Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:58, 30 December 2014

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

Topgun

Topic banned from making any edit related to wars between India and Pakistan, expiring 12:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Topgun

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:34, 11 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TopGun (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:ARBIPA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

20:52, 2 November 2014 Violation of WP:PRIMARY, since the newspaper has only represented the view of Pakistani military commander.
21:01, 2 November 2014 Use of an image as a source that is hosted on an unreliable self-published source.
13:43, 9 November 2014 Same use of a WP:PRIMARY and a dubious source like above two diffs on a different page.
14:28, 1 December 2014‎ Apart from the violation above, this time he has misrepresented the source, when he also changed "Pakistani source" to "Neutral source", even after knowing that it doesn't,[1] per [2]
06:39, 11 December 2014 Reverted to preferred version, without following consensus on the talk and RSN. This edit also violated WP:NOTADVOCATE since much of its part, starting from "He ordered his staff officer ...." to "...Chawinda till the guns fell silent", is a view of a military men.(WP:PRIMARY)
09:09, 11 December 2014‎ Misrepresentation of source, linked URL is nowhere stating any results about the battle between two nations, and the highlighted text is talking about a cavalry regiment named, "25th Cavalry".[3]

Edit warring

07:35, 3 December 2014
09:05, 3 December 2014 (Misuse of Twinkle rollback).
12:18, 3 December 2014

3 reverts in 5 hours, but no comments were made on the article' talk.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked 9 times,[4] mostly for disruptive editing and edit warring.
WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#TopGun, reads: "Further edit warring or other types of inappropriate behavior will lead to sanctions."

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

[5] [6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apparent WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude and usual habit of changing battle results without gaining consensus. I don't see how there was any need to revert any of my changes if he had only read the note that I left on article' talk every time. Accuses of "following" him if you have reverted his edit,[7] and also accuses of "canvassing", if you have asked another editor(who edits similar pages),[8], or a relevant noticeboard.[9]

Not to mention that how many times he has tried to misrepresent other editors. As usual, he keeps claiming that I haven't "even verified the source that atleast two editors have",[10] Although he cannot name them, or provide the diffs where they have confirmed this dubious image [11]. It has no mention outside this wikipedia page. As per WP:CONSENSUS, he had no consensus for any of these edits, yet he continues to edit war over them, despite everyone else(except Nawabmalhi),[12],[13], [14], [15] told him not to use a self published and unverified picture. However he still hasn't presented any mention of this report outside wikipedia article. That means even if many other editors would tell him the same, he will still continue to use a dubious image as reference and tell others to follow WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is certainly impossible for dubious references. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: According to my experience, whenever I would find that my edit has been reverted or I have reverted others edit, I would hope for a discussion in place of going for another revert. Maybe that's why I haven't reverted the recent edits of TopGun. With this case, things were very different. Since this case, I also think that I understand "consensus" better than I used to. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I agree that I have made these mistakes, I could have done better. Until today I was unaware that I should have made neutral notification to other user, as well as more neutral AE case. I apologize for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today I received a message on my talk from concerning Topgun's accusations of edit warring. I told the editor to address specific concerns on here; if they are addressable. I have recently checked, the article is 2014 Peshawar school attack, I couldn't find any evidence of edit warring by Rsrikanth05, who had been warned by TopGun, not to edit war. I should also mention that the article is not related to India or Bangladesh, it is only related to Pakistan under WP:ARBIPA. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16]

Discussion concerning TopGun

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 TopGun

Sigh, this is a content dispute and many editors have said that the source is okay, I'm not even the editor who originally added the sources, Nawabmalhi did when he saw a sock vandalizing content against the sources and I asked him about verification before adding them where he responded positively. OZ on the other hand hasn't even verified the source that atleast two editors have and turns to use a scanned copy of the newspaper provided by Nawabmalhi that I showed him as a courtesy, against me. Full details of the source are present and OZ hasn't even verified the source himself before filing this ridiculous report. Please consider WP:BOOMERANG for this hasty report to try get a content dispute bent to his favour. Please also note I filed this SPI where a concluded sock was vandalizing the article against sources. Now OZ comes along and starts restoring the sock version. After not getting consensus at RSN, and after a user points out that even the source he's giving states the opposite of what he's' saying, he brings the dispute here instead of DRN to have me out of the way so that he can edit and push his POV as much as he likes. Please also note that I have warned OZ for blatant canvassing of another Indian user (who had never edited the article before) who also told him to be neutral at his talkpage and he has been repeatedly going only to WP:INDIA to call in Indian editors that he thinks would support his POV instead of also notifying WP:PAK or choosing a formal noticeboard. OZ first called him to revert [17] where he had a dispute and then went to revert me the article where the editor he canvassed had a dispute with me [18].. how is that not canvassing? He has also fueled other disputes that had recently been stablized at Kargil war, Operation Dwarka, List of Pakistani wars etc, all of which I avoided reporting to an admin and articles that he never edited before, yet he seeks sanctions to work his way through when he does not get enough editor support. Kindly also note that the links OZ is presenting about old sanctions / blocks were with an abusive sockpuppet Darkness Shines and have been reverted. I find it quite telling that OZ is bringing those up knowingly. He also does not recognize that "no consensus" defaults to status quo and tries to revert again to his favoured version. I've already had enough of such editors lately, now he's appearing up at articles that I edit and he's never edited. I also find it utterly deceiving on OZ's behalf that he calls this a misuse of twinkle rollback in his statement while it was just that I forgot to give an edit summary and made my correction in the very next edit and in the next few seconds by making a null edit [19]. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would some one also revoke talkpage and email access of Darkness Shines (an indeffed sock puppet who had hounded me for two years) who is sending OZ emails [20] and I do not find the possibility of canvassing OZ to make edits on his behalf unlikely. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil, I added the source you quoted calling my edit disruptive just today to support the victory part and I quoted it in the edit summary. The infobox title was already sourced by Canberra times and The Australian, would you consider retracting that remark? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see the diff [21].. he pinged him and told him to check his email. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source talks clearly of Indian defeat (25th cav in source was the unit at Pakistani side as per the source) and an editor from RSN said "The second, on pp.35-6, says that the Pakistani's defeated the Indians at Chawinda (& v.v. at Asal Uttar)" on the talkpage, I decided to add it to the article as well. My intent was anything but to spam. And like all other claims of OZ, this too isn't solely based on my opinion.. that doesn't make it disruptive.. just content related. Sorry but I do not think DS's actions ever come out in the wash. I got blocked and Ibanned due to his baiting as seen in the linked discussion; they never did get washed out and I find it quite disruptive that he still continues from within his block. The fact that he removed a large chunk of content while pinging shows that he wanted to hide the ping so that it would look he only blanked and is clearly watching this discussion [22]. IMO, that's proof enough why he would email OZ and as if forwarding an email to you preserves any proof of originality. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the contention, OZ is moving the goal posts by making the scanned copy of the image (which is not even required for the article) to be the center of the reference while it is not as per WP:SOURCEACCESS and keeps on changing my argument and refutes something that is not my argument rather a courtesy add on. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, My comment was solely to show blatant canvassing and esp to show the divisiveness.. since when does making a comment to show divisiveness by another editor (with diff and not just blank argument) makes me guilty of the same. I don't mind editing with editors from any country and I've done so since years. With all my actions backed up by actions of other editors I think bans and actions on this report would be exactly what OZ wants and is not the way to resolve a content dispute (and that too just for a singular instance of perceived issues?). I don't find it fair to be blamed of source misrepresentation when in each case I first consulted other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to wrongly imply anything, I'd not have mentioned myself that Strike Eagle "also told him to be neutral at his talkpage". I've been fully transparent. I find it will hardly be constructive to simply ban me from the major topic area that I edit.. you might as well go for a site ban then given the lack of WP:AGF here on the fact that for each reference I discussed I consulted another editor (I've quoted their statements or discussion links here). The reverts on 3rd December were 3 edits in total and other editors reverted to status quo as well reinforcing the consensus to keep that version... I wont say stayed within a legitimate number of edits as I do understand it was still an editwar but I had no intention of reverting further or continuing an editwar and they are stale so any bans or blocks would be punitive. If that decision on sources was solely my action, I would not have defended my stance this way. For DS, I don't see any public arbcom appeal. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys would have been familiar with the topic area, I've had enough editors having this WP:BATTLE mentality hounding and following and it doesn't make me divisive to raise the possibility of that reoccurring. My arbcom warning and blocks are rescinded so I see a pretty harsh attitude here for discussing bans and warnings on a malformed report effectively for the first time. OZ had not edited these three articles and started appearing one by one to revert me [23] [24] [25].. I still didn't report him... how much more good faith can one assume than requesting only on his talkpage to stop. While I appreciate OZ recognizing his mistake, his response to me was quite different [26]. I suggest that the admins leave the content dispute to the editors as there are multiple content venues to decide what a source says and is not a behavioural matter when two three editors quote it and take it differently. If I am wrong, I'm happy to accept it as a content matter but I will not accept the blame of misrepresenting which lacks WP:AGF and was not my intent. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the sock puppet to whose version OZ was restoring was also tagteaming with DS [27] [28] back in 2013 and recently socking at this article and was finally caught. I can't speak for OZ's knowledge of that but I do think the sockmaster Nuclearram (with yet a current pending SPI) may have been in contact with DS. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you guys for killing the messenger, that I raised the way canvassing was being done and for only using sources in consultation with other editors :s --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, Two editors who were hounding me on Operation Chengiz Khan were both socks... so way to go for bringing that up (as I already did).. that warning was reverted by an AN discussion linked above for that reason (so no, there's no final warning or any warning on me before this). I don't see how a ban from afghanistan is related here, and how a ban from Pakistan only topics is going to help in this... although you've taken it upon yourselves to ban me for a content dispute, why is a topic ban on all topics being proposed here that hardly relate to the military topics? Also since I am a major contributor to the topic area, a blanket ban from all three topics (esp. Pak) instead of from the specific article or something would be pretty disruptive. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to explain any of your actions or will you be forcing me to go for an AN appeal as soon as you place this ridiculous ban? This also seems to be borderline canvassing [29] to get OZ to oppose me in even a non controversial matter where an editor was reverting editors randomly and warned by me with diffs of his three reverts... OZ is pointing him to give input against me here in return. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I didn't invoke the DS related discussions except for two things, 1) the fact that OZ knowingly brought up warning / blocks that were reverted and I had to link those discussions when those warnings and edits against not just one sockpuppet were being discussed (WP:NOTTHEM isn't for sock puppets of blocked editors or block evaders, it's when two valid editors are interacting and I think community has already given their input on that matter and there's no need to re evaluate it unilaterally and subject me to answer for things that community has already stood up for). I wasn't claiming impunity on anything post DS, 2) I had to mention DS emailing OZ... both of them were met with reasonable uninvolved input. I don't think I've mislead anyone in anyway but I do think it is only fair that I respond to allegations that are being placed on me without fully understanding both sides of the story. Also, if you see the RFC at the Battle of Chawinda, there's just as much support for my edit as is for OZ. It's going to be a really bad precedent to ban editors on basis of disagreement. It is clear cut WP:WIN logic to ban editors even if they are wrong in content. Editors are often wrong in content disputes, this has nothing to do with behaviour. You can however ban me because I strongly object here on comments that I disagree with... apparently that's what's leading to most of the fuss here. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC has been started at the talkpage of Battle of Chawinda where I have demonstrated and am further getting support for the consensus on a version that I edited or a similar one that says "Indian defeat" esp. on the one where I added a new reference to back up the claim of victory and an admin below called it misrepresentation.. so I guess your point of misrepresentation is unfounded. This is a content matter by any definition and admins have no authority over it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the admins won't be too naive to see the pattern around this topic area and my reasons for the way I phrased my statement and further comments instead of taking them to be what they infact aim to convey. Vanamonde93 was blatantly canvassed by a disruptive editor [30] who had no consensus but was hell bent on pushing POV as well as serial canvassing [31] [32]. I did convince Vanamonde93 of that but the fact that he responded to canvassing and that he actually did emphasize in some way of going for the proposed edits for which he was asked to comment (he did not really support my stance). He did later agree to a compromise which is fine and I did not expect him to be making such a statement here due to that, but saying that he entered a dispute on my side (a WP:BATTLE statement in its own context) is totally incorrect. Maybe some one is emailing random editors at WP:IND with pointers to an obscure AE discussion as this? Sorry can't assume good faith when it comes to patterns after having dealt through a myraid of them and all turning out the same way, but still will not comment on the editors who are commenting here either. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Given the link provided by TopGun, I suggest DarknessShine's talk page access and email be removed. See also prior AN discussion. NE Ent 11:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the logged warning was in accordance with DS Appeals protocol; there was an eight day discussion at AN where the overwhelming consensus was the removal was warranted. NE Ent 22:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rsrikanth05

I interacted with TopGun only in the last 12 hours and I am absolutely appalled by their behaviour. TG accused me of edit warring, and left a warning on my talk page which Yunshui responded to and clarified that I was in no way, edit warring. Among other claims, TG stated that the warning was to prevent me from any further disruptive edits, and that I had edit warred by undoing his edit, which I had not. Major-General Asim Bajwa was linked, which TG linked as Major-General Asim Bajwa. I merely unlinked the latter as it was a red [irony is that both are now unlinked]. The other two EW examples cited was removal of a parent category who subcat was already present and removal of a link to Russian Federation which had earlier been removed by Koavf. Apparently, me doing it is a problem, others is not. Apart from this, I was also notified of the discretionary sanction, which although was good, I feel was unwarranted. Subsequently, I responded on the RfC [Battle of Chawinda], where TG automatically seems to assume that they know more than the other. Yes, I know the NLA trove is a digital archive, I have worked on digitisation of papers before. However, what is more appalling is when OccultZone posted about a discussion on the India noticeboard and TG immediately put forth a proposal to try and prohibit posting on such noticeboards in such a situation. Thankfully, such a restrictive proposal was met with no support. My only point here is that TG seems to believe in the 'If it doesn't work my way, then it is wrong' methods. The Holier Than Thou attitude is unwarranted on enwp and I have decided I will not edit any article TG has edited. Not surprisingly, the user who asks me to 'discuss' before I edit themselves is being accused of the same thing above. Apart from a Topic ban of atleast six months, I think an interaction ban would be required. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

I have little (tending towards zero) interaction with TG, but the article talk page does feel like WP:BLUD example. It discourages other editors from participating. I think keeping reference to DS minimum is good. He may not be able to reply here and the circumstances for this report mostly deal with TG behavior for which DS should not be held responsible. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I have only interacted with TopGun once, on Azad Kashmir. Initially, I entered the dispute on TG's side; a new editor was pushing an Indian government POV with a certain lack of discussion (I will provide diffs if asked; I don't currently want to clutter the page). However, that new editor eventually did join a discussion, here, which other editors eventually joined. Despite the original POV push, there was a genuine content issue there; a lack of compliance with a redirect guideline. There were many ways to solve this issue; however (and this is really my point) TopGun essentially restricted their contributions to contradicting other's suggestion, without once providing an alternative. This is not explicitly in violation of any policy; yet a glance through their contributions to that discussion shows an incredible battleground mindset, even when dealing with editors that entered the discussion on their side. DS had absolutely nothing to do with this particular fracas; he had been topic-banned well before. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Strike Eagle

I've known TopGun for quite some time now and all I can say is that he can't seem to doesn't want to shed his battleground mentality. I would like to say only about the recent issues though. He accused me of responding to canvassing(verified by admins here that there was none) and then reverts me in another article when I add reliable books as sources. He claims stability as the reason for revert...I don't know any policy which states stability means consensus. And then abuses the TW tool by making what obviously is an intentional revert without summary. Later he makes a null edit only to give the most vague edit summary I've seen in my entire life. He doesn't bother to clarify why my book sources are not reliable and his newspaper is more reliable. I still don't get how DS is related to this....apparently it seems as an effort by TG to divert people from his reckless abuse of reversion and self-proclaimed and declared results to wars...Thanks, ƬheStrike Σagle

Result concerning TopGun

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
On an initial look. This case is a bit of a mess. TopGun's block log has 8 entries from 2012. MastCell also stated in November 2014 that "a number of TopGun's blocks resulted from his interactions with an abusive sockpuppet (DS); TopGun would likely not have been blocked in some instances if this had been clear at the time"[33]. So that point of this complaint is muck raking. Also the list of diffs is mainly non-actionable. Only 2 diffs (and only 1 of the reverts from December 3rd 2014) come after a valid AC/DS notification[34]. Also the point re: ignoring RSN consensus is moot since the discussion at RSN ended without consensus[35].
Now after all that these are mainly matters for WP:RSN. Ocultzone's understanding of WP:PRIMARY borders (at best) on wikilawyering. The only matters that comes close to action IMO are the edit-warring on December 3rd and the misrepresentation of sources by TopGun. Regarding the latter this edit[36] is indeed disruptive. The source quoted says nothing about a major Pakistani victory and is in fact a discussion of how both the armies used their armored formations poorly and how both proved adept with smaller forces. How this relates to a "Major victory" for anyone is very unclear. And I would indeed classify this as disruptive use of sources.
I'd like to see input from other sysops before commenting further but I'm looking at the actions of both TopGun and Occultzone--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TopGun what evidence is there of DS sending emails to OccultZone?--Cailil ^talk 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TopGun the source says nothing about ANY victory. You threw in a source that does not relate to the content. That's effectively spamming a contested piece of text with "references" that do not support the assertion. That's disruptive editing. I suggest you don't belabour the point. Also please take a step back there is no need to rush. If Darkness Shines is working with Occultzone it will "come out in the wash"--Cailil ^talk 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too am looking at the behaviour of both users. I'm not convinced that there is enough (one edit war which didn't cross 3RR and the source misrepresentation) is enough to topic ban in itself. However the personal attack and divisiveness of referring to another editor you've edit warred with by their country ("another Indian editor" in TopGun's statement) in an AE report suggests to me that the topic area would be best served by removing TopGun from it. Regarding OccultZone, I'm not convinced (yet) that there is enough there to warrant a topic ban yet, also considering that they haven't been reported at AE before, though I wouldn't have an issue with a reminder to submit actionable and relevant evidence and to ensure that they cooperate with others when trying to come to a consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The things I find most pressing on TopGun's side are is misuse of sources (and defense of that) and indeed the casting of aspersions. OccultZone was admonished by the user (StrikeEagle) he contacted, TopGun's over-hasty and divisive action then (December 3rd) and now in misconstruing it in a way that implies impropriety on StrikeEagle's side (where there was none) is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. On OccultZone's side this whole case is designed to rake as much mud and patch together as many things to make TopGun look bad (which was thoroughly unnecessary) combined with the non-neutral message to StrikeEagle which although not canvassing was bad form (see here). Given all that I'd be happy with a final warning to OccultZone re:WP:BATTLE (and unclean hands at WP:AE) and a topic ban for TopGun--Cailil ^talk 12:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also User_talk:Callanecc#AE_questions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Darkness Shines, he implies that he has appealed his ban to ArbCom. I can see good reason to revoke talk page and email access but given that appeal I'd like to see an Arb comment--Cailil ^talk 12:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably pretty safe in pulling it, they'll comment or add it back if they think it necessary. Given they haven't started a public discussion they'll probably do it in private. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's been no further admin input, since the comments from myself and Callanecc, I'd suggest closing with a topic ban (from the India, Pakistan and Afghanistan topic areas) for TopGun, and a final warning re: WP:BATTLE for OccultZone. Unless there's further comment in the next 24 hours I'll make that close myself.
Given the complexity of the Darkness Shines issue I'd suggest being conservative, however if the BASC does not unblock him and there is any further interference with this topic area an individual case laying out all the evidence and the timeline might (and I stress "might") be necessary--Cailil ^talk 13:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This report shows edit warring by User:TopGun on the Battle of Chawinda, a topic from the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and follows a previous AE complaint in late 2013 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#TopGun. At that time the complaint was about edit warring at Operation Chengiz Khan, a topic from the 1965 war between India and Pakistan. The decision in the 2013 AE case was to issue TopGun a final warning. If it was in fact a final warning then this time around we need to do something. So I would propose a ban of at least three months from the topic of all the wars between India and Pakistan. I don't see enough problem with User:OccultZone's edits to do anything. His decision to go to WP:RSN was reasonable and is a good step to take to minimize edit warring. If a formal RfC had been held at Battle of Chawinda (which would have been sensible) my guess is that OccultZone's arguments might have prevailed. TopGun's effort to make this battle into a major Pakistani victory looks like an uphill struggle given the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the area of your suggested ban, however given that the final warning was a year ago I wouldn't think that three months is going to do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an issue (see here) with how the final warning was removed from the log such that I don't believe it should have been as it was a discretionary sanction, so we should probably wait for that to be sorted out before we take action here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:53, 17 December 2014‎

I agree with Ed re: the 3 month ban. But I do see exactly where you're coming from Callanecc. Given that this is a first topic ban I think 3 months is a reasonable sanction. If TopGun returns and repeats old behaviour we can note here that recidivism will be looked upon harshly. If there is no consensus re: OccultZone then we have to leave that (however, I consider the conglomeration of actions on view here to be sufficiently belligerent to raise concern).
There are a number of messy aspects to this case however and they revolve around TopGun and OccultZone's interactions with Darkness Shines. To my mind we either take the conservative approach of sanctioning TopGun alone, or we push this up the line to the Committee and let them deal with the whole scenario. Or we do a bit of both, sanction TopGun and let the committee confirm it or repeal it and let them sort out the DS and OZ situation (my preferred option if the conservative approach is not followed). None of these scenarios are good.--Cailil ^talk 14:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO DS is "kicking up enough dust" while blocked for admitting sockpuppetry to cause the complication. If one looks at the DS SPI there is significant concern re: !Vote stacking and hounding TG in the WP:ARBIP area for me to raise an eyebrow. Furthermore the interaction issue between both TG and DS is long standing (see here). To my mind none of this excuses TG's actions (especially while DS is blocked) but it may warrant examination. Future Perfect's contribution to the DS SPI is convincing that this is serious. Furthermore given that the BASC may not know (however unlikely that might seem) that this case is significant to DS's appeal perhaps sending the Darkness Shines aspects of this case to the Committee is actually the only thing we can do, given the danger of being countermanded and then creating a further mess--Cailil ^talk 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM tells blocked editors not to blame others for their predicament. Though TopGun is not here as a blocked editor, he seems to think a lot of blame for past events can be laid off on User:Darkness_Shines. I don't think Darkness Shines was forcing him to declare the Battle of Chawinda to be a major Pakistani victory in spite of the feeble sources for that conclusion, or to keep reverting when others disagreed. I suggest we do not ask Arbcom to sort this out. You could argue that the edit warring here was not enough to justify AE action, but pointing to Darkness Shines for extenuation is implausible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I agree there is no excuse for TG's actions. And I support sanction against him. I am however concerned that the wider issue will recur, but perhaps it's best to wait and see with regard to that and just close this with a 3 month topic ban for TG?--Cailil ^talk 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've imposed the topic ban, I think it's best to deal with any further issues then if they come up, or if something happens in the meantime we can address it then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker_atyourservice

Users Factchecker_atyourservice, Myopia123, Cwobeel and Brianhe are formally warned for conduct incompatible with WP:BATTLE on WP:BLP related talk pages. They are reminded that casting unfounded aspersions about other editors or misrepresenting their communications is unhelpful. All 4 users are strongly advised to avoid making any personal remarks about other editors, speculating on their intentions or making value judgments about their contributions. Factchecker_atyourservice is singled out for incivility and warned not to make personalized comments about other editors--Cailil ^talk 13:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Factchecker_atyourservice (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/Footnoted quotes#May 2014 :

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

The following diffs consist of personal attacks:

Note: Diffs 13-22 added 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

~~[37] - in response to Dwpaul's comment, self-explanatory~~
[38] - says Myopia123 is clearly trolling, unconsciously racist
[39] - jokes that Cwobeel is edit-warring to defame persons covered by BLP
[40] - continues accusing Myopia123 of trolling
[41] - says the cause of Cwobeel's actions is "hyper-partisan anger" and desire to defame.
[42] - calls Cwobeel's opinion uninformed
[43] - self-explanatory attack on Cwobeel's editing
[44] - Cites Cwobeel's accidental source misrepresentation to justify an argument.
[45] - Implies that RAN1 is careless
[46] - Describes Cwobeel's editing style as sophistric, disingenuous and overt reality defying
[47] - Asks Cwobeel if he thinks dishonesty and source misrepresentation are helpful to the project
[48] - "Go cry elsewhere" in edit summary. Edit removes Cwobeel's announcing his withdrawal from the discussion.
[49] - contextual, Myopia presenting missing white girl syndrome opinion
[50] - contextual, Dwpaul and Rmosler2100 responding to Myopia
[51] - FCAYS navel-gazing comment #1
[52] - Dwpaul/FCAYS conversation
[53] - Myopia response #1
[54] - Myopia response #2
[55] - Cwobeel response to Roches
[56] - Cwobeel source post/refactor
[57] - RAN1 intervention
[58] - RAN1 clarification request

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Has previously been blocked for edit warring on BLP pages, see block log linked to above.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Factchecker_atyourservice has been making repeated personal attacks against other editors to the detriment of collaboration. He was warned about discretionary sanctions in October, and was also warned at least once about the consequences of personal attacks last week [59]. This has not abated his use of personal attacks, even when an editor he's attacking has left discussion of the topic under sanctions. His conduct is therefore disruptive.

@ChrisGualtieri: While I won't make any statements regarding Cwobeel's comments or behavior, I will mention that that RFC was not improper. WP:BLP states that anything falling under BLPREMOVE "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This does not mean that discussion should not happen. While admittedly I did not interpret BLP well previously, I pushed for the discussion of the removed material in question [60] [61]. I also have to mention that no comment should be a justification for personal attacks. BLP should not be an excuse to start incorporating WP:NPA#WHATIS as source material. --RAN1 (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: FYI it's discretionary sanctions that apply to BLP pages, not WP:BLP that applies to discretionary sanctions. I brought this request under NPA and civility, both of which are policies and are fair here. --RAN1 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect and Cailil: I didn't provide context for the case, which was my fault, so I'll clarify that now. Myopia brought up the idea of applying ~~missing white girl syndrome~~ unconscious racism to Michael Brown (diff 13), at which point Dwpaul and Rmosler2100 pointed out that it was probably wrong, not a good idea and could be seen as failing to AGF (diff 14). FCAYS brought his opinion that Myopia was navel-gazing (diff 15). Dwpaul tried to diffuse the situation by commenting that he thought Myopia's idea was constructive, at which point FCAYS brought up the Iain Banks quote in reference to Myopia's opinion (diff 16). Myopia defended his point of view (diff 17). This led into diff 2, and then diff 4 after Myopia declared he wouldn't be commenting on the talk page anymore (diff 18).

After that incident, Cwobeel and FCAYS got into a dispute about a bad paraphrase of a NYT article (the article said Brown was found to be unarmed, whereas the paraphrase implied it was known that he was unarmed). Cwobeel defended the paraphrase (diff 20), and FCAYS responded as he did in diff 3. Cwobeel responded by refactoring the PA and posting the source material (diff 21), after which FCAYS responded as he did in diff 5. After some more back and forth resulting in 6 and 7, I decided to intervene (diff 21), FCAYS responded in diff 8, saying Cwobeel was defaming McCulloch with no solution to the conflict. I didn't find anything that defamed McCulloch directly and asked for clarification (diff 22). In diff 9 he blamed me for not finding the relevant text, saying I was being careless. That discussion fizzled out, and then FCAYS went on to make the PAs in diffs 10-12 with no relevance to talk page discussion.

I might have organized this poorly, but I don't think the case is as weak as Collect thinks. Myopia was genuinely trying to contribute and FCAYS decided to forget AGF is a guideline even after it was clear other editors weren't antagonistic. Not only that, but his PAs and incivility made it difficult to figure out what was the actual content problem in the second dispute. I understand where FCAYS was coming from, but that wasn't a good reason to be uncivil then, and given the follow-up attacks in 10-12 I still don't think he gets how disruptive he's been in being that. --RAN1 (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Fair enough. I've struck out MWGS and replaced it with unconscious racism. --RAN1 (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: None of the diffs I posted are prior to December or from The Federalist's talk page. It was Brianhe who brought that up. --RAN1 (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

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 Factchecker_atyourservice

I'm traveling for the holidays and I don't expect I would get a chance to respond at length before Jan. 1. Thanks to all who have spoken in my defense. That said, probably most of what I would say in my own defense, if I had the time, would revolve around the proposition that Cwobeel's approach to editing and willingness to twist, abuse, and even ignore policy, and to ignore stark facts about sources even after they are pointed out to him, and to argue and Wikilawyer and threaten even after it becomes clear policy and sources are not on his side, represent a new low in WP editing. He gives WP the appearance of dishonesty. Things like this make my blood boil. Cwobeel's not the only person I've snarked at or called a name recently, but his (IMO) awful, agenda-driven editing and ignorant combativeness have given me reason to doubt the future of the project, and that is why my behavior has changed. So assuming you're going to dispose of this before I get back, I would just say: if you're going to enforce civility policy here, and do it with sanctions, I would sure appreciate it if you'd also kick up your enforcing-content-policies game a few notches. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(re Brianhe) Comment. My profane comment was in fact a direct response to Cwobeel telling me he "didn't give a fuck" what I thought. Civility rules are civility rules, but aren't we being just a little bit selective here? Stuff like this is my main concern about having to walk away from this discussion without being able to defend myself at length.

Worse still, Brianhe has refrained from linking to the original discussion, or even the actual diff of my edit, thus raising the very real possibility that nobody would have noticed this unless I had pointed it out myself. Yeah, I guess I am a little concerned about the prospective fairness of an admin case conducted in my absence. :( Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brianhe

I reminded FCAYS in October that he was violating the terms of a "final warning" issued by TParis at the closure of a May ANI case with his continued disruption and incivility [63], providing diffs to his statements "I, also, give zero fucks about what you think", "you're in fact colossally bad at editing WP and understanding its policies", and "shut the hell up" directed at other editors. I again warned him in December that he was in danger of of discretionary sanctions for incivility at Shooting of Michael Brown-related pages [64]. — Brianhe (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil (talk · contribs) I don't understand what a proposed talk page restriction on me would accomplish. I've interacted with this guy on talk pages in ~~exactly one thread~~ (this example), a legit WP:NPA warning when he flat out said another member of a WikiProject I'm heavily involved with was a "hostile asshole". The warning was never challenged as inappropriate. This seems like a punitive measure for good-faith involvement in this dispute resolution. I'm willing to voluntarily observe the terms, but I don't see the necessity of having a sanction on file. If this is the result of challenging editors who treat each other this way, it's not healthy for Wikipedia. — Brianhe (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil (talk · contribs) you are right, I didn't recall the other interactions. Struck out the claim that it was just one interaction. I think I'll just step away from this one now. — Brianhe (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#Factchecker_atyourservice_isn.27t_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia.--v/r - T P 04:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chrisgualtieri

These "personal attacks" are pretty weak. The 1st is a well-known Iain Banks quote, "Empathize with stupidity and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." This is not a personal attack, but it is sharp criticism. What is its purpose? It follows Myopia123's accusation that Wikipedia editors are racist and do not even know it (hidden racism). Factchecker is basically, and without proper context, saying that you should not be empathize or legitimize the opinions of someone who just called you a racist. Coupled with the "core issue is racism" editors should WP:DENY unsupported accusations that they are hidden racists. Which takes care of the other Myopia issues - by an editor, ironically - using a term for nearsightedness as their name.

The others, concerning Cwobeel are more complex. And that's why I expected Cwobeel to be here and not Factchecker. Why? The editor does not understand WP:IRS to WP:BLP and just about everything in between. This is despite walls of text and a week of trying to help correct the issue. This addition alone would beg a warning and this reinsertion includes an additional criminal accusation following a good-faith removal of a BLP claim. Those are not all, or even the most problematic ones - just a sizable chunk of entirely negative material copy and pasted across pages.

I patrol BLP/N and I am very well informed on WP:BLP. Accusations leveled against a living person are permissible, if the source is reliable, if the author is notable, and if it is not a minority viewpoint. ... - Cwobeel (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel says "I am very well informed on WP:BLP", but a well-informed user would not add a wall of negative quotations dedicated to portray the subject as deceptive, manipulative and biased light like this. ~~Cwobeel and also the filer (Ran1) does not understand WP:BLP very well, as the existence of this this RFC demonstrates.~~ Self-struck

Factchecker has civility issues when he is upset over some of these BLP issues. The case, however, is not a strong one when context is given the situations. I believe that it would be best to remind Factchecker of WP:CIVILITY. If punishment is "required" place him on a probation of 1 month against personal attacks or incivility. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

Once again, we use "they deserved it" as an excuse for verbal abuse, and wonder why we have a severe civility problem. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 06:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cwobeel

It should be obvious by now, that FCAYS derives a certain pleasure from being an enfant terrible, and no matter how much feedback he gets about it, it is unlikely that he will change. The question is: his FCAYS making a useful contribution to the project or is he here just to raise heckles? If the former is correct, then we could just ignore his incivility, otherwise we should not.

As for the accusations of BLP violations made by ChrisGaultieri (btw, he never pinged me about this thread in which he is leveling accusations against me), just read what he quoted me saying, and let me know if my understanding of our core content policies is flawed.

Given the contentious nature of the article in question , and the fact that I have been heavily involved on editing it, and having made substantial content additions to the article over the past four months, I declared yesterday my withdrawal from editing that article for a while, to allow new editors to help improve the article by taking a fresh look. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading Gualteri's comments, please note that the diffs he provided which he described as "criminal accusations" [65] are all impeccably sourced to CNN, USA Today, Fox News, St.Louis Post-Dispatch, Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, after discussions in talk page related to WP:UNDUE,[66] I trimmed that section considerably [67]. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: I wonder if you will be so accommodating if you were the target of personal attacks; I would be surprised if that would be the case. I have a thick skin, but there is a limit. And whatever your accommodation may be, you have to accept the fact that such behavior can't be excused, no matter what the excuse is. If an editor is violating WP:BLP we don't have to disparage them or use foul language. We have a number of noticeboards to avail ourselves of assistance, and there is always WP:DR. Collaboration is hard work, and compromise is even harder, but that does not mean that we should allow editors to abuse others just because they think they are right and the target of their attacks, wrong. That approach is unacceptable, if we keep in mind the aims of the project. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I fail to see how the diff you provided [68] is either a personal attack or a mirror of FCAYS's. Care to explain? In any case I will gladly accept an interaction ban, as it will avoid any further escalation. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Yes, that was a vulgar comment, whack me for it, and I'd accept it humbly. But that was not a personal attack, but rather my response after being abused non-stop in that talk page. As I said, I will be more than happy to accept an interaction ban, as it will spare me the aggravation. Happy holidays. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

FCAYS and ChrisGualtieri have some legitimate complaints with the current state of the article. Some of that state can be explained by editor bias, but some of it is also explained by the flow of the case - witnesses and evidence that tend to support Wilson were not available until much later, when the bulk of the article had already been written. Since the newer information has come out, editors have been working to integrate the newer information. This process has not been perfect, there has been some resistance to changes that affect the overall narrative of the story away from the original popular interpretation.

However, FCAYS has some issues in the way they go about working towards improvements. They seem to have some issues with battleground and personalization of issues, as well as some issues with the common interpretations of WP:OR and WP:BLP. Their actions recently have been disruptive, but not meritless. IF they can reign it in, or be reigned in by some more less severe sanction, I think they can be an asset to the area. But there is a legitimate risk that they cannot be brought into the fold as well.

In some of the diffs listed above, FCAYS is clearly out of line. In some of them he is making legitimate complaints about the use of a source and the way what the source says was twisted into what the wiki said. He was right, but also made his point in an unnecessarily combative way. (This is a problem that is not restricted to FCAYS, nor is it restricted to editors on any particular "side" of the POV).

I will now end this wishy-washy statement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

statement by Collect

A mélange of quite weak arguments, including use of a well-known quotation, and assertions of crypto-racism of some sort. Diffs clearly show deliberate examination and searching through weeks of FCAYS edits, seeking anything remotely objectionable, most of which simply fail to rise to any major level in the first place. A look at AndyTheGrump for one week or less will show far more animus than a month's worth here of FCAYS could. Nor has any sign that FCAYS has violated or sought to violate BLP policy been shown here - which is the basis under which apparently a sanction is being sought. The BLP at issue is rather a mess of allegations and rumours being given equal weight with facts determined through the legal system. Anyone seeking to add allegations and rumours in such articles, IMHO, is far more culpable of BLP violations than is FCAYS. I would also point out that sanctioning people on a "variable basis" for being uncivil is a major issue on Wikipedia, and one which should be quite avoided in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BH - the issue of civility enforcement in general is iffy at best - I suggest you read the recent discussions thereon. The issues you raise, found by thorough examination of every edit by FCAYS (including his use of a well-known adage) do not rise to the level needed here for sanctions, and I fear the ones who are abusing BLP are not FCAYS. Let us use BLP sanctions for those who actually abuse BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CW - I most have assuredly been the subject of stalkers, snide and snarky attacks, and disparagement. I advise folks to avoid the "drama boards" as a matter of course, and to recognize that there are always those who seem to want to have "enemy lists" of some sort or another (my bêtes-noires were "Inclusionist/TravB/manyothernames" and "Ratel/manyothernames") - and that doing such is a sign of weakness and insecurity as to the positions one takes. I offer you the exact same advice. And if you wish to "enforce civility" note that it took me over two years to get the infamous "DICK" essay emended at Meta.Collect (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Factchecker_atyourservice

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

I think Collect has actually summed this case up quite well. I need more time to dig through diffs but the only one of the many listed that I find remotely problematic is this one (but I need to check its context). The May 2014 ANi thread is a Solomon's judgement by TParis and could (in less temperate hands) have ended up in far harsher sanctions for those who brought such a ridiculously weak case to ANi. In this instance I'm struggling to see a point of action that could be taken re: civility that I trust either the community or the ArbCom not to over-turn. Nevertheless, the question I'm left asking is whether or not other users are contributing to the problem at that page. And right now what I'd consider is placing the page under probation, but I'd be interested to see what other sysops think--Cailil ^talk 16:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK as above the only diff that is remotely problematic is the one where FCAYS mentions "unconscious racism" but what RAN1 leaves out is that User:Myopia123 started the whole "unconscious racism" thing off. Collect provided the diff[69] at my talk page here. Frankly if there's a problem here it's being caused by a number of you. It behooves all of you to behave like adults in topics that are controversial in real life. While I see FCAYS making less than temperate remarks, the only incivility from him was actually a deliberate mirroring of someone else's comments. Remarks by a user whom RAN1 has portrayed as a victim rather than as part of the problem. I'm still waiting for further input from other admins put my strong inclination here is to place the page under probation--Cailil ^talk 10:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: What sort of sanction/remedy/restriction on the page are you thinking of? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm struggling to find some talk page restriction that wouldn't be reversed by the Community or ArbCom. Given the whole trouble here is interpersonal & on the talk page we could in fact look at Interaction Bans. Having taken a few days away from WP ad hominem comments like this[70] from FCAYS do raise concerns and show that the issue is not just at one article but with a group of editors. The repeated (and frankly unnecessary) attempts to make FCAYS look bad by others show that any sanction needs to be 2 way. So after all this my suggestion is an IBAN restricting interaction with or commenting about the other editors, between FCAYS and the following: Myopia123, Cwobeel & Brianhe, for a period of 3 months.
Otherwise we can formally admonish the 4 listed for battleground mentalities, casting unfounded aspersions about other editors and misrepresenting other ppl's communications. I would normally say that given the final warning FCAYS has had enough WP:ROPE but as far as I can see almost all the diffs showing actual problematic behaviour are FCAYS mirroring other users intemperate remarks targeted at him - even the one I cite above is a mirror of Cwobeel's comment~~[71]~~ wrong diff, this the correct one[72]. It depends on how much Christmas spirit other admins have I'm happy either way--Cailil ^talk 14:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest going with the DS logged admonishment and final warnings and keep an eye on the article and talk page, making liberal use of the block and ban buttons as needed. Thank you for all your work on this! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc - I think that will do, will close in 48 hours unless there is further sysop input--Cailil ^talk 04:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe - you say above your only talk page interaction with FCAYS is in May 2014 (if so then how could you have reminded him of TParis's in October?). You have in fact been in talk page (not just user talk pages) interaction with FACYS this month at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown (your comments are a direct reply to FCAYS[73]).
The result pertaining to you is that you did in fact misrepresent FCAYS in your statement by omitting the diff you quoted from. Normally that might seem like a small issue but here this had the effect of making FCAYS's comments look worse than they actually were. His vulgar comments you refer to are in fact a mirror of Cwobel's. In the context of similarly weak issues being brought to ANi 6-7 months ago I'm seeing a pattern of behaviour. In this instance there'll be a warning but you need to reassess how you present material at cases like this. Civility enforcement is not a matter of blocking ppl for using foul language--Cailil ^talk 04:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cwobeel Diff corrected. If you can't see how your comment[74] is being mirrored here[75] by FCAYS's vulgarity ~~(which is why RAN1 raised FCAYS's diff here at AE)~~ then I cannot help you. Frankly the lot of you are wasting a lot of other people's time and would be advisable for you all to disengage, enjoy the holidays and come back with a clear head and fresh perspective--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uishaki

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 Uishaki

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Uishaki (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:ARBPIA :

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

17:21, 26 December 2014 Participating in content dispute related to Palestine despite ARBPIA topic ban

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:30, 10 December 2014 Blocked 48h by EdJohnston for violating ARBPIA
15:02, 30 November 2014 warned by EdJohnston for violating ARBPIA
06:58, 31 July 2014 Blocked for one week for violating WP:ARBPIA topic ban

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 18:30, 30 July 2014 - Uishaki permanently blocked from WP:ARBPIA by Lord Roem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), following a WP:AE discussion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Though the article Roman–Persian Wars is not directly related with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the repeating involvement of Uishaki in content disputes on Palestine related issues brings me here. This time it is whether to put a more geographically encompassing and politically neutral term Southern Levant or a more geographically-limited and politically charged term Palestine (the content dispute didn't involve terms like Land of Israel and Holy Land); Uishaki's involvement is clearly a pro-Palestine motivated issue. Considering Uishaki's topic ban on Israeli-Palestinian issues from 30 July 2014, the revert involving "Palestine" is a clear breach of his sanction.GreyShark (dibra) 17:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified.GreyShark (dibra) 17:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Uishaki

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 Uishaki

Statement by MichaelNetzer

@Callanecc: Is your statement to be understood such that an "Israeli-Palestinian issue" does not necessarily fall within the broader Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, it would seem like a first-of-a-kind interpretation. MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC) @Callenecc: It seems more proper to assume, under the terms of "broadly construed", that any and every issue between Israel and Palestine, whether its nature be, for example, cultural, educational, economic, religious, political or basic human-interest, must pertain to the broader Arab-Israeli conflict, by virtue of the conflict itself having given birth to, and continuing to drive the very existence of, and all interaction between, the two entities. This could be superfluous by now for the sake of this request - but may be significant for editors in the future to have a clearer understanding of sanctions limitations.[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

It isn't about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I don't see how it is about "Israeli-Palestinian issues" either. Where is Israel in the picture? Zero^talk 10:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

I think Greyshark was quite within his rights to prefer Southern Levant, which embraces a larger area than Palestine(Palestine-Jordan). Khusroe's campaign took, from memory, Edessa, Antioch, Damascus, and Palestine, and thus Southern Levant (though ambiguous in usage) could be taken as more comprehensive. But Uishaki's edit is also backed by sources for the period. Greyshark tends to introduce period and hegemon administrative terms to replace the generic 'Palestine', using sources, but the POV (downcase the generic, historically default term Palestine) is evident ((Land of)Israel is only used by nationalists for the historic Palestine, and many dislike the fact that Palestine is the accepted term for the area in Western historical writing, which doesn't give a rat's rear for the perceived modern imnplications). The same could be said for editors who, irrespective of context, would prefer always to write Palestine, i.e., it reveals a POV. I think this is a content dispute, however, (one influenced by two POVs, unfortunately) and should not be the subject of sanctions.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by I invented "it's not you, it's me"

On dec 10, Ed Johnston blocked Uishaki for an edit on Palestinian refugee, stating in the rationale that "This edit about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon violates your topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. These refugees have that status due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page at Talk:Palestinian refugee carries the ARBPIA banner." The same rationale would apply to an edit on Palestinians in Jordan , which carries the same ARBPIA Banner- an article which Uishaki has edited three times since this report was first posted:

SO even if the edit which prompted the report is outside the scope of their ban, these 3 edit s are very clearly within it.

@Callanecc: it would be quite astonishing if the Israeli-Arab conflict , which is a conflict between Israel, Egypt, Jordan Syria, Iraq, Lebanon AND the Palestinians could be "narrower" in scope than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I await an explanation of how that could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Uishaki

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

They are banned from edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict not "Israeli-Palestinian issues", you're going to need to demonstrate a much clearer link than what you have as I don't see how this is covered. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @MichaelNetzer: Arab-Israeli conflict is much narrower than Israeli-Palestinian issue which would apply to anything which has to do with the two countries. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical term "Palestine" from Roman times is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The attempt to extend the ban in this manner is absolutely inappropriate and looks to me like trying to bludgeon a content dispute with process. Uishaki's ban reads: "Uishaki is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.". So, no this diff[79] is not a violation of that ban, not related to WP:ARBPIA and bringing it here was not really a good idea. If you are saying that Uishaki is systematically changing terminology to reflect an ideological POV that has nothing to with the subject of these articles that would require a lot of relevant diffs across multiple articles. However, from a quick perusal of Google books the terms "Palestine" and "Southern Levant" are both used in that context. So what you've got GreyShark is a content dispute - don't try to "win" such matters by using AE or ANi or other boards it's a bad idea and doing so repeatedly can lead to being hoisted on your own petard--Cailil ^talk 11:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement is usually targeted at the Arab-Israeli conflict, which we think of as 1948 and later. However there was one case from 2011 where a sanction was imposed very broadly on Chesdovi and Debresser regarding all references to Palestine since antiquity:
You are banned for six months from any naming issues concerning Palestine or Palestinian in both articles and talk pages, broadly construed. Moreover, for these six months you are banned from making edits having to do with any answer, also broadly construed, to the following question: What term should be used to designate the country of people who were from the region of what is today called "Israel and the Palestinian territories" from Antiquity, thru to the Middle Ages and up to 1948?

This type of sanction should still be considered if we see an editor systematically adjusting the 'Palestine' terminology across multiple articles, even including those in the historic past. In that case we might deduce that their motivation comes from the current I/P dispute. Even so, if all we see in this AE request is a single diff at Roman–Persian Wars I don't yet see a reason to take action against Uishaki. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the new DS system our discretion to interpret areas of conflict was defined somewhat narrower than what had been used in the past. I feel that that example from 2011 is interpreted too broadly than is allowed under the current system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, do you have a link for the narrower interpretation? WP:AC/DS says "When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy." That seems to allow quite a bit of leeway. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does, however when you compare it to the previous section where "broadly construed" meant whatever the enforcing admin believed was appropriate (and hence could 'get away with') it is somewhat narrower. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ed's interpretation, as long as the root of the issue was the modern-day Arab-Israeli conflict, for example an editor systematically removing the term "Palestine" to push a POV related to modern-day Israel. But there would need to be evidence that it actually does emanate from the modern topic area; if the editor in question was only interested in ancient Palestine, I wouldn't see ARBPIA as being applicable. Also, there have been cases more recent than 2011 in which editors have been sanctioned for watering down mentions of Arab history on articles that might not fit a narrow interpretation of ARBPIA but where the agenda was clearly related to the modern conflict (for example, this was one of the complaints regarding Gilabrand, though far from the only factor that led to her indefinite block and topic ban).

In this particular case, Uishaki doesn't seem to be on the sort of campaign to remove mentions of Palestine that we've seen in the past, and the topic of the article in question pre-dates the modern conflict by a millennium and change. Although we're not here to consider content issues, we should consider Nishidani's comment that neither "Palestine" nor "South Levant" is definitely correct or incorrect, and that Uishaki changed their mind the next day. That doesn't scream tendentious editor to me. I recommend we close this as no violation, but with no finding of fault on the part of the filer whose interpretation was not completely unreasonable. If nobody wants to do it sooner (and assuming there are no objections), I'll do that in 24 hours or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the one edit to Roman–Persian Wars being reported here, by itself, is at least not a clear violation of the topic ban and does not require a sanction. However, @EdJohnston: as the banning admin, you may want to block Uishaki for their subsequent edits ([80], [81]) to Palestinians in Jordan, which is clearly a page relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 10:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. That is a clear violation of the topic ban given that the entire article is about Palestinians who have fled to Jordan as a result of the (modern-day) Arab-Israeli conflict, mainly the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I've blocked Uishaki for a fortnight for those edits. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's much to be done, so I'm still inclined to close this this evening unless anybody objects. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arzel

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 Arzel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Arzel: 1RR :

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

[82] 1st Revert - December 27, 2014
[83] 2nd Revert - December 29, 2014

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I suggested that Arzel self-revert here.

@Callanecc and Sandstein: The diff provided by Scobbydunk documents the addition of a new section. The diffs of the two reverts by Arzel document his reversion of that specific section. If your interpretation of 'specific' is that the reverted material must be the precise same words, punctuation, and formatting, then we might as well vacate the Arbcom decision, because the alternative would permit virtually unlimited WP:GAMING.

Having presented substantial evidence of Arzel has a long record of edit warring in order to force an article to reflect his preferred view at the American politics Arbcom case, I find it implausible that such a narrow interpretation of 1RR is what was intended when Beeblebrox posted the remedy here.

@Collect: Setting aside you off-topic content discussion and erroneous WP:BLP interpretation, I'm troubled by what seems to be an accusation, directed toward me and/or Skoobydunk, of seeking retribution. Perhaps you would consider retracting that?- Mr X 15:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but can you at least see that 'specific' would be open to interpretation? I ask because I think this should be clarified by Arbcom. If they intended 'specific' to mean 'exact', then they should have wrote exact in the decision.- Mr X 16:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [84]

Discussion concerning Arzel

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 Arzel

I am quite a bit dissapointed with MrX regarding this. I engaged with him civily on his talk and rather than discuss he quickly submitted a complaint. I asked for clarrification as to what he thought was the problem, but did he discuss? No, right away to file a complaint. Seems to go against the purpose of collaborative editing.

As to the edit, if MrX's approach is the basis, then I am basically limited to one edit on any specific section or text if I remove anything. Seems like an almost impossible standard to live up to. I made one clear revert and then immediately started the first discussion on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state that I am not trying to "game" the system as MrX is now stating. The result of the ARBCOM was for me to not edit war, to engage in discussion on talk pages and remain civil and not personalize the issue. Now I suppose there can be some disagreement as to what consists of the 1st revert, but I do not believe that I have broken the agreement and would also point out that I am being civil and engaging on talk pages and have not personalized the issue in the least. Arzel (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

Completely uninvolved. Seems to be a pretty clear cut violation of the 1RR restriction, but I agree with Azrel's edit. We don't generally go around pointing out when websites get a story wrong, especially when they are basing their story on other reliable sources that also got it wrong. There are a few secondary sources bringing up Breitbarts error, but they appear to be doing so spitefully since they do not mention the other reliable sources that also made the same error at all. This is not a controversy of any lasting note, and is WP:UNDUE relative to the rest of the article Special:Contributions/Megajeffzilla appears to be an SPA created purely to war in this content. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that the Paul Krugman Hoax section was not a recent addition by Megajeffzilla, but has been on the article page for almost 2 years, since March 2013. The editor who originally added it and the ones who have contributed to the page for nearly the past 2 years thought it was significant enough to note, as it's endured a considerable amount of time on the page.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scoobydunk

WP:1RR says that reverts are defined in the WP:3RR section which directly say "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Someone clearly added a section about the Paul Krugman Hoax and Arzel undid it, it was originally added here [85]. There is no restriction regarding a time period when these changes have to be made. So it doesn't have to be something that was recently added, all that matters and is described by the policy is that the removal of someone else's actions whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. When someone reverted Arzel's first revert, Arzel reverted it again. So that's 2 reverts in 2 days. Arzel is well aware of the reverting policy and has been in multiple conversations about edit warring which is why the sanctions exist to begin with. There is no reason to believe this was a good faith error when the person has a history of disruptive editing to the point of being restricted to a 1RR per week sanction.Scoobydunk (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

First of all the "Paul Krugman 'Hoax'" title impacts a living person. Secondly, it is established that Breitbart was not the originator of the "hoax" but that it simply used a reliable source, boston.com, which happened in this case to be grossly negligent. "Hoax" implies a deliberate spreading of an untruth - and the facts as brought out on the article talk page make clear that Arzel was, in this case, doing what Wikipedia policies require - removing a contentious claim about a living person (Krugman - the claim is about a living person quite undeniably) which was not properly sourced.

The only source clearly "at fault" in this was boston.oom which apparently failed to do any fact checking on a story it published.

I would also suggest that comments made in the wrong sections in the form of trying to counter comments by others here be deleted -- this board is not a place to "get even" with anyone, but to deal with actual problems. In the case at hand, I fear it is, indeed, being used to "get even" with Arzel. Collect (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arzel

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

I'd like other opinions, but I don't believe this is a violation of the restriction. For a revert to count as a revert under the restriction it has to be of a "specific edit" which only the second of these was. Unless someone can point to a single edit where the section Arzel removed was added (I don't want to search through the page history right now) then their first reported revert isn't one per the restriction. Arzel your statement here is incorrect if the first edit had counted as a revert under this restriction you would have made two in a week. However even if we do decide that the first reported edit was a revert per the restriction I think I warning would be in order rather than a block as it was Arzel's good faith belief that they hadn't violated it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Unless the submitter can show which specific edit (as required per the remedy) the first removal was a revert of, the first removal is not a revert in the sense of the restriction and the request is not actionable. Sandstein 13:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, the remedy you invoke reads "Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit ...". The edit that added the section at issue, [86], does not add material that is identical to the material Arzel removed with the first reported diff. Therefore the first reported diff is not a revert of any specific edit, and the request remains not actionable, because we are limited to enforcing the remedy according to its wording. This request can be closed now, in my view. Sandstein 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Callan and Sandstein. The remedy uses somewhat novel wording (revert restrictions are more commonly one revert per page in a specified time frame, whereas this is one revert of any "specific edit"). Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 418: / Line 418: @@
 :*I agree. Unless the submitter can show which specific edit (as required per the remedy) the first removal was a revert of, the first removal is not a revert in the sense of the restriction and the request is not actionable. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 13:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 ::MrX, the remedy you invoke reads "Arzel is limited to one revert of any specific edit ...". The edit that added the section at issue, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breitbart_%28website%29&diff=prev&oldid=640094667], does not add material that is identical to the material Arzel removed with the first reported diff. Therefore the first reported diff is not a revert of any specific edit, and the request remains not actionable, because we are limited to enforcing the remedy according to its wording. This request can be closed now, in my view. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 16:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
+*I agree with Callan and Sandstein. The remedy uses somewhat novel wording (revert restrictions are more commonly one revert ''per page'' in a specified time frame, whereas this is one revert of any "specific edit"). Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ&nbsp;Mitchell'''</font>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 16:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

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