Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:39, 17 October 2016

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

MShabazz

No action taken at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning MShabazz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: MShabazz (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

WP:1RR; WP:GAMING; WP:EDITWAR

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

2016-09-23T20:53:03 MShabazz REVERT 1.1 MShabazz raised COPYVIO issue, however, aside from that, he also: 1) deleted RS quote directly from the Tennessee resolution condemning BDS; 2) deleted RS quote from Tennessee resolution reaffirming support for Israel; 3) deleted RS anti-BDS/pro-Israel quotes from Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding NY’s anti-BDS resolution.
2016-09-23T20:54:23 MShabazz REVERT 1.2 MShabazz 1) deleted RS Jon Bon Jovi anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote; 2) deleted RS Howard Stern anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote
2016-09-23T20:55:43 MShabazz REVERT 1.3 MShabazz deleted RS Alan Dershowitz’s 10 points why BDS is immoral.
2016-09-23T20:56:37 MShabazz REVERT 1.4 MShabazz 1) deleted the RS quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S."; 2) deleted RS quote by the UAW executive committee.
2016-09-24T12:30:35 GHcool reverted M.Shabazz
2016-09-25T00:27:11 MShabazz REVERT 2.0 Just outside 27 hours.
2016-09-25T02:02:48 Kamel Tebaast reverted MShabazz
2016-09-25T04:33:30 MShabazz REVERT 3.0 Four hours after second revert; approximately 31 hours after first revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Unaware

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict [1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MShabazz made three reverts in the BDS article under WP:1RR. His first edit alluded to two COPYVIOs. Those edits were questionable, at best, not "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Regardless, this is not whether or not those edits were WP:COPYVIOs, but whether MShabazz's subsequent reverts violated the 1RR. Does MShabazz, or any editor, have carte blanche to revert at will in a 1RR-protected article while using WP:COPYVIO as a safety net? For the sake of argument, let's assume that both edits were in fact COPYVIOs. MShabazz gamed the system by creating an umbrella with WP:COPYVIO, thus enabling him to delete properly sourced text while violating the WP:1RR in order to push his anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian nationalism POV.

MShabazz's reverts were clear, and once he was reverted twice, it was he who should have tried to gain consensus in Talk, not those who reverted him. MShabazz used buzzwords like "cleaning fluff", but his cleaning was obviously and pointedly removing only from the Opposition to BDS section. There were many quotes and quantifiers that MShabazz passed over in his zeal to cut fluff from everything pro-Israel. A few examples:

MShabazz "cut the fluff" from the quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S.", but he did not cut the fluff that the UK's National Union of Teachers is "the largest teacher's union in the EU" or that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux represents "325,000 in nearly 2,000 unions"
He "cut the fluff" by taking out Governor Cuomo's quote and the Tennessee legislature's anti-BDS quotes, but he left in the African National Congress' pro-BDS quote.

Even assuming that both edits were WP:COPYVIO, MShabazz still made many POV-pushing reverts, specifically deleting RS quotes from Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, Gov. Cuomo, the Tennessee anti-BDS legislation, and all of Alan Dershowitz's 10 reasons that BDS is immoral.

If MShabazz was truly concerned about COPYVIOs, then he could have reverted only those edits and not violated the 1RR. He didn't. He added his cut and paste objections with all of his other controversial edits that two editors reverted, then he arrogantly reverted a THIRD time, just four hours following his second revert.

Following is input by two uninvolved editors who knew nothing about the background or participants, but only based on a hypothetical question regarding WP:1RR and WP:COPYVIO:

Uninvolved Editor #1:

The only clearly stated exception is in WP:3RR, and my opinion (as just another editor) is that the exception only applies to the actual copyrighted content (with possibly some minimal margin around the edges to facilitate a clean excision). Removing other substantial good faith edits in addition to the copyvio seems like something best avoided to me, in general. This advice is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed.

Uninvolved Editor #2:

"...Of course, that exception only applies to the copyrighted material itself."

MShabazz should be sanctioned for gaming the system, two reverts just after the 24-hour period, and a third revert just four hours later, totaling three reverts in about 30 hours. Kamel Tebaast 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Per MShabazz, the possible COPYVIO was not Dershowitz, but only what was stated previously. But again, the COPYVIO is not the issue. And thank you for your clarity: "Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted..." Kamel Tebaast 16:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: What you're missing is that I was the second editor to revert MShabazz. User:GHcool was the first. Anyway, keep fishing with a red herring. Kamel Tebaast 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy:

My 500th edit celebration is old news. Too bad you missed my 1,000 edit party!
Yes, since MShabazz was schooling me on COPYVIOs, I wanted to learn from the master himself. And whaddaya know, I found MShabazz's edits with equal or more copying and pasting than the ones he cited as COPYVIOs. Can't blame an editor for wanting to learn.
Isn't Nableezy past his word limit, yet? Kamel Tebaast 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: With much respect to you, I disagree completely with your comment that MShabazz's reverts "of material that violated WP:COPYVIO" may have been "unintended". It seems clear that you did not review his reverts or his aggressive attitude that laced his summaries. Or MShabazz's sarcastic edit here. For an ex-admin with more than 100,000 edits who lives by reverting primarily pro-Israel editors (with less than 30/500), his were not "good faith mistakes". Giving MShabazz a warning is laughable. He should be severely sanctioned. Kamel Tebaast 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: You filed a complaint above for Nishididani being uncivil by, among other things, saying to stop "drifting", but MShabazz calling me a "genius" is not sarcastic? And that I'm "cancer on Wikipedia" is a compliment? Please, speak to his three reverts OUTSIDE of the COPYVIOs. Kamel Tebaast 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: I that do bring the news made not the match. Your silence [of MShabazz's reverts] is the perfect herald of joy. <--COPYVIO? Kamel Tebaast 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations?
- Malik Shabazz: In 2002, Prime Minister Said Musa of Belize asked Shabazz to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to represent Belize internationally in perpetuity.
- Source: In 2002, he appointed her as the Ambassador-at-Large representing the country of Belize internationally and in perpetuity.

Is there much difference between the edits below, as pointed out by MShabazz as being COPYVIOs, and his edit above from the Attallah Shabazz page? Kamel Tebaast 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please note: I knew the attacks against me would be fierce. But I had little idea...I wasn't even prepared... and I'm actually stunned, that the usual suspects would not utter one word in defense of MShabazz's 1RR violation, other than attacking me. As I already discussed, begin with the assumption that my edits were COPYVIOs. That does not negate any of MShabazz's many violations. Kamel Tebaast 01:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordsmith: This "reeks" of partisan bias at the highest level. Pointedly, discrimination against anything pro-Israel. This complaint is NOT connected in any manner to the prior complaint; it should not be unilaterally entombed. If the "1RR issue is technically correct", then you should technically sanction MShabazz.

MShabazz expands great effort threatening others and even taunting editors to file complaints against him. Here are just a few examples (one, ironically, concerning 1RR and COPYVIO!!!):

[2] On this very issue MShabazz who violated the 1RR threatened user:GHcool

[3] "If either of you two geniuses would like to try your novel interpretation of 1RR at WP:ANEW or WP:AE, please be my guest."

[4] "...report me or kindly shut the fuck up."

[5] "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE"

MShabazz got exactly what he asked for.

With regard to your statement connecting to Nishidani's irrelevant argument that there have been a lot of great contributions, do you really want to open that can? [Nableezy's article was in 2010. According to others (and from what I've seen in my short time), for the past six years, he has been one of the most aggressive editors to uphold Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel.] This isn't about the positive. Stop the Wikiwashing! This is about MShabazz clearly and "technically" violating the 1RR. He should be sanctioned.

Because of Shabbat / Shabbos / Sabbath, I won't be able to respond for another day. Kamel Tebaast 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: @Zero0000: @Kingsindian: @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thank you for joining the chorus of obfuscators. That each of you made this a POV issue rather than writing one word regarding Malik Shabazz's policy violation strengthens the complaint.

@Lankiveil: Most everyone who weighed in on the 1RR (opposed to obfuscating the issue) actually concurred that only COPYVIO content can be reverted. Even Wordsmith wrote: "The 1RR issue is technically correct..." Maybe the wall of text "appears" to be a settling of scores, but the 1RR violation should not be negated. Kamel Tebaast 01:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning MShabazz

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 MShabazz

I will prepare a more complete response later, when I have access to my computer (I'm currently editing on my phone). For all his bluster, Kemal Tebaast is belly-aching because (1) he copied and pasted two paragraphs from his sources and got caught (no, I'm not referring to the excessive quotation of the sources, but copying and pasting unattributed text) and (2) I pay closer attention to new additions to an article than material that's already there. Diffs and links to follow. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations
- Kamel Tebaast: In April 2015, with bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.
- Source: With strong bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and the worldwide increase in anti-Semitism.
- Kamel Tebaast: In June 2016, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, ordered his agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with the "Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel".
- Source: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.
- These are in addition to his excessive quotation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that this nonsense be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer, who has been harassing me. I removed nothing of any substance from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and he cannot claim I did. He is casting aspersions, making baseless (and untrue) accusations about my political views, and this is the second time in two months he has made an unfounded complaint against me on this page. Enough is enough. He is a cancer on Wikipedia, and the sooner he is removed the better. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't have any evidence in this case so I can't comment on this specific case, but Malik Shabazz and his alternate account is one of the reasons why I am starting to stay away from the IP area. He needs to be warned to be less aggressive and less of a WP:OWN. His usual first line of conversation is to threaten AE or AN/I action. He is extremely uncivil and it does need to stop.

Statement by Masem

Only commenting on the COPYVIO aspect: I don't see the removal as being within COPYVIO - text is quoted and attributed to a proper inline source. There may be issues with the amount of text used which falls under other policy considerations, as well as editoral consensus if the quoted material adds that much to the article, but none of those reasons would fall under a 1RR exemption. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, there is a difference between what COPYVIO calls for - which is primarily of unattributed text is used directly and which should be removed on sight - compared to WP:COPYQUOTE - which does warn about took much "fair use" copytaking and requires a more careful discourse but does not require immediate removal barring blatent problems (100% copy-taking for example). COPYVIO allows for 1RR exemptions, COPYQUOTE doesn't (this is because COPYQUOTE issues can be smoothed out readily with editorial consensus). I do agree that restoring information removed under a wrongly applied COPYVIO edit summary is also not an exemption to 1RR (eg if MShabazz first removed and Kamel restored, any further action on the text in question by either would violate 1RR, and instead talk page discussion should occur). --MASEM (t) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Something should really be done about "editors" who restore things that are specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy (copyright violations, BLP violations). WP:COPYVIO: Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. @Masem: the amount of material copied is what potentially makes it a copyright violation. And even if it is not a copyright violation, there was clearly a good faith concern about it being so, and that should stop people from simply restoring it, as here. The material from Alan Dershowitz in a copyrighted publication (Haaretz) has nearly one fifth of its content copied here word for word. Attribution does not in any way alleviate that issue. Now Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted, but Kamel Tebaast routinely disregards prohibitions on restoring material that open Wikipedia up to legal action. And that should be dealt with. Not to mention the generally low quality and blatant POV-pushing in his or her edits, but that can be discussed another time. nableezy - 16:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually is the issue that Malik raised in his edit summary, and you, with your typical belligerence, ignored to restore. That should be sanctioned. nableezy - 17:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he should not have reverted everything else, even if your reverts were improper. A warning to limit revert rule exceptions to what is excepted could be issued in my view. You on the other hand, your edits in this topic area have been uniformly bad. They have been POV-pushes so extreme that they should make most editors ashamed at an encyclopedia article containing such nonsense, they have restored copyright violations, and in your short time here you have become one of the more annoying wikilawyers. I just havent had the time or inclination to go through all of the things that should cause an administrator serious about having encyclopedia articles that adhere to the core policies of this website to topic ban you. This little bit of bad faith exercise however may have changed my mind on the inclination part of it. nableezy - 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I am not a lawyer and will, and have, step aside on the topic of what is or is not a copyright violation to the experts on that topic that we have here (Moonriddengirl being one). But WP:COPYVIO says this: However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The amount copied in the diff that Malik removed was not a "brief quotation", all of the material was copyrighted, and at the very least he raised a good faith concern on the material being a copyright violation. He should have raised that issue on various noticeboards, but when somebody gives a good faith concern about whether or not material can legally be hosted on our webpages that should end the reverts to include it until it established that it is not a copyright violation. Kamel Tebaast focused on oh I havent reverted in 24 hours and he has so I can push this back into the article and he cant stop me, despite a good faith objection of a copyright violation. That shouldnt go unanswered. nableezy - 18:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an example of bad faith editing. Kamel Tebaast complains about being reverted on copying 20% of a copyrighted source and then restores it. So what does Kamel Tebaast do? Hound Malik to a a page with one minor edit by anybody not the person he is in a conflict with to try to turn the tables on Malik. That is exactly the type of bad faith lawyering Kamel Tebaast has been involved in throughout his or her short stint since celebrating their 500th edit that allowed them to edit in this topic area. These are not the editors that create NPOV, RS based encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 19:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I collapsed the rest of the section because Kamel Tebaast's last statement should really be examined. There have been a number of accounts that have recently made clear their objective to make articles here "pro-Israel". Not "NPOV", but "pro-Israel". Anything that does not adhere to a fairly right-wing Israeli viewpoint is "anti-Israel". And to be completely blunt, there are nearly no "pro-Palestinian" editors in the way that there are "pro-Israel" ones. There very much are editors that do not edit with a "pro-Israel" POV, and I count myself as one of them, but if we are being fair here those editors' POV is an international one if anything. One that reflects an international consensus, among states and reliable sources, on certain topics, eg that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, that the Golan Heights is in Syria, that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement and not simply an Israeli town. Editors such as Kamel will take including these super-majority views in articles as evidence of "supporting Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel". No, Im sorry, but thats bs. The opposing POV to Kamel's quite clear one is one that would edit that Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine. We have editors that will in the narrative voice of Wikipedia include things cited to the views of extremist settler groups. We have nothing like that on the opposing side. Nobody will take a statement from some Hamas official and include it as anything other than a Hamas official, but to the editors like Kamel that itself is "attacking anything pro-Israel". These editors are not here to create an encyclopedia. They are here to turn these pages in to propaganda. They make their intention as clear as day to anybody willing to pay even the littlest bit of attention. And yall should really do something about it. Kamel Tebaast has repeatedly announced his intention to propagandize on these pages, loudly and clearly. If ever there were a more blatant example of somebody waving a WP:NOTHERE sign I surely have not seen it. He or she is here to antagonize editors he or she identifies as "anti-Israel" and to slant articles to a "pro-Israel" POV. nableezy - 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I just want to raise the possibility that the removal of additional material, exceeding the revert of material that violated WP:COPYVIO, was unintended. Sometimes a revert catches too much. No need to slam him with (another) WP:AE for such minor things, which can easily be seen as good faith mistakes. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamel Tebaast I see no "aggressive attitude" from Malik, and his so-called "sarcastic" commentary was not only sarcastic but also correct per standing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did see that he admitted to removing "fluff and bloat", which is something I can only appreciate. All in all I stand by my opinion that Malik's edits were good faith improvements. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kablammo

Attribution does not correct a copyright violation. Where material is quoted verbatim, it must be clear from the text that the words are those of another. Without quote marks or similar indicia that the text is the words of another, verbatim or near-verbatim text is a copyright violation, and should be removed. And the editor who inserted the text should be the one to separate the copyrighted material from the rest of the edit. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

The recent surge in reports here is troublesome. We are supposed to be constructing articles, not bickering. Shabazz recently gave us a neat page on Attallah Shabazz; Nableezy brought the Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality etc. It's about time, I think, that one begin to look into the contribs of plaintiffs, while assessing these complaints, to see whether they have a constructive interest in building Wikipedia, or are just here on a mission, or for entertainment, or drama, whatever. No one can work quietly on if every edit is contested by swarming, and everything one does is parsed for a fatal whiff of sanctionable error, ending up in arbitration every other day. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KT. As to your notification to me to respond to your post accusing me of teaming up with the 'obfuscators', no reply.

NMMGG. There are actually quite a few editors on all sides who get things done whatever our differences, and don't just sit on pages carping to exhaustion, trying to extract more and more 'concessions' after two reasonable compromises have been made on one word. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And making just one more attack list of my putative endemic malpractices as an editor is again the umpteenth use of a talk page to sneer at or disniss my bona fides. Document it or drop it. It might help if you examined your contribs for the last 3 years to see if you are actually doing anything constructive here, other than reverting and bickering.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing any of us say, NMMGG, is 'the truth' in absolute terms. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Due, WP:SYNTH are waved and flagged over most contested edits, a discussion emerges, the niceties examined. No one has papal infallibility here, neither you nor I, since discussion shows how labile many of our otherwise competent judgements can be when subject to wider external review. If as you have repeatedly been saying for at least four years, all of my editing in the I/P is personally informed by intellectual dishonesty and, though I can't recall the diff, you think one of your purposes here is to keep me 'honest' then those editors who do not find my editing particularly problematical are either intellectually dishonest by association or are being duped by me. Remember, 99% of the reverts of my edits are made exclusively here, and, since my procedure is overwhelmingly to introduce academic citations that pass the highest RS high bar, the problem may not my editing, fallible as it may be at times, but distaste for what those sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the other diff, NMMGG. I would underwrite every word I wrote there. I derive my knowledge of the Middle East from Israeli or diaspora scholarship, predominantly. Nothing I say on a talk page, has not been more eloquently or eruditely put than what I find in those sources, and, if citing it means some in here, unfamiliar with this tradition of scholarship, taunt me as an anti-Semite (a goy who hates Jews) then it's a paradox, but one I can live with. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Unfortunately, Nableezy's description of the state of editing in the I/P area is quite correct. Zero^talk 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I concur with Nableezy's statement. And I am not totally happy with TheWordsmith's comment in the last case about "civility". The problem is not "incivility", the problem is (some) people trying to push POV in an unreasonable manner. Everyone has a POV, but some are willing to be fair about the actual facts of the matter, while others are simply there to push propaganda.

In my view, a lot of what goes on in this area is unavoidable. Long, interminable political discussion inevitably leads to (some) bad faith and incivility. I get angry at even my friends and relatives during discussions involving religion and politics; internet discussion with strangers are even worse. People who are committed to improving the encyclopedia manage to find a way in spite of this. The way to handle it from the outside is to look at the totality of the discussion and see whether the parties are making a good faith and knowledgeable effort at a solution which remains close to the facts. Incivility is a red herring.

I think Wikipedia's civility policy is broken in general. Nobody is opposed to civility in general, the issue is how it is used to take out opponents. But that's a rant for another time and venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malik should strike the "cancer" comment. Kamel Tebaast in wrong on everything else. The issue is not WP:1RR because content which is removed on a good-faith basis of copyvio is exempt from 1RR. There should ideally be some discussion on the talk page and some rephrasing to fix it. The insistence of Kamel Tebaast to see everything through a "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" lens is the main problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy

Regretfully, Nableezy's statement is very accurate. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also regretfully, Nishidani's statements are correct. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Malik Shabazz that this is a case of Boomerang against Kamel Tabaast (KT). In my view, a (short-term, temporary) topic ban on KT would be good for the project, as well as good for KT's future prospects on WP (given that KT is a relative newcomer to the project).

I think Malik is a great editor who works tirelessly to ensure that content, contributed by Malik himself and others, always complies with WP policies. I strongly support Malik in his good work. However, in my view describing KT as 'cancer' is far too strong, and Malik should strike it out - from my perspective it appears to be a PA on KT, and does not help in moving the discussion forward towards a resolution. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I'm really enjoying the group of like minded editors congratulating themselves on their neutrality while lamenting the POV pushing of the people they disagree with. The lack of introspection could be amusing, if I didn't think they were serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, unfortunately everything I said in that diff you posted is true, and I'd be happy to document it if the need arises. On that very page you deliberately misquoted policy as you were wikilawyering to keep UNDUE material in the article. I know you are very proud of the fact you write content, and think that should give you special status. Unfortunately you are very much emotionally invested in the topics you write about, and regularly violate NPOV. For this encyclopedia to be neutral, it needs editors to find where neutrality is violated. That's what I like to do. It's allowed. Get over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, thanks for reminding me that you think that "editors like [you] tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale". [6] I completely forgot about that little gem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MShabazz

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

The 1RR issue is technically correct, but we shouldn't be restoring a potential copyvio anyway until there has been discussion about whether it is or is not a violation. This reeks of people attempting to have their ideological opponents sanctioned (like most ARBPIA requests seem to be). That doesn't make me happy. Since this request was filed before I closed the one above as a warning to all parties, I'd be inclined to roll it into that warning. I'll leave this case open for a few days to solicit additional input, but I'm not inclined to take strong action here. As some have pointed out, a lot of you have great contributions to the project. I strongly advise you to continue contributing and stop trying to have each other banned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read this entire wall of text, but the WP:3RR policy makes an allowance for additional reverts to "Removal of clear copyright violations". If the text in question was a copyvio that was being restored to the article, there is no real problem here. This whole report to me appears to be an ideologically motivated settling of scores, which is not what this place is for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Simert Ove

Two editors blocked for 1RR violation; EC protection applied to Israel Shahak by another admin. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Simert Ove

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :

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

03:14, 6 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
01:02, 7 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
05:23, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
22:20, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite a notification about the discretionary sanctions, this editor persists in edit-warring to make a POV addition to an article on a controversial person. Edit summaries and knowledge of Wikipedia suggest very strongly that this is not actually a new account but a sock (possibly of a blocked user).

In response to Ryk72, when attempting to edit this page a big arbitration notice appears, setting out who is allowed to edit the page. It could hardly be more obvious! In addition, anyone editing in this area will know immediately that Israel Shahak was a contentious character, and that dispute over his writings is inexorably linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It should also be obvious that Simert Ove is not a new editor, but a (probably block-evading) sock of someone already involved in editing here.; The merits of edits by Chas. Caltrop are not at issue here. Whether they are good or bad can be discussed in the article talk page; but this editor is permitted to edit here, and Simert Ove's repeated claim to the contrary is untrue. Simert Ove is an edit-warring editor excluded from this page, likely a sock of a blocked user, and shows no sign of stopping this disruptive behaviour. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Simert Ove

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 Simert Ove

Despite your selective bias, Chas. Caltrop (talk) is not allowed to edit those articles either, let alone violating NPOV policy every time.--Simert Ove (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

On 9 October, Simert Ove reverted three times at Israel Shahak — an article she/he is not permitted to edit at all. Request a block or protection of the article to prevent ongoing and future disruption. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

Overall, this request is better handled by requesting page protection at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard.

On initial inspection, it is not immediately obvious that the biographical article Israel Shahak is covered by the WP:ARBPIA ruling. It is immediately obvious that there has been no Talk page discussion of the significant changes made to that article by Chas. Caltrop, and that their edits appear troubling. See: Example 1 which re-reverts to include changes that fail WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV & WP:LABEL at even a cursory inspection. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: There is an excellent technical implementation of Extended Confirmed Protection (500/30), which provides the best method for ensuring compliance with the ARBPIA ruling. Editors were better to avail themselves of it than file requests about individual editors here. This is not an indictment on this filing; rather a recommendation for improved resolution of future issues. I note that Malik Shabazz has made such a request, thank them for it, and note that ECP has been implemented.
Edit notices are largely not worth the pixels they are printed on; their service mostly in providing evidence of malfeasance in the absence of their being followed; the vast majority of editors scroll down to the edit box and carry on blithely.
As to the edits of Chas. Caltrop on that page: if any editor is more concerned about another editor's edit count, and compliance with ARBPIA, than they are concerned to ensure compliance with core content policy, NPOV, then they should have a long, hard look at themselves. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I completely agree with Ryk72. This can be handled in a simpler way. WP:AE should be a last resort. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Simert Ove

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

A reading of the article should explain why it has been marked with the ARBPIA template on its talk page. I would recommend 24-hour blocks for both Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs) and Simert Ove (talk · contribs) for 1RR violation. The 1RR notice has been on the talk page for more than a year. The issue of new editors trying to edit an ARBPIA article has been handled by User:Vanamonde93 who has applied 30-500 protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be inclined to close this with a simple 24-hour block for both users. I'll leave it open a little longer in case of further comments. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain where Chas. Caltrop breached 1RR here? I understood that reversion of IPs or non-permitted editors was exempt from the 1RR rule. RolandR (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Tebaast

Editor indefinitely blocked and indefinitely topic banned from PIA. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Kamel Tebaast

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kamel Tebaast (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#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, 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

19:12, 10 October 2016 See below
19:17, 10 October 2016 See below

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 day topic ban on 13 August 2016

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

Opened an enforcement request still on this page
Given a topic ban by Lord Roem on 13 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I wrote above in the enforcement request that Kamel Tebaast opened about how this user has been waving a WP:NOTHERE flag since they got here. This example should make that crystal clear. In a dispute about a comparison between the Hamas charter and the Likud part platform (Hamas being a Palestinian group and Likud an Israeli political party), Kamel Tebaast has flagrantly disrupted Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point (I say attempt because the two things are so dissimilar in terms of sourcing). He or she has vandalized the article on Bill Clinton to include his or her own view that a law signed by Clinton is similar to what the Nazis did and then bragged about it on the Hamas talk page. Maybe that will get yalls attention here. This is a violation of the standard discretionary sanctions included in WP:ARBPIA, specifically the requirements that editors adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia and comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen a more blatant example of bad faith editing among anything other than an IP or throw-away account.

NMMNG, you should read those sources. The ACLU paper mentions the words Nazi and Germany once, no where does it come anywhere close to saying a US president signed a Nazi like law. Im trying to find where the second source supposedly supports that and am not seeing it. And, oh by the way, neither of those were in the edit he made. Kamel Tebaast wrote in an encyclopedia article that a US president signed a law that was similar to what the Nazis did. He did it out of spite. He violated two arbitration cases doing so. How surprising that like minded editors in one of those topics are defending that. nableezy - 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit and the sources cited. He cited the law, and he cited a US Holocaust Museum page on the Nazi party, one that never mentions the law or Clinton. KI is responding to the after the fact justification, a justification that is completely hollow. Look at the edit made, and look at why it was made. It was specifically in response to the Likud Hamas comparison, and it shows a blatant disregard for both our policies here and basic common sense. nableezy - 21:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast

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 Kamel Tebaast

No vandalism. No bragging. Simply a well-sourced legitimate edit. Kamel Tebaast 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of my sources is a think that connects between the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and post WWI (and modern-day) Germany. Here is an ACLU post that explicitly connects the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and Nazi Germany. Here is a Boston University paper that connects between some points in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and "Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories prior to WWII". I am truly baffled that (1) someone wants to ban me for a legitimately sourced edit that, at most, should have been discussed in Talk; and (2) topic ban me in a topic area that doesn't even include the article in question. This seems rather punitive. Kamel Tebaast 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, your characterization that my edit implied that Clinton "signed a Nazi like law" is inflammatory, misleading, and disingenuous--similar to your complaint that it was vandalism. One point in that bill was similar to one of the points of the 1932 Nazi platform. I'll respond to the others after Yom Kippur. Kamel Tebaast 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I think Kamel Tebaast is not long for this world. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Kamel Tebaast was trying for a suicide by admin, but apparently they are seriously defending the edit. So let me help them on their way.

It's not clear to me how this source originally cited by Kamel Tebaast supports the statement that the 1996 act is similar to the one in the 1932 Nazi platform. Indeed, the only reference to the 1996 act I found in the entire document is this: Every state in the United States legally bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any non-citizen to vote in a federal election. Indeed, the association of voting with citizenship is such settled doctrine in American political culture that it is part of the only major nationwide civics test given to American students.

The two other sources which Kamel Tebaast mentions above are post-September 11, 2001; which argue against creating a National ID system in such a political atmosphere. For instance, here is the only allusion to Nazi Germany I could find in the ACLU source: A national ID system would violate the freedom Americans take the most for granted and the one that most defines our liberty: the right to be left alone. Unlike workers in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, apartheid South Africa, and Castro's Cuba, no American need fear the demand, "Papers, please." Note that the same document by the ACLU notes that the national ID card provision was rejected in the 1996 act: Most dramatically, in 1996 the House of Representatives rejected national ID cards during the consideration of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (HR 2202, 104th Congress).

The Boston University law journal does say that there are some aspects of the 1996 act -- but not only that act, it lists 4 other acts in conjuction, (p. 1) -- which move towards a national ID system. This national ID system is dangerous according to the author and he brings up Nazi Germany in this context. The paper even mentions the Social Security act in this context (p. 20) Again, there is nothing comparing the 1996 act to the 1932 Nazi platform.

It looks to me like Kamel Tebaast has simply Googled "1996 immigration act Nazi" and dumped it all here. Even if the sources cited supported the text added (which they don't), the phrasing is so ridiculous that it would automatically fail WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT at the very least. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I think this should be closed summarily. Enough reporting each other back and forth! As to the two edits that were reported here: the article edit is sourced, and the talkpage post is worded neutrally (no bragging, which is the subjective way Nishidani prefers to read that talkpage post). Debresser (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy

The ACLU and an academic paper made the same point KT should be topic banned for putting (sourced) in an article? How remarkable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, I don't necessarily think it was a great edit (mostly because I think it should have been attributed rather than stated as fact), but if KI needs 4-5 paragraphs just to explain why the edit is wrong, that would seem like a content dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

Kingsindian of course right but that edit is not in WP:ARBPIA area--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kamel Tebaast

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

Barring any remarkable explanation, I'm inclined to indef block with a concurrent topic ban on Israel/Palestine that would remain in effect if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

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: Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:59, 17 October 2016 (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: Template:2016_US_Election_AE, "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

In this edit at 16 October, 22:08, Volunteer Marek edited the lead of the Donald Trump article, and in particular he edited the last part of the lead dealing with sexual allegations. He replaced a text of 15 words with a text of 67 words (more than quadrupling its size). He added much of the material by reinstating verbatim from a prior version, including the last sentence, and his edit also reinstated various other parts of the prior version. When Volunteer Marek made this edit, there was an RFC ongoing at the article talk page about whether this material should exceed 15 words. Here is the talk page as edited by Volunteer Marek one minute after his big edit to the lead, showing that the RFC (section 23) includes three no's, one yes, and a maybe, and thus there was obviously no consensus for going beyond 15 words in the lead regarding the sex allegations (incidentally, Trump's denial of the allegations could be easily included while staying under 15 words, though editors such as User:MrX have tried to exclude the denial from the lead even though WP:BLP says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported").

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

Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?

@User:SPECIFICO, I disagree with just about every word you wrote. If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, calling something a consensus version does not make it so. I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now. Check it out. If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action. The RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so). You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but opposition to removal obviously does not equate to allowing more than 15 words about it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version). I have not analyzed whether this edit that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant because the question here is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version. As for your accusation that this edit of mine was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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

Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion [9] (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page.

In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (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.

[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 346: / Line 346: @@
 I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so.  I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system.  I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome.  'Nuf said?
 :@[[User:SPECIFICO]], I disagree with just about every word you wrote.  If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
-:@[[User:Volunteer Marek]], calling something a consensus version does not make it so.  I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now.  Check it out.  If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Volunteer Marek]], calling something a consensus version does not make it so.  I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now.  Check it out.  If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.  The RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so).  You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but opposition to removal obviously does not equate to allowing more than 15 words about it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version).  I have not analyzed whether [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=744494119 this edit] that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant because the question here is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version.  As for your accusation that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=744559041 this edit of mine] was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes [[WP:BLP]].[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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