. Examples:

1. Uses crisisbalochistan, a Baloch (news) website having C of I. And a NewsOrg, torontosun.

2: Uses Aljazeera.

3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I.

4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg thefridaytimes.

5: Uses an unknown website/NewsOrg nakedpunch, twice.

He ventures as far as quoting unreliable blogs, Baloch propaganda websites and even WP:OR to push his nationalistic POV, but when I reinstate a SINGLE 3rd-party book-sourced edit at Gilgit-Baltistan, he cast WP:ASPERSIONS and accuses me of POV-pushing? How can this be acceptable at WP?

All above edits are from the same article for which Kuatilya has dragged me here. I dont object to the content provided it is well sourced but then Kautilya should follow what he advocate to others and stop gaming the system.

In an another example of bending the rules and pushing nationalistic POV, Kuatilya here, who champions WP:STICKTOSOURCE, lectures everyone to follow RS and quickly revert others if content does not match the source conveniently bypasses WP policy and his own words and pushes the Indian state POV against long-standing agreed upon content which was WP:NPOV. How conveniently he changes "Indian-administered region of Kashmir" to "Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir" despite that the source precisely and clearly uses the term "Indian-administered-Kashmir". And then strangely enough ask others to gain consensus for reverting the POV edit back to what was already long-standing. Brave enough, he accuses others of pushing POV.

Response to Kautilya3's additional comments

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

I get my feed from a twitter account that posts edits made by Pakistani IPs on any WP page. My edit-history is a proof that I have reverted many such vandalism from IPs. It's for the same reason GB article was on my watchlist, so obviously when I saw Kautilya3 reverting a perfectly sourced edit by a new user, I checked the sources and having found them correct reinstated the edit and followed WP:BRD by participating in the discussion. What diligence does Kautiliya3 expects me to show when I dont see any edit by Thomas.W on the recent page history and when all I can see is Kautiliya reverting a sourced edit merely by saying that it's not RS?

I wonder, all this is infact a content dispute that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily highlighting here which should have been solved at the respective talks.

All the rehtorics of topic-ban to that user is a facade Kautilya3 is trying hide behind. All I am concerned about is that the edit was sourced and was correct and was wrongly removed.

As regards his sock-comment, what does it has to do with he accusing me of canvassing? Kautilya3 himself is known for canvassing directly at editor's talk. The socks were reverted per WP:BRD and discussion carried out. Kautilya3 should be asked, when he knew that it were sock edits, why would he support them, not once but thrice?

His last point regarding canvassing, I have already admitted to the mistake, which otherwise is not an issue as already 4 editors mentioned by Kautilya3 himself were participating at the RfC, and the RfC was closed right after I posted it at WP:WikiProject Pakistan for being opened by a sock IP. He is just beating a dead horse. Moreover, as per my understanding the issue concerned "Wikiproject Pakistan". And WP:PAK is followed by many editors including non-Pakistanis. By raising this point it shows the bias Kautilya has against WP:PAK editors

No, Kuatiliya3 was not owning Bhartiya's edits alone, they were sock edits each and everytime. Bartiya29 was not even involved when the sock reinstated the edits and Kautiliya then had to even canvass Bharatiya29 to participate in the discussion restarted by the sock. This was just his way of covering his tracks that he was supporting a sock. But Bharatiya29 just responded to this canvassing at his talk and didn't bother to reply to the discussion at the article's talk.
Admins, can you please look into Kautiliya's repeated accusation of "pushing nationalistic POV" against me? WP:BATTLEGROUND?

Kuatilya is juts trying to confuse the issue. What a six-month-old edit has to do with the recent editing of GB article? An edit on a page that was on my watchlist was subjected to POV pushing by Kuatilya, I saw that and took action. What he wants to imply by bringing up this point is beyond me.

Response to Bharatiya29's comments

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

Please clarify what do you mean by that my behavior "has been disturbing"? Please quantify. We all have already agreed that only third party sources will be used in the article keeping in view its nature being a conflict and that both the involved parties will (always) try to present their POV whatsoever, how neutrally worded it may be. Now, if you cant present a 3rd party source to support your edit why the mud slinging? Your and Kuatilya's biased approach can be seen from the fact that when you want to push something you even find justifictaions to use sources having a C of I, and but when the other party says the same, you go back on your words. I have amply highlighted this point above, and Admins must look into this selective approach which games the system.

*Re Pakistan government's POV": A baseless accusation as none of the sources used in the article which say that India is involved in Balochistan are Pakistani, but instead are 3rd party independent/uninvolved sources. Whereas, Pakistani govt have been raising the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan at international forums but it has not gain much currency. Conversely, it is the Indian govt that have bee specifically giving air-time to Baloch dissents and their separatists leaders to farther their views which you and the socks have been trying to push in the article. Also, as all this info is ONLY sourced from Indian sources, to me it seems that it is rather you and Kautilya3 who have been trying to push the Indian government's POV in the article while cloaking it as being NPOV. How can I do that when no Pakistani source is allowed in the article? If a 3rd party RS like a renowned US politician or a known website like BBC says something which might be inline with the facts on ground, blame the source not the one who is using them per WP polices. But if you blame the source, then sorry, but you wont be able to use the same source to support your POV. That's commonsense.

*Re BSO being a terrorist organization: What "3rd party" sources did India or you present to declare All Tripura Tiger Force (ATTF), Al-Umar-Mujahideen (AUM),Babbar Khalsa International (BKI), Communist Party of India (Maoist), Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist) People's War, Deendar Anjuman (DA), Dukhtaran-e-Millat (DeM) etc as terrorist organization per Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, less the law itself?? BSO is a Pakistani organization which was declared as a terrorist organization per country's law just like any other country-specific organization. Sorry, you are just trying to muddy the waters, nothing else.

*Re Bhartiya's new comments: First he says that there's no 3rd party source that says BSO is a terrorist organization. I responded to that. Now he talks about BSO's notability which was never under discussion. The notability issue was with Kareema Baloch, but here he directs our attention to BSO itself. Bhartiya is just shifting his goal posts as he cant find any worthwhile points to complain about. Bhartiya, this is not BSO's talk page nor DRN where you are trying to resolve a dispute. You had time to do it at the talk, which you did not. Why do it here? Your comments concerning a dispute wont merit a response here.

....complaints' "own conduct may be examined as well."

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

Statement by TopGun

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [3] [4] [5]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bharatiya29

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya 29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya 29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya 29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

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

The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescued this from premature archiving. The diffs I see here could be interpreted as tendentious editing, but they could also be seen as good faith efforts to improve these articles. I'm far from an expert in this topic area, so I'm unable to decisively determine which. The rhetoric from editors on both sides of the nationalistic conflict further obfuscate the matter. That being said, I don't see anything that rises anywhere near the level of making a block or topic ban necessary. My instinct is that it would be best if TripWire were admonished for tendentiousness, and works to be more careful in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29 :

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

21:14, 13 July 2016 First revert
23:05, 14 July 2016 Second revert

BLP issues:

Here Debresser agrees some of the sources that he restored (original revert [6] are not reliable for a BLP)
Here, after admitting that some of these sources do not belong in a BLP, Debresser restores them anyway. They are still in the article, despite Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. Debresser continuously makes improper reverts, edit-wars to restore them, and disregards clear prohibitions on doing so.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 29 June.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the second revert is just outside of 24 hrs, the apparent gaming of the 1RR to restore contested material in a BLP merits attention I think. At present, the talk page section covering the material re-inserted in these reverts shows 3 editors agreeing that Debresser's material violates WP:UNDUE and yet Debresser has edit-warred the material into the article without modification. Repeatedly dismissing editors who disagree with him as "POV editors" and deciding that because he disagrees with them he may ignore them. This is a BLP and WP:BLP specifies that contested material stay out without consensus, as does WP:ONUS. Neither of those facts seems to impress Debresser, as the 24+2 hr revert above shows. Not one person has agreed with Debresser's position, and the edit-warring in a BLP should not be acceptable.

Debresser, the truth is that up to this point every single person that has commented on the issue has agreed your text is UNDUE. And that you edit-warred to restore it anyway. That has nothing to do with POV, or censorring, or whatever other buzzword you want to throw out without any type of logical reason backing it up. You are edit-warring in a BLP, and that should not be allowed. As far as Jerusalem, they werent flimsy grounds, and action was taken in a page restriction. nableezy - 15:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Debresser, I have implemented a proposal that so far has 3 users agreeing to and you alone opposing. Add that to the two other users who agreed the section you edit-warred in is UNDUE and we now have 5 users who do not agree with you, and you alone demanding that you be allowed to impose your position on the article. You have a curious understanding of what consensus is to say the least. nableezy - 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I thought of it like the 3RR, but fair enough. Ive added the discretionary sanctions remedy to the request. The issue is the edit-warring against a substantial majority (unanimity in fact) of talk page participants in a BLP. If discretionary sanctions dont cover that then forgive me for bringing this here. nableezy - 18:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

lol, ok fine, Debresser, I thought I was being charitable, but fine keep it open. If an admin would like to comment on edit-warring in a BLP to restore challenged material that 3 other editors had objected to in a topic area with discretionary sanctions I would very much like to see what they will say. nableezy - 01:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: I dont think thats a fair reading of the history here. I absolutely stand by what I said is Debresser's edits here, he often will make an edit and claim that it is the new consensus. Exactly that has happened several times, with him revert-warring to maintain a change he introduced over the objection of several other editors. Exactly this happened at Ancient synagogues in Palestine. A series of edits made by him on May 26] become in his words consensus and I should be reported "in the most serious way" for challenging his bold edit. He then proceeds to re-revert, despite there now being 4 users on the talk page objecting to the wholesale removal of long-standing content. So what does Debresser do then? Moves the page, citing some mythical consensus for it on the talk page. I revert that and the very next day Debresser moves the page again. Completely unwilling to allow for an actual consensus to develop, he continues to claim his views as consensus, the end. Please note, that when each of these proposals were being discussed on the talk page in a formal requested move the finding was "no consensus". So I absolutely will stand by that comment, and the only reason it was made was because Debresser's immediately preceding comment was Ill accept this compromise now but at the first opportunity I intent to restore the entire material that every other person has said was undue.

As far as DR/N, I was repeatedly personally attacked by Debresser, I made one complaint about it and my complaint is what was hidden. I asked for content to be discussed, but Debresser refused to leave personal issues out of the discussion. I really dont feel I should be admonished for not willing to have to wear a muzzle while another editor is attacking me. nableezy - 00:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

I think it is about time WP:AE put a stop to attempts by Nableezy to discredit editors who disagree with his POV by posting bogus reports here. There was no violation.[7][8] The edits speak for themselves.[9][10]

So what does Nableezy do? He calls it "gaming the system by making edits 25 hours removed". The truth is that Nableezy and Spesis II are systematically trying to remove from Mahmoud Abbas unfavorable information.[11][12][13][14] First they used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument. They when I, an 8 year editor with about 90k edits, make the same edit (with improvements), he tries to say sources are not reliable, when they are, or when good sources are readily available (see [15] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources). They he tries to say it is recentism (see [16] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue,[17] so he plays that card too.[18] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether (see also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverts). In other words, Nableezy and Spesis II (whose POV is even more pronounced and who is, unfortunately, less a man of civilized discussion than Nableezy) try to fight this simple, well-sourced, neutrally worded and relevant paragraph by all means possible, in their POV efforts to censor this page. Please notice, that when that same uninvolved editor proposed a compromise,[19] I agreed,[20] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me.[21]

I tried to resolve the issue at WP:DRN (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas.23WP:RECENTISM), but Nableezy sabotaged that too.[22] I have recently posted at WP:BLPN (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas, to seek opinions from other editors, perhaps I am wrong with my arguments, but Nableezy has not yet posted there. I have seen Nableezy at work a lot, his POV is well-evident, but we have managed to reach many compromises, for which I respect him, and we are at good terms.[23] Even yesterday I was not afraid to change my opinion and agree with him on another issue.[24]. He has reported me here before recently (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Debresser), also on flimsy grounds, and no action was taken.

I would like to ask WP:AE to call upon this editor to stop censoring this article, stop his tendentious POV editing, stop misusing this forum as his tool to fight editors with different opinions, and stop seeing Wikipedia as a battlefield. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update Nableezy made another edit on this article, pushing his point of view and implementing a suggestion without consensus, while misusing the fact that he knows I can't revert, and in full disregard for my call to discuss at WP:BLPN, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WAR and the outcome of the discussion.[25] I repeat my call to sanction this editor. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Debresser

I ask that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words. I do see some fact misrepresented, but in order that I should be able to understand what the point of his long and tiring timeline is, and be able to reply to the point, it needs to be trimmed. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not withdrawn

Nableezy closed this section as "withdrawn".[26] I undid that as an out of process closure. Nableezy is not authorized to close a WP:AE discussion, even if he is the one who started it. In addition, since I have asked for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy here in return, that is something Nableezy can not withdraw. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think Nableezy needs to be reminded about what is and what is not acceptable to bring to AE. My feeling is that a "TBAN" on bringing AE actions is suitable at this time. It should not be used as a method of content dispute and it's similar to a legal threat in that Nableezy uses this as a method of stifling edits and discussions. I find this somewhat similar to trying to ban pro-Israeli editors who have less than 500 edits who are making good edits to other articles.

Statement by OID

When the man who is head of the Palestinian authority goes before the UN and repeats a claim that Israeli rabbi's are supporting well poisoning, which is picked up by Haaretz, Al Jezera, the NYT and Reuters, claiming it is undue is never going to fly unless it takes up a significant portion of their biography. Israel & Palestine land wars are inherantly part of his position. When he repeats a clearly massively controversial claim, it *will* get significant coverage. Recentism may otherwise be a good argument, except that there have been allegations for years about Israeli poisoning water sources. Abbas is just the latest and most high profile person to repeat them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I watched this go on on Mahmoud Abbas's page, but stayed out because a muckraking investigative journalist who revealed part of how Abbas was probably mislead, perhaps by a hoax, could not be used, since the source is a blog. That Palestinian wells are poisoned in the West Bank by a number of ultra orthodox people from rabbinically guided settlements like Susya is well documented by Israeli observers, but have never been done so on explicit rabbinical authority. The outcry re Abbas ignored this, and another kind of poisoning of the well took place in the press, and it's reflected here.

The edit history and the talk page show Debresser disagreeing with Nableezy, Sepsis, Zero, and Drsmoo, initially agreeing with Transporter Man's compromise then going back on his word, only then to reaccept it when a second mediation was proposed.

At 22:46, 6 July 2016 , Debresser opened up a dispute resolution mediation over his disagreements with both Nableezy and Sepsis

At 22:00, 7 July 2016. TransporterMan gave a third opinion (TALK) TM’s proposal that a paragraph was undue, and a summary sentence of the incident sufficed, which he provided,

This was accepted as a fair compromise by Nableezy here, and Debresser here,

At this point, both Nableezy and Debresser had accepted Transporter Man’s compromise by the 8th of July.

With this acceptance by both of the compromise, the dispute resolution process was rendered superfluous.

Unaccountably, on the 13th rather than acting on the consensus TM’s timely compromise had produced, which he himself underwrote, Debresser reverted back precisely the text he had written, which Nableezy and Sepsis had rejected, and which Transporter Man in his mediation had also judged WP:Undue.

He effectively tore up the compromise.

16:45, 14 July 2016‎ TransporterMan asked Debresser and Nableezy to reconfirm their agreement to his mediated proposal so he could implement it.

Debresser agreed formally while refusing to regard the compromise as binding, (I agree. At least for the time being. With no promise that I won't add more information or details if sources will continue to discuss this information and its ramifications.)

He did not agree because he signaled that TM could put in the consensual version, but that he, Debresser, was not bound by it. Frankly, that shows a total failure to understand the dispute resolution process. He had a watertight compromise underwritten by Nableezy, and ready to be implemented by TM, and said he wouldn’t promise to stick by it.

17:08, 14 July 2016 Nableezy agreed, on condition that Debresser abide by TM’s decision, i.e.’ If Debresser agrees to leave it as you suggested Im fine, but with the above comment no from me.’
17:48, 14 July 2016 Sepsis endorsed the first sentence in TM’s proposal, but for the record added he did not think the sec ond sentence necessary

At this point therefore, you had

Nableezy and Debresser agreeing to TM’s suggestion on the 8th
Debresser reverting to his preferred version and ignoring the compromise
TM asking their consent to implement the compromise
Debresser saying yes, but he won’t necessarily abide by it
Nableezy saying yes, but only if Debresser stands by TM’s compromise
Sepsis saying he doesn’t like part of TM’s compromise, but can live with it-
Debresser goes to another board to get further opinions about his pre compromise version

TM’s compromise would not stick because Debresser would not undertake to be bound by it so

04:07, 15 July 2016‎. User:Zero0000 stepped in and offered a variant of TM’s proposal

12:12, 15 July 2016‎. immediately gained the assent of User:Drsmoo Drsmoo is usually on Debresser’s side of the general dispute, but accepted this second mediation

14:16, 15 July 2016‎ Debresser rejected Zero’s compromise replying that that 729870902 he preferred TM’s phrasing stating there are reasons to believe Abbas had no retracted.

That is a really, I mean really weird statement by Debresser, for TM’s version, which he approved, states that Abbas retracted.

15:37, 15 July 2016‎ Nableezy implements Zero’s suggestion.

I.e.Debresser once more was in a minority of one, over a compromise. Nableezy, Zero and Drsmoo had concurred on Zero’s version of TM’s compromise, Sepsis though partly dissatisfied did not veto TM's suggestion. In short, Nableezy wanted everything out, Debresser wanted everything in. Two compromises were tried. Debresser agreed with one, only to backtrack, and rejected the other. Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo. My apologies if I inadvertently offended you in writing:'Drsmoo is usually on Debresser’s side of the general dispute.' It (a) reflected my memory or impression that wherever we have co-edited you tend to disagree with the position I took (which of course is not a problem) (b) and in this case, you came independently to the same opinion I held. By noting this, I intended to pay you a compliment. I.e. you seemed to me to be making a call purely by your own lights, and not in terms of a reflex POV mentality that automatically takes sides, which is the curse of this place. That is an example of the ideal we should always strive for - not being predictable, despite any general POV in an editor's approach. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem. I've never known Nableezy not to adhere to a consensus, whatever it is. I've observed Debresser for years essentially ignoring it, while claiming it backs his edits. He is unresponsive to collaboration. Whatever behavioural parity you intuit, it ignores this difference (which is the basis of N's complaint), and the difference is significant.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

Nishidani wrote "I've never known Nableezy not to adhere to a consensus, whatever it is. I've observed Debresser for years essentially ignoring it, while claiming it backs his edits." That is a fair summary of my experience with those two editors over many months. Zero^talk 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

I reject and take offense to User:Nishidani's claim that I am on any "side of the general dispute" and consider it a personal attack. My interest is in improving articles in a neutral way. This whole arbitration request, btw, is baseless. It started with an erroneous edit warring claim and then has shifted to attacking Debresser for having different views (those views being based on improving articles in a neutral way.) In this case, obviously Abbas' statement is notable due to the amount of press coverage it received. Drsmoo (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

So, you want an Arbcom-mandated 1RR restriction enforced against Debresser. For your evidence, you offer two reverts from two different days, nearly 26 hours apart. This isn't a Discretionary Sanction you want applied, it is a specific Arbcom remedy with a rigid meaning. Unless more evidence is presented of a 1RR violation, or the request changed to ask for enforcement of some other remedy that can be backed up, I'm going to dismiss this case on the grounds that no evidence of a 1RR violation as defined by Arbcom has been presented. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Thank you for reformatting it. This is a complex issue (as are all ethnic conflict topic areas), so its going to take a while for me to look into the background and context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to read more through the evidence, but my initial thinking is the two reverts are a violation of the 1RR under the ruling. 3RR policy says a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour window is considered gaming the system and/or edit warring behavior. Not sure why the same logic wouldn't apply in the 1RR context. In this topic area, especially for a content dispute, if a revert is disagreed by another editor, there needs to be discussion. As I said, still looking through the lengthy statements, but this is my first read. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbcom decision specifically states a 24-hour period. When they word things like that in an official ruling, there isn't much room for interpretation. However, it may be considered edit warring under the more flexible Discretionary Sanctions. It is a marginal case though, so if any sanction is recommended I would err on the side of a mild one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, agreed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've taken the time to look through the diffs. Clearly, the personal animosity is proving detrimental to the dispute resolution process (see here & here). Still, while the content dispute is certainly heated, I don't see anything meriting a topic ban or sanction at this time. Upon full review, I would close with an admonition to Nableezy (talk · contribs) to cool his head and calm the tone of discussions; additionally, a warning to Debresser (talk · contribs) not to violate 1RR or reverse an edit too quickly without talk page discussion. If things escalate and get worse, we can address it then. It wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in another part of the wiki for some time, but that's just personal advice. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khazen48

Editor blocked two weeks by EdJohnston for repeated violations. The block may be lifted if the editor agrees to follow the 500/30 restriction going forward.

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 Khazen48

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bolter21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Khazen48 (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

All of those are part of some 100 edits this user made, predominantly in the I/P conflict area and as this user has less than 500 edits, he is not allowed to edit this area. I have reverted the majority of the edits he made, as many of them included undiscussed removal of sometimes sourced content, many times with no edit summery at all. I have informed this user about the restriction twice in his talkpage and in every edit summery in my reverts but he doesn't seem to even notice it. This user contribute through his phone, and if he can't learn the rules of Wikipedia through his phone, he is not suitable for editing here.

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)

In his talkpage.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Khazen48

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 Khazen48

Statement by DavidLeighEllis

It might be helpful to place all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict under extended confirmed protection to prevent future incidents such as this. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Khazen48

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

A straightforward violation of the 500/30 rule on ARBPIA pages. The user was warned as long ago as June 17 (see their talk page). It is time for a block, which might be lifted if they will agree to follow the rule. EdJohnston (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a block would be in order. So far the user has chosen not to react, which might be explained by their ow edit count (they likely do not understand what is going on).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They resumed editing I/P articles on 17 July without responding to this complaint, of which they were warned on July 15. I have issued a two-week block to be sure to get their attention. The block can be lifted by any admin if they respond and agree to follow the 500/30 rule. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis II

Sepsis II (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (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 Sepsis II

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sepsis II (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/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing

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

23:41, 26 May 2016 Removal of sourced material and ensuing (non-1RR-violating) edit war, and is ultimately reverted by Jeppiz.
16:17, 27 May 2016 Six minutes after being reverted, makes gratuitous, bad-faith snipe against Jeppiz on his user talk page.
00:51, 30 May 2016 Removal of sourced material. Tendentious edit summary.
16:03, 9 June 2016 Massive unexplained removal of apparently well-sourced material.
16:28, 9 June 2016 General assumption of bad faith. Implies user Debresser and other editors are part of some sort of editing conspiracy. Possibly also implying various 30/500 accounts are Debresser socks?
19:34, 9 June 2016 Soapboxing. Assumption of bad faith against some reasonably new editors whom have passed the 30/500 restrictions (whom he believes are gaming the system).
16:23, 12 June 2016 Strawman argument.
20:00, 12 June 2016 I don't know what to make of this. A version in compliance with Wikipedia policy is the "incorrect" version in his opinion.
20:57, 12 June 2016 Treating talk page as a forum. Whilst telling opposing editor that this is not a forum.
19:47, 15 June 2016 Revert of good faith edit by casual user as "vandalism" as well as 30/500.
19:48, 15 June 2016 [46][47] General bad faith attitude towards above casual user (who has less than 500 edits but has been editing since 2006).
16:16, 19 June 2016 General bad faith and tendentiousness; opposing editors "miseducated".
16:55, 19 June 2016 General tendentiousness; his facts are "facts", opposing ones "propaganda". Soapboxing.
21:04, 27 June 2016 Removal of sourced material. Tendentious edit summary. No further explanation - not even to justify his supplied version of events.
23:23, 27 June 2016 Bad faith use of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 to censor well-sourced and pertinent material clearly added in good faith by an IP. The article in question, Well poisoning, wouldn't ordinarily come under the 30/500 restrictions. I believe Sepsis II simply removed this material because it didn't sit comfortably with his ideology.
17:28, 28 June 2016 Bad faith revert.
21:46, 8 July 2016 Tendentious dig. The place "where other editors originate" he was aluding to was clearly Israel, and was a probably a reference to a dispute he was having with Israeli user Bolter21 elsewhere on that talk page.
18:21, 14 July 2016 Tendentious. Struck part of his previous, reasonable comment and replaced it with this tendentious snipe. Totally unnecessary.
Finally, I distinctly remember Sepsis II making an extremely bad faith remark to a newish editor who met the 30/500 threshold on (I believe) 2016 Ramadan attacks, a now deleted article. Something along the lines that 30/500 was supposed to "keep editors like you off [these articles] permanently". Unfortunately, administators have refused to undelete this article for me to review. If I've misremembered, or I am mistaken, I apologise. I usually like to research my AE requests thoroughly before I submit them. (Struck per Sandstein, it appears I was indeed mistaken.)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152#Sepsis II

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 here by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sepsis II is a single-purpose account who edits with a strong pro-Palestinian bias on the usual collection of Israel-Palestinian conflict articles. He was topic banned from this area for six months a couple of years ago for a variety of poor editing practices, and stormed off with very bad grace at the time. He returned only a few months ago, but he seems to have continued with exactly the same kind of behavior that got him topic banned in the first place.

I ripped apart Sepsis II's consistently biased editing fairly comprehensively in a previous AE request he issued against GHcool some months ago. That AE request was archived without closure, though I stand by the claims I made there. Sepsis II seems to have changed his editing very little since then.

In general, Sepsis II seems to contribute very little new content or do anything overly much to improve the encyclopedia overall. He may occasionally remove some vandalism or make some fixes here and there but much of his editing consists of reverts on various grounds and talk page opining and soapboxing, all to the end of promoting his favoured view (pro-Palestinian), and marginalizing any opposing view. Mainspace changes which are not reverts are usually wholesale removals of content he dislikes (see above diffs) or revisions of content to match his POV (examples: [48][49][50]) regardless of whether these changes are in line, or likely to become in line with consensus.

Sepsis II seems convinced that every new or nearly new editor who edits contrary to his own views is a sock, and a constant theme in his talk page interactions is the idea that opposing editors are a party to some kind of conspiracy to take over the encyclopedia.

Sepsis II has a rather bizarre obsession with Israeli and Jewish editors. He seems to view these editors as having some sort of inherent conflict of interest, and shouldn't be allowed to edit the topic area at all. For years, he maintained a rather bad faith user page where he documented alleged conflict of interest editing by Israeli and Jewish editors on various Israeli and Jewish organizations of little note. Most of these editors had only a handful of edits; many had not edited for literally years. When challenged on this, he responded with his usual "sockpuppet" mantra; I've come to the conclusion that to Sepsis II, "sockpuppet" is merely a codeword for "editor I don't like".

Most frustratingly, Sepsis II violates the very editing standards he demands of other editors. For example, how does he reconcile the sentiments expressed in this post with his own ideological removal on another article? He will frequently tell other editors to cease soapboxing whilst continuing to soapbox himself - sometimes in the very same post (see diffs). He also believes that some editors who recently attained 30/500 privilieges were "gaming the system" when he himself clearly "gamed" the system by his own standards by making several obvious "waiting edits" to be able to edit the semi-protected Israeli-Palestinian conflict article back in 2012. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done.

Discussion concerning Sepsis II

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 Sepsis II

I deal mostly with socks and POV-pushing, things can get heated on all sides, can I be solely to blame? A selection of edits taken from arguments which many editors in the IP area get into could show many editors in a poor light.

Most of the diffs are content disputes, perhaps I BITE a few people, sorry, anyways, back to work. Sepsis II (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by others made below verify what I've said; I'm followed by socks and those with strong opinions about I/P or 30/500. I'm sure many editors hate me for not allowing them to ingrain their ideologies and false realities into wikipedia just as those who protect articles related to climate change or Northern Ireland or such have editors who hate them. What should I do? Sepsis II (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, THIS IS A SOCK. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser's comments are mostly just personal attacks and nonsense. There was a discussion going on here at ARE about Balady Citron and I noticed various unsourced edits to that page changing the name between Palestinian Citron and Israeli Citron so I asked for sources at the talk page, never editing the article page, as I couldn't find anything in English. Debresser uses this edit as proof that I can't even stand the word Israel. This whole case is just a matter of throwing enough diffs in hoping that something sticks, the original filler had a good intention but Debresser's comments should be sanctionable. Sepsis II (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I know you won't like me asking this, but what do you think about the sock that posted here? Sepsis II (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins lining up to block me without giving any specifics, great. Sepsis II (talk) 00:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to comment Lord Roem, I already had you marked down. Sepsis II (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Itch Eye Bear

Aside from the detailed evidence presented by User:AnotherNewAccount, which should be more than enough to warrant a topic ban for this tendentious editor, I'd point out that it is beyond obvious that Sepsis II is not their first account , and I have good reason to believe this is the same editor as User:Factomancer/User:Factsontheground/User:Eptified/User:Dr. R.R. Pickles

Factomancer supposedly was leaving the project for good, and it is only because of that that they were not indef-blocked by User:PhilKnight - see [[51]]. But here they are again, with the same tendentious behavior, the same SPA-focus. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darwinian Ape

As someone who is uninvolved, I must conclude that there is a problem with this editor after an examination of the diffs provided by the filer. I am mostly concerned with the general bad faith they demonstrate and the unexplained or poorly reasoned reverts and blanking of sourced materials. Their defense seems to be an example of WP:NOTTHEM with an admission of biting. Given that the editor was topic banned for six months and that they don't seem to understand the problems with their edits, I believe an indefinite topic ban is warranted. Darwinian Ape^talk 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gestrid

It should be noted that there was a rather lengthy discussion involving Sepsis II and a few other users regarding whether a discussion should be started here, as can be seen here. The discussion started with Sepsis II bringing several users to our attention, but then turned to a discussion about Sepsis II's behavior in those same articles, including his suspicious behavior with immediately after being autoconfirmed. (30/500 didn't exist back when he created his user.) The discussion started as a discussion on Kamel Tebaast's userpage. I admit that I was involved in both discussions, and I ended up taking a semi-wikibreak because it was just too much to handle. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Debresser

I completely agree that Sepsis II is an extreme POV editor,who had best be topic banned from all ARBPIA = IP-conflict related articles.

Some of the more unreasonable and unacceptable examples I personally have noticed:

He posted on my talkpage that he wants me to refrain from posting on his talkpage.[52] This was in reaction to my posts there regarding his POV editing. I replied to him that "your unwillingness to engage in dialog will not work in your favor, should I want to pursue my suspicions regarding a possible POV in your editing on Wikipedia".
I also replied then "I am also noticing a few talkpage discussions where you are taking an illogical position", about which more now.
At Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM he tried to lead the discussion into an area which was not at all the subject of the disagreement there.[53][54] I was a bit frustrated by this attempt to lead the discussion into undesired directions, and reacted a bit emotional[55], which I later explained as follows: "Sepsis II is a very POV editor, if I can say so in English, and I find him disruptive at times. It (my reaction - DB) was a bit too emotional for Wikipedia, although on the other hand, there is no injunction against being a bit emotional at times". In my perception, his reverts at that article[56][57][58] were made in an attempt to censor Wikipedia and remove unfavorable information about Mahmoud Abbas from his article.[59]
At Cave of the Patriarchs he reverted my edit, where I adapted POV wording to be NPOV also since the POV wording is not in the source. In his edit summary he said "if you think it's POV to call Palestinian roads Palestinian roads then you shouldn't be editing wikipedia". To which I replied "Reverting an good edit, that uses NPOV language and saying that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, is not going to make a good impression". I see here an attempt to clear Wikipedia from all editors with an opinion different from his. What is a "Palestinian road", by the way, or an "American road", for that matter. It's not even good English! All this I explained on the talkpage section Talk:Cave_of_the_Patriarchs#Roads, where nobody else has commented so far.
To an edit of mine introducing similar language for Jordan and Israel,[60] he replied with a vicious attack "I'll revert any half-assed edit which ruins the integrity of a paragraph. Take your time before you delete or add "occupied" to fit your POV, to which I replied not understanding where that came from.[61] By the way, in view of the arguments by other editors, I do agree with the revert in itself, just not with the POV behind it and the vicious talkpage post.
At Tel Faher an editor tagged a quote as POV,[62], even though it is a direct quote and presented as such, but when I did the same,[63], Sepsis II removed the tags with the edit summary "really? it's a quote". Now, why didn't he remove the same tags from the other statement as well? To me it is clear that the reason is because it serves his POV.
I am also worried by his radical opposition to the voice of reason at Talk:Jordan_Rift_Valley#Consistency.3F.
In general, in almost every discussion he is against Israel and pro Palestine, see e.g. Talk:Israeli_West_Bank_barrier#Misleading, Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jerusalem.2C_Israel and Talk:Jerusalem#Addition_to_the_lead, Talk:Well_poisoning#Coat_rack. Sometimes it is even the word "Israel" alone, which arouses his displeasure, like in Talk:Balady_citron#Second_name.

Request by User:Debresser

RolandR has noticed that my post exceed the 500 word limits. My post has 583 words. Since both the original poster as well as I see the problem in the case of Sepsis II not with a specific violation, but with a pattern of tendentious editing, it would be impossible to make this point without extensive examples. This being so, I would like to ask that the 500 words limit be eased to 600 words in this case. Especially since the difference is less than 20%. Alternatively, Sepsis II could be given additional time to respond, although it seems to me he has no intention of adding any additional responses.

By the way, neither my post nor the original post violate the 20 diffs limit, as claimed incorrectly by RolandR, nor does the original post, which originally counted 490 words (and now 407) violate the 500 words limit. How RolandR came to say "Both the original post, and Debresser's comment above, significantly exceed the permitted 500 words and 20 diffs limit", which claim is wrong in 3 out of its 4 details, leaves one to wonder about RolandR's impartiality or at least his seriousness as a contributor to WP:AE.

In addition, I find it strange that the same limit hasn't been applied to the Statement by Nishidani, which has 737 words, in the case against me above on this same page. Rules should be applied equally. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Sepsis II's second comment made me comment. His response is what people are complaining about. It's a chilling environment when you faced with being called a sock just because you have pro-Israel POV. His sole purpose of editing seems to be reverting (without discussion), tracking Jewish and pro-Israeli editors and bring sock investigations. We don't need that here.

Statement by RolandR

Both the original post, and Debresser's comment above, significantly exceed the permitted 500 words and 20 diffs limit. They need to prune these to an acceptable length if Sepsis is to make a reasoned response within the permitted limits. RolandR (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Debresser's quibble about this above, I count the original post as having 1091 words and 35 diffs, and Debresser's first comment as having 583 words and 27 diffs; both of these are indeed significantly in excess of the permitted limit. There is a reason for the limits, and it is no defence to say that another person breached this in another case. RolandR (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kamel Tebaast

Sepsis II first used my name here while making charges that I and Epson Salts "gamed the system" to circumvent WP:ARBPIA3#30/500. It was in that thread that I pointed out that:

Sepsis II's 10th edit on Wikipedia was in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In 2012, when Sepsis II began editing in Wikipedia, s/he waited exactly nine days before editing in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In just more than 1900 total edits, nearly ALL edits of Sepsis II are in the "ARBPIA area".
It was Sepsis II who was leading the charge about editors too quickly delving in to the ARBPIA area after completing the 30/500 (which Sepsis II never did).

From there, User:Comment, please detailed some of Sepsis II's infractions of gaming the system, at which point Debresser researched more in depth and brought the issue here.

Aside from the aforementioned, I would suggest that Sepsis II engaged in Wikihounding me here, here, and here.

That said, my preference is that Sepsis II is NOT banned from the Arab-Israeli area. That can easily, and already has, become a dangerous double-edge sword. Kamel Tebaast 23:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bolter21

As for Kamel Tebaast comment, the Arbitration decision to force a 500/30 restriction was made in 2015 while Sepsis II is here since 2012. I was also here before the decision was made and my first edits in the I/A area. This is not a valid argument. Also, User:Comment, please is obviously a sock-puppet of one of the users involved in that discussion and you mentioning him is raising deep concerns about wether this sock belongs to you.
As for Sepsis II, I think AnotherNewAccount has provided enough about his behavior here. Insteed of showing my own complaints about Sepsis II I"ll go straight to the point and say the only solution I find is mentorship.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sepsis II

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

As the admin who deleted 2016 Ramadan attacks and to whom an undeletion request was addressed, I can confirm that Sepsis II was not among the editors of that article or its talk page. I have no comment on the merits of the request. Sandstein 15:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is someone who needs to be editing this topic area. It's bad enough as it is, and yet another person with a strong POV here is only adding more venom and toxicity to the editing environment. Given that the previous 6 month ban doesn't seem to have gotten the point across, I think an indefinite topic ban with very stringent enforcement is the best option. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights. Indef topic ban. --Laser brain (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sepsis II: Since you asked, I don't think edits like this are helpful, especially when you try to push it repeatedly. It's a POV edit, and we don't need POV editors in this space. --Laser brain (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the time to go through most of the links above and agree with the suggestion for an indefinite topic ban. There doesn't seem to have been an improvement in behavior since the original 6-month ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any new information, I plan to close this with an indefinite topic ban for Sepsis II, as agreed by the uninvolved admins commenting on this request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SageRad

SageRad (talk · contribs) is blocked for five days for violating their topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (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 SageRad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SageRad (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#SageRad_topic_banned : SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

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

19/07/2016 Editing Glyphosate, an agricultural chemical.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Blatant breaking of topic ban imposed by Arbcom. As per their comments here where they describe Arbcom as a kangaroo court and that the topic ban is a pile of shit, its clear they both knew in advance they were breaking their ban, and that they have no intention to abide by it. Other recent activity include allegations of McCarthyism and 'industry aligned forces of darkness who control wikipedia'. Apart from being blanket personal attacks, it is telling that the final decision of the above case included the finding of fact SageRad engaged in casting aspersions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning SageRad

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 SageRad

Discussing glyphosate with some folks, i said that over 200 species had developed resistance to the herbicide. They said that it was a lower number like 36 and asked my source. I said it was Wikipedia, and i clicked to the article. There i saw that it did indeed say 211 species were resistant, and i clicked over to the source for that statement. I saw that it was blatantly incorrect, and so i corrected it. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You see a mistake and correct it.

People get in such a hissy fit. Seriously? People got issues. People are enacting a battleground mentality all the time instead of simply working toward good articles by following the principles of Wikipedia in good faith. Anyway, Trypto put the edit in his name. You want to ban me? Your loss.

Sage

Statement by Tryptofish

Enforcing admins, I don't know what to tell you. Here are the details as I see them, and you decide what to do. On my watchlist, I saw SageRad do this: [64], and this: [65]. Unambiguous topic ban violation, and also an improvement to the page (opposite to SageRad's usual POV). I told him this: [66], and he replied: [67]. So I did this: [68], [69], this: [70], and this: [71]. Your call. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Not much to say except that it's disappointing that SageRad has returned to not only violate their topic ban, but especially gone straight back into the battleground behavior that got them topic banned in the first place. The references to McCarthyism, etc. in Tryptofish's diffs should be more than ample to demonstrate this violation was not in good faith at all.

The specific part I'll point out is how SageRad came to the talk page of another topic-banned editor to rant in a discussion where that other editor was reported to AE as well.[72] Their topic ban would apply to this conversation anyways, but in addition to McCarthyism and aspersions ArbCom violations about being the industry aligned forces of darkness who have come to control Wikipedia, there is also That is the attitude of Kings, and the opposite of the principles of democracy or integrity. This latter play on words is a return to the same type of personal attacks directed towards me (i.e., my username) they've used in the past such as King of Scoundrels.[73] The topic ban was meant to keep SageRad's behavior out of the topic entirely to put an end to that kind of pot stirring. I don't think a warning for this blatant behavior after being directly sanctioned by ArbCom is going to do any good, but I don't really care about the end result as long as they stay clear of the topic on articles and on user talk pages so those of us in the topic don't have to deal with it antagonizing an already sensitive topic area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SageRad

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

This is unquestionably a violation of the topic ban, and clearly a deliberate one. I do see some mitigation in the fact that the edit has indeed proved to be uncontroversial and other editors seem to agree that there was a clear error, but banned is still banned, and the attitude toward it doesn't give me much confidence that this will be repeated. My suggestion here would be either a logged final warning that any edit falling outside of the ban exceptions will be sanctioned in the future, or a short block, given that SageRad has not to date been sanctioned for any violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly inclined to block for an uncontroversial edit fixing a blatant factual error, at least when it's an isolated incident and not a pattern. A warning should be sufficient. T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade that a final warning or short block would be appropriate for the violation. I'm leaning towards a short block based on SageRad's statement; they either don't understand the topic ban or, more likely, they don't care. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Laser brian below. I think the nature of the violation is a mitigating factor re: the length of a block, but not a defense to a clear violation of a topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm closing this with a short 5-day block due to the unambiguous violation of the topic ban. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not of the opinion that a "helpful violation" of a topic ban is less deserving of a sanction. The editor is basically blowing his nose at the topic ban, and unless we're prepared to start on the slippery slope of selectively allowing violations we deem worthwhile, we need to treat everyone equally. This is like showing up somewhere where you have a restraining order active and saying, "Oh, I'm just mowing the lawn." --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980

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 TH1980

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hijiri88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TH1980 (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/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned :

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

21:40, 19 July 2016 Insinuated (very indirectly) that I might be engaged in IBAN-violating sockpuppetry, and named me in the edit summary
14:57, 21 July 2016 Used my name and directly insinuated that I might be engaged in IBAN-violating sockpuppetry, and named me in the edit summary
17:39, 21 July 2016 Removed my name from the above, but continued to maintain and edit a thread about me on his talk page, including my name in the thread title and therefore in the edit summary

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Withdrawn. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980 said to User:Spacecowboy420 "I would not be surprised if you are Hijiri88 in disguise". This was two days after User:Jagello claimed on TH1980's talk page that Spacecowboy420 was me. TH1980 should have removed this bad-faith sockpuppetry accusation from his talk page, but he initially condoned it left it live for several days, and then actively joined in. He then deleted the thread from his talk page. ~~Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))~~ [reply]

Responses to TH1980

I was not "quick" to report TH1980. I have several pages recently edited by Jagello on my watchlist, and when he suddenly returned 17 months after posting a string of attacks against me I checked his edits. I noticed he posted about me on TH1980's talk page, and at the same time (Jul 19, 2016 9:45 PM) received an email telling me about it. I mentioned the problem to Jagello earlier as well. I was waiting for TH1980 either to say "I am not going to allow this discussion on my talk page" or to specifically name me, and only after he chose to do the latter did I file this report. On an unrelated note, my watchlist email notifications have told me thay TH1980 has been manually reverting my edits for months, but a TBAN prevented me from reporting this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

The IBAN does not apply to edits on French Wikipedia. TH1980 has admitted to monitoring my edits for several months, as it is almost certainly lying when he says that in the 38 minutes between when I posted this report and he responded, TH1980 "took a look at [my] edits and noticed" an edit I had made May to my sandbox on fr.wiki and read through an unrelated and long AE filing I was involved in in February/March. I have now removed the fr.wiki item as unnecessary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Lord Roem: Look at the diffs more closely: The "very indirect" accusation was made shortly after the thread was opened, and then two days later he made another, more explicit accusation against me. He had several days to realize the discussion he was hosting and participating in was an IBAN-violation. The fact that he has been monitoring my edits since at least February means it was not a good-faith mistake. Here, he tried to spin this as me following his edits, despite the myriad possible ways I could have noticed this during the several days the thread was live. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
@TenOfAllTrades: I don't have any of TH1980's user pages on my watchlist. I have another page Jagello edited on my watchlist. TH1980 followed me to the page last May and has been manually reverting my edits there ever since, even after our IBAN. I don't think enforcement of the IBAN in relation to these earlier violations is necessary, for the same reason that I felt the fr.wiki table was no longer necessary and removed it, as I pointed out earlier. Like everything in my user space, I kept it for as long as was necessary and then either used it for its intended purpose, forgot about it, or removed it when I received a complaint.

@Everyone: Thank you for recognizing that a violation took place and giving me good advice. I appreciate that I have failed to convince you that enforcement is necessary at this time. I would therefore like to withdraw this request and get back to building an encyclopedia. You should know that I was never sanctioned for "following" TH1980 -- the disruption was one-sided but the sanction was made mutual after much discussion among the Arbs about how one-way IBANs don't work. I will continue ignoring TH1980, anyway, and only return here if similar disruption occurs following your warning.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested~~

~~Notified Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Discussion concerning TH1980~~
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 TH1980~~
I do not control the threads that other users post on my talk page, but after I accidentally mentioned Hijiri88's name there, I realized I had made a mistake and quickly deleted first the comment and then the entire thread.[74][75] I only mentioned Hijiri88 in one comment, and I deleted that comment within hours, before anyone was likely to have seen it.
Hijiri88's quickness to report me over a comment I deleted so quickly shows that he is following my edits far too closely. Hjiri88 also has an IBAN with Catflap, and during a recent arbitration enforcement, Hijiri88 was "instructed to stop following Catflap's edits".[76] Hijiri88 has no reason to be checking every edit that I delete so quickly and reporting me for them, in the same way that he was told not to follow Catflap's edits.
At any rate, following this report I took a look at Hijiri88's edits and noticed that he has mentioned my name on Wikipedia as well, like here for instance.[77] If my promptly deleted comment is sanctionable, Hijiri88 should also be sanctioned for commenting on me.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Statement by (username)~~
~~Result concerning TH1980~~
~~This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.~~
The section header naming Hijiri88 wasn't made by TH1980. The only mention was in that second edit, which TH1980 removed a few hours later. It makes more sense to me that TH1980 realized a mistake and removed the thread quickly rather than an attempt to--in the filer's own words--"very indirectly" accuse Hijiri of being a sockpuppet. I'd close this with a reminder to cool your jets and stop following TH1980's talk page this closely. I don't think any sanction would make sense here based on the information presented thus far. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, a warning to both parties would be the best course of action. While there were technically violations, they were minor and don't come across as intentional. I don't see anything that deserves a block to enforce the existing sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed regarding warnings. I would strongly encourage both editors to remove the other's userpages from their watchlists.
As an aside, I would also mention to Hijiri88 that storing material related to his disputes with other editors on other-language Wikipedias isn't a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutrality~~
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 Neutrality~~
User who is submitting this request for enforcement

173.161.39.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested

Neutrality (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

[[78]], specifically described at Template:2016 US Election AE. I am asking that the editor be barred from current political articles effective immediately due to repeated flaunting of the arbitration remedies, as well as a clear COI and not adhering to NPOV.
~~Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it~~

6 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

19 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

19 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

21 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

24 June 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

22 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

23 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

23 July 2016 edit reintroduces challenged material without consensus

~~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.

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, by User:Doc9871 on 6 June 2016

Editor is a senior editor and sysop, the measures are clearly listed on the article talk pages

~~Additional comments by editor filing complaint~~

The editor is deliberately introducing bias into a number of political articles. In this case, a complete revamp of this article (and this article alone among the then-potential VP candidates) was performed prior to the DNC revelation of their selection. The editor acted on this article alone with clear prior knowledge of very closely held political information. The editor was even noticed, by name, in the media as editing this particular candidate's article prior to the information being released. Given this evidence and their edits themselves, there is an extremely high likelihood that the editor has a significant COI.
User:NeilN has requested additional diffs showing the reverts. The given diffs are the reintroduction of material removed in prior edits. I will add diffs showing the prior removal(s) if needed, please clarify.
~~Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested~~

~~notified~~

~~Discussion concerning Neutrality~~
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 Neutrality~~
~~Statement by (username)~~
~~Result concerning Neutrality~~
~~This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.~~
Where are the diffs showing the reversions of these edits and the discussion/warnings for the edits? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also in this edit summary you accuse other editors of paid editing. Please provide proof for your accusations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP, I would like to see diffs showing Neutrality's edits are seen as problematic by other editors (not part of the normal WP:BRD) and not just you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:57, 23 July 2016 (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