Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:16, 1 May 2018

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

יניב הורון

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 יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: יניב הורון (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, specifically

Editors counseled

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

17:19, 17 April 2018 Insert serious allegation about links to the Munich massacre..without any source

23:03, 21 April 2018 Reintroduce a source which has clearly false information ("Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque")

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 March 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement
13 April 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement

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

Previously blocked under Arbitration enforcement, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

IMO, both of the above edits are quite outrageous...this editor is, IMO, not ready for the ARBPIA area. I suggest a topic ban from the IP area for ...quite a while. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised to see some editors arguing that since Jerusalem Post is WP:RS, then we must allow anything from it. Well, for me there is one thing that trumps WP:RS, and that is: is it true?

Take the village Al-Attara (which I just expanded): Adam Zertal (who was a professor in archaeology) writes that Victor Guérin found 300 inhabitants here. I absolutely totally refuse to put that into the article. Why? Because Victor Guérin wrote that about 'Atara.....and Zertal has mixed up the two villages. (See User:Huldra/Guerin if you doubt me.) Yes, professors can also be wrong. Inserting an article with the headline "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" (when there are sources calling it a mosque going back centuries) is just as bad. We are directly misinforming Wikipedia readers. I thought we could do better than that, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the reported editors last 500 edits, 167 are marked undid, and 8 are reverted. (Out of total edit count of about 1,500: about 520 are undid, or reverts). Compare that with some others who have commented here (all of us more or less heavily involved in the IP area), Of the last 500 edits:
Huldra: 12 undid 30 reverted
OtterAm: 9 undid 3 revert
Shrike: 14 undid 39 revert
Number 57: 0 undid 26 revert
Icewhiz: 15 undid 2 revert
Pluto 2012: 2 undid 5 revert
Zero0000: 46 undid 36 revert
Nishidani: 4 undid 1 revert

Huldra (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון several of your reverts (in addition to the ones I pointed out) have been questioned on this page. If you have a problem with any of my reverts, then please point them out to me, (though perhaps not here, in order to avoid cluttering up this page) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Huldra (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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 יניב הורון

In this case I haven't broken any rule of Wikipedia. There's no edit-warring in the first place! Here I wanted to show that Kamal Nasser was targeted as part of Israel's Operation Wrath of God, which is a fact, but making sure that his involvement in the Munich massacre is an allegation. You reverted my edit anyway, and I didn't insist. Regarding this edit, the JP source explains that Rachel's tomb wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque" before 1996. You may not like my edits, you could revert them or discuss in talk page, but you have no right to censor me because I disagree with you in an article or two. I mean, are you serious?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: with all due respect, I don't think you are the best person to talk about POV-pushing. I'm no less biased than you, Huldra or many others, but I always try to edit based on reliable sources and encyclopedic value. You can't silence someone because they disagree with your political opinions. In any case, my edits are far less POV than most editors in ARBPIA. But if you don't like them, you are more than welcome to discuss them in the talk pages. So far I haven't enganged with you in virtually any single article or talk page (including this one!), so it seems strange that your are complaining about my way of editing right now. I guess for some people is easier to ask for censorship than debate using actual arguments.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: ~~Maybe it's because of some natural loathing for "Jewboys", but~~ I didn't break 1RR. As you can see here, I was only reverting content removed by SantiLak, which I didn't write in the first place. It was there long before I started to edit the article. And I gave my reasons in the talk page, where you are more than welcome to engange in a civilized discussion instead of harrasing people at AE.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Nice try, but everybody can see that in this case, I was not restoring content that I added, but content that was already there before SantiLak came and removed it. I can disprove your accusation very easily. My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27, right? Well, this version of February 15 mentions exactly the same thing that SantiLak removed in April: "The European Union has been criticized for funding Israeli political non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that attempt to undermine..." Therefore, it's not my content that I was restoring.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I edit in a wide range of topics, mainly Jewish-related. As you can see from the discussion above, I did nothing wrong. I didn't break 1RR, and I was not engaged in edit-warring. Huldra's arguments to censor me are laughable. It's true that in the past I've been blocked for violating the third bullet in ARBPIA articles ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert"), but I was already punished for that and I've learned my lesson. Now I'm familiar with that rule. In the case mentioned by MShabazz, I was NOT restoring content added by myself. In other words, I was not the "original author" of that content. You can check by yourself.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Oh, no. Don't change rules now. The ARBPIA bullet clearly says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." It doesn't say ANYTHING about "by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it." [therefore becoming its "original author"] I'm not the original author, therefore I'm allowed to make a second revert after 24 hours have passed since MY last revert (not SantiLak's revert). This is my first revert, this is my second revert after 24 hours (not 18 hours, since you don't count from other user's revert, unless I was the original author of that content). Also take a look at WP:Civility next time you feel the urge to swear on Wikipedia.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a previous discussion involving MShabazz where he complained about "Jewboys" in Wikipedia. I'm an Israeli Jew, so I hope that won't be a problem for him. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with our present discussion so I'll just scratch it out.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought it was MShabazz who complained about "Jewboys". It was a stupid comment on my part and I apologize for that.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was investigating who is MShabazz, the same way he was checking my edits with a magnifying glass to censor me. I never had a discussion with him before, but I found out that he was removed from his position as administrator a few years ago. Is that right? Nevertheless, the "Jewboy" comment wasn't from him, since he is Jewish himself. Apparently some disgusting racist told him "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." Again, I apologize to him for the misunderstanding. In that case he was the victim.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:: Just to clarify, my previous sanctions were because I was not familiarized with ARBPIA rules. I didn't have experience in Wikipedia before. The first sanction was because I made this edit before I had an extended-confirmed user (while the article wasn't protected at the time, hence my confusion). The second one was because I didn't understand the third bullet of ARBPIA, which has nothing to do with 1RR: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." Nevertheless, when I understood the rule, I accepted the sanction and didn't repeat the violation again. However, in this case, Huldra and MShabazz have no reason to accuse me of violating any rule. I didn't break 1RR nor the third bullet, and I WAS NOT engaged in edit-warring (as you can see here: one single half-revert; here: one single revert; and here: two reverts, precisely because the other user broke the third bullet). How can you call this "edit-warring" or "being disruptive"? I ask you to be fair instead of considering me "problematic" just because other editors -whose political agenda I happen to disagree with- want to have less competitors in a sensitive topic. Please, check my contributions and you will see I'm not here to disrupt anything. All my contributions (mainly in Jewish and Israeli-related articles) are significant and meaningful, based on reliable sources. I understand if other editors disagree with them, and they are welcome to revert me and discuss in talk pages, but that's not a reason to ban me.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:: I'm an Israeli Jew (and proud of it), of course I don't have any "natural loathing" against my own people. On the contrary, I was referring to a comment made by Shabazz in 2015 where he said literally (excuse my language) "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." After that I tried to apologize because I thought Shabazz was the victim of such a disgusting insult, but later Shabazz himself admitted that HE was the author of the racist slur, apparently because he was tired of being "harrassed" by someone of Jewish extraction. In any case, it has nothing to do with our present discussion, except that it shows that those who accuse me of having a "biased" and "POV agenda" are the least suited to speak about such matters. The irony is that I've never had a previous discussion with Shabazz in any talk page. But for some reason he wants to get rid of me based on spurious accusations. In any case, I invite him to have a civilized discussion to achieve consensus instead of resorting to deplorable tactics to censor editors who don't share his views.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: Please, explain me how exactly I broke 1RR. I made the second revert 24 hours after my first revert, not within the 24 hours period.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: What is "gaming the system"? Am I allowed to make another revert after 24 hours passed? Yes or no? Tell me the rules so I'll be more careful next time. I thought 1RR only counts for more than one revert made within a 24 hours period. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Oh, now I understand what you mean. Of course it wasn't my intention to sit around with an atomic clock to revert someone 24 hours and 1 second after my last revert. I don't usually do that. The reason why I made this second revert was because I felt that SantiLak broke the third bullet of ARBPIA (which is not 1RR, my mistake). Besides, I left him a message on the talk page that he didn't answer so far, explaining why I reverted him back. I did it for a specific reason, in a specific situation. And I did it only once. Check all the edits and you'll see I didn't make more than two reverts in that article, which is not so terrible. But maybe I shouldn't have rushed to revert him so fast. Next time I'll try to wait 30 hours or so to avoid breaking the spirit of 1RR, which is to avoid edit-warring. Nevertheless, to ask for a block or topic ban seems a little bit excesive and out of proportion, don't you think? Specially when there's a doubt if the other user actually broke a specific rule (like the third ARBPIA bullet).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Even though technically I didn't brake a rule, I understand that perhaps I have been over aggressive here. I'll try to make less reverts against other users and participate in talk pages more.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Calm down. I've made almost 1,400 edits so far, and I barely started. Sometimes I make mistakes. WP:Newbies, WP:Civility--יניב הורון (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: As I told you before, WP:ONUS is on YOU to gain consensus and show us the encyclopedic value of that piece of propaganda. A reliable source is a necessary, but not always sufficient requirement for adding content, specially so controversial and POV. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. You should start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus before reinserting disputed content, instead of going to AE because you don't like my way of editing. That's as frivolous as Huldra's request.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: What matters is the quality, not the quantity of the reverts (which is not a bad word). Contributing to Wikipedia also means undoing vandalism and unappropriate edits, although most of my reverts were made against IPs who are not allowed to edit in the first place, NOT legitimate users. I can justify every single revert that I made. Can you do the same? I think that, at this point, every honest user can realize this AE you started is ridiculous.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: lol! And I'm the bad guy here with a "POV bias" that makes me supposedly unable to edit in ARBPIA. Anyway, how about using the talk page of the article instead of AE?

Statement by Malik Shabazz

יניב הורון is misinformed when they argue that they have done no wrong because they haven't been edit-warring. They have been engaged in POV-pushing, which is far worse. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of their POV-pushing, consider this edit, which parrots Benjamin Netanyahu's anti-NGO slurs but doesn't demonstrate being here to build an encyclopedia. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of edit-warring, they made that revert and restored the POV-pushing 24 hours and two minutes after they inserted it, and only 18 hours after it was removed by another editor. I believe that is both an attempt to game the system and a 1RR violation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you have a "natural loathing" toward Jews, you violated WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, which says an editor can't restore material they added within 24 hours of another editor removing it. You added the material at 21:33 on 18 April and restored it at 21:35 on 19 April. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did write that. I was being harassed on Wikipedia by a Jewish editor (who has since been perma-blocked for harassing other editors) and receiving threatening e-mails from other editors and from Wikipedia trolls. I lashed out at him because I was frustrated that he was harassing me and engaging in what I consider to be racist taunting and nobody at WP:ANI seemed to give a fuck. I was the subject of an emergency de-sysopping and I resigned my position about the same time ArbCom voted to remove the bit. I have since been offered the bit again without an RfA, but I declined.

To get back to the matter at hand, evidently יניב הורון can't read very well, because they clearly violated the 1RR restriction that applies to ARBPIA articles, which requires a 24-hour minimum before an editor can restore their material to an article. And by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it, so they can't later say "But I wasn't the original authot". Look at the two diffs above. In a space of 18 hours, יניב הורון reverted another editor's removal of material they had added (restored) to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, the old "But he started it" defense is meaningless when an editor breaks a bright-line rule like 1RR. As a sysop, you ought to know better. Please don't insult my intellectual or further embarrass yourself by continuing that twisted "logic". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More smoke and mirrors from Number 57. Are you also arguing that יניב הורון wasn't gaming the system by making the same edit 24 hours and two minutes apart? Your defense of the indefensible here is very disappointing; you never struck me as a partisan editor before. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 1RR violation and system-gaming that I wrote about, and which you appeared to be responding to when you started your section addressing me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your message because I hadn't read it as carefully as I should have. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we know of two instances this week in which יניב הורון waited 24 hours and two minutes to make their revert. Is somebody going to do something about this obvious gaming? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, how I wish editors would stop ~~bleating~~ repeating "Jerusalem Post! Jerusalem Post! as if it were a mantra. The source cited is a goddamn editorial column, not a JPost article, as any of you would know if you actually read the damn thing, and editorial columns are not reliable sources for facts. Sheesh! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Icewhiz has provided the edits to which I was referring. I thought somebody else had cited another article where יניב הורון had done the same thing. Because I'm not able to find one, I've stricken my comment about two instances. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

Did the user against whom enforcement is requested really just write this, or do I need new spectacles?!? MPS1992 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what you linked is a lengthy polemic from someone called User:JordanGero, who was blocked for harassment more than a year ago, not anything that Malik Shabazz said at all? MPS1992 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But. You also wrote above My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27. This year, 2018. But you are angrily linking to things about "Jewboys" that were said in August 2015. Something's not right here. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you need to spend less time "investigating" other editors, and indeed less time in the topic area altogether. MPS1992 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

I would have settled for the one-week block, but this editor's behavior here and on the topic overall gives me no confidence that it will magically make them change their ways. Their talk page alone is a good indication of how "collaborative" this editor is in this sensitive topic area. Since יניב הורון cannot keep their biases in check, cannot adhere to editing restrictions, and cannot edit collaboratively, they are not needed or wanted in the topic area; it is a priviledge they simply have demonstrated they do not deserve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון you say two blocks like it isn't a big deal yet you have only been here for two months. Considering I could have reported you during this discussion and you would have been blocked, this is not a good trend. I see about five warnings for edit warring, and it is all related to the I/P topic area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

@MShabazz: If you go back to the start of that dispute, the first edit in this chain was by Onceinawhile to remove the source; it was then restored by Icewhiz, then removed by Huldra, then restored again by יניב הורון. If יניב הורון has broken the spirit of the rules, then so has Huldra. However neither has broken the rules as worded, so I don't see this as actionable. Number 5 7 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Unfortunately I think your judgement has been very poor here, as are your comments aimed at myself. The rule is that you can't reinstate your own edit. If it were meant that you can't reinstate someone else's edit, then it would be worded that way. The original rule was worded this way ("In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."), but was amended to the current version (in spite of my objections). It's nothing to do with "he started it", it's a simple case that יניב הורון hasn't broken 1RR as he's only reverted once. Number 5 7 07:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Are we even talking about the same thing here? My comments are regarding יניב הורון's behaviour at Rachel's Tomb (hence the diffs above), where he reverted Huldra after less than a couple of hours. Number 5 7 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Apologies, I thought the 1RR accusation was regarding the edits at Rachel's Tomb. I agree that leaving it a few minutes after 24 hours to make another edit is gaming the rules. Number 5 7 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Huldra raises two issues. Both should not be actionable:

In the first instance Yaniv added information to a non-BLP (died in 1973) that " All three men had made Israel's Operation Wrath of God target list for their participation in the massacre of eleven members of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich." This should have been sourced (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) - however this is not a BLP - and the information itself is correct (and was subsequently re-added by Pluto2012 with a source).
The second instance, is a WP:KETTLE situation - as Huldra herself reverted once. Yaniv did a single revert. Huldra misrepresents this this source (written by an expert, published in a RS) - since as Huldra should know we do not use article (or book) titles for sourcing (as they are often sensationalist) - we use the actual contents. The article in question does not deny previous Muslim use - in fact - it actually lists quite a bit of previous Muslim use. It does contend that previous Muslim use was also identified to Rachel and that the identification with Bilal ibn Rabah is very recent - from 1996 - and implausible (as this figure is known to be buried in Damascus). None of the sources presented on the talk-page state otherwise for this structure built by Jews (in the 19th century, and previously in the 17th). In any event - a single revert should not be actionable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Israel–European Union relations - Yaniv actually did not break 1RR there. SantiLak broke 1RR (the "original authorship provision") with Revision as of 11:12, 18 April 2018 and Revision as of 03:36, 19 April 2018 (so authoring (or reverting) - and then a revert 17 hours later). Yaniv asked SantiLak to self revert - user talk page post at Santilak. Yaniv probably should have reported SantiLak to AE or AW on his failure to self-revert (as the violation was quite blatant) - instead he reverted them after 24 hours were up - which was not correct - however this is an inexperienced editor.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: The revert at 24hrs+2minutes was wrong by Yaniv - but the user he was reverting had violated 1RR (17 hours) and was asked to self revert - Yaniv should've held off from reverting and taken it to the appropriate noticeboard (where it was actionable).Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SantiLak: 1RR in ARBPIA is a bit different. See "consensus"_provision_modified "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (it is also in the edit notice). So even if your original edit was not a revert (could be argued), you were the original author of the non-revert edit.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:, Yaniv was correct in saying the other editor broke the "original author clause" of ARBPIA's 1rr. If this were standard 1rr, he possibly (depends what one sees as a revert) would have been incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: - in the diff sequence below, the original author was not Yaniv, but Santilak. This is the sequence:Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:12, 18 April 2018 - Santilak changes the lead - he's the original author of the edit.
Revision as of 21:33, 18 April 2018 - Yaniv reverts - he's not the original author of the revert (as this is a plain undo, the original author are the authors prior to 18 April).
Revision as of 03:36, 19 April 2018 - Santilak reverts - this is a violation of the original author clause - this is 4:03 after Yaniv's revert (well short of 24) which is where the timer starts per the recent clarification (it is also within 17 hours of the initial authorship - making the clarification moot).
Santilak TP Revision as of 17:29, 19 April 2018 - Yaniv asks for a self-revert.
Revision as of 21:35, 19 April 2018 - Yaniv reverts (he shouldn't have. He should've gone to AE) - 24 hours + 2 minutes after his prior revert.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: My reading of the Jan 2018 clarification on the "original author clause" Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. is that it applies, once (just the first time it is reverted), to the original author. It does not apply to the revert of the original author (on which normal 1RR would apply). Either way - I agree Yaniv shouldn't have reverted, he should've taken it to AE following a declined request to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

MPS1992 and Malik Shabazz's comments are full of sense. This editor arrived 2 months ago and already "investigated" on the past of another contributor. His global behaviour is agressive and suspicious. He games the system in reverting after 24 hours and... 2 minutes. He fails Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. He should be topic-banned of the articles related to the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAM's suggestion is contradicted by Solomon's wiseness... "They are all bad. Let's just send them back to their disputes." In other words he defends the idea to go on with the bad climate generated by some people who are wp:nothere rather than supporting those who would like to have the chance to develop articles and/or who are "fed up" to keep extinguishing fires. And he dares to compare other contributors to one who after 2 months, has been warned 5 times, blocked 2 times, and who has just been trapped 2 times in gaming the system in reverting after 24 hours and 2 minutes. What do you play for OtterAM ? WP or something else ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tritomex

Nothing shown here by Huldra, justifies sanctions against יניב הורון In fact I do not see why Huldra sees Jerusalem Post article as unreliable, nor I see any proves (sources) that the claim sourced with JP [9] is falls. In fact I found many additional WP:RSN that states that the identification of that place as Bilal ibn Rabah mosque dates from 1996. This dosent mean that the place was not considered a place of worship, by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well for centuries. As in the case of all questions that could be related to Arab-Israeli conflict, there is a lot of bias here and very little substantial from editors who could be seen as uniinvolved.Tritomex (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 73.95.138.207

Clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant edit-warring with a battleground mindset. Look at the following edits [10][11][12][13]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6.

Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [14][15] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Suggest ban to give editor time out to think about his actions and a topic ban. Would offer something more but at work and had to rush this as it was. Gotta go.73.95.138.207 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SantiLak

@Icewhiz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand 1RR. You claimed I violated 1RR and יניב הורון didn't because I made a content edit and then made 1 revert yet they just made 2 reverts. That's a textbook case of 1RR by יניב הורון. I didn't make 2 reverts and there is no such thing as the "the original authorship provision." I should have reported them for edit warrring and violating 1RR but I didn't because I felt like following BRD. Like another user said, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, a topic ban is very appropriate. - SantiLak (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OtterAM

As a number of people have pointed out יניב הורון has not actually broken any rules with the two edits that have been brought to attention here. I don't think the edits stand out as being egregious either. For example, the Jerusalem Post -- an 85 year old English-language Jewish publication in Israel, and is a well known source. Thus, it's not clear that the information would be suspect for the second edit that Huldra mentioned.

This topic is full of editors who, in my opinion, like to over wiki-overlitigate the smallest offense. The accusing editors here have certainly done their share of controversial edits. @Seraphimblade: I don't think it would be fair to topic-ban this one editor as you suggested below because I don't see qualitative difference between his style of editing and the style of editing of other long-standing editors on this topical area.

Regarding these statements, why can't we just return the pages to their consensus version. Then, if people really care so much about these two controversies, start appropriate request-for-comments sections to decide which version to include. OtterAM (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Huldra's argument above, where she states that the Jerusalem Post article is wrong – I think this line of argument is on the wrong track. If she believes this to be the case, it seems like it would be more reasonable to settle this as a Request for Comment, where she can lay out her research that Rachael's Tomb has long been considered a Mosque, not at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. It seems reasonable that יניב הורון's edit was in good faith, and glancing at the history of that article, it doesn't look like he was edit-warring over that edit.

I think that this use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement looks like a case of WP:OWN. It's already quite difficult to get any edits to Israel/Palestine to stick, but the the existing mechanisms of request-for-comment seem to have worked quite well. OtterAM (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This is a relatively new and inexperienced user who was close to violating 1RR on one of pages (it is not unusual for such contributors to follow rules very literally, although yes, that might be the "gaming"). I do not think that merits a topic ban. Editing in ARBPIA area is extremely difficult. I also agree with Sandstein. As a note of order, there is currently a thread about the same user on the ANI [16]. Not sure how you usually treat such cases. Both complaints, i.e on the ANI and that one, look to me as an attempt to exclude an "opponent" who has been involved in various content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is comment to statement by Nishidani below. The edit under discussion is this edit by Yaniv. But that was a reasonable edit! It removes an emotional phrase sourced to NYT editorial that provides exactly zero information on the subject of these protests. Such opinions do not belong to "Background" section. Whoever placed this phrase on the page was POV-pusher, not the other way around. Placing this to a different place (i.e. in "Discussion" on the bottom of the page) still might be OK. This depends on context. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by E.M.Gregory

This discussion is a shinning example of one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia: experienced editors with an OWN attitude and political POV who pounce on new editors who disagree with them politically - and vote them off the island, or chase them off with persistent aggression. To my sorrow, I have encountered Huldra [17] before, most memorably at the nightmarish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis; she is WP:NOTHERE]]. I am less well acquainted with (יניב הורו) [18], but I do know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude taken by too many editors in the I/P area makes Wikipedia a nasty, brutish place. Promising editors become disgusted and leave, or - if we stay - shy away from the politically fraught arenas where good editors are most needed. Editors who are sufficiently aggressive can and do slant articles in highly POV ways, simply by making editing unpleasant for those they disagree with. And many good editors like Sandstein spend enormous amounts of time on discussions that, like this one, are driven by intense POV animus. I do see that legal sanctions serve a purpose. But also that they are a tool too often used merely to "win." End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This edit made just hours ago is illustrative of how useless this editor is. With the claim of "restoring source", he reinserted a dead link. Obviously he never even clicked on it, or if he did click he didn't care that nothing was there. If he had gone to the trouble of locating an archived version, like I did before I deleted the link, he would have seen that it doesn't even mention the topic of the article. Nor does it mention any of the matters raised in the paragraph to which he attached the dead link. I shouldn't have to clean up after someone with such a blasé attitude to article integrity. Zero^talk 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

The diff presented by Zero0000 had nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA.So I don't understand how its relevant.--Shrike (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey

Just noticed this, and I have to say that while Yaniv made some mistakes, this report strikes me as particularly frivolous. Regarding any improper past actions taken by Yaniv, I am willing to mentor him if necessary. At the same time, this is a clear issue of WP:KETTLE, when one editor participating in an edit war blames the other one over a technicality (talk about gaming the system). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Today, as this discussion continues, in the following edit Yaniv challenges and removes a trite, commonplace judgement of the New York Times, writing in his edit-summary:

‎Background: I can think of many more "desperate people", including Hatians (who don't receive that much help nor attention). Removing editorial with no encyclopedic value whatsoever.)

I.e. He took out a description of the context sourced to the New York Times because he dislikes their choice of language, of referring with attribution to the Gazans as 'desperate' and privately thinks it is inaccurate. There is no policy ground given in the edit-summary, and when asked on his page to revert, he cites WP:ONUS in defence. This POV-warrior defence is frowned on, because thus used, WP:Onus trumps WP:RS because it becomes a form of entitlement to erase anything regardless of the quality of the source or of any other policy regarding sound practice, and then throw the burden into the other editor's court.

Despite the apocalyptic descriptions of the I/P area as a death zone where the well-intentioned are driven out by hypocrites or battleground POV paladins, it works under the ARBPIA3 regime because that demands experience and a thorough knowledge of the rules that at least relieve these pages of haphazard loose cannon editing, wild card reverting of WP:RS out of distaste. Yaniv's latest edit confirms Zero's point above: it is an open invitation to make revert battles inevitable. Whatever their POVs, the great majority of IP editors respect high quality mainstream RS, a shared recognition that oner should not cavil over the obvious which reduces the conflict considerably. This editor doesn't, and allowing him to edit with this singular license to contest even what is generally accepted is unfair. It means those who side with his perspective can rely on his ignorance of good practice to remove 'stuff' they themselves do not normally challenge. My example is not a content dispute: it is an instance of the editor in question refusing to observe what is a shared agreement about sourcing out of sheer distaste.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply you have inadvertently corrtoborated the point made by Zero above, i.e. that you edit without even examining the sources you restore or erase. I.e. you stated

I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual.

You called the Editorial Board, the pubisher and top writing staff at the New York Times, a 'non-notable individual.'

This means that once more you reverted without examining the source, namely

The Editorial Board,Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests New York Times 2 April 2018 Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They did not state as your edit summary claimed that Gaza was more desperate than, say Haiti. They stated Gazans were among the most desperate people in the world, something that all experts, whatever their POV, concur on. The onus in wikipedia also is an onus to understand the topic and above all read sources before contesting them spuriously and speciously. Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishudani, as it states at the top of that editorial: "The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom." An editorial is an opinion, not a source of reliable facts. Some opinions are notable, but it is an opinion, and it is the opinion of a group of journalists with political Points Of View. It can be used in and only in thee same manner as any opinion expressed by notable persons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to comment in your own section. It is 'disingenuous' of editors who know the topic area,who will have read hundreds of mainstream articles like this or this, where over 1,000,000 children must wash or slake their thirst daily by drinking water drawn from acquifers that are 97% contaminated by sewage, which is deemed by the World Bank, the UN are probable uninhabitable by 2020, whose infrastructure has been wiped out three times in the last decade by intense bombing, all minutely documented by all Gaza experts from Sara Roy to Jean-Pierre Filiu and Norman Finkelstein as a case of catastrophic dedevelopment, to feign ignorance by suggesting that when the NYT board reflects this consensus and says the Gazans are 'desperate', this is an RS problem, or an opinion. Do that, means you haven't simply googled Google Books to see what the monographs universally confirm, or the mainstream press. No one, save Yaniv who notes that have a reconstructed mall in the city of Gaza, can deny the obviousness of the NYT comment, its reflection of current knowledge, in good faith.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

Without looking too deeply into the merits of this request, as I'm hardly a fixture in the I/P area and have only previously interacted with יניב הורון once or twice, I must say that Nishidani's latest comment is quite mistaken regarding Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editorial, even from the editorial board of The New York Times, is never a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, according to WP:RSOPINION. Of course, the content that יניב הורון removed was attributed to The New York Times, but—crucially—not identified as an editorial, and it's not clear why it would belong in a neutrally summarized "Background" section at all. When one considers that the very next sentence is also devoted to an opinion piece, this time by Peter Beinart in The Forward—initially with attribution to Beinart but then allowing Beinart to speak for the UN in wikivoice—it appears that poor quality sources have been juxtaposed in a questionable way to slant a "just the facts" "Background" into advancing a particular narrative, when—as My very best wishes has noted—commentary of this kind would be more appropriate in a subsection dedicated to "Media commentary". Note that יניב הורון only challenged the emotional language of the New York Times editorial, not the Beinart opinion piece, presumably because he knows that there are better sources than Beinart for the same factual claim. In any case, the diff presented by Nishidani as a "smoking gun" should be regarded as non-actionable and a content dispute.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning יניב הורון

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

This is gaming the system and I'd be inclined to do a one week block, especially after the last four day block. Also, the behavior on this request itself doesn't give me much confidence that this block will do much, so I'd be amenable to a topic ban in addition too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be confusion on what's what, my opinion/recommendation above is based on the statement from MShabazz above, not the original complaint. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Please fill out the sanctions and awareness sections of your request correctly. Sandstein 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As reported this does not look actionable to me. Diff 2 is nothing more than a content dispute if all that's alleged to be wrong with this diff is that it introduces false information. Whether that is so and whether the sourcing is adequate is a matter for talk page discussion. As to diff 1, certainly a source would be preferable here per WP:V, but it's not a BLP, and there's not been an edit war or anything like that about the content, so I think a {{cn}} tag would have been a better reaction than this report. The report borders on the frivolous. However, @יניב הורון: please explain what you meant with your comment above that you have a "a natural loathing for 'Jewboys'". Sandstein 20:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the 1RR gaming point made below, but I'm ambivalent about whether it merits action in and of itself. This would require a more comprehensive review of the whole editing situation than I, for one, am interested in undertaking. Sandstein 11:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been here less than two months, has been blocked twice already and still doesn't seem to understand why their behaviour is problematic. A block is indicated, but I think we really need a topic ban here. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite, though I think a block might be just punitive if a topic ban is applied. But this editor clearly is disruptive in that topic area as shown by the previous sanctions, and I think that indicates they need to be removed from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - a topic ban would negate the necessity for a block. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון broke 1RR after incorrectly notifying someone else of breaking 1RR on that page. That's a few days ago, but I don't see how that isn't edit-warring and deliberately and knowingly violating restrictions. Huon (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am technically wrong by two minutes. Clearly gaming the system. Huon (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, thanks for pointing out the specific provision that יניב הורון apparently meant to say the other editor violated; they only referred to 1RR both in the edit summary and on SantiLak's talk page, which doesn't have that clause. That said, 1RR (in either incarnation) clearly isn't meant to have editors sitting around with stopwatches to wait 24 hours and two minutes to revert instead of 23 hours and 58 minutes. This is adherence to the wording of the instructions while ignoring the spirit. Huon (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Could you please diff the two 24-hour-plus-two-minutes 1RRs for me? I've had a look through their contribs but can't see it today. On that note, this is not exactly encouraging - I make it 28 straightforward reverts in the past 24 hours. Some of them are fair enough, some are simply using the undo tool to disagree with people. I think this user could do with substantial experience editing other, less controversial, topics before they return to this one.
I'd also like to take the chance to agree with MShabazz's interpretation of the "consensus" provision of ARBPIA3, which states: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. This is clearly saying that if you're reverted, you can't reinstate that material for 24 hours; questions of who originally inserted the reverted material back in the mists of time are irrelevant wikilawyering. Here "original author" clearly means "the person who made the edit which was reverted," as opposed to anyone else who is free to re-insert the material before the 24 hours is up (subject to everything else, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@יניב הורון: The problem is that you did break the rules. You made this edit at 22:33, 18 April. It was reverted at 04:36, 19 April. The 24-hour rule of ARBPIA3, which I quoted above, means you can't reinstate that edit until 04:36, 20 April, but you did so at 22:35, 19 April. You have argued the rule doesn't apply because you weren't the "original author" of the material; I have explained to you the plain meaning of the rule above and yes, it does apply to this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: AFAICT, what you've shown is that both of them violated the 24-hour rule. I'm not sure what's so hard about this; if someone reverts your edit, don't reinstate it for at least 24 hours after the revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Although the motion you link says "enacted" the text hasn't made it into the case page. I'll take up with the (other) clerks why this is. Thanks for the pointer. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, Huon, Black Kite, Seraphimblade, Sandstein, and SpacemanSpiff: No admin has commented here for over a week. Is there any appetite for a sanction (a topic ban was suggested)? Or is a logged warning enough? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I expect we'll end up here or at AN/I again soon, but I'm willing to let myself be proved wrong. Huon (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Appeal declined. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Icewhiz (talk) 05:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Blocked for one week for edit-warring - this AE thread.

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

Notification of that administrator: notified

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I was blocked for a week for edit warring on a talk page following this report. I made 5 edits over a 10 day period to a talk page. The first edit was not a revert. I self-reverted the last one as soon as I saw the report (no courtesy of a warning, as per the filer's usual MO with me). I couldn't have possibly been edit warring alone yet I am the only one whose behavior was scrutinized (including the filer of the report who edited against consensus). A week block for something like this is obviously punitive and not preventative. This is not the first time Sandstein closes an AE I'm involved in unilaterally and in less than 24 hours, with an unusually harsh punishment not supported by any other admins. Check out my talk page where I predicted something like this will probably happen before Sandstein posted on the request. I know AE admins have wide discretion but this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the last 10 pages of archives, representing over 30 AE cases and appeals.

Not a single case of an admin unilaterally closing a request (this is the 3rd time Sandstein has done this to me)
One case was closed in less than 24 hours - an obvious topic ban violation closed after two admins discussed (this is the second time Sandstein has done this to me).
In many cases the actions of the filer and other editors were taken into consideration, particularly when it was obvious the person reported was reacting to other editors. I did not get that privilege, but was told to file a report after being blocked (I can't, and by the time I could it will be stale).
I'll go out on a limb and say that 4 reverts in a week+ to a talk page have probably never resulted in sanctions before. I'm willing to look at more archives to substantiate that, if necessary.

Could someone do me the courtesy and explain why I deserve this special and unusual treatment? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: sorry, I phrased that poorly. Should have included "to editors with more than 60 edits". Are you honestly saying these cases are comparable to mine? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: (should probably be copied otherwise someone might accuse me of doing something improper) I understand admins are free to act unilaterally. That is not the issue here. I'm going to again, go out on a limb here, and assume the times you were sanctioning editors unilaterally it was for a grave violation that required immediate action and not, say, 4 reverts on a talk page in over a week, one of which was immediately self-reverted when the AE was filed, signalling there will be no further disruption? Have you acted unilaterally against the same editor 3 separate times? Perhaps each of the things I listed happens every once in a while, but all of them together from the same admin? Come on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that this appeal be declined. The evidence submitted in the AE request clearly indicated edit-warring by No More Mr Nice Guy. What No More Mr Nice Guy submits on appeal is unconvincing. Any misconduct by others (see WP:NOTTHEM), or the presence or absence of consensus for any specific content, does not justify edit-warring. If others also need to be sanctioned, separate requests concerning them can be filed, but as submitted there was not enough evidence to justify action against others in my view. While No More Mr Nice Guy did self-revert themselves, they did so only after the AE report was filed and they did not acknowledge that they had in fact acted inappropriately. I therefore consider the block to be necessary to prevent the reoccurrence of such conduct. Sandstein 07:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommend that reviewing admins consider sanctioning Pluto2012 for their comments here in the light of WP:ASPERSIONS. Sandstein 07:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Per NMMNG's request, I copied this appeal over from his talk page. I would like to note that in Talk:Mandatory Palestine#1RR on FAQ at the time of NMMNG's revert (to remove the disputed section) there was no consensus to include the disputed FAQ section (in terms of "raw head count" - more editors opposed than supported inclusion - there were serious arguments to exclude (both due to misrepresenting sources and not presenting aspects of the issue, and due to this being simply off-topic)) - WP:ONUS had not been met. Some of the supporters of the inclusion of the section, were convinced of some deficiencies - diff in the wording. NMMNG self-reverted after the AE started, he was also less aggressive (ignoring his initial challenged that led to a discussion/semi-RfC (opened here - probably should have been a full fledged RfC and without the pings)) than Pluto2012 who reverted thrice with WP:POINTy edit summaries - let's start by being able to real what it is all about rv - account who is not there to contribue a constructive way Let's open an ARBCOM case once for all.. The AE case was closed 21 hours after it was opened.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

NMMNG, ie no more Mr Nice Guy..., is no more on this project to contribute constructively to the development of an encyclopaedia. All his interactions are fights [sic] dedicated to prove WP would be biaised, anti-Israeli and not to say antisemite.

We know his past. His bitterness is not curable. And this has lasted for years now. Most of time he joins "forces" to others to lead their fight on baseless issues. All this generates a bad climate in importing the I/P conflict on WP.

Sandstein fits his analysis to the facts and only them with a zero tolerance's policy towards NMMNG. That's why he blocked NMMNG one week for edit warring. But that edit war is a symptom and not the cause. NMMNG would just need to be topic-banned, which would avoid the contributors to endlessly have to come and extinguish the fires that he and his mates start. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein. I assume that in WP:ASSERTION you refer to the 5th topic and to my accusations against NMMNG without supplying evidence.

Here is what I have posted in 2012 on NMMNG's talk page :

Hi NMMNG,
I have the feeling -but I may be wrong- that you shifted more and more radical. I think that this is due to the strong involvment in conroversial and difficult topic where no censensus is achievable due to the misunderstand, the fears and/or the bad faith of people. For your pleasure and for you own, I think that it may be profitable sometimes to take some distance and/or to focus on other topics.
My two cents.
Rgds, Pluto2012 (talk).

Since that time, anybody can just scroll down the page of NMMNG and sees in which situations he was involved :

In July 2013, he was forbiden to post Arbitration Requests.
A few weeks after, he writes I'm sorry, but I'm so thoroughly disgusted with this place right now that I have no interest in wasting time trying to improve the unimprovable. I know that for people like you that means encountering an automatic majority that won't let you put anything that doesn't fit their political agenda in articles
2 years later he decides to focus on Nishidani and as another contributor points out : First you attacked Nishidani by labeling him as an antisemite. He even wrote a page about the antisemitism on wikipedia. It was finaly deleted but it was hard to convince him.
And a few time later : (...) Although to be fair, watching those anti-Israel guys (and really, other than maybe Huldra none of them can be reasonably suspected of caring for the Palestinians more than they hate Israel, or in some cases Jews) obsess over socks was somewhat amusing. Amazing how they never find socks with whom they agree politically. What are the odds?
In october 2015 : In a couple of weeks I will be so thoroughly disgusted that they let the kind of behavior he (-> ie Nishidani) displays freely go on here, that I'll leave. It's just not worth it.
The same month in 2015 he was already involved in the FAQ of this famous article for which he was blocked 1 week yesterday by Sandstein and advised to cool down : I saw on Talk:Mandatory_Palestine#Edits_to_the_FAQ that you have been calling User:Oncenawhile all kinds of names. Please be civil and correct at all times. Just stick to the issue at hand and don't play on the person. You can read up about this at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC). Please, read the remaining.[reply]
Please read these exchanges 2 weeks later.
...

He would have been topic-banned at the time, he would be much more happy and wikipedia a much more pleasant place.

Sandstein, "La loi, rien que la Loi, toute la Loi" has some limitations.

Pluto2012 (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

I would decline this appeal. Being "right" (and I don't mean to take a position on whether they were or not) is not an exemption from the edit-warring policy. I also think Pluto2012 is right on the edge of a block for ASPERSIONS. GoldenRing (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The appeal is wholly unconvincing. Admins can and do unilaterally impose restrictions to curb disruptive editing in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. The block length is more than appropriate for a second AE block for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: No special treatment as your assertions are easily shown as incorrect. Even the last archive shows admins acting unilaterally dealing with two requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit count has little to do with it. Admins are free to act unilaterally and often do without a request being made. Have a look at WP:DSLOG and see how many editors have been sanctioned without a request being made at WP:AE. I know I've sanctioned editors with a couple thousand edits to tens of thousands of edits without seeking input from other admins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline per my colleagues above. One week for a second AE block is fine, and Sandstein acted reasonably. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per the above, decline. There's only 3 days left on the block now anyway. Fish+Karate 08:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A. Katechis Mpourtoulis

A. Katechis Mpourtoulis indefinitely banned from all edits related to the Balkans. GoldenRing (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2018 (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 A. Katechis Mpourtoulis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (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/Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

The editor has been engaging in edit warring on multiple articles under the purview of ARBMAC.

2018-03-12 Initial change to place Macedonia in ancient Greece
1. 2018-04-05 same change
2. 2018-04-22 same change
2018-03-14 Initial change to make Macendonia Greek
1. 2018-04-05 same change
2. 2018-04-22 same change

Similar patterns hold on Alexander I of Macedon, Seleucus I Nicator, Alexander II of Macedon, and others

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 2018-04-05

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not sure what solution is best here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._Katechis_Mpourtoulis&diff=837919221&oldid=834439028

Discussion concerning A. Katechis Mpourtoulis

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 A. Katechis Mpourtoulis

Statement by (username)

Result concerning A. Katechis Mpourtoulis

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

I think this is fairly clear-cut - ARBMAC topic ban required. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I started writing something here arguing for limited scope or duration - but never mind. Looking back through this user's contributions, all I can say is that SarekOfVulcan was remarkably restrained in their selection of evidence - this edit pretty much sums up the attitude. GoldenRing (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmYisroelChai

Topic-banned for one month from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sandstein 19:21, 26 April 2018 (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 AmYisroelChai

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: AmYisroelChai (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:ARBAPDS :

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

April 24, 2018 Inserts material that makes a controversial claim about a living person in Wikipedia's voice.
April 24, 2018 I reverted the bold edit because it's unattributed and unrelated to the article subject. (It also violates WP:BLP and WP:OR.)
April 24, 2018 Reverts my edit, thus reinserting the challenged material in violation fo the editing restriction.
April 24, 2018 Refuses to self-revert

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.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on February 5, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If anyone else agrees that this edit is a WP:BLP violation, please revert it.- Mr X 🖋 17:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is original research for two reasons: 1) The source make no mention of the election interference by Russia, and 2) the source publication date predates the public revelation on the interference by several months.

The edit is a BLP violation because it strongly implies criminal wrongdoing in the context of an article about illegal activity, especially by omitting the attribution.- Mr X 🖋 19:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning AmYisroelChai

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 AmYisroelChai

Statement by SPECIFICO

A TBAN is warranted. I don't see any reason to fine tune this to Trump-related rather than using the AP2 Post-1932 American Politics definition. It's just forcing us to parse what's Trump-related or what's motivated by the same impulse that's led to Trump-related disruption. For nearly all the disruptive editors we've seen at AE, the origin of their behavior is generally not Trump. It's some broader POV that includes Trump or his standing. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

I'd remind that this is the same person who's said ""wikipedia is not a conspiracy site for anti trump wackos" + a BLP violation about Clinton collusion, among other excellent edits to talk:Donald Trump and elsewhere on talk pages. Do recommend AP2 tban perhaps longer than 1 month as the person clearly cannot edit here without being a problem, complaining about everyone having an anti-trump agenda. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Lambden The article is about Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections. Is there any evidence that that visit is about Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Nobody is saying that Reuters "would be deemed unacceptable". That is a straw man. If he does not understand the notice MrX gave, then he has a WP:COMPETENCY problem, in addition to his everything is anti-trump POV and agenda (and resultant basically attacks on other editors as being "anti trump wackos"). Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source, in fact, does not say the meetings were secret. The word secret has extra meaning and saying someone had secret meetings with the Russians and putting it under an article called Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections carries a pretty heavy implication entirely unsupported by the source. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden

The claim itself is not controversial. The only possible BLP violation is that the source attributes the claim while we do not. But scrolling to the next section I see the following:

"Between April and November 2016, there are at least 18 further exchanges by telephone and email between Russian officials and the Trump team."

The Reuters source attributes that claim to unnamed "current and former U.S. officials" yet our article states it as fact. Poor articles result from inconsistent standards which may explain the state of this one.

AmYisroelChai clearly violated the consensus required provision but judging from this talk page conversation he was unfamiliar with it. The confusing claim of a BLP violation didn't help. Is there evidence elsewhere he understood this restriction? @Sandstein: Is a 3 month (or 1 month) topic ban typical for a first-time consensus-required violation? I will have to search the archives.

Regarding WP:POINT, the editor's frustration that Reuters would be deemed unacceptable in an article that cites Raw Story and The Huffington Post is, I would argue, understandable. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: I was not arguing it was relevant, I was arguing it was not a BLP violation. I can cite several instances of experienced editors misunderstanding one Discretionary Sanctions provision or another. It is hardly evidence of incompetence.

Secret: confidential, top secret, classified, undisclosed, unknown. I could find no public announcement of the meeting so although I would not have, his use of the word is defensible. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MelanieN

(Commenting here because I am WP:INVOLVED at the article.) First, it is true this does not belong in the article. The source provides no evidence, or even a suggestion, that a visit to Russia by Obama's CIA director had anything at all to do with the subject of Russian interference in the election. For all we know it may be routine for the CIA director to meet with counterparts in Russia. Including it in this article implies that it was related to the election, which would be a very serious allegation if true. We need two sources to make a serious allegation against a living person, and we only have one.

Then there’s the problem with the source. Please note that the source for this information is not Reuters (a reliable source); it is Interfax (which we would not generally regard as a reliable source). Reuters is not citing a product of its own reporting, it is merely repeating something that Interfax said. Maybe we could use it since Interfax attributed the information to a specific source, but we would have to name the individual who is being quoted (certainly not Wikipedia's voice). IMO AmYisroelChai did not notice this problem with the sourcing (can’t blame him; several discussants here have made the same error) and was acting in what he believed was good faith. The consensus-required issue remains, but it seems to me that a one-off incident like this could be handled by education. --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AmYisroelChai

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

It's not obvious that this addition is a BLP violation or OR, given that it is sourced to a reliable source. Except, perhaps, by implication, in that it is placed into a list of events related to Russian election interference, but is in fact completely unrelated to that topic. Particularly in view of this, we seem to be looking at a WP:POINT issue. The reported conduct is also clearly a violation of the page restriction. I think that a topic ban from Donald Trump (including Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections) for 3 months or so is appropriate. Sandstein 18:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clear-cut violation of consensus required restriction. I lean towards more moderate sanctions for first-time offense which doesn't involve completely inappropriate content. I recommend a 72 hour block or one month ban on the topics Sandstein suggests above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with NeilN. GoldenRing (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A site block is unnecessary, blocks are not punitive. Ambivalent on a topic ban, but given it's the first "offence", I'd personally be inclined to go with a warning. Fish+Karate 11:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fish and karate: I'd argue that a block would show that the restrictions need to be strictly followed and help to prevent future violations. Their warning was being asked to self-revert - they refused. I'd also rather not set a precedent that other editors can point to. Had this landed on my talk page instead of being brought here, I would have little hesitation in blocking for 72 hours after the way the refusal was worded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Probably boils down to a difference in opinion between us on the value of short-term blocks as a means to improve an editor's attitude (they usually get more pissed off, not less). I'm not going to complain if the consensus is that a block is appropriate. Fish+Karate 13:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with a one-month topic ban based on the discussion above. Sandstein 19:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ApolloCarmb

ApolloCarmb is now fully apprised of the editing restrictions in this area. Any future violations will likely result in a block or topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:47, 26 April 2018 (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 ApolloCarmb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ApolloCarmb (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#General Prohibition :

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

Latest revision as of 12:40, 25 April 2018 reverted strike out of !vote from ARBPIA AfD
Revision as of 07:26, 25 April 2018 ARBPIA AfD

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Revision as of 15:06, 22 April 2018 Edit warring block

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

notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Was specifically warned of the 500/30 rule - [20]. In addition @Drmies: warned the user regarding some of the particulars of the edits in ARBPIA - [21][22]. Note - this partially involved the article up for AfD. Furthermore - I believe there may be a wider NOTTHERE/BATTLEGROUND issue here that revolves around different topic areas (Syria, Catalonia/Spain, and I might be missing out on a few others - the editing history and talk page history for this 12 day account is quite instructive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning ApolloCarmb

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 ApolloCarmb

Since I have been warned by User:Drmies I have not made a single edit to any Arab-Israeli conflict related articles. I am prohibited from editing those articles (for now because I am not an "Extended Conifrmed User") but nowhere in the document cited does it say I am prevented from voting in AFD's relating to them. If I am prevented from doing so I will revert my vote. However considering I am fairly certain that is not the case there is really nothing to be enforced as I am fairly sure I have not broken any rules. ApolloCarmb (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexEng

To be quite fair to the user, sanctions are pretty difficult to understand, especially for newcomers. I consider myself relatively competent, but I had to have sanctions explained to me by a seasoned editor so I wouldn't make a mistake. In this case, it looks like the user simply missed the part where the prohibition extends to AfDs. I think Drmies is right in his approach here. AlexEng^(TALK) 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ApolloCarmb

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

@ApolloCarmb: Do not revert other editors in this area as you're likely to be wrong. In this case, the motion states "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Without clicking through the diffs, if the account is accurate, and all that is at stake here is an AfD comment which the author said they'd revert if need be, I see no reason to come down hard. Thanks Neil, Drmies (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

GizzyCatBella blocked 72 hours --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:47, 26 April 2018 (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 GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

Revision as of 09:51, 23 April 2018 Original authorship by GCB.
Revision as of 16:40, 25 April 2018 - reverted by other user.
Revision as of 23:51, 25 April 2018 - revert1 - which in itself (coming after 7 hours from the revert), is a violation of If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert..
Revision as of 07:17, 26 April 2018 - revert2 by other user.
Latest revision as of 11:56, 26 April 2018 - revert2 - this is withing 12 hours of revert1, violating 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018

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

In short - we have two violations here - a violation of the "original authorship provision" with revert1, and a violation of normal 1RR with revert2 in relation to revert1.

IPs from this range have admitted to being GCB. You can see this in - admission at SPI, User talk:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863, User talk:Slatersteven#Hi, yes, and [23].

Please also see - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella. The IP in question is quite dynamic (at times - a few changes a day), however the prefix is consnant - searching for 2a01 (or an even tighter (longer) range) on the page in question go back to (probably) GCB.

There are additional issues with editing here - including long term edit warring and talk-page behaviour.. I'd like to note that revert2 returns a newspaper article written by an author that appears to mainly write WP:FRINGE softcover books (a self-evident list of book jackets may be seen here). User has also added Ewa Kurek as s reference which is questionable as a source both due to the publisher, and due to "Kurek is more subtle than [Holocaust denier] David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system."Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward and Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint).

Also -Revision as of 06:54, 25 April 2018, reverted as BLP vio here, and reinstated - Revision as of 23:26, 25 April 2018 is a BLP issue as well as being contradicted by sources provided (see Talk:Leszek Pietrzak#BLP violation - lecturing position at KUL) - however BLP DS alert was placed on their page following the addition after the revert.

Added per response below - GCB (under a shifting IP) has been performing quite a few reverts on Collaboration in German-occupied Poland since protection was lifted, also against talk-page consensus (and in the face of reverts by multiple users) - as may be evident in the history of the page. Reported above are 2 separation violations - on the 25th the "original authorship" clause was violated in addition to the 1RR on the 26th.Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for knowing the IP is GCB - this has been evolving. Following their admission at SPI perhaps more are aware - initially this was not obvious, and they had filed, without identifying themselves, an edit warring report, ANI ANI2, as well as responding thus (on ANI) when their identity was questioned.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified GCB, and IP1, IP2, and IP3.

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

Genuine - I self-reverted myself [24] I was confused by the date 25th versus 26th. I thought in my mind its day difference (24h), didn't add hours. My apologies, I will pay attention to that.
PS --> All other complaints are tendentious. It's a dispute over the edited topic of which filing user is heavily envolved with. It appears that filing editor is trying to win the argument by getting opposite side sanctioned. He could have messaged me requesting the self-revert, I would undoubtedly relapse myself
PS2 - I have no access to my account until the end of April when I get back home, that's why IP edits. All editors who are involved are aware who I'm. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:7535:CCA0:C86A:F3C4 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by slatersteven

I have already warned her about the DS restrictions [[25]], moreover the material she added is still being disputed by multiple edds [[26]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

I will be blocking the GizzyCatBella account for 72 hours. The block is for the person and so applies to IPs. Counting hours until you can revert is not on, especially as you seemed to indicate acceptance of other editors' concerns and made no attempt to address them. [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman

Admins reviewing the situation are of the opinion that no enforcement action is necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 30 April 2018 (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 K.e.coffman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PackMecEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: K.e.coffman (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:ARBAPDS :

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

01:07, April 12, 2018 Material boldly added by BullRangifer
08:16, April 12, 2018 Material challenged by me
19:17, April 24, 2018 Restored material claiming rough consensus

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 December 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At last count it was about 6 for the purposed text and 5 against shown by votes at the end of this section. An RFC or spin off article was suggested in the discussions but had not happened yet. The page is under 1RR and consensus required here. PackMecEng (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I think you might be reading it backwards. BullRangifer added it on the 12th, I reverted same day, and K.e.coffman restored it on the 24th. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:Sorry about that, first time filing here. Fixed. PackMecEng (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I had brought up the BLP aspect in a few places on that mess of a talk page, hard to find anything on there at this point. Others in the votes had brought up the NPOV aspects as well. I am surprised that you would say given the arguments it was enough of a consensus for restoration or at least enough for it to be uncontroversial enough for the "If in doubt, don't make the edit" portion. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I will note I brought up it two separate times on the talk page [28] & [29] as well as talked with them on their talk page after they reinserted the information. I think it would be fair to say I made a fair effort to go though my options before coming here. Also yes 12 days of active discussion both ways, which is still going on, does not seem to be a consensus situation. If I am in the wrong in this situation I apologies, I have never wanted to bring someone here, nor have I ever in the past, and did try in good faith to avoid it. PackMecEng (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So is this basically going to yes he should not of done that but no action? I would at least hope there is a warning and revert. PackMecEng (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning K.e.coffman

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 K.e.coffman

I made the edit nearly two weeks after the initial edit/revert, with plenty of discussion in between. One of the opposes that PME lists hinged on not including the pre-presidency material, which has been rectified: [31], so I don't believe it should be included in PME's tally. One ivote was unclear & remains uncounted, but I interpreted it as leaning "support".

I would be happy to self-revert if deemed appropriate. I also note that PME did not include in the filing the discussion he and I had on my Talk page, where I offered, for example, to clarify the uncounted vote: #Presidency of Donald Trump. It's possible that I acted prematurely since, after a lull, the discussion continued today with two additional opinions: one oppose & one support, but I did see rough consensus when I made the edit. I also would have appreciated letting me respond to the last PME's message on my TP vs seeing this report filed.

In general, no other editor has objected to the edit, either on my TP or on the article's TP, where the discussion instead moved onto what heading the section should have: Better heading, with comments such as: ...we have never seen a politician like Trump, etc. Still, I apologise for the disruption this may have caused and I can self-revert if needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (SPECIFICO)

This complaint is battleground nonsense. There was evident consensus at the talk page after extensive discussion, and K.e.coffman has had not a hint of aggressive or POV editing now or ever in his contributions to American Politics. There's no RfC at play here, and the insinuation of a mooted RfC is a further battleground blur of the facts. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Seems minor with what we're used to these days. (Although it's amazing what you can get used to.) Suggest KEC self-rvt and the filer withdraw the complaint. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Masem. No action. O3000 (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, we need AE, IMHO. But, there was a twelve day gap with discussion. You don’t call Homeland Security if your neighbor’s dog pisses on your petunias. I think you had better options in this case. Your point was made. Drop it as it now looks like a content dispute, before the focus turns on you. Just my opinion and sorry if I’m talking out of turn. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

Since that content has SINCE been subjected to radical alterations to bring it into line with the complaints of those who at first opposed it, we now have a situation where, through the normal process of collaborative editing (by editors who hold opposing POV), the content is compliant with a clear consensus; most of the opposition is satisfied.

It would now make no sense to undo content which is largely satisfactory. Let's just close this thread and move on.

Let's not destroy what has been fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Masem. A wise solution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Politrukki, I'm not sure where the OR objection is coming from. That's pretty offensive. I too would not "believe that objection to be policy-based." And don't try to make my admission of an error into more than it was. The discussion tended to focus on Trump himself, and we lost focus about which article we were on, which is only about his presidency. When you brought that back into focus, I immediately responded positively and removed those portions which were clearly from his candidacy and before, even though it all clearly affects his presidency. "From this perspective, lying is a feature, not a bug, of Trump's campaign and presidency,"^[1] and he has not become more honest after becoming president. So don't portray my response in a bad light. Admitting an error and correcting it is not a weakness, but a strength. Don't punish me for responding positively to your concern. The current content is without the content you objected to. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.

User:Politrukki, you are an editor whom I can work with, in spite of some of our POV differences. I really appreciate that. Together we produce better content: "The best content is developed through civil collaboration between editors who hold opposing points of view." Let's continue on this path. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Politrukki

The content currently in the article pretty much reflects my oppose (which was limited to events that predate Trump presidency, I believe K.e.coffman is now retro-actively counting my oppose as full support), but K.e.coffman acted improperly. When K.e.coffman said (23 April) they were going to reinstate the material, I asked them to explain how the content is not original research. I find their dismissal ("I don't believe the objections to be policy-based." [32]) of my policy-based argument unimpressive. Even BullRangifer, who made the proposal, admitted making a mistake: "I got a bit confused and muddled in my thinking there." [33] After BullRangifer's partial (self?)revert, K.e.coffman has not defended their original position that there was no OR involved. Without that detail, it would be fair to say that this is just a content dispute, everybody go home. If K.e.coffman's argument is that none of the objections were policy-based, and hence it was justifiable to revert, such notion must be rejected.

Regardless of whether this enforcement request has merits, it would be wise for K.e.coffman to self-revert, which would allow rebooting the discussion: it is becoming increasingly difficult to say whether the editors are supporting/opposing the original proposal or what is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer:, WP:STICKTOSOURCE is a policy. If you use an old source that is exclusively about candidate Trump, you can't use the source to base your hypothesis about President Trump. If the source makes it clear that an observation applies to President Trump, it may be proper to use the source to make a so-called retrospective prediction. If you have better sources that directly support the analysis, use them.
Admitting mistakes is admirable, and I really mean it. You were the only one who admitted their mistake and that's exactly why I mentioned it. Admitting a mistake is only the first step. If you continue to repeat the same mistakes – I can provide examples with diffs, but I would rather use another forum – you should draw your conclusions. Politrukki (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

As I was reading the comments, I literally had to wipe the Cheetos residue from my fingertips so I could respond. Greasy Granola (make that cheesy not greasy)! ^[FBDB] I'm too much of a softy to see anyone get blocked or TB when they're productively debating an issue and not using the F-word inappropriately , or being consdescending, disruptive, or worse. As long as an editor doesn't prematurely finalize a debate because they aren't getting their way, and will continue to exercise civility ^{(the only exercise some of us get these days is jumping to conclusions),} I'm OK with letting the debate continue, as long as it doesn't become stonewalling. However, I'm also of the mind that challenged material should not be restored until an unequivocal consensus has been reached per the 1RR/Consensus required restriction. I'm ok with an admonishment against the offending editor if they have been forewarned and still refuse to remove the material. That's my $2.00 worth (taking inflation into consideration). ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning K.e.coffman

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

~~How exactly is this supposed to be a violation by K.e.coffman? Per the diffs, the material was re-added by BullRangifer, not K.e.coffman. Sandstein 16:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)~~ Right, please add diffs chronologically next time. Waiting on K.e.coffman's statement. Sandstein 16:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. I'm of the view that those who mass-post page restrictions should enforce them themselves, particularly if enforcement requires parsing consensus in complicated discussions and, as here, the outcome is not obvious. No action on my part, therefore. Sandstein 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something on the DS and talk page notices that require a formal procedure to determine consensus (like an admin closure), I don't see the re-addition of material by KEC after a week+ of discussion and judging consensus themselves is violating any DS. The closest warning is "If in doubt [there's consensus], don't make the edit." but I would be hard pressed from the discussion on the talk page to express that there wsa a strong doubt that the addition didn't have some consensus to be added; consensus is never going to be 100% !votes for it. I will express a strong concern related to the BLP/NPOV nature of the content that seems to be overlooked in that discussion that would call for a separate discussion elsewhere, but since I wasn't involved in that page in any way, I am judging this AE review that the consensus seems there to support adding it, and no other factors of the DS were violated, so no action seems to be needed. --Masem (t) 00:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @PackMecEng: I'm not saying that there is a clear 100% definite consensus on the talk page discussion. It's still somewhat contentious. But I would not question if an uninvolved admin were to close that in their opinion as having consensus to include; I might disagree with that and argue my BLP/NPOV points atop it, but I certainly can find fully reasonable logic as to determining consensus in that to favor inclusion to be fully within reason. So KEC had reason to presume they got the consensus the DS demanded. Now, were I in KEC's shoes as an involved editors, I'd probably use a bit more caution to not add it based on that consensus, but in the same way, KEC saw it differently, waited to readd after valid discussion, and then hasn't done any DS-violating action since that. Basically, this is like going 51 in a 50 mph zone. Yeah, it's not perfect, but that's the type of leniency that seems fine here, since there's no stricter instructions in the DSes to point to. --Masem (t) 01:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KEC should have asked an uninvolved editor to independently assess the consensus. If an admin were to find insufficient consensus and block KEC on that basis, I'd say that KEC would need to fight an uphill battle to get us to grant an appeal. That said, I don't think there's a need to take further action at this moment. T. Canens (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think KEC's belief that the edit was supported by consensus was at least defensible and reasonable, even if it's possible it was mistaken. I don't see a need for any action here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner

The Banner is topic-banned from everything related to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them. The Banner is invited to request review of this sanction after six-months of productive, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. Sandstein 18:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning The Banner

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Discretionary Sanctions

Particularly relevant from that decision: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#Casting aspersions

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

18:36, April 27, 2018 Posts a comment at Talk:Glyphosate saying that I and other editors are "protectors" of GMO-related content.
20:08, April 27, 2018 After getting the DS alert, responds by repeating the accusation.
20:15, April 27, 2018 And repeats the accusation again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Block log shows history of disruptive editing. This is an experienced editor, who should understand what not to do after getting a DS alert.
00:52, April 15, 2016 Was also alerted to the same DS two years ago.

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

19:29, April 27, 2018 DS alert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The "shill" gambit was noted by ArbCom as a particularly disruptive problem in the GMO topic area. GMO pages have been pretty calm in the past year; this needs to be shut down promptly. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About trolling, the problem here is that accusations of "protecting" GMO companies had progressively grown to be widespread and mean-spirited by the time of the ArbCom case. I'm experienced at ignoring trolls, and I would never have come to AE over simple trolling. It's also worth considering The Banner's response below, in terms of the likelihood of continuing the conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may also want to consider a topic ban as opposed to a block. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fairness, I feel that I should link to this: [34]. I will add my personal opinion that it should have little or no effect on the decision here, but I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't point it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [35]

Discussion concerning The Banner

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

Statement by The Banner

This filing is a typical example of preventing criticism and killing off discussion. The Banner talk 21:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

I wouldn't call this mild trolling, but rather persistent long-term disruptive editing. There's a pretty good record of The Banner getting a mild sanction (usually a block) saying it wasn't that bad, but don't do it again only for the cycle to repeat. The only reason The Banner hasn't been topic-banned with the other editors in this topic (this is a good example of this same rhetoric at AE and what it leads to) is because they normally pop in the topic for a little bit, make accusations like this, and then leave. They knew this behavior was inappropriate going in, and it doesn't look like it's going to stop at all either. One can say don't feed the trolls, but us editors in the topic have been doing that for years, which is why I proposed the principle at the original ArbCom case meant to tamp down on this this years ago. Editors who blatantly do this just make the topic more toxic and disruptive. The last thing we want are editors who rile things up to the way it was around the ArbCom case.

There's a whole mess of casting aspersions that comes up with The Banner fairly often at admin boards as well as other diffs that usually get a slap on the wrist since the picture is usually viewed in isolation rather than the long-term history:

Soapboxing [36]
Violating 1RR[37][38]
Using edit summaries to pursue battleground mentality[39]

That's just from my quick perusal outside glyphosate, but it's pretty clear they have no qualms with maintaining a battleground mentality after so many warnings by frequently referencing cabals, industry influence, etc. I can't say I recall once when an editor cautioned The Banner about this without them taking the opportunity to continue sniping like we see in their response here. They've had plenty of other sanctions already, so whatever happens, I'd just ask that we don't have to keep dealing with it in the GMO/pesticide topics anymore (organic food falls into the broadly construed). That principle was put in place so editors who resorted to that kind of behavior could be more easily removed for something they shouldn't need to be warned about in the first place. While not quite as disruptive on a regular basis like other editors that have been topic-banned, there's also a point where we need to say enough is enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning The Banner

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

This is some rather mild trolling. Generally I'd just say, don't feed the trolls. But this is a DS topic area, and The Banner does have a track record of disruption, and the cited principle is on point, and trolls are bad for a collaborative project. I'll have to consider the views of other admins before determining whether a mild sanction is appropriate. Sandstein 21:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the opinions below and the evidence by Kingofaces43, I agree that a topic ban is appropriate, and am so closing this request. Sandstein 18:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a pretty clear cut case of battleground mentality and ABF, and coupled with the history here I'd say a topic ban is appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with T. Canens. The shouting of "shill", absent any evidence that it's true, is disruptive and unacceptable, and this editor is clearly already aware of that. Nor do I see any indication in their response here that indicates they intend to change it. If they're going to behave that way, they need to be removed from the topic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I'm a bit on the fence here. On one hand, they were clearly warned as of the last indef to knock off that type of behavior, but here we are again. But on the other, as you say, they often make helpful contributions and it has been four years since that incident. Given that, I'm more inclined to at least try a GMO topic ban rather than jumping straight to an indef, in hopes that getting out of the "hot zone" for a while might allow them to refocus and cool it. If that doesn't happen, we can always revisit the question at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Timotheus Canens and Seraphimblade: So what's being proposed here? I agree that the conduct presented is sanctionable under GMO DS, but I'm less sure what sanction is appropriate. Looking back through this editor's history, it seems that disruption is not focused on GMOs, though they have repeatedly dipped their toes in that pool, so I'm not sure that a GMO tban is the answer here. Their block log shows a series of escalating blocks, from 24 hours initially up to the latest being 1 month (with an indef in the middle as well). When HJ Mitchell unblocked them after the indef, the conditions included You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia and You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor (see here). That was in April 2014 and The Banner said they accepted the conditions unconditionally. Then in July 2016, User:Fences and windows closed an AN/I discussion regarding The Banner with the conditions No comments about other editors' behavioural issues, including their motivations (COI) or conduct, on article talk pages or other venues apart from those users' talk pages and appropriate noticeboard, i.e. no more casting aspersions and Remain civil at all times. These were imposed with the rider that If The Banner does not abide by these conditions, I believe that any admin will be justified in imposing an indef block without further warnings.
The evidence presented here doesn't rise to the level that I'd normally consider an indef block, but given the history of disruption and avoiding indefs based on the conditions above, I think maybe we have reached that point now. The only thing that gives me pause is the productivity and length of time between those warnings. This is a user who makes 2,000 to 4,000 article-space edits per year; has the disruption reached the point where they are a net negative to the project? GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend a GMO topic ban to start with. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phmoreno

Clear-cut violations and no acknowledgement that reverts violated restrictions. Blocked 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:45, 29 April 2018 (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 Phmoreno

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Phmoreno (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: [[40]] :

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

April 28 3:21 First revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus.
April 28 3:28 Second revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus again.

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

Initial notification
Reminder about DS and warning
And another warning about DS
Also, previous warning about edit warring in topic area [41]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user also fills the talk pages (and occasionally articles) with conspiracy mongering nonsense: "[42]" and [43] (needless to say this is a gross misrepresentation of sources) and [44] (pushing a discredited and obnoxious conspiracy theory - and when this was disposed off with a very apt reply by User:Objective3000 [45], Phmoreno just doubles down with yet another conspiracy theory based on a conspiracy website [46]). And then more misrepresentation of sources [47] in which there's also some BLP vios (alleging criminal behavior)

While strictly speaking these are more or less content issues (to the extent that trying to include conspiracy theories in an article is a content issue), they do demonstrate a WP:NOTHERE.

Regardless, the 1RR violation and the "consensus required" violations are pretty straight forward.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Phmoreno:, can you provide diffs or links or explanations for the following claims:

" I actually did have a consensus " - I don't see this anywhere. Instead what I see is the following comments:
- "I think I might see some BLP/NPOV problems with a document suggesting potential criminality of many persons signed by eleven members of one party and zero members of the other party."
- "I see that this was added, but still using primary sources. That's OR. You must find secondary sources. I'm sure they exist"
- "Removed assertion cited only to desantis.house.gov. Needs citing to a third-party independent reliable source"
- "Please use talk page to gain consensus for challenged material before restoring"

So can you explain in what world the above comments constitute "I have consensus!"?

"As for "pushing conspiracy theories about Steele, Clinton, et al. being arrested" I did not say they were going to be arrested" <-- I can't find it where someone - definitely not me - said that YOU were saying that they were "arrested". I, and a couple others, noted that your edit implied they were engaged in "criminal behavior". Are you purposefully misquoting people?
I was going to ask you but then I looked it up myself. The "Go for it" comment you quote below, is NOT DIRECTED AT YOU, but at another editor, soibangla. And soibangla EXPLICITLY recommends "seeing if it withstands challenge". I.e. NOT restoring it if it gets reverted. Are you purposefully misquoting people? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Phmoreno

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 Phmoreno

April 28 3:21 First revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus.
April 28 3:28 Second revert. Restoring challenged material without consensus again.

I restored an edit that was reverted by a false claim that it hand no consensus on Talk. I actually did have a consensus so there should have no been no initial revert of my edit. Second revert still based on false claim involving first. Please see Talk and clear my record of this.Phmoreno (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among the comments: "This sounds like legitimate content, maybe in the section we have about litigation. We cover this kind of thing. Go for it." There were also false claims about OR because it was a primary source (the DeSantis letter); however, there was defense of using it in the discussion. The source is perfectly legitimate in the way it was used. Someone started another Talk section defending me.Phmoreno (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for "pushing conspiracy theories about Steele, Clinton, et al. being arrested" I did not say they were going to be arrested, I said they were referred for criminal investigation based on the Grassley-Graham memo (Steele- last paragraph) and the DeSantis letter (official document of House of Representatives) referring the others related to specific laws cited in the letter.Phmoreno (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winkelvi

Over 11k edits, has been here for quite a while, so not a newbie and WP:NOTHERE doesn't seem to apply. "Conspiracy theories" on talk pages gets a big shrug from me. My opinion is they aren't any more annoying than many editors I've encountered in my time at Wikipedia and are much less annoying that those who revert endlessly and pointedly in order to game 1RR. Warning only, no block, in my opinion. Maybe some mentoring could be offered? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

It might be for the best if Trump–Russia dossier were full-protected for a while to avoid this bickering about the day-by-day theories from both sides, and to force changes to get consensus on the talk page.

As that's unlikely to happen, I see some merit to these claims. There's a technical violation of 1RR/Consensus required, but I'd be willing to ignore that. More troublingly, Phmoreno has been pushing claims that the Steele memo is going to result in Steele, McCabe, Hillary Clinton, or someone else being arrested for a long time ([49], [50]). Until someone is actually arrested, this is either gossip or POV pushing. I think we need to wait on a statement from Phmoreno, but a TBAN from pages about both Donald Trump and Russia seems like the right sanction at first glance. In response to the "the other side does it too" comments, there are likely other editors who should be TBAN-ed from that page, as is allowed by Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Phmoreno

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

Andrewpostman93

Blocked per WP:NOTHERE as a regular admin action (not AE). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2018 (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 Andrewpostman93

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Andrewpostman93 (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: DS on BLP topics

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

18:55, 22 November 2017 added content including the unsourced phrase "is in fact a large scale scam"
00:47, 19 December 2017 removed well sourced NPOV content, added back content above and added "owned by convicted felon Ernest Garcia II"
02:36, 1 May 2018 As above, but repeating the "convicted felon" stuff several times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The three diffs series above, are the only thing this user has done in WP. They clearly have some real-world beef with Garcia and are carrying that out here in violation of WP:BLPCOI and the discretionary sanctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice

Discussion concerning Andrewpostman93

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 Andrewpostman93

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Andrewpostman93

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.

[Smith_3/24/2017-3] Smith, Jeremy Adam (March 24, 2017). "How the Science of "Blue Lies" May Explain Trump's Support". Scientific American. Retrieved March 30, 2017.

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 253: / Line 253: @@
 :::*{{re|Icewhiz}} Although the motion you link says "enacted" the text [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Motion:_ARBPIA_"consensus"_provision_modified|hasn't made it into the case page]].  I'll take up with the (other) clerks why this is.  Thanks for the pointer.  [[User:GoldenRing|GoldenRing]] ([[User talk:GoldenRing|talk]]) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 *{{ping|GoldenRing|Huon|Black Kite|Seraphimblade|Sandstein|SpacemanSpiff}} No admin has commented here for over a week. Is there any appetite for a sanction (a topic ban was suggested)? Or is a logged warning enough? --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
+::Meh. I expect we'll end up here or at AN/I again soon, but I'm willing to let myself be proved wrong. [[User:Huon|Huon]] ([[User talk:Huon|talk]]) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 ==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy==

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