Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:05, 16 July 2017

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

The Rambling Man

Utter nonsense and a waste of time. After reading through the diffs, I'm put in the position of either believing AHeneen doesn't understand what ad hominem is, or has some (unknown to me) grudge against TRM. From what I read, there is absolutely nothing worthy of a complaint at WP:AE, WP:ANI or any other venue. Editors will criticize articles, ideas or Wikipedia itself, and this is not against policy if done in a reasonable and proportional way. If fact, it is part of the consensus building process. Sometimes they are critical of admin, but admin are expected to deal with mild observations without requiring sanctions be levied. As I don't see anything actionable, I am closing without action except to notify AHeneen that they need to brush up on behavioral expectations at Wikipedia, so as to not waste others time in the future with frivolous reports. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:38, 8 July 2017 (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 The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: AHeneen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: The Rambling Man (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/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited :

"4) The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve."

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

In this initial discussion involving me and the formatting of particular URLs, after being confronted by my arguments (in a DYK nom and here) using the policy WP:CITEVAR/WP:CITESTYLE and that the URLs in question are not WP:Bare URLs and satisfy DYK policy, TRM nonetheless continues to repeatedly complains about the "raw URLs" with the argument that they're not used in other articles, culminating in the first comment that I should just withdraw and would just be confronted with the issue time and time again. (note: If you read the linked discussions, except for some initial confusion in the "WT:Citing sources" discussion over what constitutes a WP:Bare URL, only TRM has been vocally opposed to the URLs in question and, for that reason, to the DYK nom.) After I replied that "It's within both Wikipedia & DYK policies. Full stop.", TRM responds that my stance is just "a silly point-making exercise" (diff). Considering these remarks in context of the long discussions on the issue, TRM is basically bludgeoning (which is belittling my comments/efforts) a DYK nom I made for an article that uses a citation format that TRM is, as his repeated comments indicate, vehemently opposed to.

19 June
21 May This also needs to be placed in context: at the time of this comment on the DYK nom, the "WT:Citing sources" discussion had wrapped up (only one more comment was made there before the discussion was archived) and just an hour after I replied to the comment below ("I note you haven't answered a single one of my question...") asking what questions weren't answered and reiterating that the citations are permissible. Rather than follow up at WT:Citing sources, TRM returns to the DYK nom to bludgeon his views against the URLs rather than follow up in the conversation.

18 May This reply was to the preceding comment I made about how to understand legal citations and how my edits conform to the Bluebook citation style (the main legal citation style in the US). Throughout the thread, the overarching issue was whether the URL formatting was permissible under WP:CITEVAR/WP:CITESTYLE, but here TRM demands use of "regular Wikipedia style" citations because of a dislike of the entire formatting of the citations beyond just the URLs. Again, bludgeoning his dislike of the citation style after it was pointed out that they're within WP policy.

In the following edits from Talk:2017, TRM is making insulting and belittling remarks about other editors...

28 June
28 June
22 June
24 June
Another editor stepped into the conversation urging civility, to which TRM replied: 25 June
26 June
26 June
26 June
27 June
27 June
27 June
After closing a discussion he was involved in (with the summary "Included per consensus."), there was this exchange:

Another editor commented "Although I think he should be included, I can't say I see a consensus." then "... and you shouldn't close a discussion you participated in."
TRM deleted those two comments with the edit summary "focus on important things please"
Then 3 min later re-added Arthur Rubin's comments plus the reply "If you care, re-open the discussion, otherwise it's more heat than light." with the edit summary "actually, word of advice". This was followed by the following exchange of comments:

AR: "reopening, then, as clearly an improper closure. Still no consensus, even as to what is being discussed."
TRM

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

AE Blocked in March 2017 for violating the same remedy (Block reduced from 1 month to 1 week on appeal)
Blocked for 48 hours on 7 July for violating interaction ban with George Ho from same ARBCOM case

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note to admins: Since TRM is currently blocked, he should be unblocked from this page to be able to respond.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

Statement by Vanamonde

@AHeneen: I haven't reviewed the details of your evidence, but your statement is monstrously long. Please prune it. Vanamonde (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

Yeah, per Vanamonde. I realise that you're trying to include context, but it would be a lot easier if you snipped it right down to the diffs that you claim directly show "The Rambling Man insulting and/or belittling other editors." At a cursory reading, I can only see the argument with Arthur Rubin that even remotely approaches that, but I may be missing other needles in this haystack. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still don't see anything in the non-TLDR version that is sanctionable. In fact, it's even worse - there's now a section entitled "In the following edits from Talk:2017, TRM is making insulting and belittling remarks about other editors" which contains numerous diffs which criticise projects, article contents and Wikipedia procedures. IMO this is a pointless AE listing and should be closed ASAP. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I suppose that a 32,684-byte wall of text must contain something showing less than ideal behavior from TRM, but I just searched Template:Did you know nominations/Star Athletica, L. L. C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. for TRM's comments and read them. They are fine, particularly when read in context. The only problem seen at that page is that AHeneen likes a very special way of formatting references and is pugnaciously declining all advice. I also checked a couple of the diffs mentioned regarding WT:Citing sources. A collaborative editor would take "I note you haven't answered a single one of my questions yet" as a suggestion that answering the questions would be desirable, while another kind of editor would post 32,684 bytes at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

You have got to be kidding. Someone please administer a boomerang for wasting the time of AE admins and everyone reading this interminable non-actionable nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by StillWaitingForConnection

There are only two situations where a wall of text might be appropriate. One is where you are defending yourself and the initial case looks bad, therefore it is necessary to expand on and contextualise diffs which might lead someone to the wrong conclusion. The other is where others specifically invite you (whether you are filing or responding) to elaborate on specific points – i.e. you've given them enough in your initial statement to believe it warrants further investigation, but not enough for them to actually investigate. This filing very clearly violates both of those principles and seems designed to be an attritional and scattergun complaint. It should thus be dismissed out of hand. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I can hardly be considered to be a Wiki-friend of TRM -- we have clashed a number of times -- but I see absolutely nothing in the edits presented which indicate that he has violated his restriction. The comments are sharp, yes, but they are all about the editor's editing, and not directed toward the person behind the editing. I would suggest that admins might consider admonishing the OP for bringing a baseless (and overly long) complaint to AE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Not one comment there is belittling or insulting in any way, shape or form, Heated somewhat? .. Yeah sure but no insulting or belittling, This is a classic case of the OP having a grudge and are doing everything they can to boot TRM off the project, Bullshit request is bullshit. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I despair. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by 331dot

I'll agree that while heated and contentious, none of the comments appear to me to be belittling or insulting at least as I understand those words to mean. I am amazed at the number of people who monitor TRM's comments and are ready to jump on whatever might seem the least bit 'belittling' to them. Don't people have better things to do here? 331dot (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Cassianto

What benefit is this serving exactly? What a complete waste of time. The OP needs to be kicked into touch and told to go away and grow up. Cassianto^Talk 20:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Berean Hunter

Is it too late for the filer to request closing? From what I'm seeing, this should not have been opened and I don't see any good coming of this.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Although I think him a detriment to the project, and he is clearly bullying, I haven't found a clear violation of this restriction. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

TRM is prohibited from insulting and belittling other editors, he is not prohibited from criticizing other users' edits. A disagreement with TRM over content appearing on the Main Page is not a valid reason to come here. The filer needs to grow a thicker skin. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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

I can't speak for other admin, but there is no way I'm going to go through over 4000 words of complaint, which is over 8x the amount of words that should be in a complaint, per the top of this page. Please trim it down and I suggest simply removing minor issues and just sticking to what actually matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not going to hear this complaint at its current length, which seems to be using massive volume to distract from the fact that, from my spot check of the diffs, I haven't found any substance to the complaint. Attacking your contribution for not being up to standards is what Wikipedians are supposed to do. In each of the previous complaints regarding TRM's restriction, they've been about him commenting on the editor's suspected motives or intelligence. If that's happened here, my spot check of the diffs doesn't show it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After a glance at the first few edits, I don't see how they attack or belittle others; their criticism is directed at content, not contributors. AHeneen, please reduce your (already shortened) complaint to a few actionable diffs and explain for each how it violates the restriction. If admin action is considered by others, it should not be taken until after 05:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC), when The Rambling Man's current block expires and they are able to reply here. Sandstein 19:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winsocker

Winsocker is topic-banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and their extended-confirmed user right is removed. Sandstein 09:29, 11 July 2017 (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 Winsocker

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

[1] Edits on I/P conflict and removal of sourced material
[2] Edits of I/P conflict and disruptive edit by its nature
[3] Edits on I/P conflict and sourcing criticism of organisation to its own twitter without any WP:RS
[4] Edits for gaming the system for 500 edits threshold for example [5]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

[6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was warned multiple times not to edit I/P area by various users [7] first he disregarded warnings but then he decided to game the system and make many minor edits to meet the threshold except the technical violation his edits by themselves disruptive changing anti-Semitic to anti-Jew deleting sourced material he didn't like and so on.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Winsocker

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 Winsocker

I've been under fire for mostly changing "Palestinian territories" to "Palestine" which is absurd. It seem's that when I edited the college's in Palestine to include the "State of Palestine", it apparently falls under the Arab-Israeli Conflict (I was given no warning when editing those Palestinian university pages). I feel this is a huge restriction on something that has nothing to do on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I really only understood the "Arab-Israeli" conflict message to be wary of editing only things that have to do with the conflict and that is how it should be enforced. Location's that just happen in Palestine should not get this restriction as it puts a blockade on improving those page's to begin with. (Especially if they are 'stub' pages)

The next proof he uses is me changing "anti-Semitic" to "anti-Jew. Firstly, the definition of "Semitic" is "a subfamily of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, Arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician." [see here]. As you can see, the word "Semitic" covers mostly groups from the middle east, while the word "anti-Semitic" usually means "Anti-Jew" in North America, we must keep in mind for our users in Europe & Asia, and more importantly, the Middle East where the definition is taught differently. This is a more accurate version.

The third statement was a edit against the UN Watch, I did realize there was no "criticism" despite the group coming under fire from it. The organization does lean more of a pro-Israel lobbyist group but I do realize this should have edit better.

Lastly, the user say's I was trying to "game" the system. It is not very hard to go through random article's and try to slightly improve it better. What is worse is that GiantSnowman had to go and RV all of them without at least warning me first. "Gaming" the system mean's to gain something in a way it was not intended but nothing I did was out of scope of what Wikipedia allows you to do.

Many, many times, I have asked users to talk about issues in a talk page to handle problems and 0 people have done that, especially since the entire reason of a talk page is to go over issues instead of countless RV's. I have even explain my RV's.

It seem's that the user's i am talking to are taking action before discussion which is unhealthy since we get to no terms of reason. Winsocker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

On top of gaming the system and other violations, I am troubled by this editor's seeming inability to understand what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. She or he makes edits almost exclusively to articles about Palestine and Israel, yet asks "What did I edit that was part of the Arab Israeli conflict?". See User talk:Sir Joseph#You said I recently edited an Arab-Israeli conflict... as well. I think it's very disturbing that a partisan editor isn't aware that she or he is editing in a conflict area. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winsocker, you are mistaken about the meaning of the word "antisemitism". It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages. It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MShabazz 1. You say, "It has nothing to do with people who speak Semitic languages." which is false. "Semitic" means that you COME from these areas, not that you speak it. You can be arab yet unable to speak arabic. 2. "It has, and always has had, one meaning, and that is Jew-hatred." - This is where your location involves. You may be from the US which is what people call it but someone from Asia or the Middle East do not call it like that. It is even worse if they use a translator to try to translate the statement because while we read it in one way, they read it in another. Be mindful of where your reader's may be located and try to be almost exact & clear as possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winsocker (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Winsocker, but you are completely wrong. On so many levels. The word "antisemitism" has nothing to do with "semitic" languages and it never has. The English-language word "antisemitism" doesn't have different meanings on different continents. You seem to be fond of dictionaries. As Objective3000 suggested, why don't you look up "antisemitism" and see what it says? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Quite apart from any other violation, I think this editor needs to be blocked until they learn when to use - and not to use - apostrophes. RolandR (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Just an aside to Winsocker. You cannot always determine the meaning of a word from its parts. The OED defines anti-Semitism as: “Theory, action, or practice directed against the Jews.” Objective3000 (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Winsocker

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

I'm certainly pretty uncomfortable with the string of 150-or-so edits on July 9 that mostly amount to reformatting infobox sources with no or little effect on the rendered article. I'm inclined to treat this as ECP-gaming and just remove the extended confirmed userright, but would like some input from others before doing so. GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the consensus here, I've removed the extended confirmed userright. I don't have time to dig in a lot of detail into this user's edits just now, so won't take an opinion on whether further action is warranted, though what I've done probably amounts almost to a de facto topic ban from Arab-Israeli subjects. GoldenRing (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing it until this user takes note of our rules and expectations. Jonathunder (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removing the extended-confirmed user right. A condition for restoring it should be his understanding of which matters are connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thinking that 'Palestinian territories' could be harmlessly replaced with 'Palestine' shows he is not there yet. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal, particularly in light of OR claims as in the 3rd provided diff. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are seeing a lot of gaming of ExtConf lately. My opinion is that the removal should be an AE sanction, and it should have a minimum time limit before it can be appealed here, in addition to the other terms already mentioned. 6 months seems reasonable to me. I think we need to send a clear message that if you game the system, there are consequences, so it is better to just earn the bit properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I dig into his contribs, the less comfortable I am with him editing anywhere related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Not a judgement of his character, but he clearly doesn't understand the ramifications of his edits. Things like not understanding people's reaction to changing Palestinian territory to State of Palestine, is just the tip of the ice burg. I wish I could give a time limit, but I can't and would support anything up to and including indef. Hate to be a hard ass about it, but he gamed the system to get access to an area he has proven he is genuinely not competent in, showing his intention is to become yet more active and cause more problems. That isn't fair to the rest of the editors who understand the politics involved and already have to struggle to keep things NPOV there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dennis Brown: By AE sanction do you mean something applied at AE by consensus or something applied by an individual admin (based on discretion)? An ArbCom remedy forbids the latter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the heads up, you are absolutely correct, now that ECP is community based. Virtually all actions here are unilateral, even if we all agree, so a time limit would require consensus, which I would support any length. At this point, it is taken away already, so its less a concern. After looking at his contribs, I think a topic ban is more urgent anyway. It isn't about malice (I don't think) as much as competence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does look like an editor who lacks the basic competence required to edit in this very sensitive area. Insisting that "antisemitic" means something other than what everybody else thinks it does is just one sign of this. I recommend an indefinite A/I conflict topic ban until they demonstrate their competence with a record of high-quality contributions in another topic area. Sandstein 19:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:BU Rob13: The editor was alerted to ARBPIA on 21 June and all the diffs presented above are *after* his notification. So it seems to me any admin could issue a topic ban. I would support an indefinite ban, with the right of appeal in six monrhs. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a topic ban is warranted. As to the scope, I would go broader and ban from all Middle East-related topics, as this editor appears to be unable to tell whether an article is related to the A/I conflict or not. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point, and I would support that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be useful, but within the scope of WP:ARBPIA we can at most impose a topic ban with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the whole Middle East. Closing accordingly. If the editor doesn't get it, blocks will have to follow. Sandstein 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support an indefinite TBAN on the A/I conflict with appeal possible after six months of productive and clueful editing elsewhere, but I too am concerned about this user's competence in working out what subjects fall into the scope of the A/I conflict. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments on my understanding of the technicalities here:
- The DS under which a topic ban would be imposed cover the Arab-Israeli conflict, not the Middle East in general. While maybe you could justify a tban covering ME topics with the other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project language of the DS policy, it's not generally done, I think.
- I don't follow the discussion above about time limits - any administrator can take "other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project" so long as the offending behaviour is within the scope of DS, and that logically includes taking away the extended-confirmed userright for either a fixed period or indefinitely. The policy doesn't explicitly allow this, but it at least implicitly says so when it says, "enforcing administrators are not authorised ... to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage" - that is, they are authorised to remove user rights than can be granted by an administrator, such as extended-confirmed.
- I don't think we can deny someone the right of appeal as part of an AE action, at least not until appeals become disruptive. If they want to lodge an appeal here, at ARCA or at AN, they are free to do so. If we're going to put this sort of limit, I'd phrase it as 'reconsideration after six months' - the intent is that they can appeal on the merits of the sanction itself immediately, but if they want it reconsidered on the grounds of a demonstrated improved track record then they need to wait at least six months.
- Reading the way the discussion above is going, someone could always just indef them as NOTHERE as a non-AE action. GoldenRing (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur. Sandstein 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuwert

Neuwert blocked for 48 hours for 1RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2017 (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 Neuwert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

02:31, 12 July 2017 First revert
02:43, 12 July 2017 ( Second revert. Violation of 1rr

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790143053&oldid=790120780

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is new and seems to be a hard charger. I am mainly doing this so he/she understands better how the process works and to go to the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANeuwert&type=revision&diff=790182237&oldid=790181282

Discussion concerning Neuwert

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 Neuwert

I will not edit here anymore. Bad place for that. You can block me forever in order to keep me aware of the truth instead a forged one. The reality is much better. I want to be far from the arrogance, stupidity and inappropriate words the oldest editors say. Be happy with this parallel universe made by frustrated people. That's why Wikipedia is riducularizaded when mention, mainly in the academy.

Statement by Sagecandor

Agree with analysis by EdJohnston of evidence presented by Casprings. Suggest a two-day-block, and also a warning of a potential future topic ban if issues persist later. Sagecandor (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Neuwert

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

Looks to be four reverts on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, an article which is under 1RR. Would suggest a 48-hour block for the violation. They could be warned that a topic ban is possible if the user can't edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Not actionable. Sandstein 07:29, 13 July 2017 (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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :; Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

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

22:19, 11 July 2017 Restores challenged edit without talk page consensus

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: December 13 2016
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: July 10 2017
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on: June 22 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

14:28, 4 July 2017: Alt-right is added to the lede sentence of r/The_Donald
09:00, 9 July 2017: The addition is reverted by Dervorguilla
20:18, 9 July 2017: The addition is restored
00:54, 10 July 2017: Dervorguilla starts a talk page discussion, noting the DS prohibit restoration without consensus
06:05, 10 July 2017: VM participates in that discussion
21:37, 11 July 2017: I make a sequential series of edits, one which removes the disputed term
22:08, 11 July 2017: VM makes what I believe to be a wholesale revert of these edits
22:13, 11 July 2017: I warn VM that the DS prohibits restoration of the disputed term and urge him to revert
22:14, 11 July 2017: VM tells me I have it "backwards" and removes my warning
22:19, 11 July 2017: Contrary to my belief, his edit had reverted all of my edits except the disputed term. VM indicates the exclusion was an oversight and restores the term, twice citing "established consensus" [1] [2]
NOTE: At the time of VM's restoration and of this enforcement request !votes to include are evenly divided (3 for, 3 against)
22:22, 11 July 2017: I challenge VM to link to the established consensus or a version with the term prior to the July 4 addition, warning again I may escalate
22:26, 11 July 2017: I ping VM
22:27, 11 July 2017: VM edits another article but does not respond to my ping or revert the offending edit

VM was made aware of the consensus requirement at least twice, and provided no evidence to support an "established consensus" for inclusion. The editor ignored two opportunities to revert the offending edit.

This is a straightforward violation. Past requests against VM have been muddled with unrelated and obfuscatory claims. I would be grateful if admins encouraged succinct and on-topic comments. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Link

@Sagecandor: The violation is a single edit. It is linked prominently at the top of the request. None other of VM's edits violated the sanctions. I provide a timeline of events and link twice to the same edit for convenience. It is not an attempt to mislead. The June 21 version claims in the third paragraph of the lede "it's connected to the alt-right" not, in the intro sentence that it is an alt-right forum, as VM's edit did. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

There was an addition of this material on July 4th, although as Sagecandor notes it was in the article before, and it was removed without discussion and consensus. Regardless, it was not removed until July 9th. Three editors - User:Grayfell, User:ValarianB and myself expressed support for the inclusion which shows that consensus was indeed in favor of it. The removal was done by red-linked, brand new, throw away account and in fact, the article was protected against vandalism [8]. Please note the stated reason for protection. It is NOT "edit warring". It is "persistent vandalism". The text was restored by Grayfell and ValarianB. Several other established users, such as User:MrX, made intervening edits and did not object to the text. And this being a controversial article, a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". The only person objecting at the time was Dervougilla who claimed, somewhat strangely, that this was not in line with WP:MOS. Additionally another user, Power~enwiki also expressed support for inclusion.

Then James J. Lambden jumped in. And Lambden, in addition to a long history of him following me around and reverting blindly (WP:HARASS), basically just stirs up troubles and turns molehills into mountains. He turned what was originally vandalism-reversion with some civil discussion on the side into an edit war which he is now trying to leverage into an AE report.

So. My edit did in fact restore consensus (four users vs. one, and that one seems to be making strange objections about MOS). Additionally, ask yourself this - why did Lambden report me, rather than Greyfell, who restored the edit several times, or ValerianB, who also restored it? Why didn't he complain to the admin who protected the page against vandalism, that "vandalism" being the removal of the text? If an admin, User:Anarchyte, protects the page because of "persistent vandalism", that vandalism being the removal of this text (and some other), how can you drag somebody to Arbitration Enforcement over the same thing? It doesn't make sense, except that it's a spurious WP:BATTLEGROUND report - and notably Lambden has complained before about the fact that AE reports concerning my person haven't gone the way he'd like, even went as far as to make a little infamous blacklist (don't remember if he still has it in his userspace - it's late right now), and this is just an obnoxious and insulting attempt to "remedy" that situation. Perhaps, a better question would be why Lambden is restoring what was considered vandalism (like I said, Lambden's editing on Wikipedia consists mostly of trying to stir things up and create unnecessary drama (take a peak at his user page for some more evidence as to his purpose here)).

There's another piece of bad faithed manipulation in Lambden's presentation of the timeline. He might have pinged me at 22:26 while I made another edit at 22:27. But that's essentially at the same time. I didn't see Lambden's ping until about 5:09 when I returned to editing [9] (had to make dinner and stuff in the meantime). So his suggestion that I was even aware of his stupid threats to take me to AE - which is really at that his contribution to the discussion consists of - is false. I wasn't. I had shit to do. By the time I cam back the edit had been reverted anyway. But hey, Lambden just couldn't let it go, he couldn't pass up an opportunity to file an AE report however spurious it may be.

This kind of battleground attitude on his part has characterized all of my interactions with Lambden, and most of his interactions with other users as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, one more thing. I seem to recall it being stated several times that the restriction about "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" being removed from the DS sanctions because it was so damn confusing. There's always disagreement about whether it's the removal or the inclusion which is "reinstating any edits" and what constitutes a status quo piece of article text. MelanieN removed the restriction from some articles and IIRC Sandstein has noted, here I think, that there's no basis in any ArbCom decision for such a restriction. And it does seem very stupid to be dragged to AE for a single edit (especially since the same edit had been made by several other editors - just Lambden is not currently engaged in harrasing THOSE editors, just me).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisBrown and the 5 days thing - sure, but I've seen that argument made before and we have don't have a good working definition of what "status quo" is. It's obviously different for high-edit articles than for low-edit articles. But how much? In fact, "forfeits their right to object" because they haven't edited the article in some time is EXACTLY what this restriction establishes/enshrines. Say it was 10 days. So you forfeit your right to object if you don't edit it for 10 days. Is that alright? 15 days? Etc. So blame the restriction. Which I think is really silly to begin with, for this exact reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Appears to be trumped up attempt by complainant to have remedies imposed on Volunteer Marek in this case. Complainant cites one (1) diff, twice, in the complaint. Volunteer Marek was participating in talk page discussion, which is a good thing and is encouraged in cases like these. Volunteer Marek was correct that previously there was consensus to include the term prominently, and prior versions did so as recently as 21 June in the 5th sentence of the article. It is also quite unfair to Volunteer Marek to have diffs in the evidence by the complainant presented, that are NOT edits by Volunteer Marek but by multiple other users including Don1182 and Grayfell. Sagecandor (talk) 05:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GoldenRing [10] and Sandstein [11], regarding the lack of basis for the nature of the restriction here. Further, agree with analysis by Dennis Brown that there is no actionable issue at this point in time, and as a content dispute and not an AE issue, further discussion is merited, at the article's talk page [12]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Contra Volunteer Marek, editors are sanctioned at AE for a single edit all the time. However, in this case I agree that I can't find any actual basis for a "consensus required" restriction on that page. Talk:/r/The Donald has {{Template:American politics AE}} at the top, which does claim this restriction is in place - however, WP:Arbitration/Active sanctions lists only standard DS for AP2. I'm aware that some administrators have imposed this restriction on specific articles (Coffee in particular seems fond of it), but this particular page doesn't appear in WP:AC/DSLOG. So I'm not seeing a basis for action here (I haven't even looked at the merits of it yet). @Lord Roem: added the talk page notice in Special:Diff/775808888 - perhaps he could comment here? GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The restriction was logged here. It's been several months since then, but it looks like my intent was a 1RR restriction after edit-warring was rampant on the article. I agree the 'consensus required' wording is confusing and should be removed from that template. As far as the merit of this request, I'm with Dennis's position below. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict: I'm not sure that there is anything enforceable here. The complaint cites a "consensus required" restriction that is not found in the ArbCom remedy linked to in the complaint. If this restriction is a discretionary sanctions page restriction, has it been properly logged and added to the edit notice per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page? Sandstein 08:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that needs action, however, I will say that Volunteer Marek's claim that "a piece of text remaining in for five days pretty much makes it "status quo". " is absolutely absurd, as some people don't edit for 5 days, implying they forfeit their right to object. This needs to go back to the talk page for a discussion on the term since obviously it is contentious. That makes it a content dispute, not an AE issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LesVegas

No AE action taken. This matter can be reported to WP:ANI if desired, which is the place in which to request enforcement of community sanctions. Sandstein 14:31, 15 July 2017 (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 LesVegas

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LesVegas (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

14 June 2017 obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Arthur_Long)
I asked them to self revert the TBAN violation (see below). See this section of their talk page for their denial that this is a TBAN violation (contradicting the block they received for doing the same thing in January - see below)
15 June 2017 Change to their Arthur Long comments (not really) after I notified them above
12 July 2017 Again, obviously lobbying an editor about the acupuncture article (see Special:Contributions/Playalake)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

17 December 2016 TBAN from acupuncture via this thread at ANI
6 January 2017 blocked for 60 hours for doing the same thing described above, as described in this diff

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is two instances of obvious and petty trolling in violation of their TBAN. I think it is time for an indefinite block as they don't do anything here but this, but a block longer than 60 hours is at least called for.

The edits are blatantly egging on editors who are SPA and are blatantly only editing WP to advocate for acupuncture (and are heading for TBANs themselves). LesVegas has not left similar comments at any other kind of editor's talk page. TBANs are broadly construed and standing on the sidelines cheering on people who are doing what you can no longer do, is a violation. User:Sandstein, for you to not be able to see this is rather surprising, to say the least. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE is for dealing with disruption in areas where people do this kind of thing. The TBAN is squarely in that area, regardless of from where it arose. I am sure that LesVegas is rolling around on the floor laughing as folks debate the fine points of whether this is really welcoming people. Whatever. You all should act or not and close this, rather than continuing the giggles for LV. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the diffs are petty trolling. Trolling but petty. If you all find them not actionable, then so be it. But please, no hyperlegal claims about venue. Dennis Brown, in another discussion you and I had, you wrote It is frustrating to see people try to nail down every single detail in policy because it makes it harder to admin....If you don't want admin to have any discretion, get bots to do our jobs. All this rules and outlines and process hurts enforcement. The TBAN is in the field of the DS; bringing it here makes both issues available, and any admin could take action under either; this is just a forum to bring it that is uncluttered. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking for anything to be modified. Shall I quote the close of the ANI thread: Due to issues with civil POV pushing and edit-warring, there is community consensus for a topic ban. LasVegas is indefinitely topic banned from all pages related to Acupuncture, broadly construed. As a side note to the administrators here, Acupuncture is a topic area with active Arbitration remedies, including discretionary sanctions. A community topic ban is perfectly fine, but this could have probably been handled by any uninvolved administrator via the discretionary sanctions You really think applying the entirely standard (and giving -- ahem - broad discretion to admins) "broadly construed" as encompassing this sort of petty trolling is "amending the ban"? Or that applying DS for such obvious (if petty) triolling with their feet as absolutely close as possible to the topic, is counter to the spirit of the TBAN or otherwise somehow harms the community? This is ... Monty Python esque silliness. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning LesVegas

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 LesVegas

Jytdog declared a personal vendetta against me after I helped get him topic banned from GMO's, broadly construed, so I'm not surprised he's jumping the gun on this issue. Yes, I was blocked for alluding to a topic on Playalake's talkpage before. This time I did not. I'm just giving him a newbie welcome and pat on the head is all (and Arthur Long), and I would be more than happy to show anyone the email I sent. The email contained no allusions whatsoever regarding the topic I was banned for. Since the email was sent through Wikipedia's official system, I would welcome any admins/bureaucrats with access it to post it here for everyone's viewing.

Let me ask a serious question: since Jytdog was topic banned from GMO's, is he allowed to greet or interact with anyone editing the GMO topic? Because that's all I did, and if he seriously wants to pursue this action against me, I would love to provide diffs to show how black his pot is.

So do I have this straight: I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on? Is that what I'm being accused of? LesVegas (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the whole reason I ever sent some welcoming love towards editors like Playalake is that I saw diffs like this this (edit warring with a newbie on talk pages, just sad). If Jytdog is going to behave like this (which is exactly the kind of behavior that got him TBanned at GMO, I might add), there would be no need to show a new editor that not everyone on Wikipedia acts like that. The last thing I'd ever want to see is an editor be discouraged to edit because they believe everyone here bullies them like Jytdog. LesVegas (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sagecandor

Clear violation. Evidence as presented by Jytdog is clear cut and strong. The topic ban as given by BU Rob13 is "broadly construed". Last violation resulted in block for 60 hours. Suggest longer block than that, this time. Sagecandor (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that LesVegas proudly displays the Graham's hierarchy of disagreement image [13] on their userpage [14]. Unfortunately, the focus of their choice of response, here, appears to stem from the 2nd-to-last-level of that very hierarchy, including the choice of edit summary in the edit, itself: DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

Just as a point of clarification, administrators and bureaucrats have no ability to read other users' e-mails. (Nor do arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Perhaps I'm dense, but I see no mention of acupuncture in any of the diffs. Emails, of course, don't fall under topic bans. The relevant basis for sanctioning the behaviour would be editing by proxy. Is there any evidence that this has occured? If not, I don't see a case here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

@Sandstein: "The diffs make no reference to acupuncture"
The two diffs are 14 June 2017 and 6 January 2017.

They show LesVegas offering advice to two new editors, each of whom has edited only at Talk:Acupuncture. The advice did not mention acupuncture but it obviously concerns that topic. Is it necessary to ask for a clarification regarding whether such comments violate a topic ban?

@BU Rob13: As the admin who imposed the topic ban (17 December 2016), would you like to comment?

Is it acceptable for a topic banned editor to monitor relevant talk pages, then offer welcoming advice to new editors who have a common POV? Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it would be satisfactory for WP:TBAN to be interpreted as allowing a topic-banned editor to monitor articles under the topic ban, then welcome single-purpose accounts who are only interested in that topic. That is particularly so when the welcome is not merely a standard template, but contains advice and offers of assistance. I was wondering whether it might be necessary to ask for a clarification, but it occurs to me that this topic ban was issued by the community at ANI, so Arbcom might not be the right place to ask. Any thoughts on that? In fact, should this AE request be replaced with a request at ANI? Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Roxy the dog)

@Dennis Brown, Les' comments to two strictly Acupuncture WP:SPA editors are clearly in violation of the broadly construed topic ban. Les seeks to be disruptive in the Acu area, as these two editors have been. What is difficult to see regarding this infringement? He's adressing acu SPAs for goodness sake. @Bish - no time is a bad time for wielding the banhammer on disruptive editors.-Roxy the dog. bark 15:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

Mention of the GMO topic caught my eye (albeit a red herring in this conservation), but I'll admit LesVegas' extreme adversarial attitude here shows that enforcement of the broadly construed topic ban is needed without the presence of interaction bans to prevent LesVegas from going after editors they've had disputes with in their topic-banned area.

Some admins so far seem to be missing that these communications were with purely SPA accounts in the topic area. That is the distinguishing feature and should be a clear violation of trying to skirt the ban, which broadly construed is supposed to account for. Had these been established users that edit in a variety of topics, then it would be more of a gray zone. The slipperly slope LesVegas is trying to imply in their lashing out here would really only apply if Jytdog was interacting with GMO SPAs, but not editors with other overlapping subject areas. The editors LesVegas were getting in contact with only edit in their topic-ban area. There's no other way than to say LesVegas was interested in them because of where the SPAs edited, and I have seen cases where topic-banned editors were blocked because it was apparent they were following ongoings in their topic area as we see here.

DS are also meant to deal with problem behavior in the topic area. Violating a topic ban is one of those, which can place action dealing with that at AE regardless of where the ban originated. When DS are imposed at ArbCom, they are intended in part to deal with controversial subject areas at AE rather than at ANI where controversial subjects are often not handled well. The only time ANI would need to follow-up on this particular topic ban is if it was the actual appeal of the topic ban. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I understand and agree with Dennis' point that because the TBan was not an AE action, this is the wrong forum for the complaint to have been filed in, however, we have a situation where the admin who imposed the TBan agrees that Les Vegas' actions were a violation of the intent of the ban, so it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to restart the discussion at AN/I. As pointed out, admins don't necessarily need a consensus discussion before they enforce a sanction, and this would appear to be a case where it would be appropriate for an admin to block Les Vegas for his behavior on their own initiative, not as an AE action. If the admin wants community confirmation of their action, they can always open a block review thread on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LesVegas

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

I see nothing actionable. The diffs make no reference to acupuncture and were not made on a page related to acupuncture. Sandstein 05:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, interacting with acupuncture SPAs is not a violation of the acupuncture topic ban, insofar as the interactions themselves are not about acupuncture. See WP:TBAN. If no admins disagree, I'll close this request. Sandstein 07:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I not disagree, the TBAN that's supposedly been violated is a community sanction, not one imposed under arbitration, making this the wrong forum. If I saw any merit in the complaint, I'd do something anyway under ordinary admin discretion; but the type of complaint made here would turn every TBAN into an effective IBAN with every editor who took a strong interest in the topic. I just can't see it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog seems to have missed differentiating betwen community sanctions and arbcom sanctions. The correct thing to do would have been to either approach BU Rob13, who implemented the ban, or (groan) take it to ANI. That said, I don't think these technicalities need stop any admin from evaluating and acting on the complaint.

I'm far from impressed by LesVegas' response. Their question "I'm not allowed to say "Welcome to Wikipedia!" if that editor happens to have edited on a topic that I can't edit on?" (my italics) is self-serving and insincere. (Yes, yes, assume good faith, but note also that AGF is not a suicide pact.) There was obviously no "happens to" about it, especially as the newbies LesVegas offered advise to had edited nothing but acupuncture, and in a tendentious, forum-y way. And LV's posts weren't merely welcomes, they were invitations to e-mail. Looking at their contribs certainly suggests that they have no interest in editing Wikipedia as such, but are here solely to promote their POV on acupucture. That's very close to not being here to create an encyclopedia IMO. However, this is probably the wrong time to bring out the sledgehammer. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I kind of get that, but where do you draw the line around this sort of thing? Do we really want to get into the business of policing who editors with TBANs welcome to Wikipedia? GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policing who they welcome? No, we shouldn't make a business of that. Jytdog's report wasn't really about "welcoming". (It's a bit like editors who use the "thanks" function to taunt an opponent, mutatis mutandis: that's not really about thanking.) If they're being disingenuous about their manner of, and motives for, welcoming, as in this case, I'm going to say "I see you", even if I don't write them a ticket. Both they and I may hopefully even remember about it next time they try to skirt their ban. Bishonen | talk 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

For starters, the Tban is not an AE issued tban, so it should be at ANI instead of here. That doesn't prevent us from taking action, but this is not the preferred venue and we certainly can opt to give instructions to take it elswhere. Secondly, if this was ANI, I would not take action based on this evidence. If BU Rob13 previously blocked for this [15] (which is more detailed but similar to the current complaint), then I'm at a loss how this is a tban violation. Perhaps he can explain; maybe I'm missing some finer point, maybe the block was for a different diff than provided, I don't know. LesVegas is stating he was banned in an area but doesn't mention it. I can see how that is disruptive considering how it was done, but not a violation of the tban. The tban does not mention that he can't say he is tbanned [16], and no tban SHOULD prohibit someone from saying they are tbanned in an area. An editor has to be able to say "I can't talk about that subject, I am topic banned from it" if they approached by another editor, for instance. I also don't think we can police email unless it is a claim of abusive email. I see no authority in the admin bit that lets us do that. Welcoming new editors might look like skirting the ban, but we aren't mind readers and we don't have the authority to expand or modify the tban, which is very narrow in scope and community imposed. I suggest we close this without prejudice to it being moved to the proper venue. If I saw it there, I would still recommend no action be taken, btw, but that decision should be made there, or by the filing party here, who could choose to just not refile it at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Jytdog, the problem is that you are asking enforcement of a community ban, not an AE ban. at AE. If it was an AE ban, we could modify it or change it any way we felt was necessary (within Arb limits). Any of us, unilaterally. With a community ban, we absolutely can not do that, and usually you need to a consensus at AN/ANI to modify. So we have to enforce the ban "as is", and I see this as grey area. I DO see a problem, but I find it hard to press the button and own the action in a borderline case like this. That doesn't stop another admin, and I did ping the admin who blocked him before. Taking it to the community allows for clarification of the ban, adding to it, etc. Most of the time, if this is the wrong venue but the case is cut and dry (vandalism, socking, disruptive editing) then we just sanction as non-AE and move on, but this isn't so obvious, at least not to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were not blocked for mentioning their topic ban; they were blocked for messaging an editor related to the topic they're banned from. Everything in their message that I blocked for (petition, etc) had to do with acupuncture. An edit does not have to explicitly mention acupuncture to be about acupuncture, and we should not draw such a distinction to prevent gaming. The intent of the community was clearly to remove this editor entirely from the topic area, not for them to continue lobbying from the sidelines and via emails. If that's all the editor is doing, I'd recommend indeffing them with talk page access and email access revoked. Welcoming editors who share their POV, giving them advice about conflicts they've had related to the topic, and telling those editors to email them for more? We all know what's going on there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AE is still the wrong place to do it, and I would say that this case should probably go to a community discussion, if anywhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm basically agreeing with Dennis here. I can see the problem, but it's not one where I'm comfortable pulling the trigger on my own discretion. To me, this is enough of an edge case — unusual enough as a TBAN violation — that I'd want to see sort of consensus for action. So if someone feels willing to exercise their discretion over this, risking the consequences, then they should carry on. Otherwise, action is going to need broader discussion than is going to happen at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:Hyper9

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Hyper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Hyper9 (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Sanction being appealed User talk:Hyper9#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban This user (User:SpacemanSpiff) with administrative powers has applied sanctions on my WP account. Opaque warnings served on 16th June - User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert and on 1st July - User talk:Hyper9#Final warning

Administrator imposing the sanction: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notified. here

Statement by User:Hyper9

Reason for the appeal There has been a round of edit warring on the Chera_dynasty page. The two editors (one of whom was me) that were involved have used several rounds of edits to improve the page and a closely related one. Several rounds of discussion by the other editor and me were held on the Talk page, in the middle of which this Administrator chose to suddenly serve a 'Sanctions' warning. The next warning was served in a complete opaque manner and I immediately sought clarifications on what behaviour is being censured by the Admin - but there was no satisfactory response. Now, the sanctions have been imposed for an edit by me on the said page. The other warring editors have not responded on the Talk page for ONE week (after I even went to the length of providing screenshots of referenced pages) but have gone ahead with their disruptive edits and removed referenced/sourced content. I reverted this and all of a sudden the Sanctions were imposed on me. When I pointedly asked what is the action for which the sanction has been imposed - this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff) had no response (see Talk page end).

As with any edit warring - there are two parties involved. This Administrator has shown themselves to be highly biased in never ONCE censuring the other editor (with whom they regularly interact). I would also like to point out that the Administrator has been quite involved in the page in the past and I would hardly rule out the fact that they are imposing their own POVs on the content. A second reason for a conflict of interest is the fact that the page (and content) that is being disputed is about the area directly opposite their stated location on their User page - and appears to be wholly biased with regard to this topic regarding neighbouring geographies. This Admin has a clear conflict of interest in administrating this page and as a genuine contributor (the largest active contributor of the Chera_dynasty page), I would like to request this action to be revoked or reduced and another uninvolved administrator to look into future edits on this page.

I would also like, as a WP user and the largest contributing Editor of this page, to raise a formal complaint against this Administrator (User:SpacemanSpiff). I would like to record it here and if pointed out, will add it to any other place if needed. Hyper9 (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SpacemanSpiff

Firstly, I have explained the issues clearly as have other admins Doug Weller and RegentsPark who are both involved in the discussions at Talk:Chera dynasty. The problem is that Hyper9 clearly exhibits a WP:IDHT attitude here and keeps repeating the same thing again and again and people stop responding as it's already been addressed, if it's not WP:IDHT then it's a case of being unable to understand discussions or how the encyclopaedia works, in which case the sanction is too light. The user has been refusing to follow proper process of DR and continues to edit war, so I'm hoping that the limited topic ban will allow the user to edit other areas and learn the processes, policies, and guidelines of the encyclopaedia. Also, the allegation of WP:INVOLVED is nothing more than rubbish. THis isn't a case of two parties here, but multiple editors in good standing (and who edit this area) including Doug Weller, RegentsPark and Cpt.a.haddock have continued to engage with the editor. The problem started at Malayalam where the user was trying to push a particular school of though [17] and there was a back and forth between this user and Cpt.a.haddock, then the refusal to go through DR, though the user participated in DR afterwards. The DRN case closed with a resolution somewhat similar to the original state of the article with the addition of "it's a matter of dispute".

A similar situation is going on at Chera dynasty where there was an edit war between Hyper9 and Cpt.a.haddock. MelanieN protected the page and warned them both. Subsequently Doug Weller and RegentsPark joined the two editors in the discussions and edited the article based on that, but were consistently reverted by Hyper9 -- [18], [19], [20], [21]. All this has to be taken in the context of the talk page discussions and if one reads Talk:Chera_dynasty#Cheras_as_Malayalam_or_Tamil_speakers and other posts further down from there, consensus is that this is WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't belong, but Hyper9 has evaluated consensus for themselves that there's no synthesis and refuses to acknowledge that the other opinions hold (and the constant reverts on the article) and repeatedly says the same thing, which the others have stopped responding to as there's nothing new there.

I think this sanction is absolutely necessary at this point and would recommend against it being removed. —SpacemanSpiff 03:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot to include the refusal to participate in a DR for Chera dynasty, per the diff provided by Haddock below --[22]. —SpacemanSpiff 11:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cpt.a.haddock

I am one of the editors involved in this fracas. IMO, Hyper9 is a tendentious editor with a warped view of how Wikipedia or, for that matter, how scholarship works. He is yet to grasp the concepts of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:NPOV or more fundamentally, the idea that Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour.

In addition to the points made by SpacemanSpiff, I'd like to point out that after Hyper9's general disappointment with the DRN resolution on Malayalam, he refused to go through any moderated dispute resolution process for Chera dynasty and the second DRN which I'd opened, expired unanswered.

There have also been a number of personal attacks: "mindless editing", "whose name you can't even spell", etc. The latter attack was after RegentsPark informed Hyper9 that the consensus was against him and to self-revert. The revert never came.

I believe the topic-ban will help Hyper9 understand both how to behave and how to collaborate.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Hyper9

Result of the appeal by User:Hyper9

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

Endorse TBAN - I think one of the very reasons we have discretionary sanctions is to be able to deal with combative WP:SPAs swiftly and efficiently. This is one such case. User was appropriately warned (twice, including a final warning), and their TBAN was additionally explained to them plainly and clearly by Doug Weller, and Hyper9 needs to understand and accept that this TBAN includes their own talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal if only for procedural reasons, because Hyper9 does not support any of their difficult-to-understand assertions with evidence in the form of diffs. Sandstein 06:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline the appeal based on the merits. These was a problem, the solution was within admin discretion, nothing has changed since the TBAN was imposed. I would note the TBAN has already been violated on the talk page and somewhat on Talk:Chera dynasty after explaining they were TBANed. It should be expected that future breaches of the TBAN will likely result in them being blocked temporarily. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the topic ban. I read through the DRN about the origins of Malayalam and perceive that reasoning with User:Hyper9 is likely to exhaust anyone who tries. SpacemanSpiff's final warning (July 1) looks to be abundantly justified, but Hyper9 went right on regardless. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with EdJohnston: reasoning with Hyper9 looks very exhausting. We don't want constructive and knowledgeable editors to squander their time and energies on trying to contain problem editors; we want them to have some leisure to improve articles instead of endlessly arguing with those who don't listen. That's perhaps the most important reason we have discretionary sanctions at all. Endorse the ban. Bishonen | talk 19:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Playalake

Indef blocked as a standard admin action for not being here to build an encyclopedia, then CU linked as a sockpuppet. All non-AE actions, not logged. Closing as no AE action is needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:32, 16 July 2017 (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 Playalake

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Playalake (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions:

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

15:00, 4 January 2017 1st edit here; a talk page comment: he Change.org petition lists the many problems with this article. I come here and see you editors locking discussion about it. Now NICE is being accused of being problematic. NICE is made of scientists who the NHS takes recommendations from. If you editors want to be on the opposite side of scientific officials, and pretend to have a scientifically backed article, shame on you..
4 January 2017 opening 2nd thread after first one was closed. You editors prefer to censor questions than answer them. I won't bring up other websites, but my questions remain unanswered. How did Wikipedia cover NICE before they updated? And why is everyone here quick to update based on NICE, but not care to update many Cochrane Reviews?
4 January 2017 Response on their talk page, when I tried to explain what article Talk pages are for: You locked my questions then you deleted them. Everything I saw on the Change.org petition is correct. Not only do Wikipedia editors censor studies beneficial to acupuncture, you also censor discussion on talk pages. You tell me to add what I believe is correct to the article but there is no edit button for me to make changes. This is obvious. Only select editors like you with an obvious censorship problem edit the article, nobody else is allowed to edit. Shame.
6 January 2017 Thank you for this. These editors are very bad and you give good advice. I will set up my email.. This was Playalake's response to LesVegas' terrible initial welcome message (diff).
14 July 2017 Reverting an edit, with edit note: why does Wikipedia remove all positive statements on acupuncture? This is exactly what change.org accuses you of. Now you do it? Unbelievable
15 July 2017 reverting, with edit note RACIST EDITS! On talk page admits it's being removed because Wikipedia says if authors are Taiwanese then they are not following scientific proofs! RACISM!

Oh for pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and diff. 18 January 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Account is pure SPA. From their 1st edit here, this person made it clear that they had no interest in editing Wikipedia per the policies and guidelines, but came here to WP:RGW driven by a petition at change.org. They have never attempted to understand WP nor the policies and guidelines, and they are now just all-caps yelling personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice provided.

Discussion concerning Playalake

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 Playalake

All positive statements about acupuncture are removed from Wikipedia and only insults remain. They remove everything! Studies from great journals are deleted because they say the authors of those studies are Taiwanese! So any Asians are problems for Wikipedia? Asian scientists are incapable of proper science? I am Asian American and Wikipedia now wants me to be internment it seems! That is how you deal with all of us, by deleting all of us from your encyclopedia. I am offended by your policies and will fight to expose this. I found the unjust article from change.org where it is shown that Wikipedia doesn't follow its own policies because they want to hurt acupuncture. We will create many more petitions now!

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Playalake

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

A glance at Playalake's contributions show that they are a WP:GREATWRONGS WP:SPA here only to promote their point of view, and in a highly confrontative manner. Without admin objections, I intend to block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action, which probably obviates the need for AE sanctions. Sandstein 14:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with an indef block. The editor is practically waving a flag with WP:NOTHERE on it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to either block or topic ban this account the other day after I saw the edits made yesterday to this article and talk 1, 2, 3. This disruption wouldn't be tolerated on any article let alone an article under AC/DS... I agree that an indefinite block is justified here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser needed. We have had more problems with Acupuncture as of late, and this SPA is raising some serious red flags. Otherwise, I agree with with Sandstein's solution, but I think a Checkuser should at least look at this and decide if the CU tools would be beneficial and justified here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Playalake is now indeffed. Waiting for checkuser response before closing this. Sandstein 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In progress I'm assuming I'm checking Playalake, not comparing the user to any other user/account. If I'm wrong, someone please ping me and let me know. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Playalake is Confirmed to LesVegas (talk · contribs · count). Blocked and tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2017 (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: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 15 July 2017 (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:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum :

tl, dr: Debresser calls me (and Nishidani) anti-Jewish, i.e., racist. He does not retract this, even when asked multiple times.

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

21:47, 12 July 2017 I suggest naming a period Hellenistic period
21:52, 12 July 2017 Nishidani agrees
16:26, 13 July 2017 Debresser writes: "I would have no problem with that suggestion, but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp."
16:35, 13 July 2017 Nishidani writes: "I'd appreciate you striking out your remark above about 'editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp.' Contextually this says the two other editors here discussing this issue are in an 'anti-Jewish camp', i.e. their contributions are being read as motivated by anti-Semitic hostilities."
16:42, 13 July 2017 Debresser strikes: ~~who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish camp~~
16:13, 14 July 2017 Debresser restores: "but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

3 April 2017 last block

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:14, 13 June 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After 16:13, 14 July 2017 Debresser has had several requests to strike the anti-Jewish comment. He has not done so. I consider this extremely insulting, in my country to call someone anti-Jewish is basically saying that they are racist. I ask that Debresser either

1. show how I am anti-Jewish, or
2. strike the comment and apologise, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Noted

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

Nishidani is only back from his latest month-long ban since July 12, although he had promised to retire,I'll retire from Wikipedia.Waiting for it to be archived so I can put in a permalink, and then goodbye and already he has managed to escalate what has been a very quiet WP:ARBPIA area for the last month. I will not hide that I am less than thrilled about his return, and for good reason. That, however, is not a crime, and should not be held against me. This post is likely some kind of payback for that ban.

Regarding Huldra. She can hardly be said to have clean hands herself, see [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive958#Huldra.27s_.22ce.22 his WP:ANI thread], where she was shown to hide POV edits behind the innocent "ce" edit summary. If that is bad editing in general, in the WP:ARBPIA area this is reason for sanctions. Please also see User_talk:Black_Kite, where Black Kite mentions that this is indeed a WP:AE issue. Per WP:BOOMERANG, Huldra should be sanctioned for making such misleading and POV edits in the WP:ARBPIA area, and then having the gall to report me.

What it is I am being accused of precisely? I saw 6 edit summaries above, of which the first is Huldra's, and another two are Nishidani's. By the way, I already stated more than once on the talkpage, that I have no problem with Huldra's proposal.

All I said which seems to have struck the wrong note with Huldra, is that the agreement of only a few editors is too feeble, and that I would like some outside input. Seeing the same group of editors time and time again, and noticing that they always agree with each other, makes one suspicious of team work, and so I felt that asking for outside input was the right thing to do. Surely that is reasonable. Regarding team work, please notice this, and see also the comment of another editor here, so I think some suspicion is not out of order, and asking for outside input is always a good idea. Debresser (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Debresser

Based on Huldra's "additional comments", I now see that she has taken offense to the fact that I asked for input from editors who are not "anti-Jewish/Israeli". Contrary to what she claims, I did not call her "racist" or "anti-Semite". All I did was notice, that her stance on the Israeli-Palestine conflict is such which shows her to be on the Palestine side of these political matters. As a matter of fact, I have not mentioned any editor by name, and she has decided herself that the shoe fits.

As a matter of fact, I had first written "anti-Jewish", and when Nisdani asked me to strike that, I did so, precisely because I meant the political side of things and "anti-Jewish" has another connotation than the one I had in mind. When I later had time for further consideration, I added "/Israeli", to clarify that I meant the political issue only. I am surprised that Huldra has ignored that clarification of mine, and is using the old version as an excuse to open this WP:AE post. I think that my subsequent commentaries on the talkpage in that section make it sufficiently clear that I had only the political issue in mind, nothing more. Whether Huldra has misread om good faith, is anybody's guess, although I think that in view of the WP:ANI thread just a few days ago in which I showed her to be hiding POV edits under misleading edit summaries, there is place for doubt in this regard. All cries here and elsewhere as though I called somebody anti-Semitic, are baseless and obvious attempts by the usual editors at discrediting me. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

This basically amounts to "I would have no problem with that but I can only reach consensus with people who are pro-Jewish"—after that stunning admission, I think a significant TBAN would be appropriate, as it pretty clearly indicates an unwillingness to collaborate with editors who he perceives have a different POV from his own, the only "acceptable" POV. I would at least want to see a statement from the editor acknowledging that the he understands why this is a problem, and a commitment to sincerely engage the consensus process with all editors and not canvas for editors with a particular POV. (Posting to Wikiprojects seeking expertise is OK, but I don't think posting to Wikiprojects looking for editors with a particular POV is ok.) Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Power~enwiki

Regarding the specific content dispute: I'm not sure that this neighborhood should be portrayed as having an independent history from East Jerusalem. Regarding the editors involved; they might all need a topic-ban based on the continuing hostility at Talk:Shuafat. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note a recent AN/I thread involving these editors that had no action. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

That a user takes a request to strike a baseless personal attack, that one is antisemitic (and yes Debresser that is generally taken as a synonym of anti-Jewish) to continue with another personal attack that they are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, is somewhat bizarre. That this very user has repeatedly complained about personal attacks and civility, including recently at this very board, in which he said of Nishidani that he has a habit of putting down his fellow editors, making denigrating comments about them, makes that a rather blatant example of cognitive dissonance. Debresser repeatedly denigrates other editors, and he routinely fails to abide by the basic principle of WP:NPA that one comments on content, not on the contributors, and he does this on talk pages and it disrupts good faith editing. Debresser has requested others be banned for much less blatant personal attacks than calling one an antisemite, what's good for the goose ... nableezy - 04:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I have come back after a month’s suspension to edit the I/P area after this judgement, brought by Debresser. While surprised by that judgement, as is my rule, I did not contest it. On returning I undertook to strictly conform to the rules I was judged to have violated.

Stating I intended to resume work here immediately generated a comment by Debresser, itself innocuous.noting my return as though it were newsworthy, he then added that I had failed to live up to my word not to return. This elicited a sneering comment by the editor he linked to. That is the background.

(1) I started to work on the article on Shuafat. Debresser immediately took my presence there as evidence I was angling to clash with him. Apart from the needless WP:AGF violation imputing to me that I was seeking a pretext to attack him, the assertion is demonstrably counterfactual. Since 2008, I have edited the Shuafat page 23 times whereas Debresser has made just 6 edits since May 2016. Likewise I have made 67 edits to the talk page (42.14% of the total) and Debresser only appeared there after I advanced a proposal. If one must make an inference it would be that, upset by my return, Debresser followed me to that page and sought a confrontation, accusing me of seeking one. He repeats this in his first reply above, accusing me of doing what I think he did, 'escalating' things. Indeed.

I made a single edit, introducing the most recent scholarly source I could find to clarify an issue and Debresser immediately rewrote my wording, in a way that was openly provocative. I can take any amount of niggling, but I am extremely impatient with source falsification. His edit summary falsified the facts, since it denied the source used the words ‘no longer’. The source uses those words twice. Falsifying a source is a very serious thing, or used to be considered so. Interfering with my first edit on blatantly false grounds looks provocative. I raised the issue of source falsification on the talk page, asking D for an explanation.

Debresser answered with a personal attack accusing me of engaging in WP:DRAMA, and he ignored clarifying the point and simply told me to to shut up (‘be quiet for a while!.’.

(2)I went to the Archaeology of Israel page. There was an old problem there. 2 editors, myself and User:Poliocretes were in favour of mentioning a third of the artifacts dug up in that field annually are Christian. Debresser alone has reverted all efforts to add the item. To resolve this old problem, I set up an RfC for external comment. I noted – it is verifiable on the talk page – that despite 2 editors being in favour and only Debresser opposed – he kept reverting it off the page. Hence my request for external imput. Debresser’s reaction was to personalize this,also here andhere by citing a statement regarding the edit on this by User:GoldenRing at AE which earned me a suspension, as if that remark evened opinion to 2/2. I put up an RfC to resolve a conflict, and Debresser kept on referring to that AE suspension, as if it invalidated my proposal, and the RfC.

(3) Soon after, as I tried to keep the argument focused, Debresser expressed diffidence about my whole outlook as an editor by insinuating I and the other editor were anti-semitic. That is one strong implication of referring to an 'anti-Jewish camp' on that page. It cannot refer to anyone else.

This was duly retracted at my request, signifying D realized it was inappropriate. A day later however, disconcertingly, he retracted his retraction here andfinissed it with a variation adding anti-Israeli as a further innuendo. For the record the article on Antisemitism uses the word ‘anti-Jewish’ as synonymous with anti-semitic.

I asked the editor to strike out the offensive smear again. I also held off from Friday to late Saturday from raising this issue in consideration of the Sabbath, intervened to ask Huldra to give Debresser more time, and requested an indisputably neutral and level-headed I/P hand, Kingsindian to put in a word with Debresser to erase the offensive remark. Unfortunately, as I discovered this morning, it was too late.

To sum up, Debresser, challenging my return, followed me to Shuafat and falsified the source I used while messing up the text and (2) started baiting me about my putative 'anti-Jewish' attitude, admitted it should be retracted, then reinserted the offending words, and added 'anti-israel' as well, and refused to budge on the issue when asked to cancel the offensive language. It is, in both cases I believe, evidence of the WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT approach identified by Lord Roem a year ago. Nishidani (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I confirmed that Nishidani's claim of "source falsification" is correct. Debresser changed the meaning of Nishidani's edit five minutes after Nishidani made it, using edit summary 'The source does not say "no longer", just states a different opinion'. The source ([23]) uses "no longer" twice in the first paragraph, and it unequivocally sums up current knowledge, overturning an earlier finding from 1993 that was based on "general information". Describing that merely as a "different opinion" is highly misleading, and summarizing the source as "Others do not consider" falsifies what the source said. Standard procedure would be for Debresser to ask at WP:RSN about the reliablity of the source, a scholarly overview published in 2013 by Brill Publishers and written by Professor Rachel Hachlili from the Zinman Institute of Archaeology at the University of Haifa. Moreover, Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary shows unacceptable aggression from Debresser. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2017 (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.

The request is actionable. In calling another editor "anti-Jewish", which means the same as "anti-semitic", Debresser has personally attacked them, without providing, even when challenged here, appropriate evidence for such a charge. In addition, by insisting here that they meant to accuse the other editor of a political bias against Israel (for which they also do not provide evidence), they conflate opposition to Israel and opposition to Jews. Editors must comment on content, not on the contributor (WP:NPA). Such conduct is not acceptable, particular in this sensitive topic area. Considering Debresser's long list of blocks in this topic area, and a previous topic ban in July 2016, I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban. - As to the "source falsification" issue, the discussion at Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary indicates that this is probably more of a content dispute than a conduct issue, but there also Debresser uses a dismissive, aggressive tone ("be quiet for a while!"), which is also entirely inappropriate for a collegial, collaborative scholarly project such as ours. Sandstein 12:05, 16 July 2017 (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 689: / Line 689: @@
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+* The request is actionable. In calling another editor "anti-Jewish", which means the same as "anti-semitic", Debresser has personally attacked them, without providing, even when challenged here, appropriate evidence for such a charge. In addition, by insisting here that they meant to accuse the other editor of a political bias against Israel (for which they also do not provide evidence), they conflate opposition to Israel and opposition to Jews. Editors must comment on content, not on the contributor ([[WP:NPA]]). Such conduct is not acceptable, particular in this sensitive topic area. Considering Debresser's long list of blocks in this topic area, and a previous topic ban in July 2016, I intend to impose an indefinite topic ban. - As to the "source falsification" issue, the discussion at [[Talk:Shuafat#False edit summary]] indicates that this is probably more of a content dispute than a conduct issue, but there also Debresser uses a dismissive, aggressive tone ("[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shuafat&diff=prev&oldid=790297677 be quiet for a while!]"), which is also entirely inappropriate for a collegial, collaborative scholarly project such as ours. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</font>]]</span></small> 12:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
-*

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