Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:16, 28 September 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

Resnjari

No action taken. Sandstein 15:58, 27 September 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 Resnjari

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Resnjari (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:ARBMAC :

Resnjari persistently displays highly incivil behavior on Balkan-related topics, frequently making snide remarks, taunts and other forms of incivility. In addition, in February of this year I changed my user name due to privacy reasons, yet Resnjari persistnely brings it up, even though I have repeatedly told him not to do that. I can't think of any other explanation other than he does this intentionally, because he knows it bothers me.

Taunting editors about past blocks. This is very common.

Yesterday, another Albanian user, Ilirpedia (talk · contribs) posted extremely offensive material on his userpage denigrating an entire ethnic group. I removed the material, and then Resnjari not only edit-warred to restore it, but he also referred to me as a troll:

"do not feed the trolls

Note that Ilirpedia has been blocked indef and User:Ymblanter deleted his userpage, so I can't provide diffs of edits of the userpage.

Resnjari also persistently brings up my old username, even though I have repeatedly told him not to.

This is nothing new, he's been doing this ever since I changed my username.

He also bad-mouths me to other editors, here he refers to me as "the usual types" "otherwise we get disruptive edits from the usual types"

This behavior by Resnjari is persistent and has been going on as long as he has been editing Balkan topics ([2] [3]). Many of his comments are clearly intended to get under the skin of Greek editors without crossing the line into overt name calling. It has helped him avoid incivility blocks so far, but taken as a whole, his talkpage behavior contributes to a permanently charged and highly negative atmosphere to Balkan topics. Any discussion where Resnjari get involved quickly devolves into a circus where such snide remarks and taunts are bandied about. I find it particularly bothersome that when told not to do something that he knows bothers other editors, he doubles down.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Recently blocked for edit-warring

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

Warned of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@@Sandstein:, you don't think some kind of civility parole or injunction from casting aspersions and revealing my old username is in order? Because if not, you can rest assured this behavior will continue unabated. You will also notice how he doesn't think there is anything wrong with his behavior.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Resnjari

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 Resnjari

Apart from the character assassination provided by the filling editor, certain comments are cherry picked and taken out of context like:

"Anyway the more you comment here, i am not surprised by your block."

was in response to a discussion about Albanian Wikipedia. The editor in question said some unbecoming things [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] about Albanian wiki administrators (who were not informed of the discussion) accusing them of "extreme nationalism", "stubborn", "childish behavior", "childish excuses" and so on. That editor made their own block part of the discussion [10]. The editor also kept persisting with that wording and i said i was not surprised by their block by Albanian administrators. I did make offers to that editor for a solution [11] and did reach one with another Greek editor in a civil way [12], [13]. I am all for keeping civility in a discussion, but editors that cannot give a right of reply while having their reputations tarnished through allegations on other Wikipedia projects, what then of civility in that instance? On privacy issues, the filing editor has no qualms in bringing up issues over the past in reference to myself (as shown here), while sidelining his own behavior toward me due to him changing his username. Both accounts are linked and there is multiple edits of that kind. His past actions have been highlighted because they were uncivil like questioning my cognitive faculties, deleting my comments on talkpages when they violated no policy or guidelines -as it was in relation to dealing with POV related content in an article. Then there was calling my comments "rants" and even accusing me once of violating a 3rr rule and then had to withdraw because i did not. And that's just with me. To the filing editor, i ask how is that conducive to establishing good rapport? To the administrators, if i place links to all that evidence here, because it’s his old username will i get sanctioned? That is what he is inferring i guess. Or is a change of username considered a clean break? Those interactions of the very recent past with the filling editor, i found it all quite offensive.

In the Ilirpedia case, the filing editor took unilateral actions of deletion instead placing something on the new editors talkpage so i personally thought it was a repeat of past interactions i have had with him. In the talkpage, the word "trolls" was in the sentence as i pasted the title and weblink to a wiki guideline which has that term in the title [14]. If its an issue, then Wikipedia itself should remove it. In the end i asked the administrator for advice and clarification on the matter, it was resolved [15]. I cannot go back in time and stop what happened and neither can he. All one can do, well on my part is reflect and importantly be careful in the future from now on. If i have caused offence within the Wikipedia community i sincerely apologise. My purpose over the nearly 10 years that i have been a Wikipedia editor is to above all else bring the quality of content on articles that i can make an actual contribution to a level befitting of an encyclopedia. That is my aim. I have only ever once been blocked in that whole time (for 24 hours) and it was over a trivial matter very recently, as is pointed out.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Resnjari

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

This is an underwhelming report, not much more than some snide comments. Taking into consideration the reply I don't see grounds for action here. Sandstein 23:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman

Blocked for one week. GoldenRing (talk) 22:04, 25 September 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 Tillman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HidariMigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tillman (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/Enforcement/Archive178#Tillman :

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

7 September 2017 - On the Ross McKitrick bio, Tillman reverts “climate change denial” to “climate change skeptic” claiming, "Pejorative per WP:BLP" in line with a still on-going campaign to reframe denial as skepticism. On September 11, I pointed out on the Talk Page that the article is within the bounds of the climate change topic ban, and that his editing there was prohibited.

12 September at 15:03, Frequent climate change tag team partner, editor Peter Gulutzan (talk · contribs), asks to remove the mention of “climate change skeptic” by reversion.

12 September at 20:59, Tillman expresses agreement with Gulutzen, and again claims incorrectly WP:BLP overrides his topic ban.

Based on Tillman’s support, Gulutzan reverts the edit two hours later, noting “See talk page” as an attempt to demonstrate consensus.

The scope of the climate change topic ban was again re-iterated to Tillman on 13 September.

WP:CIV and threat of intimidation:

23 September 2017 - Tillman posts a personal attack directed at me on the Ross McKitrick Talk page (“Don't you have better things to do in your Real Life? Give this a break, OK?"); although he had already been advised that continuing to edit within that article, even on its talk pages, was a violation of his topic ban.

24 September 2017 - Receiving no reply in the day since his last comment, Tillman posts an threat on my User Talk page, stating he has “opened a file” on my behaviour; threatening that he is “considering filing a formal [BLP] complaint” against me which, "You won't find responding there to be much fun.” He further attempts some sort of chilling intimidation, "This would be a fine time (imo) for you to take a break from editing Ross McKitrick. I'll be watching."

Editor Pete Tillman shows a continuing pattern of disruptive behaviour, attempting to skirt the indefinite topic ban against him, going back at least to last year:

14 March 2016‎ Jess (talk · contribs) points out Tillman's violation of sanctions for editing of Sallie Baliunas. Although Tillman's edit was minor, any such edits by him on biographies of those involved in the global warming controversy falls within the scope of his ban.

16 March 2016 Tillman attempts to obfuscate his intentions by claiming, "My edit had nothing to do with climate. NPOV for BLP. Thanks for your interest.”

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

Previously issued a sanction for editing climate change articles on 14 August 2015 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Tillman is obviously aware of the sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pete Tillman has made a substantial number of contributions to Wikipedia, yet seems unable to keep himself from running afoul of controversy. He has an extensive history of tendentious editing on climate change, which has led to an indefinite sanction for articles dealing with those topics. His topic ban has not been appealed, and remains in force. However, and inexplicably, he still lists himself as being a member of the Climate Change Task Force.

Balancing out his positive edits, he is habitually uncivil to editors he disagrees with, issuing threats to make things unpleasant for them (such as to myself, and for example, Jess, [16], [17]).

Since he’s been a long-term and generally productive editor, I’m not sure what additional sanctions would help Mr. Tillman move past his counterproductive attitude, apart from having a time-out.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

25 September, 2017

Discussion concerning Tillman

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 Tillman

What appears to have brought this on: A note by me at the complainong editor's talk page, [18]:

Your edits there appear to me to be directed at "proving your point" that Prof McKittrick is (in your words) is "not skepticism; full-on denial", rather than improving the biography.

This sort of behavior has no place at WIkipedia, & especially not at a Biography of a Living Person. If you are not aware of the special rules that apply to these articles, please do your homework.

I have opened a file on your aggressive behavior at that page (esp at the Talk page), and am considering filing a formal complaint at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. You won't find responding there to be much fun. This would be a fine time (imo) for you to take a break from editing Ross McKitrick. I'll be watching.

I'd suggest that those interested in this request read editor HidariMigi remarks at the Ross McKitrick BLP talk page and following sections. My recent involvement there has been minimal. Respectfully, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tillman

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

These look pretty obvious topic ban violations to me; WP:BANEX allows only the most obvious BLP violations as exceptions, those "in which no reasonable person could disagree." It seems reasonably clear these edits aren't that obvious. My first reaction is to block for a week. On the other hand, this TBAN has been in place for a couple of years without obvious problems (at least, without being blocked for violating it) so possibly a warning would be sufficient. @Tillman: much will depend on your response here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory

Closed per filer's request. GoldenRing (talk) 16:40, 27 September 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 E.M.Gregory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: E.M.Gregory (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#Motion:_ARBPIA_.22consensus.22_provision_modified :

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

Har Adar

19:39, 26 September 2017 Removes that this place is an Israeli settlement
20:14, 26 September 2017 Does so again after having been reverted.

2017 Har Adar shooting

18:06, 26 September 2017 Removes that it is a settlement
19:26, 26 September 2017 Again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned May 2016

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 24 April 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The remedy states If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. That has happened at multiple articles, with E.M.Gregory declining to self-revert. E.M.Gregory is disruptively removing what nearly every single source says in the introduction of an article about this attack, that it took place in a settlement in the West Bank. He is removing from the article of the settlement that it is in the West Bank, using such completely asinine phrases like "pre-1967 Jordanian occupied terriory to describe its current status (for those wondering that's currently Israeli-occupied West Bank).

This is not a complicated or POV issue. This place is a settlement, that is a factual statement backed up by countless sources. Things like saying it is partially in pre-1967 Jordanian occupied territory, cited to a source that says nothing of the sort (the source cited, which I added to try fix the issue for the record, says it fits a dual description of a settlement and a community, never once saying anything about Jordanian occupation, at all, with or without reference to the location of the territory), are, and I may be overly blunt here, propaganda. All this effort to scrub the words "West Bank" and "Israeli settlement" from an article. There is no dispute that this place is a settlement or that it is largely in the West Bank. None.

I waited more than a few minutes, and asked that the user self-revert prior to making the report. They declined. That they did so at about the same as I was pressing save makes this moot, but I did wait for the user to self-revert prior to coming here. But as it stands, I think this is moot. nableezy - 04:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, moot I think, though the use of such things as "previously Jordanian-occupied territory" is classic non-neutral POV-pushing, that can be dealt with through the talk pages until it gets to a level of disruption that merits coming here. nableezy - 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

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 E.M.Gregory

Statement by Coretheapple

(EM Gregory talk page stalker) I note that EM Gregory self-reverted at about the time of the filing of this AE. [20] I don't think waiting a few minutes before filing this would have killed anyone. Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure that the edits in question were reverts. The shooting article edits do not appear to be. Coretheapple (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Well, since E.M.Gregory posted I don't know wht you're on about but, just go ahead and fix it. I'm logging off now. (with the edit line fed up): I don't blame Nableezy for filing a report. Nothing in E.M.Gregory reply indicated that s/he would self revert. That s/he has self reverted after that, is a pleasant surprise. ~~Aaaaand, since E.M.Gregory has self reverted, I suggest we just end this report, Can someone just archive it, please?~~ Huldra (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I spoke a bit hastily: E.M.Gregory has not reverted their edit on 2017 Har Adar shooting, only on Har Adar. There is a clear violation in their editing on 2017 Har Adar shooting Huldra (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Regarding 2017 Har Adar shooting Nableezy admitted he was wrong in the content dispute - 2017 Har Adar shooting diff: 19:54, 26 September 2017, and did not request a self-revert on E.M.Gregory's talk page, nor is it clear which version E.M.Gregory should've self reverted to.

In Har Adar E.M.Gregory did self-revert as requested.

As for the content dispute - Har Adar (as Oranit) is different from the "typical" settlement in that the green line (whose exact location doesn't have "laser accuracy" - the line has a "width" (in additional to previous NMLs)) runs through it (and the separation barrier - beyond it), and that "functionally in real-estate terms" it is an upscale suburb (as opposed to a "far off" location inhabited by ideologically motivated residents). Some international sources used a short one-line of "Israeli settlement" others expanded on this (e.g. NYT) and mentioned it is an upscale suburb that straddles the line.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

My mistake, for which I apologize. In a bit of cosmic irony, I had just finished making this comment [21] and was about to log off (because I was running late for a real life obligation); I responded hastily but sincerely [22]. I honestly did not immediately see what he was on about, so I urged him to fix whatever it was. As I packed up what I needed for my relal life obligation, I thorough through the fact that I had noticed a discrepancy between info in 2017 Har Adar shooting and what Isabel Kershner was reporting in the New York Times, info that was also appearing in the Jerusalem Post. I had changed to the wording according to those 2 sources from (paraphrasing here,) in the West Bank to straddling the Green Line, or something of the sort. Then both of us had gone to double-check, and both had added info from the same university press book to Har Adar page, but to different sections on that page so that I had not seen his edit at first, and had then consolidated the two citatoions and left what I thought was good wording on the page. As soon as I realized that the changes I had made to Har Adar must have been what Nableezy was complaining about, I logged back in, reverted what seemed to have been the offending edit, and rushed off. I just logged in to discover that this had been taken here. I confess to being guilty of carelessness, of forgetting the arcane rules that apply to I/P while editing what felt like routine facts in yet another terrorism article ( I do a lot of editing of terrorism attacks), of forgetting that in I/P even in a minor wording dispute you have to not revert - these rules do not apply in other controversial areas where I work, (like American politics) or even in the case of very similar articles where the attack occurs in Australia or France. Mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. I cannot promise never to make another mistake or never to forget or to not be aware of a rule, but I do promise to try harder and, especially, to remember my recurring resolve to stay out of the Middle East. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning E.M.Gregory

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

@Nableezy: Could you please clarify, given the self-revert, whether you're asking to withdraw this, or whether you still think there's something needs to be addressed? GoldenRing (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya1

Not actionable. Sandstein 19:28, 27 September 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 Avaya1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Avaya1 (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#Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016) :; Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

On 13 September 2017, a discussion started on Talk:Israel#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2017 to remove an image from Israel article.

15 September 2017, I removed the image, citing consensus on the talk page.
18 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
26 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.

It's not the first time Avaya1 pretend to not see other editors' rationale (see below). Then, on the talk page Avaya1 stated that I am forcing the change and no one else supporting it, although clearly it's another user who initiated the request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Was a subject of Arbitration Enforcement on 9 January 2014 for similar behavior with the following result: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted."

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Overall, for a user, who's on Wikipedia for over 10 years with 20,000+ edits, Avaya1's behavior is very unprofessional and disruptive. He's often ignoring other editors, leaving no edit summaries, and making technically clumsy edits like a newbie. I went through some of his latest contributions:

In Kurds, he blatantly ignores other editor, like he did in Israel:

18 September 2017, Avaya1 made series of edits
20 September 2017, other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
20 September 2017, Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

In Valerie Plame, he made 75 (!) edits in one day, most are without summaries. Look how insignificant the result is, and keep in mind that there's almost no changes by other users in-between:

22 September 2017

--Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

As I understand from this notice, Israel is in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Previous Arbitration Enforcement states: "Avaya1 now subject to 0RR on articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted." --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 September 2017

Discussion concerning Avaya1

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 Avaya1

Statement by (username)

Triggerhippie4 ignored the only kind of consensus in the talkpage about the image, and removed the image. He has deleted the image and without yet gaining a new consensus at the time of his edits. The image was re-inserted according to and after we had got explicit consensus that is on the talkpage, which is within the 0RR restriction. The 0RR restriction states that there needs to be consensus for the revert- and there was.

I'm not sure how Triggerhippie4's write-up about unrelated articles and edits on Valerie Plame or Kurds is relevant to the dispute, it appears more like border-line wikistalking. I used edit summaries for any notable edits on the Plame article, and likewise for the Kurds article. The image of Oz is included in the Israel article - again, only because it was according to the only consensus in the discussion page we yet have about it and because there is no new consensus yet. Also I am not sure how Oz (or the Kurds or Plame) is directly relevant to Israel-Palestine conflict. Avaya1 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Avaya1

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

Triggerhippie4, please explain how the edits at issue are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 16:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sandstein, I'm struggling to see how this is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Not every edit related to Israel is related to the conflict. Also, unless I'm missing something, Triggerhippie4 made an edit, Avaya1 reverted that edit and Triggerhippie4 restored the reverted edit. Accepting for the sake of the argument that the edits are covered by the quoted remedy, doesn't that make the violation Triggerhippie4's, not Avaya1's? I suggest closing this with no action. GoldenRing (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: applied that page notice - perhaps he'd be prepared to opine here? GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also struggling to see how this relates to the Arab-Israel conflict. Things aren't covered by that simply because they're related to Arabs or Israel. That being said, I'd certainly encourage everyone to cut out the edit warring before someone does wind up blocked for that anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as not actionable. The country of Israel has other things going on than its conflict with its neighbors. The content at issue also does not relate to the conflict. Out of scope. Sandstein 19:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonot

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 Psychonot

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :

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

25 September 2017 The reported user added a material and made a new subsection.
27 September 2017 I removed a part of the material per WP:SYNTH.
27 September 2017 I removed another part per WP:SYNTH
27 September 2017‎ He reverted me and restored his material, less than 24 hrs after I had done the edit.
27 September 2017 I notified him regarding the sanction being applied to the article and asked him for a self-revert.
27 September 2017 At first he accepted and made the self-revert.
27 September 2017 He again restored the disputed content.

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)

I had notified him regarding the sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The mentioned user has apparently engaged edit warring on other pages, too (see the warnings removed by him).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He's notified.

Discussion concerning Psychonot

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 Psychonot

Statement by Icewhiz

As someone involved in Ali Khamenei in general, and Mhhossein's activities there in particular, I'd like to make a few comments:

I don't think Psychonot's violated 1RR, as some 48 hours elapses between Psychonot's original edit and the revert. I might however be wrong in interpreting the rule.
Mhhossein himself clearly violated 1RR quite recently in Ali Khamenei ([23] + [24], revert here - [25] 12 hours later), and it took quite a bit of explaining on his talk page (without threatening to bring this to AE) to get him to self-revert - [26] [27] [28]. I'll note that this warning was both due to the "original author" clause (which Mhhossein has cited Psychonot for), and for the original action being a revert.
Mhhossein's actions in filing an SPI investigation against me and attempting to open an SPI investigating against User:Dr.K. after a content dispute over whether Newsweek was RS (!!!!) on Ali Khamenei - were a recent subject at ANI - ANI archive: Open an SPI: A new form of disruption at an article covered by WP:ARBPIA.
In the past two weeks in Ali Khamenei Mhhossein has been edit-warring with several different editors, and to my opinion is not acting per NPOV.
Mhhossein has quite recently 12:39, 27 September 2017 WP:CANVASSed a single editor to support his views on the talk page.
While some of Mhhossein's edits are constructive, I think WP:BOOMERANG should be considered.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just got accused of HOUNDING - [29] - for posting this AE comment (which is on my watchlist) on Ali Khamenei (which is on my watchlist as well, as well as being involved in the on-going editting and discussion there.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Psychonot

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

This content dispute is about Iran‘s nuclear weapons activities. How does this relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Iran isn‘t even an Arab country. Sandstein 06:16, 28 September 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 382: / Line 382: @@
 :''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. -->
+* This content dispute is about Iran‘s nuclear weapons activities. How does this relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Iran isn‘t even an Arab country. <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> 06:16, 28 September 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