Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 26 July 2016

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

TripWire

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

Request concerning TripWire

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to TopGun and SherifffIsInTown

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

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

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

On The Wordsmith proposals: I think we are beyond the stage of civility now. TripWire did learn something from their last topic ban. Their strategy now is to quietly push POV without being noticeable. For example, if we look at the diff 1, they deleted content sourced to scholarly sources {{sfn|Schofield|2003|pp=63-64}} and Yaqoob Khan Bangash's journal article, and replaced it with content citing fake sources (the same Schofield book with a meaningless page number 278, and an opinion column from Dawn [2], neither of which supports the new content). In fact the Dawn column argues the opposite point of view. This is just a reckless WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, meant to pick a fight. Anybody looking at the edit would simply think it is a content dispute and wouldn't know that anything is wrong. Likewise, the talk page comment, "The sources are fine. It is your understanding that is wrong." is not particularly uncivil. It is the unwillingness to engage with the actual subject but nevertheless revert edits that makes it BATTLEGROUND. Even after I reported the issue here, TripWire didn't bother to find out what the issues are, calling it simply "WALLOFTEXT." I am not sure how civility parole would address this behaviour. How am I supposed to engage with an editor that has no clue what is going on?

I rarely recommend topic bans. I argued against the topic-ban for Towns Hill and I also argued with Bishonen against the topic ban for Saladin1987, even though, ironically, the latter was banned for edit-wars and personal attacks against me. If an editor brings up valuable points and looks half-way reasonable, I prefer to reason with them rather than to punish them. In the case of TripWire, none of that works. I think topic ban is the right course of action here.

TripWire is of no particular use to Wikipedia. Other than the Kulbhushan Yadav page, where their contribution is apparently 35%, no other article shows any contribution above 1-2%. Their main participation on Wikipedia has been to edit-war and disrupt other editors that do actually contribute. Before TripWire entered the scene in June 2015, the India-Pakistan space was quite stable. As Future Perfect at Sunrise has rightly pointed out, TripWire's entry has been "harmful to the project." Their presence and behaviour has set a bad example to all new editors and derailed even seasoned editors like FreeatlastChitchat . ARBIPA sanctions are here precisely to take care of editors like them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed IBAN: I have quite a few reservations about the proposed IBAN. But I promise to think about it carefully overnight. Meanwhile, I would like to request RegentsPark and NeilN to provide their input on the viability of the proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [3]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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

Statement by TripWire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kautilya3's Selective/Discreet Approach to push Nationalistic POV

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

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

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

2: Uses Aljazeera.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Kautilya3's additional comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Bharatiya29's comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Kautilya3's fresh WP:ASPERSIONS:

I think Kautilya3 misunderstood The Wordsmith's advice against casting aspersions and that's why he has continued with his mudslinging unabated by even reusing the same diffs that he has already provided for like an umpteenth times. Or may be, his fresh aspersions against me were precisely due the same unbending, churlish attitude Kautilya3 have been displaying that have caused so much disruption on Indo-Pak topic area. I'll leave this for the worthy Admins to decide.
I also dont understand how and why is Kautilya3 drawing a comparison between me and other editors, while at the same time he also displays his 'holier than thou' attitude and his ample 'magnanimity' for not asking a topic-ban or some other punishment for editors X, Y or Z during his other conflicts. This misunderstood sense of superiority over other editors and authoritative behavior as if he sits at some higher pedestal among the hierarchy of WP coupled with the false understanding of being perfect and someone who can never go wrong is the actual cause of this commotion and the sole reason behind his impossible justifications which are nationalistic and which he often retracts once confronted. Someone with such an attitude who also provides refuge to chronic socks makes it almost impossible for other editors to constructively engage with them.
Lastly, his comments about my contributions to WP is a textbook example of WP:NPA. Who made him the judge to decide that editors who only contribute a certain percentage of content to articles are the only legit editors? Going by his understanding, editors who only add/remove categories, only correct spelling/grammatical mistakes in articles, fix syntax, fight vandalism, prevent sock disruption etc should all be banned from WP, right? My contributions to WP are well documented in my edit-history and seriously I dont require any certification from someone. Speaking truly, it is precisely because of the refuge that editors like Kuatilya provide to chronic sockers which he then also uses to further his POV that editors like myself and those named by him above are unable to contribute much content to WP. One can only do so much in fighting vandalism, preventing sponsored socks from disrupting WP and contributing content. After all, editing WP is not my day job. I take WP as a hobby and apart from building it, preventing it from disruption goes along with my editing experience. That's what we all do at WP, dont we?

Statement by TopGun

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [4] [5] [6]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

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

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

Statement by Bharatiya29

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

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

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

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

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

Statement by D4iNa4

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

Statement by Sitush

@Lord Roem: IBANs just create more drama, as is nowadays frequently noted at ANI. Such a remedy will achieve absolutely nothing here. I could have predicted where this will end up even before TripWire's previous sanction and I really shouldn't have to spell it out: sooner or later they will be indef'd, unfortunately. And if there is blame to be attached to Kautilya then any remedy should be proportionate, bearing in mind the concept of first "offence".

I think you (all commenting admins) might benefit from giving NeilN some time to respond as they're relatively familiar with the subject matter and the participants (both those specifically named here and more generally in the context of South Asian articles). - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

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

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

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

I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've rescued this from premature archiving. The diffs I see here could be interpreted as tendentious editing, but they could also be seen as good faith efforts to improve these articles. I'm far from an expert in this topic area, so I'm unable to decisively determine which. The rhetoric from editors on both sides of the nationalistic conflict further obfuscate the matter. That being said, I don't see anything that rises anywhere near the level of making a block or topic ban necessary. My instinct is that it would be best if TripWire were admonished for tendentiousness, and works to be more careful in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the walls of text here and on my talkpage, plus the copious diffs presented, it is clear that there is a huge problem in this topic area. The battleground mentality is pervasive, and nobody here has entirely clean hands. Something obviously has to be done. However, I'm not convinced that handing out a few topic bans will actually solve anything, and there are a number of editors who have terrible attitudes but nonetheless contribute quality content. I'm thinking that we need to get more creative with Discretionary Sanctions than we ordinarily do. I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a topic-wide ban on casting aspersions. There is also precedent for a civility parole placed on individual editors, with varying results. I would rather not have to go there, but I won't hesitate if I think it necessary. Before actually enacting anything, I'd like input from some other AE admins. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the time to go through this as well. I'm with The Wordsmith on their hesitation for a new topic ban here, but I do like TopGun's suggestion for an interaction ban. This would allow Kautilya3 and TripWire to edit the content in dispute and seek content dispute resolution while cutting off an aspect of their editing which is disruptive. If tendentious editing continues after a sanction like that, I'd then come to the conclusion that a topic ban is necessary. I'd like to hear The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)'s views on this idea before implementing it. As for your proposed civility/casting aspersions restriction, I personally would prefer a more focused remedy than something topic-wide, at least at this point. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to give a more conventional two-way IBAN a try. We can always revisit the civility parole idea if necessary (and I'm sure this topic area will be back at AE again), there's no need to be hasty to impose an old restriction that hasn't been tried in years until the conventional means have been exhausted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I'll hold this open for another day to see if there's additional feedback from other admins or the editors involved. Otherwise, I'll close this with a two-way IBAN under the usual parameters: "banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI or AE reports about each other except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged here. While I'll be on here, it will be only for short stretches of time. I might be able to go through this in the next day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

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

Request concerning Debresser

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_.282011.29 :

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

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

BLP issues:

Here Debresser agrees some of the sources that he restored (original revert [7] are not reliable for a BLP)
Here, after admitting that some of these sources do not belong in a BLP, Debresser restores them anyway. They are still in the article, despite Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Restoring_deleted_content. Debresser continuously makes improper reverts, edit-wars to restore them, and disregards clear prohibitions on doing so.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All right fine since you brought it up. The most recent edits by Debresser is another example of poor editing and using revert to try to force disputed changes in to articles, at times introducing BLP violations and violating WP:BLP's prohibition on restoring edits challenged as BLP violations. Restoring commentary pieces by people with no expertise on the subject to make negative claims about living people, restoring sources for direct quotes that they flat out do not include. That is I believe something called source misrepresentation, something that an encyclopedia should take seriously. And doing so with reverts even though the material has been challenged, and there is no consensus on the talk page to introduce the changes. Debresser ignores that and revert wars to include the disputed material and in the process introduces several BLP violations. Yes I reverted, I reverted BLP violations, BLP violations that should not have been re-introduced by Debresser in his reverts. I restored the stable consensus version of the article, or I tried, Debresser kept trying to push through his contested edits. nableezy - 02:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like yall are not paying attention to this, and it is my fault for presenting it as it has been. Ill work on a report detailing the problems with Debresser in this topic area, BLP violations, edit-warring to force in changes where it suits him and stonewalling to reject them when it doesnt, stonewalling, hypocritically applying two opposing reasons depending on the POV it supports. I could respond to his "update" today, but there doesnt seem to be a point. nableezy - 16:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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

Statement by Debresser

I think it is about time WP:AE put a stop to attempts by Nableezy to discredit editors who disagree with his POV by posting bogus reports here. There was no violation.[8][9] The edits speak for themselves.[10][11]

So what does Nableezy do? He calls it "gaming the system by making edits 25 hours removed". The truth is that Nableezy and Spesis II are systematically trying to remove from Mahmoud Abbas unfavorable information.[12][13][14][15] First they used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument. They when I, an 8 year editor with about 90k edits, make the same edit (with improvements), he tries to say sources are not reliable, when they are, or when good sources are readily available (see [16] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources). They he tries to say it is recentism (see [17] and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue,[18] so he plays that card too.[19] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether (see also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverts). In other words, Nableezy and Spesis II (whose POV is even more pronounced and who is, unfortunately, less a man of civilized discussion than Nableezy) try to fight this simple, well-sourced, neutrally worded and relevant paragraph by all means possible, in their POV efforts to censor this page. Please notice, that when that same uninvolved editor proposed a compromise,[20] I agreed,[21] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me.[22]

I tried to resolve the issue at WP:DRN (see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas.23WP:RECENTISM), but Nableezy sabotaged that too.[23] I have recently posted at WP:BLPN (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mahmoud_Abbas, to seek opinions from other editors, perhaps I am wrong with my arguments, but Nableezy has not yet posted there. I have seen Nableezy at work a lot, his POV is well-evident, but we have managed to reach many compromises, for which I respect him, and we are at good terms.[24] Even yesterday I was not afraid to change my opinion and agree with him on another issue.[25]. He has reported me here before recently (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Debresser), also on flimsy grounds, and no action was taken.

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

Update Nableezy made another edit on this article, pushing his point of view and implementing a suggestion without consensus, while misusing the fact that he knows I can't revert, and in full disregard for my call to discuss at WP:BLPN, as well as WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WAR and the outcome of the discussion.[26] I repeat my call to sanction this editor. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem I agree with what you say. I do have a question for you. I took an active part in the talkpage discussion. I posted on WP:DRN, and on WP:BLPN, and it wasn't me who rejected the first and did not react to the second. I reverted well after 24 hours, and they weren't even identical reverts. How more am I to take part in discussion before editing an article under dispute to avoid accusations and having me dragged to WP:AE? Today, on this same article, Nableezy made a second revert,[27] 1 day and 14 hours after his previous edit,[28], even though the issue was still disputed on the talkpage. Is that enough time? Debresser (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 24.7.16: Nableezy calls for another editor to edit war at Mahmoud Abbas in this edit. Please note that only two editors had posted previous, Nishidani on one side and me on the other, and in this post Nableezy says "I think you can restore that material now", as though this has been discussed and consensus has already been reached. Then in his next post he adds that he would make the edit himself, if not that he already made one revert today! And that he'll do it later today. He admits to gaming the system! Not to mention that this is what precisely what he (in bad faith) accuses me of. Likewise he is problematic at Israeli West Bank barrier, where a certain term is being discussed on the talkpage, and Nableezy makes an edit as though there is no discussion.[29] Likewise there he accuses other editors of not having reasons for their oposition,[30], even though those have been stated clearly.[31] In simple words, Nableezy is a tendentious editor, and he is making it impossible and unpleasant for other editors to deal with his edit warring and baseless accusations. Debresser (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem Unfortunately, we see this issue diametrically opposite. I see two editors stonewalling, and me bringing arguments. They tricked you into believing it is me stonewalling by demanding I quote from policy. Do I need to quote from policy that information must be relevant and reliably sourced? I don't think so! Also please notice that two editors against one is not a serious claim of consensus, especially when those two editors simply claim consensus without answering my two questions. Because I repeated my two questions at least three times, and never yet received an answer! Please also see the WP:RS/N discussion, where uninvolved editors agree with me that the source is not good, and Nableezy and Nishidani show that they can't stand any opposition by posting long replies to every dissident opinion. That is behavior typical of tendentious editors. Lastly, why would I have WP:OWN issues with a page I only recently started visiting? I surely have no more of a WP:OWN issue than any other editor involved in this conflict. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Debresser

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

Not withdrawn

Nableezy closed this section as "withdrawn".[32] I undid that as an out of process closure. Nableezy is not authorized to close a WP:AE discussion, even if he is the one who started it. In addition, since I have asked for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy here in return, that is something Nableezy can not withdraw. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

Statement by OID

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He effectively tore up the compromise.

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

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

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

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

At this point therefore, you had

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a good example of page control by Debresser and the reasoning behind it is incomprehensible, in that it takes this AE discussion as an apparent warrant to do whatever he wants. All behavioural problem become now 'content disputes' between one editor and several others under his reading. Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, you are distorting things;

Nableezy calls for another editor to edit war at Mahmoud Abbas in this edit. Please note that only two editors had posted previous,

My normal reaction to an irrational removal of impeccably sourced material is to wait before reintroducing it, if there is a 1R risk. And I only do so after addressing the talk page. (See my addition of an innocuous edit documenting what was missing on Pavel Florensky article, his anti-Semitism here, reverted immediately by another editor, and waiting a week for objections before restoring it this morning). As anyone who knows me, or my page will note, Nableezy is my expert on this. I don't understand the rule, and ask him whenever in doubt. Nableezy did not call on me to edit-war. He clarified that my usual worry re 1R was unfounded and that I was in my rights to restore what you deleted without a recognizable policy justification. Given that you rarely concede a point, and the removal had no policy basis and struck me as typical of a page control approach, I went ahead and reintroduced the source.Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem. If the above edit flow analysis may be somewhat confusing. I note you call on us to provide specific diffs. Well, I would appreciate you and other admins analyzing the arguments on the talk page for the inclusion of Gilbert Achcar. Debresser introduced poor sources, claiming they were good, and now opposes the use of a world authority, with excellent publishing credentials, on the topic in question. Despite some days of extenuating discussion in which he has failed to produce a single policy ground for his objection despite frequent requests to do so, he has now reverted out the material, citing WP:BRD, which is not a polioy, against the verdict of the other two editors. I've seen this waffling stonewalling, without policy considerations, hundreds of times,- and just put up with it - though it is beyond me why he is never sanctioned for it. The above revert, in the context of the talk page discussion, is the quintessence of the problem reported. Please examine it. You cannot have it both ways. Use blogs from middle brow papers as RS when you like the content, and then challenge books reliably published by competent area authorities when you dislike it. Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem raised on the Mahmoud Abbas page is now repeating itself on the Israelites.

A redlinked editor raised a point, which Debresser removed as WP:Undue and unsourced.
Well, the point made is a commonplace in scholarship, so I restored it, remodulated, with an impeccable source.
Debresser removed it, saying my wording wasn't close enough to the source.
I therefore, responding to his edit summary, rephrased the source to meet his objections
Debresser in two edits erased even this modification, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731681216&oldid=731675697 here )will retaining the high quality RS, yet distorting its content, which I transcribed in a note) and then here, where he just chucks the whole edit and source out.

All this removal, without any clear argument on the talk page. I could spend an hour listing many sources which state what the one source I did use states, the addition is not controversial in historical works on that period.Gary N. Knoppers,Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations, Oxford University Press, 2013 p.15 writes:

In the case of the people in question, the title “Samaritans” is basically one that non-Samaritans gave to this group. The terminology is based on the rare usage ha- šômĕrônîm, “the Samarians,” appearing in 2 Kings 17:29, translated in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as ὁι Σαμαρεῖται,”the Samaritans.” As such, the term is basically geographical in orientation. Yet šômĕrônîm –in this, the one and only case in which the ethnicon appears in the Hebrew Bible-ironically refers to the residents of the area of Samaria prior to the time of the northern exile. It does not refer, as if often thought, to the foreign immigrants, whom the Assyrian authorities imported into the land.

I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition which maintains Samaritans are not Israelites, but Cushites. Personal involvement whatever should give no one warrant to interfere with the introduction of high quality modern scholarly sources, and his removal of yet another area specialist does not appear, again, to have any other policy ground than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm surprised he is repeating this behavior while the issue of intransigent removalism is still under discussion here for the earlier Msahmoud Abbas case.Nishidani (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

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

Statement by Drsmoo

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

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

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

I need to read more through the evidence, but my initial thinking is the two reverts are a violation of the 1RR under the ruling. 3RR policy says a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour window is considered gaming the system and/or edit warring behavior. Not sure why the same logic wouldn't apply in the 1RR context. In this topic area, especially for a content dispute, if a revert is disagreed by another editor, there needs to be discussion. As I said, still looking through the lengthy statements, but this is my first read. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arbcom decision specifically states a 24-hour period. When they word things like that in an official ruling, there isn't much room for interpretation. However, it may be considered edit warring under the more flexible Discretionary Sanctions. It is a marginal case though, so if any sanction is recommended I would err on the side of a mild one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, agreed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've taken the time to look through the diffs. Clearly, the personal animosity is proving detrimental to the dispute resolution process (see here & here). Still, while the content dispute is certainly heated, I don't see anything meriting a topic ban or sanction at this time. Upon full review, I would close with an admonition to Nableezy (talk · contribs) to cool his head and calm the tone of discussions; additionally, a warning to Debresser (talk · contribs) not to violate 1RR or reverse an edit too quickly without talk page discussion. If things escalate and get worse, we can address it then. It wouldn't be a bad idea to edit in another part of the wiki for some time, but that's just personal advice. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Debresser:, I may be reading it wrong, but it looks like the two new diffs you cite are removals from different sections, not reverts of the same material. Due to the nature of these articles, I think an all-around good idea is to discuss any substantive changes to avoid miscommunication or confusion. The wall of text above is hard to parse at times because of its complexity, so it'd be helpful for editors to pinpoint particular edits they feel demonstrate the need for discretionary sanctions. Otherwise, this just seems to be a heated content dispute and a reminder for editors to chill would be the only thing required. Tl;dr, I'm open-minded here but don't see anything glaring yet. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks everyone for the additional responses, it's greatly appreciated. I'm seeing some concerns about Debresser (talk · contribs)'s behavior on the Mahmoud Abbas page. These reverts suggest a kind of ownership of the page. 1 2 3. When I say it's a good idea to discuss substantive changes on the talk page, that's not a license to revert anything just because you disagree with it. I'm describing good practice. The Gilbert Ashcar argument on the article's talk page also looks like stonewalling. The editors there want a discussion about the policy merits/demerits of removing a paragraph and each time Debresser seems to avoid answering and/or throw questions back, making the conversation go nowhere. This, on top of my original concerns about 1RR, suggest a short-term sanction might be in order. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TH1980

No action taken at this time and request withdrawn by the filer. Both parties are advised to keep their distance from one another in the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning TH1980

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Catflap08 and Hijiri88#TH1980 and Hijiri88 interaction banned :

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Responses to TH1980

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

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

@Lord Roem: Look at the diffs more closely: The "very indirect" accusation was made shortly after the thread was opened, and then two days later he made another, more explicit accusation against me. He had several days to realize the discussion he was hosting and participating in was an IBAN-violation. The fact that he has been monitoring my edits since at least February means it was not a good-faith mistake. Here, he tried to spin this as me following his edits, despite the myriad possible ways I could have noticed this during the several days the thread was live. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC) (Edited 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@TenOfAllTrades: I don't have any of TH1980's user pages on my watchlist. I have another page Jagello edited on my watchlist. TH1980 followed me to the page last May and has been manually reverting my edits there ever since, even after our IBAN. I don't think enforcement of the IBAN in relation to these earlier violations is necessary, for the same reason that I felt the fr.wiki table was no longer necessary and removed it, as I pointed out earlier. Like everything in my user space, I kept it for as long as was necessary and then either used it for its intended purpose, forgot about it, or removed it when I received a complaint.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning TH1980

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

Statement by TH1980

I do not control the threads that other users post on my talk page, but after I accidentally mentioned Hijiri88's name there, I realized I had made a mistake and quickly deleted first the comment and then the entire thread.[33][34] I only mentioned Hijiri88 in one comment, and I deleted that comment within hours, before anyone was likely to have seen it.
Hijiri88's quickness to report me over a comment I deleted so quickly shows that he is following my edits far too closely. Hjiri88 also has an IBAN with Catflap, and during a recent arbitration enforcement, Hijiri88 was "instructed to stop following Catflap's edits".[35] Hijiri88 has no reason to be checking every edit that I delete so quickly and reporting me for them, in the same way that he was told not to follow Catflap's edits.
At any rate, following this report I took a look at Hijiri88's edits and noticed that he has mentioned my name on Wikipedia as well, like here for instance.[36] If my promptly deleted comment is sanctionable, Hijiri88 should also be sanctioned for commenting on me.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TH1980

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

The section header naming Hijiri88 wasn't made by TH1980. The only mention was in that second edit, which TH1980 removed a few hours later. It makes more sense to me that TH1980 realized a mistake and removed the thread quickly rather than an attempt to--in the filer's own words--"very indirectly" accuse Hijiri of being a sockpuppet. I'd close this with a reminder to cool your jets and stop following TH1980's talk page this closely. I don't think any sanction would make sense here based on the information presented thus far. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a warning to both parties would be the best course of action. While there were technically violations, they were minor and don't come across as intentional. I don't see anything that deserves a block to enforce the existing sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed regarding warnings. I would strongly encourage both editors to remove the other's userpages from their watchlists.
As an aside, I would also mention to Hijiri88 that storing material related to his disputes with other editors on other-language Wikipedias isn't a good idea. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim

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 David Tornheim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

David has previously been warned multiple times at ANI and by admins for battleground, edit warring, aspersions about COI, and general tendentiousness:

Warned March 2015 at ANI of a block for battleground behavior in GMOs with another ANI a week later.
Warned Feb. 2016 by Spartaz.
Warned May 2016 by Laser brain.

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

Battleground

Aspersions towards editors at talk section titled Scrubbing of views of scientists that have concerns about GMOs

Taken to Jimbo Wales talk page to rant and cast aspersions with the talk section labeled Monsanto must be pleased while opening talk sections on this non-content discussion at article pages.[37][38]

In the midst of doling out battleground and aspersion comments, they also accuse editors of not trying to work with them [39] (i.e. WP:POT).

Often refers to editors as "pro-industry" as a vague aspersion as part of the battleground mentality even in their responses below.

Edit warring and WP:DRNC

1RR was imposed in this topic, and arbs mentioned that WP:GAMING of it should be handled by DS. That sanction was meant not only to allow quick action on simple violations, but crack down on long-term edit warring behavior that doesn't explicitly cross 1RR.

David very often reverts basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[40][41][42][43] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included).[44][45][46]

A recent example of this pettiness is at Atrazine. A new editor added a few wikilinks,[47] but also added one to a reference title that I removed while leaving the others in the body. [48] David again resorted to a revert and ask questions later approach, but was quickly reverted by another editor reiterating that wikilinks in reference templates are problematic.[49] In the meantime, David took to the article talk page to cast aspersions towards me because the specific edit I reverted had a somewhat ranty edit summary[50] rather than David focusing on the extremely minor content issue at hand of ref formatting.

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September 2015.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After patiently trying to work with David Tornheim in the GMO topic for years now, it appears they cannot edit in the topic calmly without engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND that only serves to agitate the topic. A lot of this has not been single acute events easily dealt with at AE, but persistent under the radar sniping, etc (also quickly hit the maximum diff and word space because of it). This has become especially pronounced after the admin-moderated RfC closed where their behavior has continued inflaming the topic while other editors try to focus on content and keep things civil. I'm at a minimum (i.e., WP:ROPE) suggesting a 0RR restriction for David to reduce at least some of their behavior issues, but I'll leave it to others to discuss how to address the larger battleground behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments on aspersions towards me at this AE

:There are a number of aspersions below by involved editors towards me I cannot address entirely due to the word limit (this will ideally be my last comment with that in mind unless admins ask for more clarification). However, I will remind reviewing admins that at Arbcom, we specifically drafted this principle: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes.[51] It was passed so admins at AE could crack down on this behavior instead of passing it back to ArbCom. AE is where the buck needs to stop, and the principle needs to be enforced rather than encouraging editors to continue these aspersions. Enforcing it will reduce this situation of editors creating a toxic atmosphere and then turning around and accusing the editors trying to work with all of that of battleground behavior.

In fact, I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a paid shill, etc.[52] The fact that EllenCT is still doubling down this after being warned at ANI and having the Arbcom principle passed in concerning, but I'm not going to engage that further for now since this particular AE is about David Tornheim's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: I overall like your sanction idea over a broad topic ban (it would also work if we ever get people casting aspersions about the parallel organic industry too). Whether it's a warning or this sanction, more severe sanctions are expected if an editor continues problem behavior after either instance, so I'm curious how this would functionally differ from yet another (would-be-4th) warning. Just procedural things for admins to mull over, but I'm hopeful it will cut out this toxic behavior that has persisted after the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

Discussion concerning David Tornheim

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 David Tornheim

No surprise here. King has long sought sanctions for me. I am not alone, King and Tryptofish are constantly asking editors to be sanctioned for pointing out or challenging pro-industry POV edits. This constant push from these two started at GMO ArbCom and picked up ([54] [55]) right after Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs (e.g. against Prokaryotes (here), Wuerzele [56], Vergilden [57], Minor4th [58], DrChrissy [59], SageRad [60], Petrarchan47, etc.). Yet, King files here saying I have the WP:Battleground mentality. His first diffs are from a year ago where Jytdog was harassing me for standing up to his behavior that has been so aggressive that he has been indef. blocked.

King cannot stand when I point out pro-industry edits that remove well sourced RS. When I recently pointed out his editing habits here, one of the closing admins said that his edits "twisted" the result of the RfC [61], yet he continued [62]. Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning [63].

If it doesn't conform with the industry view, King identifies the source as "fringe" to justify removal from articles:

GMO labeling is "fringe" and "psuedoscientific":

"We really don't even need to give the viewpoint the time of day in this article (GMO food), so there's no reason to bring it up." [64]

Precautionary Principle and GMO [65]

Intellectual property rights [66]

Regulations on GMOs abroad [67]

Example:

Original: "studies found a conflict of interest to research outcomes."
King's revision: "Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest." [68]
Abstract: "While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001)."

This filing is retribution for shedding light on pro-industry editing [69].

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casting Aspersions

WP:NPOV is policy.

The "Casting aspersions" sanction is being used here to prevent anyone from raising issues of edits that violate the WP:NPOV policy, if the POV edit favors industry. Unacceptable.

King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing.

This logic of "casting aspersions" appears to be:

(1) if editor X claims that editor Y makes an edit that favors industry, then

(2) editor X is *always* wrong for saying so, even if the edit favors industry.

(3) editor Y's edit need not be reviewed to see if it is pro-industry.

(4) We must assume good faith that no edits are ever pro-industry or lack WP:NPOV.

(5) calling an edit pro-industry implies the editor is paid by industry or a "shill"

I hope it is obvious such logic makes it impossible to address pro-industry POV issues.

Item (5) ignores other explanations:

We cannot infer motivation of anonymous editors. I did not ascribe motivation; I showed evidence of POV with diffs.
Does an American Zionist's pro-Israeli edits imply payment from Israel?

Now, Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EllenCT

I have not edited on these topics for at least a year, until today, but I strongly approve of David Tornheim's recent work on the issue. I am a proponent of genetic engineering, which I see as no different in principle than animal husbandry and crop hybridization, but I am opposed to the present commercial situation where rampant consolidation has led to monoculture issues in agriculture instead of robust competition between seed producers.[70][71][72]

My primary issue is with Kingofaces43. My first interaction with this editor was in asking his opinion of the most reliable WP:MEDRS-grade source on the relationship between bee population decline and neonicotinoid insecticides. He responded with Fairbrother, et al (2014) "Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees", which is not a comprehensive literature review, and the meager review it includes is not on the title's topic. In fact, it includes only a short review of very select sources on, "guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" -- not at all on the risks themselves. The paper says, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer CropScience is the largest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 has never explained why he considered that the most reliable source on the topic, saying, "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [73] But he never addressed the fact that the review was not on the title's topic, and has since joined attacks on me at every opportunity, even when they pertained to areas that he has never edited on.

It is obvious that Monsanto engages in coordinated and sustained efforts to astroturf.[74] I recommend sanctions against those who try to censor contrary efforts.

Reply to Tryptofish

@Tryptofish: I am not stating or trying to imply that Kingofaces43 is personally editing on behalf of Monsanto. The evidence I have presented stands by itself. I note that he claims on his user page to be employed working on pesticides. I do not understand his perspective on these issues, and I have even less understanding of yours. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kingofaces43

I withdraw my comment from September 2015 regarding being convinced Kingofaces43 was a paid shill at [75]. I stand by the remainder of the statement, and until an explanation is forthcoming, I remain very suspicious of the possibility. Perhaps if Kingofaces43 didn't show up to demand sanctions against me every time anyone else has ever complained about me, especially regarding topics on which Kingofaces43 has never edited, I would likely feel considerably less hounded. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

It is my strong belief that David Tornheim is not the problem editor here. In brief, any careful examination of the edit histories of his detractors show an obsession with the GMO topic, and with creating an environment which is toxic to anyone who questions their methods. I'm hoping this clear overreach by the filing party will make it obvious that we are dealing with a case of tendentious editing, per WP:TEND. Again, just looking at a few diffs is insufficient, what needs to be considered is the larger pattern. I thank all Arbs and admins considering my statement. Jus da fax 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see both The Wordsmith and Laserbrain are commenting in the "uninvolved admins" section. The content aside, I ask that they remove the comments at once, and if they fail to do so that a truly uninvolved administrator redact their comments. Again, these two admins are hardly uninvolved, despite claims to the contrary. Jus da fax 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I see that David has pinged, at User talk:Coffee, all of the administrators who were involved in supervising or closing the GMO RfC, [76], and that's a good thing. I'll add a ping to Laser brain, whom he overlooked. I suggest that any decision here should wait for their input.

David cited a diff by one of those admins (KrakatoaKatie). I'd like to add a diff of what I said in response at the time: [77].

I see editors seem to be saying that Kingofaces is editing on behalf of Monsanto, or at least strongly implying it. It would be helpful if they would actually present evidence to back those accusations up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David has added a diff for his statement that "Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning": [78]. I urge administrators to see what I actually said there: I wasn't criticizing King, but rather trying to reach out to David after the RfC in what I hope you will agree was a friendly and well-meaning way. (I ended up reverting it, by the way.) Here is how David responded to me the next day: [79], [80]. And what's "Even Tryptofish" about (rhetorical question)? And David says that I'm always trying to get other editors sanctioned, which is strange given that just a few days ago I posted this here: [81]. When I saw this AE filed, I didn't want to escalate it, because I hoped that things would calm down, but seeing what David is continuing to say about me, I've brought up these things that have, indeed, been bothering me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, with each passing day the GMO thing is getting more and more battlefield-y. Now, from EllenCT: [82]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Admins who want to look at pages where disputes are most active at the moment (besides Jimbo's talk), I think it's Genetically modified food controversies and Kevin Folta. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: If we ban editors from discussing other editors' motivations, what will happen, and is already happening, is comments like "look at how this content is just what Monsanto wants" (or, if you ban mentions of companies, "look at how this content is just what GMO lobbyists want"), followed by "but I didn't say anything about anyone's motivations!". Whatever admins craft will have to anticipate that, or prevent it in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random IP

I stumbled onto this page from Jimbo's page. The pro-monsanto person that made the initial complaint wrote 900 words and (by my rough count) 32 diffs. The top of the section says he's supposed to keep it to less than 500 words and less than 20 diffs. 209.197.171.107 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KrakatoaKatie

My involvement here begins and ends with closing the RFC. I agreed to help close it because this is not a subject area in which I have any edits and no history of enforcement in the area (to my knowledge and recollection). I fail to understand, however, how the RFC can be interpreted to delete or add additional text other than what was agreed to by consensus over a month of discussion.

The results of the RFC now need to be enforced by uninvolved administrators, and I have no desire or plans to comment further in this AE request or in the GMO area. Katie^talk 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo

It's long past time David be topic banned from GMOs and Monsanto and anything related. As he states on his user page, he's an activist in the real world and taken part in many anti-industry campaigns. That activism has now firmly found its way into his editing as shown by King's diffs where he's soap boxing the same stuff in multiple places. Similar behavior was displayed during the recent GMO RFC where kept posting the same arguments in multiple areas of the talk page. The same arguments he's posted above, that confuse regulation with scientific research, which most editors clearly didn't find compelling. That fact didn't stop the bludgeoning. Capeo (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

I think we should take a conservative attitude when considering intervening to deal with less than ideal ways of arguing. I'm mostly against the arguments of the anti-GM movement, they do make some valid points, but on most issues I disagree with the political stance taken in Europe against GM-foods. The way David argues can have some tabloid-like elements in it, ArbCom may have ruled that this isn't actually allowed. However, in principle, it's better to let the community itself correct someone who steps a bit over the line and steer that person back toward presenting his/her arguments in an acceptable way. It's best to only intervene when such feedback doesn't work and what we see is a degeneration in the topic area due to the contributions of that person. I don't think that's the case here.

E.g. the thread title used on Jimbo's talk page may not be ideal when judged by rigorous standards, it's not something you can use in a scientific paper, but it's not all that untypical for tabloid style newspapers. So, it is actually within the editorial standards of how people in daily lives like to communicate. The scientific nature of this topic also adds an extra layer of protection. The community has already decided to apply strict guidelines that give priority to scientific articles, this automatically creates a solid wall protecting the topic area from degenerating due to bad arguments. If this were a political topic without a hard scientific core, e.g. Scientology, or Israel/Palestine, then one has to be far more proactive in intervening to prevent the editing in the subject area from degenerating. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I agree that one should intervene using sanctions where necessary, but don't underestimate the positive effects of a minor infraction triggering a response from the community like this response by Jimbo Wales, this can work better than imposing a sanction. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cathry

I read David Tornheim's propоsals in the last RFC(GMO). As for me it was detailed analysis with reference to the reliable sources. I was very disappointed when any sources from peer-reviewd journals with criticism were simply ignored by community. Just as was ignored last scientific review on this topic by toxicologist (Domingo, 2016)

As to Kingofaces43 I was faced with his behavior here when he without a rational explanation moved significant data from lead and here when he stated that it is "original research" to compare 64%-101% and 23%-33% (protective impact of conventional and GM soybean) and that "the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience)". Despite the fact comparison was in other source. As far as I see, I am not only one who noticed Kingofaces43 non-neutrality. Personally I'm not very interested in Kingofaces43 motives. But it is obvious for me, Kingofaces43 edits pull topic into biotechnology and pesticides advertising, especially it they continue without balance from editors like David Tornheim.Cathry (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning David Tornheim

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

Sigh I was hoping the RfC would solve these issues, but it seems I was wrong. There have been multiple editors on all sides of this topic area behaving poorly for quite a while. I would really rather not have to topic ban anyone; most people involved here contribute good content. Still, something needs to be done and I doubt admonishments will achieve anything. I'd rather find another option that has more surgical precision. I'm going to continue researching this dispute and try to find another path. Other admins are welcome to chime in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that this topic is now being prosecuted on Jimbo's talk page, and I'm unclear about the motivations for doing so. He rightly pointed out that the statements that Monsanto is "pleased" and that this filing is retaliatory are unhelpful. I believe they indicate continued battleground us-versus-them mentality in this domain. I'm likewise disappointed that involved editors continue to be comfortable labeling each other's edits as "fringe", "pseudoscience", "pro-industry", etc. The continued insinuations that editors are involved with or motivated by Monsanto are very troubling, and if anything requires sanctions, it's that behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Count Iblis: I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, and I share the sentiment expressed by The Wordsmith just above that I was hoping this wouldn't appear here again (the heavy "sigh" as well). However, I'm quite fed up with this practice of bringing up Monsanto's financial interests and implying that some editors are so-aligned. ArbCom was quite clear that such accusations were not to be made without evidence, so David and EllenCT (currently) and others (in the past) are trying to shimmy around it by name-dropping Monsanto in the vicinity of editors' names and then walking away whistling with their hands in their pockets like nothing happened. --Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How about crafting a sanction along the lines of "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed"? The wording would probably need to be tweaked, and maybe some exception for specifically discussing article content (you can't edit Monsanto if you can't talk about the actions of Monsanto), but I'm thinking something like this might be applicable to multiple editors and could cut out the aspersions without issuing a heavyhanded ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN, Lord Roem, Coffee, Newyorkbrad, and EdJohnston: Pinging recently active AE admins to offer counsel on the best way to move forward. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with WP:INVOLVED, but please note that The Wordsmith and I have dealt with this topic only in an administrative capacity and are therefore uninvolved. Familiarity != involvement. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One could argue that Jusdafax's comment is blatant aspersion-casting, no? Making unsupported accusations about other editors? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that way, yes, and I'm awaiting his response to Seraphimblade's comment below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jusdafax: You have, in this request, accused two administrators of inappropriately acting while involved. This is a serious accusation, and without any evidence, constitutes casting aspersions. Please either provide your evidence for this claim, or retract it. This similarly applies to anyone else who is participating in this request—if you are going to accuse other editors of misconduct, you must present evidence to support your accusation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Got pinged, so I took a look at all the statements to wrap my head around this. I'm of a similar mind with The Wordsmith: I don't think a topic ban would be helpful here. Your suggestion of a restriction on discussing motivations is interesting, but I wonder how enforceable it'd be in practice. Also, it seems like it could be easily circumvented? I'd need to really see some specific wording on that, though I'm open-minded on innovative solutions here. At this point though, I feel tossing out a tban would be handling this with too blunt an instrument. There's certainly battleground behavior here and if it continues after the discussions spurred by this AE request, I'd then be open to imposing a short-term ban. Right now? Everyone needs to chill, take a step back. It wouldn't be a bad idea for all involved to voluntarily edit in other areas for a week to let things cool off. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ideal enforcement would be escalating blocks if broken, and the "broadly construed" should take care of gaming. "Civility parole" and ideas similar to it were popular 8-10 years ago, and were successful more often than not. My draft wording would be "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to discussing these organizations or persons as part of the normal editorial process for article content. If this restriction is violated , or an attempt is made to game them, any uninvolved administrator may impose a block of up to one week. After repeated infractions, escalating blocks may be used up to six months. All blocks under this restriction are to be logged as a Discretionary Sanction." If it works, it might be worth bringing back for other editors and areas where casting aspersions are common, like ethnic conflict topics. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it, the more I'm liking this kind of focused remedy. I'd want to add something in the second part of the restriction, the "as well as the actions of corporations," because as written that might be too broad? My rough read on the policy debate is that there's a dispute as to the legitimacy/illegitimacy of different research on the topic. There's definitely a way to debate that without impugning the character or motivation of other editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A major issue here is that various editors are accusing each other of being paid shills, or just sort of indirectly implying that Monsanto must be manipulating the content, saying another editor's name casually, and claiming they weren't making a specific accusation while the implication was obvious. I'm open to rewording that part if you can think of a better phrasing. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the restriction on discussing each editor's motivations in and of itself captures that? If someone says 'you obviously support Monsanto' or 'you're an activist and are trying to ruin the research' or whatever, that's already included. Perhaps adding 'on the wiki' into the second part to clarify this is about alleging company manipulation of article content, not a ban on discussing the company itself (because it's obviously going to come up in terms of the actual merits of this debate). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is stopping things like this, where for the most part editors aren't mentioned by name but the insinuation is clear. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. What do you think about adding 'on the wiki' (or something like it) to that second phrase? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to incorporate that, I think, is to change my sample "...as well as the actions of corporations or persons..." to "...as well as Wikipedia-related actions of corporations or persons...". Does that sound better? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that works great. I'm on board with your proposed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, also. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good, that's settled. Now the last question is who to apply the new sanction to. I believe David is the obvious choice, however I think this edit probably merits giving EllenCT a warning for battleground conduct. The diff of her being convinced Kingofaces was a paid shill was over a year ago, plus in Arbcom-space. Stale and out of our jurisdiction (plus retracted), so I see no evidence presented that would justify placing her under the same restriction. Jusdafax was warned by Seraphimblade for aspersions in this very thread, and has not repeated it, so I also don't see any reason to apply it there. Are we in agreement? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreeable to applying the sanction to David and warning EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Herr Gruber

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 Herr Gruber

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Felsic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Herr Gruber (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/Gun control#Discretionary sanctions :

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

Herr Gruber has repeatedly posted personal attacks, cast aspersions, and failed to assume good faith. Prior to warning about DS:

04:56, 10 July 2016 "Your constant POV-pushing might be a little more convincing if you started with weapons legendary for use in crimes (Thompson SMG) or used in a list of massacres, terrorist acts and war crimes as numerous as stars in the sky (AK series), but you're blatantly pushing for the "black rifles are evil crime guns" angle."
07:36, 22 July 2016 "Felsic, you are one editor trying to force your POV through against I believe about half a dozen by now. ... As I also said, all your edits are to do with US gun politics and your edits are blatantly pushing an anti-AR15 POV, pretending you're striving for balance isn't going to fool anyone. ... Trying to cheat your way around the WP:GUN policy ... is similarly not going to work."
07:26, 22 July 2016 "Go away, Felsic"
07:39, 22 July 2016 "I'm sorry nobody's shot anyone with it so you can find it interesting."
07:47, 22 July 2016 labels good faith edits as vandalism
09:31, 22 July 2016 "Your hatred for all things AR is fairly obvious, maybe you should try editing articles about things you like instead?"

These diffs are from after I'd asked him to stop attacking me personally and after I'd alerted him to the DS.

17:20, 22 July 2016 "Stop vandalising articles and I'll stop accusing you of it"
17:48, 22 July 2016 Despite many page notices that DRN exists to discuss content, not contributors, he posts a long complaint about my editing and ignores the underlying content dispute.
17:24, 22 July 2016 "Your wounded angel act is as fake as your claims of wanting balance."
17:28, 22 July 2016 "Stop pretending you're some wounded angel here, claiming you're not doing what you are doing is accusing me of lacking the pattern recognition skills of a small child."
22:49, 22 July 2016 "Frankly, the fact that you believe there even is such a thing as a "generic weapon" proves you have no place editing these articles."
19:57, 23 July 2016 Follows me to an article he'd never edited to revert me. "gosh you don't like an AR15 manufacturer how about that"
20:01, 23 July 2016 "So, ignoring the reply and repeating the same claims yet again, I see. ... Give it a rest, "we" have already rejected your idea and posting it over and over isn't going to get you a new answer. "
7:49, 24 July 2016 Accuses me of forum shopping, even though I was following DR procedures.

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

15:36, 22 July 2016‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Herr Gruber has tried to get me to stop editing gun articles over and over, making a variety of accusations of POV-pushing and incompetence. His contributions to Talk:SIG MCX were described by @RunnyAmiga: as part of a "pile-on" that was "fucking gross". His personal comments at DRN contributed to derailing that attempt at dispute resolution,[83][84] despite efforts by @Robert McClenon: Herr Gruber is well aware that making repeated insults to an editor's ability is obnoxious, as he's said so himself.[85] So he's engaged in behavior that he knows is obnoxious and has explictly tried to get me to stop editing a topic. Furthermore, he has labelled mainstream sources like "Newsweek" as unreliable[86] and uses sources that are obviously inappropriate,[87] all while complaining about my contention that we should use the best available sources.[88] It is very difficult to work in this environment.

Note: @Drmies: and @Bishonen: have enforced this DS on an editor concerning the AR-15 article recently. Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2016#Gun_control While none of the articles in this filing are directly about Gun control, they would seem to fall within the "broadly construed" umbrella. Felsic2 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In his reply below, Herr Gruber repeats his approach when I asked him not to accuse me of vandalism - "Stop vandalising articles and I'll stop accusing you of it" (posted above). In other words, it's OK to post personal attacks on me if they're accurate in his opinion. In addition, he seems to believe I should not edit gun articles because I do not have the same POV as other editors who are involved in those topics. I disagree, and believe that gun articles would benefit from the engagement of a wider variety of editors. Felsic2 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:28, 25 July 2016‎

Discussion concerning Herr Gruber

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 Herr Gruber

The key problem here is that all of these statements are true. This user is a political POV-pusher who makes constant politically slanted edits to firearm articles which often amount to outright vandalism, wikilawyers, ignores consensus, and ignores rebuttals to restate points that have already been addressed. Their edits are a checklist of current US anti-gun political talking points (completely US-centric, associating mass shootings with AR15s, assault weapons, redefining "assault rifle" to include semi-autos even though no authoritative source argues that's appropriate, etc). Their edits are extremely partisan and confrontational in tone (eg repeatedly accusing other editors of "censorship" over failure to include certain information) This editor should stop editing on this topic as they very clearly have a strong POV regarding it along with very little background knowledge on the subject in question, at least until they expand their knowledge of opposing perspectives and general firearms knowledge a little. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I'm actually working on talking this over with Felsic since I don't really see this ending well for either of us and the whole thing seems fundamentally avoidable. Herr Gruber (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think this really helps, it has been requested:

Removal of famous embarrassing comment by a gun control advocate
removes a huge section of "Friends of NRA"
removes the entire section detailing lobbying by pro-gun group GeorgiaCarry ("who cares about this crap?")
non-notable (happens to be an AR15)
non-notable (happens to be an AR15)
non-notable (because Gun & Ammo magazine is only a "slightly independent" of DoubleTap Defense LLC, apparently)
removes a "non-notable company" (which happens to make AR15s)
deletes "unsourced" information from Global gun cultures (happens to be Switzerland)
[89] [90] [91] - copy-pastes "the NRA says this is a cosmetic feature" onto three firearm component articles without actually changing the text he copied from telescoping stock
AFDs a pro-gun organisation
removes a pro-gun term from a disambig page with the summary "give me a break"
places "assault weapon," a page on a political term, in Cat: semi-automatic rifles
[92] [93] [94] [95] [96] - adds cats for five gun control groups as "civil liberties advocacy groups"

The fact that going through his diffs makes it hard to find any edit which is not somehow related to gun control is also fair evidence of this.

Felsic2 was also the subject of a previous ArbCom request over his own conduct such as charming edit summaries and things like this. He continues in this spirit with things like comments in his "gun use" essay, which directly conflates disagreeing with him with censorship ("Gun articles are skewed when information is censored") insinuations of conspiracy ("something fishy is going on if we include this but can't include notorious uses of the firearm"), suggests nobody can seriously argue with him and technical information about firearms is boring, etc.

Statement by Robert McClenon

I was pinged, but I don't have a dog in this fight. I was asked to try to arrange for moderated discussion. However, moderated discussion is an effort to resolve content disputes, and participants must comment on content, not contributors, and the editors wouldn't stop blaming each other. I haven't researched this long enough to know where the fault lies, but it is now a conduct dispute, and can be sorted out more effectively here than at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note by The Wordsmith

I edit in the area of American Politics and sometimes stray into gun issues, so I'm recusing myself from this request and will not comment on its merits. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

Herr Gruber in recent days has entered into an alliance with a tendentious IP editor at Talk: Gun show loophole, an article clearly covered by discretionary sanctions. To me, those two editors plus a brand new disruptive and recently blocked editor seem to be trying to reshape a Good article to conform to their POV, starting out with an aggressive campaign to delete an image. The IP editor has been blocked for disruptive editing. Herr Gruber's recent editing pattern raises serious concerns, in my opinion. I encourage a closer look. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um...replying to someone a couple of times constitutes an "alliance?" I have made one edit to that article, which consisted entirely of removing the image because I'd thought that it was procedure to do so while its inclusion was being discussed. I apologised for that error, and stated I don't believe the inclusion aids the article because it's too far removed from the concept it describes. The same objection was also raised by User:Mudwater and User:Anastrophe, I don't really know where this "two IPs, a banned user and me" thing comes from. I just saw that because I was looking through Felsic's contribs for replies on talk pages and clicked that one accidentally. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully, Herr Gruber. You edited that talk page several times. I did not mention two IP editors but only one. The other recently blocked editor has an account, as is obvious on that talk page. No one has been banned, but the IP editor has been blocked (a very different thing), and the other editor with a three day old account just came off a block only to jump into this matter promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the talk page a few times, sure, but I only edited the main page once and apologised for the error I made. The way I parsed your first comment was referring to three people, the "tendentious IP editor" (208.54.80.248), who I figured you were saying had also been blocked before, the "brand new disruptive (editor)" (Owaavaax), and the "recently blocked editor" (172.56.12.209). Herr Gruber (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42

While Gruber's tone and behavior may or may not be an issue I have never interacted with him significantly, so I cannot comment. Felsic's behavior however definitely is an issue. Most of these diffs are somewhat stale, because I have not been as active in the GC area recently. But they do serve to show a pattern of long term behavior and POV pushing in the area.

Previously trouted regarding incivility in the topic area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Felsic2

WP:POINT makes edits that even their own edit summary admits are "absurd" to make a point. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=725772043&oldid=725771847

WP:GAME nitpicks of sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=726090117&oldid=726087908

Consistently responding with snark and battleground attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=726833304 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=726833589 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_3#Criticism_-_is_that_all_there_is.3F

WP:GAME complete reversal of interpretation of policies and guidelines depending on if it fits their POV. Deletes content sourced to press releases specifically because they are sourced to press releases, but in very next edit (3 min) adds information sourced to press releases. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friends_of_NRA&diff=prev&oldid=725738838 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=High-capacity_magazine&diff=prev&oldid=725739186

Snarky/battleground comments, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, ultimately forcing an RFC that revived almost universal support against his position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711809286 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711436819 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711427469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711428514 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association&diff=prev&oldid=711428688

Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_3#Civil_Rights.2FLiberties_Org_Categorization. Note that I made an involved SNOW close on the RFC, but that close was later confirmed by an uninvolved editor from ANRFC. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure/Archive_21#Talk:National_Rifle_Association.23Civil_Rights.2FLiberties_Org_Categorization

Insistence that a LaPierre gaffe, which is not discussed in any secondary sources, must be discussed in equal depth to a gaffe by Carolyn McCarthy which has been discussed extensively in secondary sources for multiple years. Talk:Carolyn_McCarthy#Tucker_gaffe Talk:Wayne_LaPierre#Gaffes [[97]]

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Herr Gruber

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

I'm still reviewing the statements. However, I can already say it's never a good idea to let your frustrations get the best of you. (see edit summary). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few additional notes. Herr Gruber (talk · contribs), if you're going to accuse another editor of being a POV-pusher, you best have some evidence to back that up. Please provide diffs. I'm already concerned that this editor's possible tendency for personal attacks are disruptive and unhelpful for such a controversial topic area. If they can't engage constructively, a short-term topic ban might be in order. I would like to see more from Felsic2 (talk · contribs) (or others) on any problematic edits in the article space. So far, I think this one is the only article edit up there. Please ping me when both of you put down your new information. Thank you! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more administrative thing: please keep your replies below your own statement. See instructions at the top of this page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added info. It definitely looks like Felsic2 needs to heed the words of advice from this AE request in terms of how they interact with others on this topic. I'm adding Herr Gruber into this based on their responses to Felsic2. Both of you need to move past the personal animosity--which is not helpful and disruptive--when editing in this topic. At this time, I think a strong warning would be sufficient. A lot of the edits posted here are stale so I'd be uncomfortable with a topic ban for either editor based on this evidence. However, if either one of you (or both) is unable to change your conduct towards each other or on the article pages, a topic ban or interaction ban might be invoked. Unless there's substantially new information provided, this is where I'm sitting on this enforcement request. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 348: / Line 348: @@
 ::::::My normal reaction to an irrational removal of impeccably sourced material is to wait before reintroducing it, if there is a 1R risk. And I only do so after addressing the talk page. (See my addition of an innocuous edit documenting what was missing on [[Pavel Florensky]] article, his anti-Semitism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Florensky&diff=730351977&oldid=730335200 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Florensky&diff=730494922&oldid=730351977 reverted immediately] by another editor, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pavel_Florensky&diff=731268612&oldid=730494922 waiting a week] for objections before restoring it this morning). As anyone who knows me, or my page will note, Nableezy is my expert on this. I don't understand the rule, and ask him whenever in doubt. Nableezy did not call on me to edit-war. He clarified that my usual worry re 1R was unfounded and that I was in my rights to restore what you deleted without a recognizable policy justification. Given that you rarely concede a point, and the removal had no policy basis and struck me as typical of a page control approach, I went ahead and reintroduced the source.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 17:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 ::::::::Lord Roem. If the above edit flow analysis may be somewhat confusing. I note you call on us to provide specific diffs. Well, I would appreciate you and other admins analyzing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar the arguments on the talk page] for the inclusion of [[Gilbert Achcar]]. Debresser introduced poor sources, claiming they were good, and now opposes the use of a world authority, with excellent publishing credentials, on the topic in question. Despite some days of extenuating discussion in which he has failed to produce a single policy ground for his objection despite frequent requests to do so, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahmoud_Abbas&diff=731496832&oldid=731487973 has now reverted] out the material, citing WP:BRD, which is not a polioy, against the verdict of the other two editors. I've seen this waffling stonewalling, without policy considerations, hundreds of times,- and just put up with it - though it is beyond me why he is never sanctioned for it. The above revert, in the context of the talk page discussion, is the quintessence of the problem reported. Please examine it. You cannot have it both ways. Use blogs from middle brow papers as RS when you like the content, and then challenge books reliably published by competent area authorities when you dislike it.  [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
+::::::::The problem raised on the Mahmoud Abbas page is now repeating itself on the [[Israelites]].
+::::::::*A redlinked editor raised a point, which Debresser [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731644148&oldid=731598613 removed] as [[WP:Undue]] and '''unsourced'''.
+::::::::*Well, the point made is a commonplace in scholarship, so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731647660&oldid=731644148 I restored it, remodulated, with an impeccable source].
+::::::::*Debresser [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731654861&oldid=731648022 removed it, saying my wording wasn't close enough to the source].
+::::::::*I therefore, responding to his edit summary, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731675160&oldid=731654861 rephrased the source to meet his objections]
+::::::::*Debresser in two edits erased even this modification, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731681216&oldid=731675697 here )will retaining the high quality RS, yet distorting its content, which I transcribed in a note) and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israelites&diff=731681388&oldid=731681216 here, where he just chucks the whole edit and source out].
+::::::::All this removal, without any clear argument on the talk page. I could spend an hour listing many sources which state what the one source I did use states, the addition is not controversial in historical works on that period.Gary N. Knoppers,[https://books.google.com/books?id=qYNpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15 ''Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations, ''] Oxford University Press, 2013 p.15 writes:
+::::::::<blockquote>In the case of the people in question, the title “Samaritans” is basically one that non-Samaritans  gave to this group. The terminology is based on the rare usage ''ha- šômĕrônîm,'' “the Samarians,” appearing in 2 Kings 17:29, translated in the Greek Septuagint (LXX) as ὁι Σαμαρεῖται,”the Samaritans.” As such, the term is basically geographical in orientation. Yet ''šômĕrônîm'' –in this, the one and only case in which the ethnicon appears in the Hebrew Bible-ironically refers to the residents of the area of Samaria '''prior to the time of the northern exile.''' It does not refer, as if often thought, to the foreign immigrants, whom the Assyrian authorities imported into the land.</blockquote>
+::::::::I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition which maintains Samaritans are not Israelites, but [[Cushites]]. Personal involvement whatever should give no one warrant to interfere with the introduction of high quality modern scholarly sources, and his removal of yet another area specialist does not appear, again, to have any other policy ground than [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. I'm surprised he is repeating this behavior while the issue of intransigent removalism is still under discussion here for the earlier Msahmoud Abbas case.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Zero====

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