Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:11, 24 August 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

RevertBob

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 RevertBob

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RevertBob (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

User contribution
[1] Example of gaming
[2] Example of gaming
[3] Example of gaming

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 AUG

If it will be determined that the user indeeded gamed the restriction then he was clearly aware of it

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I understand this is a borderline case but I still want the input of admins The user made about 600 useless edits if it where really useful gnomish edits I would not file this case but in my opinion his edits was only intended to gain the ECP flag to edit Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article @Kurtis: This not about 1RR or quality of his edits(though if its need be defended it raises questions too) but about attempt to WP:GAME to gain the WP:ECP flag

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning RevertBob

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 RevertBob

About Sir Joseph teaming up with Icewhiz, this was just an observation not personal. However why is Icewhiz calling me a duck, I'm a human and how would a duck edit on Wikpedia anyway.

I digress, like User:Bishonen says, Sir Joseph removed wholesale changes without even checking that I gave clear reasons for changes which included Stephen Sedley's quote being changed (which is libel). He removed these without any explanation.[5][6]

Then when he did actually explain it wasn't even a full explanation [7]. How is he allowed to do this with impunity? RevertBob (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

The totality of RevertBob's recent edits to John Henry Clarke, an article that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, consist of these insignificant spacing alterations. I don't see any reverts being made there. Chances are Shrike meant to link RevertBob's contributions to antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, which include a total of ~~two~~ three instances where he re-adds content that was removed without discussion. He also brought the issue to the article's talk page, and while I disagree with his classifying Icewhiz and Sir Joseph as "tag-teaming" (AGF and all), I can empathize with his frustration. Overall, this is pretty minor for a first-time 1RR violation, and I don't think anything more than a warning is needed here. I have no opinion on the reliability of the links being reinserted, or whether or not the content violates WP:UNDUE. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: You say that this is not about 1RR, yet you cite the ARBPIA 1RR restriction as the ruling in need of enforcement. Extended confirmed is not a user right that people "game the system" to acquire - it is automatically enabled on any account that has been registered for a minumum of 30 days with at least 500 edits. What you describe as system-gaming could just as easily be an inexperienced editor gradually becoming more active. I still don't see that RevertBob has done anything to warrant a sanction. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

I asked the user to self revert a 1RR violation, which they did not. In regards to gaming EC, I went over the user's edits yesterday and they definitely look like a WP:DUCK. The user was created in 2014, made 10 edits (auto-confirmed), went dormant, then in 2015 edited their user page (then blanked - not a red link), and 2 other edits. Then dormant until 2 editing sessions in 3-7 June 2017, and 23 July 2017 (achieving EC), and then back again in Aug 2018 to edit ECP pages. The user's edits in 2017 are of two sorts:

3-7 June 2017 - Quite a few edits to the UK and England (e.g. diff) - changing markup caps, and then various BLPs - around 6 edits per page - which are mainly whitespaces, changing he/she to the family name or vice-versa, removing a nickname, and changing the formatting of official website, using a template around birth/death dates, and changing capitalization of markeup elements - e.g. reflist->Reflist. All this in a rather rapid fire pace.
23 July 2017 - true to their user name of RevertBob - undoing a whole bunch of page moves by User:Chrisisherenow (who was blocked a few months later - in October 2017 for being a sock of User:Eulalefty) - who did the page moves on 24 May 2017. Reverting page moves sure does yield plenty of edits (around 4(?) per move).

In short - this does look suspicious.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional 1RR vio (well, 24 hours and 8 minutes to be precise from the previous revert) - 19:44 15 August. This after the AE filing and previous DS notification as well as a request to self revert on the original sequence.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bishonen: - only makes sense (for EC gaming) if this is a sleeper sock (and reverting a subsequently confirmed sock might indicate a connection)... For a single account - no point in such gaming for a single-user/account. For a sock on the shelf waiting - yes. Note that assuming the antisemitism article is ARBPIA (and it is full of Israel/Palestine) they did break 1RR regardless of gaming.Icewhiz (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Besides gaming the system, the user has now reinserted the challenged edits once again. It's clear from his behavior that he is not here to collaborate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: When I reverted the user, I posted on his talk page to stop reinserting non-RS into the article. I made no mention of 1RR because at that time I really had no idea this article was under ARBPIA, and honestly, I don't know if it is or should be under ARBPIA. I made a general note to the user to not reinsert, and it had nothing to do with 1RR. Only after a little back and forth and I saw this report did I think that people think this article under ARBPIA so I sef-reverted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify even further, Shrike who opened this AE action never mentioned 1RR. The issue was gaming the system to gain ECP, or that is the claim. My only interaction with RevertBob is him accusing me of tagteaming with others and not AGF. I asked him on his talk page to stop reinserting non-RS, indeed I don't think CounterPunch is a RS for a topic as serious as this. Only when I saw that people were turning this into a ARBPIA 1RR issue did I self-revert so that we can get clarify if this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. I think it shouldn't, as OID pointed out just being a topic about Jews, or even Israel, doesn't mean the topic is under 1RR. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

The 2017 page moves were reverts of clearly-problematic moves by the now-blocked Chrisisherenow. It's possible this is a sleeper-sock, but even then I wouldn't consider it an ECP-gaming problem. I don't know if they are a sock or if their edits are disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

@Bish - topic level sanctions in effect get added to talkpages as/when they become necessary. Editors who have been warned/notified (as AE defines it) are expected to know what is/isnt covered. It would be impossible to label every article (well, incredibly time-consuming for little benefit) that is related to ARBPIA with the appropriate notices as some articles may contain say, one relevant paragraph out of 20. It wouldnt make editing the rest of the article an ARBPIA issue. Anti-semitism in the blah blah isnt intrinsically an ARBPIA article. Parts of it may be (those specific to the Israel/Palestine issue) but 'anti-semitism' isnt by itself an ARBPIA issue only. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning RevertBob

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

@Shrike:, your diffs for examples of gaming and for dates for previous relevant sanctions don't work, and I don't understand how they're constructed so I can't fix them. Could you have simply forgotten to put in the real diffs? I have however looked at RevertBob's contributions, and the ≈450 edits [sic] he made June 3—June 7, 2017, certainly appear frivolous. But they can surely hardly have been made for the purpose of editing through the EC protection of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party on 14 August 2018, more than a year later. I'm less sure that all the ≈150 page moves he made on 23 July 2017 were frivolous; maybe he really did care about the spelling of those names. Anyway, it all happened in the summer of 2017. I feel strongly about gaming the EC (or for that matter the semi) restriction, and have not previously hesitated to block for it, but I don't really see how it applies here. I can't envision the user making tiny edits to game the restriction over a year ago, and only now, the day before yesterday, starting to edit through EC protection. The timeline is just too strange. I'd have to be convinced it makes sense. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Icewhiz and Power~enwiki: Yes, I suppose it could be a sleeper sock, good point, but there are too many unknowns here, and the editor has engaged on the talkpage. Altogether I wouldn't call their behaviour disruptive. If anybody has a possible sockmaster in mind, I recommend WP:SPI.

After some research, I found that all ARBPIA articles are under a 1RR restriction (you can tell by that that I don't usually admin or comment in this area!), but shouldn't there be some information about that on talk and/or in an edit notice ("Warning:active arbitration remedies" and so on)? I don't see how a new editor is supposed to be aware of the restriction. User:Sir Joseph, who has commented above about "gaming" and "not here to collaborate", would be more likely to know about it, and yet he has reverted RevertBob twice[8][9] in the space of half an hour, very promptly and without explanation. (And then reverted a third time,[10] but that time he self-reverted, which further suggests he's aware of the 1RR restriction.) And Sir Joseph has not engaged on talk. I'd frankly be more likely to sanction him. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@RevertBob:, on the offchance that you're being serious about ducks editing Wikipedia, see WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

יניב הורון

No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 19 August 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 יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 17 August 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: ARBPIA3

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

14 August 2018 The user reverted me and hence he's the original author here on.
16 August 2018‎ I removed the material and asked him to see the talk page discussion and WP:ONUS. Before reverting, I had opened a talk page discussion and it's seen that an uninvolved user was in partial agreement with me.
16 August 2018‎ The reported user reverted me in less than 24 hrs and restored his material and hence violated the 'original author' provision of the remedy. It's noteworthy that he did the revert without participating in the ongoing talk page discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 March 2018 Blocked for violating this remedy.
13 April 2018 Blocked for violating the 'original author' provision of the remedy.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

His being reported at AE is precedented and Huon's prediction came true, unfortunately. in one of the cases admins (like SpacemanSpiff, Black Kite, Seraphimblade) were in favor a Topic Ban. We have also another GAME by the user. In violation of 1RR, he made his second revert 24 hrs + 1 min after the last one (one may see this and this for the user's previous GAMINGs). I'm suggesting a Topic Ban for the user, since despite his previous warnings and blocks he's acting the same as before. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I was expecting you to appear, as you do when יניב הורון faces a problem. יניב הורון is certainly the 'original author'. He had authored the material, I removed it and he reverted me in less than 24hrs. In another case, someone was trying to change the 'original author' by very same wikilawyering as you're doing now. As GR said: " 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,"... and in this case יניב הורון made the edit which was reverted. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: You're tireless defending of a user who edit wars without paying attention to the talk page discussion, merits looking at. I urge the admins to keep track of Icewhiz's comments with regard to יניב הורון in boards the latter is reported. Anyway, יניב הורון's editing pattern is certainly disruptive. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huon: In this case, the reported user kept reverting although we were discussing the issue on talk page. After numerous warning on his talk, he does not tend to participate talk page discussions. Just see his contributions, which is full of reverts. See fresh cases such as Druze in Israel, Wreathgate. As for the 'Original Author', you can see that he reverted me in less than 24 hrs. He restored his own words. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@יניב הורון: You were certainly edit warring, as the admin said. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He is notified. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 17 August 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

Huon: How am I "gaming the system" when Iran-related topics are not even part of ARBPIA? In addition, I restored important content that Mhhossei was whimsically removing for no valid reason whatsoever, as usual.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Besides questions of applicability of ARBPIA (which a recent ARCA, involving Mhhossein, determined Iran/Israel is not part of ARBPIA - what is described here is an Iranian attack on Israel from Syrian soil - borderline - in an article generally about the Iraninan nuclear program (which is not ARBPIA per ARCA - which discussed this)), this is not a 1RR violation. Yaniv is not the "original author" - if there is an "original author" - it is Mhhossein with his removal on 14:58, 14 August 2018 . Yaniv reverted once on 14 August, and once on 16 August. He also reverted poorly crafted additions by an IP on 15 August (24 hours + 1 minute prior to the 16 August revert) to which 1RR does not apply - as reverts to IPs (per the general 1RR restriction which states that reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition, prohibiting IPs in ARBPIA, are exempt) do not count towards 1RR in ARBPIA. To summarize - even if this is ARBPIA (questionable), this isn't remotely a 1RR violation - the reporting party made two reverts in 48 hours, and Yaniv made 2 reverts in 48 hours. The "original author" if at all applies to Mhhossein, but is irrelevant to the sequence.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein - you made the edit which Yaniv reverted - the sequence is quite clear - original revert by Mhhossein, Yaniv's revert. If there's anything worth looking at, it is the amount of reports against Yaniv by Mhhossein - e.g. a recent edit warring report which led to nothing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: The revert of the IP (which should not be editing due to the general prohibition if this is ARBPIA at all) does not count for 1RR - the ARBCOM decision explicitly excludes reverts of IPs from 1RR - there are 49 hours and 32 minutes between the two reverts - which is not close to gaming. That the filer made this allegation in regards to a non infraction is an indication in regards to the filer.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

@Huon: Iranian-Israeli conflict [11] not in the scope per ARCA that the author of the report is participated --Shrike (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) @Kingsindian: Zero already raised the issue at arca you may comment there --Shrike (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Ah, the ridiculous ArbCom remedy strikes again. I see that absolutely nobody understands the remedy, including people who pushed for it (like Icewhiz) and admins who implement it (Huon).

The way the remedy is supposed to be interpreted is that the revert should be at least 24 hours after the other person's revert. So this revert is a violation of the remedy. There's no ambiguity here.

Yeah, it's a completely stupid interpretation and I said so at the time. It didn't matter that absolutely nobody followed this interpretation -- but ArbCom, in their infinite wisdom, decided to change the practice for no reason whatsoever. I may open an ARCA request since this clusterfuck shouldn't be allowed to continue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Kingsindian: Please note that there is an Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3ARCA case considering this already. See my comment there and the arbitrators' mixed replies. Input there would be welcome. Zero^talk 12:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus (uninvolved)

Not involved in this spat though I have edited Iran topics (never any Iran ones where Yaniv also was present though). I would like to know, once and for all, if Iran -- a non-majority-Arab but Muslim country with (currently) crappier relations with Israel than most Arab countries -- is covered by ARBPIA. If it is, it should be made clear to the community. If it is not, treatment as such should not occur. It seems to be being treated as "informally ARBPIA" -- which I feel is too ambiguous for symmetrical application of policy. Thanks all, --Calthinus (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This single remark alone [12] reveals that יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here not to collaborate but to game the system. His other comments and a long string of nothing but reverts [13], hints a conflict with the primary policy aspect of WP:NPOV which as defined by ArbCom demands that editors devote themselves to writing an unbiased encyclopedia. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

As Calthinus says, Iran is not generally accepted to fall within the ARBPIA area as currently defined—in fact, previous enforcement requests have been declined on that basis—and I would therefore be uncomfortable with Yaniv being sanctioned under ARBPIA remedies for actions on an Iran–related article, at least at this time. Leaving to administrator discretion the interpretation of whether any particular edit on the subject of Iran crosses over into ARBPIA territory would likely result in selective enforcement. For what it's worth, many edits fall into an ambiguous "gray area" precisely because Iran (including its economy, foreign relations, and nuclear program) is inextricably linked to the broader Arab–Israeli conflict—in Lebanon, Syria, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Gaza—such that ARBPIA should be formally modified to include the ongoing tensions between Iran and Israel.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RevertBob

Interesting Icewhiz accused me of gaming but is defending this person of it when they seem to have been warned before about it but continue to do it without any punishment. RevertBob (talk) 11:55, 18 August 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.

The "original author" argument seems rather contrived to me, but this clearly is edit-warring and gaming the system. From 24 hours 2 minutes when I last saw יניב הורון here we're down to 24 hours 1 minute. At that time they said: "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." They should never do that. They should be well aware that while keeping the letter of the rule they're violating the spirit. If they weren't sitting around with a clock and waiting until reverting was no longer obviously forbidden, then they'd have to admit that they got incredibly lucky to not revert two minutes earlier. Either way, this needs to stop, and it's not stopping merely due to stern warnings. I suggest a topic ban. Huon (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets confused by the intricacies of ARBPIA: Some people argue I'm wrong because the IP shouldn't have edited the article, others argue that the article wasn't covered by ARBPIA in the first place, which would mean the IP was allowed to edit. Whether an article that mentions Israel and Hizbollah in the same sentence "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" seems debatable, particularly since the content in question concerns an attack against Israel from the territory of Syria, an Arab country. Either way, I was wrong insofar as reverting the IP cannot cause a breach of 1RR, either because there's no 1RR or because reverting IPs is exempt. So no gaming of the system (though the timing is still interesting). Edit warring it still is, IMO, but that's not actionable here. Huon (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this not actionable. This is about conflict between Iran and Israel. The WP:ARBPIA scope is limited to the "Arab-Israeli conflict". Iran is not an Arab country. Sandstein 20:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is the current consensus of administrators and the Arbitration Committee at ARCA that Iran falls outside of ARBPIA. The general prohibition applies to articles, not edits. reasonably construed, not broadly construed. As such, this is not actionable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Calthinus to your question re: Iran and Israel, the committee dealt with this 3 months ago at ARCA, with one committee member noting that she was unwilling to extended it to Iran without a full case. Currently Iran-Israel relations are out of scope. See: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3_(May_2018). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00 - July 2018

Witdrawn by OP--regentspark (comment) 15:36, 21 August 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 Capitals00

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Capitals00 (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: India-Pakistan standard discretionary sanctions

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

16:35, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC) Filed sockpuppet investigation against DraculatheDragon (talk · contribs), a user participating in discussion at Talk:Adam's Bridge, a page covered by Capitals00's topic ban. See below for further explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned from edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed.

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

Currently subject to a discretionary sanction, as noted under "previous relevant sanctions."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm requesting neutral admins to review this situation as to whether it constitutes a violation of Capitals00's topic ban, per the precedent implied by BU Rob13 in this AN thread, that editors subject to this topic ban may also not participate in administrative discussions regarding sanctions against opponent editors in the ARBIPA topic. Please consider as well that the supposed violation here occurred before BU Rob13's action in that thread by some time. The situation is:

The subject of the title of our article Adam's Bridge has been subject to conflict between editors on either side of the India-Pakistan conflict for some time. There was a new and widely attended move discussion recently in which DraculatheDragon commented ([14] [15]) at 11:12-11:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC), these being their first edits in over two months. Note that DraculatheDragon is user MegaCyanide666, unblocked per the standard offer and using a new account due to losing their password (see their request).[reply]
At 12:03 the same day, user Accesscrawl filed a sockpuppet investigation against DraculatheDragon. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DraculatheDragon)
At 16:35 on the same day, Capitals00 filed essentially the same investigation (could have been copied and pasted from Accesscrawl's report) per the diff above.
The first report was closed by clerk Sir Sputnik on the same day with no action, citing "circumstantial evidence". I closed the second report just now, as it was based on the same evidence, and I also felt it was circumstantial.

The question I have for reviewing admins is whether Capitals00 filing an admin-attention report against a user who had only edited a page subject to the topic ban constitutes a violation of the topic ban, and as a side question, whether these two users filing multiple frivolous and possibly coordinated admin-action reports against a user disagreeing with their point of view constitutes harassment. As the offending action occurred some time ago (about three weeks) I expect the result would constitute no more than a warning if so, but I would also like to know how to respond to future frivolous investigation requests from this set. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Capitals00:

The "offending action" I'm referring to is your posting of the SPI, your action that I'm requesting admins to review, which you did about three weeks ago. "Offending" with respect to your topic ban, not offending in the sense of taking offense, in case that was ambiguous.
Boing! [16] and I [17] both updated the SPI noting DraculatheDragon's account disclosure before you pointed it out here, and I also noted it in my request on this page. It's you, not either of us, who is deliberately misrepresenting this point.
Your personal attacks regarding my competence, my understanding of the definition of topic bans, and my motivation for dismissing your misleading investigation, are noted.
Boing! has also told you to drop the stick in the SPI ([18]).

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: well it seems I'm mistaken, then. I made an assumption based on the particular group of editors spamming supports in that move discussion that it indicated yet another "Indians vs. Pakistanis" Wikipedia conflict, but I see that that is not the case, and it was a poor assumption to have made on my part. Request withdrawn, with apologies to Capitals00. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Capitals00

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 Capitals00

First of all, anyone can tell that this is not a topic ban violation. I am still going to keep this short.

Ivanvector claimed "MegaCyanide666 supposedly admits to using DraculatheDragon was made by an IP and doesn't mention DraculatheDragon at al".[19] This was rejected by Boing who said that DraculatheDragon admits to be MegaCyanide666.[20]

Now if Ivanvector could misread/misrepresent this simple fact about the SPI, I am not sure if he even observed any connection of these accounts with KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a known sockmaster.
Ivanvector also claims that I "copied" the report when I made connection with a sockmaster engaging in mass socking even in this year per the evidence posted.

Ivanvector then reverted my edit on SPI when I still assumed good faith and attempted to clarify things to him.[21]

I also don't know what Ivanvector meant from "As the offending action occurred some time ago (about three weeks)" above. I don't recall any action "three weeks ago" against me.

What I think is that Ivanvector, who don't even understand what is a topic ban violation or what falls under this topic, has clearly attempted to dismiss my solid SPI report by not only assuming bad faith but also misrepresenting them. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

How is a southern India/Sri Lanka geological formation that is some 2,200+ kms away from the Pakistani border, and some 1,800+ kms away from Bangladesh (East Pakistan) part of "related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed"? The article doesn't mention Pakistan once. This isn't remotely close to the conflict area broadly construed.Icewhiz (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Capitals00

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

While filing an SPI against an editor who has primarily edited a topic banned page would, IMO, be a violation, I don't see this as being the case here. The Adam's Bridge move request doesn't really fall in the Indian-Pakistani range of articles, even broadly construed. And, even if that were the case and unless I'm misunderstanding the entire request, wouldn't the fact that capitals00 had commented on that move request be the primary topic ban violation rather than the SPI? --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

72bikers

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 72bikers

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Neutral_point_of_view :

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

[22] Undid a revert by Waleswatcher and reinstated a bizarre (and almost nonsense) edit that I undid here [[23]] which was made despite objections to the exact wording he used. To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS, but this is blatant as it is not even well written (and indeed is not even factually accurate according to 72 bikers previous version). And not wholly supported by the sources (indeed as written a blatant misrepresentation of them). It is (in fact) (in my opinion) vandalism (for the purposes of trolling), and a 1RR breach to boot.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
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 [24]
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[25]]

Discussion concerning 72bikers

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 72bikers

Slatersteven edit summary today.

Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?[26]

There is no Dr jones in the article so not very clear what he was trying to say.

Context

Slatersteven claimed this source does not list all of the weapons used so OR using it.[27]

Slatersteven claimed this sources was about mass murder and not mass shootings so OR using it.[28]

The 3rd source used [29] There are many more but I did not want to overburden the article with overkill, but can provide if needed.

AR-15 Talk page comments yesterday.

"On the grounds it does not list all of the weapons used in all of the shootings" Slatersteven [30]

"On things like case 5 which says Semi auto rifle, but dose snot specify type" Slatersteven [31]

"Slatersteven the chart defines 4 weapons types semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. The same as the study." 72bikers [32]

"Slatersteven there are tools provided that also allow the ability to filter the chart for specific stats, as well a list and link for the sources of every shooting so there is no guessing nor OR" 72bikers [33]

"Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's hence trying to draw definite number form this sources is OR." Slatersteven [34]

To further support the statistics, "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research"[35]. From 1984 to 2018 in the last 35 years only 14 mass shootings used a AR-15."

But as you point out "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's" I will address your concern to resolve this issue. -72bikers [36]

Article edits

Slatersteven's last edit yesterday [37]

My edit to address his concerns yesterday [38]

Slatersteven's edit today [39] with his edit summery "Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?" I honestly I am not sure what he is saying.

Waleswatcher's right after removing Slatersteven's edit and blanking all of this content [40] with a edit summery "You cannot start a sentence with "Though", and the information here is mostly redundant with the first phrase of this section (and already very well cited). Furthermore)"

It is not entirely clear what he is referring to, but if I had to guess "While most gun killings in the United States are with handguns" But this has nothing to do with the content removed it is about gun killings in general and not about mass shooting content and RS removed.

Todays article talk page (Slatersteven "Why was not just providing his direct quote not doing this?" today on the article talk page. [41])

My edit after Waleswatcher restoring the content he blanked and addressing Slatersteven concern raised and WW "You cannot start a sentence with "Though".[42]

Waleswatcher recently has blanked content and not discussed it on the talk page as seen toady. [43], [44] -72bikers (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I said at the ANI I was unsure what to do. I have no idea where to find the remedies, Also I included the discretionary sanctions awareness information [45], they are aware DS is in place. So I am not sure what you are asking for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine close it, I really cannot figure out how to report the user, and so an edit that is blatant trolling stands. I will not post here anymore as it is pointless.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK how does it misrepresent the sources

1. (also a mild BLP violation (assuming the edit means what I think it means)) the study was by Fox and DeLateur (not just by Prof Fox), in addition the study has no links to the mother Jones source (as the edit seems to imply).

2. the Mother Jones source is just a list of incidents it contains no mention of "very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred". Nor does Prof Jones say anything in it

3. One of sources for the phrase "Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time." does not say that, it says military style semi auto rifles (in fact it does not say 25 percent of the time, it is also out of date which is another issue altogether). neither of the other two sources for that claim say it.

But as I said it is so badly written it is hard to follow exactly what is being said about what, hence why I say it is troling.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note the edit has now been reverted by another edd precisely because [[46]] "RV an illegible edit", it was a nonsense edit designed to make a point. So maybe it should have been battleground conduct I reported them for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I admit (as I did from the start) that many of us breached DS, and I had not reported any of that. It was the trolling nature of this breach of DS I felt actionable, not the 1RR breach. I cannot even fathom the mentality behind it other then being a deliberate slap in the face to any ed who has disagreed with him. It was a willful act of childish vandalism, that is what I find unforgivable, and why I have raised it here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [47] represents the problem, not one issue. No where do I say that I have final say. There is no attempt to justify or explain the edit he made, just (what is in effect) a strawman. As I said this is not about 1RR but a general tone of PA's, poor editing and general disrespect to anyone who does not share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

Isn't the edit a violation of consensus required before restoration restriction? insertion by 72biker, reversion, reinsertion by 72biker. Slatersteven I think the remedy you're looking for is the DS remedy under-which these page specific restrictions are done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, if you can explain how the edit is a clear misrepresentation of sources that can also be something that could get a topic ban, especially/if there is a pattern of doing so. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 72bikers

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

Not actionable as submitted. The request links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Neutral point of view, which is not a remedy. Only remedies are enforceable. The discretionary sanctions awareness information is also missing. Sandstein 16:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein. We can't really figure out if an edit adheres to NPOV or not anyway. You'll need to get consensus for inclusion/exclusion of the material on the article talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User was notified of the gun control DS under WP:ARBGC in March. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a WP:1RR restriction with a 'consensus required' clause visible at the head of Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Perhaps that is what User:Slatersteven is asking for enforcement of. But strict application of the 1RR might fall on the heads of a number of people who have edited in the last three days. As the filer states above, "To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS.." EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As Ed says, the 1RR restriction seems to be ignored on that page, and not only by 72bikers. In lieu of blocks at this point, maybe best to close with a reminder of the 1RR restriction, and warnings to those who have violated it (which, at a glance, would appear to include both 72bikers and Slatersteven). MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

No violation. Regards So Why 11:44, 24 August 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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Temporary topic ban from the history of Poland in WWII (1933-45) :

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

29 July 2018 Wojtek belonged to the Polish II Corps during WWII. Edit worth noting despite probably falling under the vandalism exception.
12 August 2018 Edit removed statement regarding Polish emigration policy from 1936 onwards, which overlaps with the time frame defined in the ban.
21 August 2018 Edit overlaps with the time frame of the ban.
22 August 2018 Major polish politician, in power until 1935. Considered one of the greatest Polish leaders of the 20th century, his ideas affected Polish politics and foreign policy for years. The edit thus falls under both the time frame and subject of the ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 7 July 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just to clarify a few things: First of all, I've no "battle" with Marek and I'm not concerned with what he does or where he does it. I've come upon this by chance, and was simply alerted by him following and editing pages he's not supposed to touch at all. It's not a frivolous complaint and it's not "battleground mentality", but if you think there's no "meat" to it then I'll retract it.

As for the edits themselves: From my understanding topic bans are "broadly construed" by default: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, where "broadly" is defined as any intersection with the topic. Marek's ban did not specify otherwise, which means everything that intersects with or relates to the history of Poland from 1933-1945 is included: immigration policy (especially as it relates to the Soviet invasion of Poland), territories that were exchanged at the end of war (as part of the Potsdam Agreement), and leaders that played a major role in shaping Poland's foreign policy at the years leading up to war - three out of the four diffs. Maybe Marek has his reasons (and they might as well be correct - I wouldn't know), but that's what one sees on the face of it.

That's my understanding of the policy. If you disagree then I'll retract and file an RfC for clarification. François Robere (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Oh. My. Freaking. God.

First diff is removal of obvious vandalism ("fellow doof Rachel Carter") which is exempt from bans. The fact that FR would even bring this up on this forum just illustrates how insanely WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faithed his approach is. Please WP:BOOMERANG.
Second diff is about the freakin' Cold War, and specifically the 1980's, which is not covered by the topic ban (WW2). The fact that FR would even bring this up on this forum just illustrates how insanely WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faithed his approach is. Please WP:BOOMERANG.
Third diff is a revert of WP:BANNED user who's initials are "HJ". This person is actually the first person to have ever been indeff banned (by Jimbo, for Holocaust denial) on Wikipedia (a bit of history for you yung'uns) has sock puppeted perennially since then, and anyone active in this topic area can immediately spot her edits and knows her IP (she's been here for like 15+ years now). Now, there was an agreement made between this user and, iirc, Jimbo, not to use this person's full name on Wikipedia and while strictly speaking that doesn't apply to me, that's why I'm only using her initials. I can provide more details via email if necessary. This is exempt under WP:BANNED and WP:VANDAL. (Also arguable if "Since 1945" is covered by this topic ban. The article itself has nothing to do with WW2)
Fourth diff is regarding a politician who freakin' died in 1935!!!. Again this is not covered by a WW2 topic ban. The fact that FR would even bring this up on this forum just illustrates how insanely WP:BATTLEGROUND and bad faithed his approach is. Please WP:BOOMERANG.

This is an utterly ridiculous and malicious request, and Francois Robere deserves at least a topic ban of his own for bringing this nonsense here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess the Baptism of Poland in 966 AD was one of the factors that *eventually* led to WW2, so it falls under "broadly construed". Gimme a break. This is frivolous and vindictive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

I had a look at the diffs provided and Volunteer Marek's assertions seem largely correct. The only one that might require additional validation is this one [49] and only then in as far as to confirm that it was a legit revert of a topic-banned sockpuppet, which should be easy for any admins watching these pages to confirm. However I didn't see any indication of "broadly construed" in the TBan documentation, and all other provided diffs have to do with events that happened either long before or long after the specified time period. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Accesscrawl

No one should be sanctioned for reverting socks, but WP:BANEX is not currently clear about it. It only makes exceptions towards BLP violation and vandalism. I think reverting copyright violation should also fall under BANEX. This should be proposed on policy page I guess. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Frivolous report. All reported edits are either outside the topic ban scope, or exempt per WP:BANEX. — JFG ^talk 17:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken=

Françoise Robere should probably receive the AE equivalent of a trout for this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

None of this remotely violates the topic ban in the slightest. --B (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first three diffs are clearly not violations. The last one could fall under the topic ban, but since it was dealing with a time frame far before WWII, I wouldn't call it a violation either. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are violations. Even the last one, which apparently overlaps with the stated topic ban period, is so off the wall that listing it as a violation is outré. Might be worth taking action against the OP for frivolous reports, especially considering that they listed the obvious vandalism (diff #1) as a violation. --regentspark (comment) 16:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these are not topic ban violations and that the request borders on the frivolous. I am ready to consider sanctions against the complainant if evidence of any other relevant misconduct by them is submitted. Sandstein 16:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The others are not, but the last could be argued to be just inside that boundary (being a high-level statesman that would have helped to frame some of Poland's pre-war stance before his death in 1935), but it's 1) toeing that line and we don't seem to be looking at a "broadly construed" tban and 2) it was an edit to remove an unrelilable/unproven source by a new-ish editor with only one other contribution in their history, the type that might fall under an allowable tban edit in other situations. Not a violation to take action again in this case. --Masem (t) 16:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no action against VM, this is frivolous to the point that given the complainant is not a new user I must conclude either the complainant is maliciously misusing the A/R/E process, or is staggeringly incompetent in terms of their ability to know when it is appropriate to use the A/R/E process. Either way, I think that FR's rights to submit requests for enforcement needs to be reconsidered. Fish+Karate 10:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if some sort of restriction against FR on reporting VM might be needed, because this report is a spectacular waste of everyone's time, and even brings concerns about competence into play. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas.W

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 Thomas.W

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): warned on his personal talk page. warned on the article talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I found the page because I follow notification boards and saw a previous dispute where it was mentioned. I was galled by the fractured grammar, and didn't believe it had any place in a high-traffic article. So I challenged the edit. Subsequently I was accused of it being vandalism or test activity. A claim which is somewhat laughable.

Additional comment I will note that I called the comment "illegible" in the edit summary because I thought "illiterate" would have been too harsh. The point is, the grammar in that edit was not of good enough quality to be on the encyclopedia anywhere.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Thomas.W

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 Thomas.W

As is often the case on articles about contentious subjects not much of the text above is true. What I reverted, after having seen the edit in my watchlist, was a drive-by removal of a big chunk (1,865K) of sourced text, by an editor who, to my knowledge, has never edited the article before, with a misleading edit summary ("RV an illegible edit"; bad handwriting can be illegible, and old and worn signs also often are illegible, but none of the text on AR-15 style rifle is...). My revert, with the edit summary "Rv wholesale removal of content, with a misleading edit summary", was then followed by me posting a user warning for unexplained removal of content on the user's talk page, and a discretionary sanctions alert for articles relating to gun control, since the user hadn't received a DS-alert for that area before.

To be treated as a legitimate challenge of the material the edit summary should have clearly explained what was being done, and why, because it's not up to other editors to guess what the intentions of the editor removing the material were, so claiming that I violated discretionary sanctions is in my opinion laughable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Waleswatcher: I have never violated discretionary sanctions on the artice, as you claim, a discussion here found that no violation had been made. I have in fact never violated discretionary sanctions on any article in any subject area under DS, so do not misrepresent things. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Waleswatcher: Halftruths as usual, if even that. You tried to shift the blame onto me and others when you were brought here (by someone else, not me), as you always do, but it was closed with no action. Not having violated discretionary sanctions means never having been found guilty of violating discretionary sanctions, and I have never been found guilty of that, this is in fact to the best of my memory the first time I have ever been brought here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Waleswatcher

This is (at least) the second time Thomas.W has violated that specific sanction on that specific page: see here. I asked them to self-revert then too, and just like now they angrily refused.

I attempted to report them to the ANI at the time, but apparently that's the wrong venue. Before I could figure out the right procedure I was traveling with poor internet and couldn't take it further. In the end a case was opened here against me, with this conclusion: From what I can see Waleswatcher's interpretation of the "consensus required" sanction was correct, though the slow edit war wasn't ideal. 72bikers made an edit that removed longstanding material, WW challenged that edit with a revert, and then consensus should have then been required to remove the material again. I'm fine closing this with no action.

This situation is identical - Thomas.W again reinstated an edit that had been challenged by reversion. That looks to me like a crystal clear violation of the sanction.

@Thomas.W: "I have never violated discretionary sanctions on the artice, as you claim, a discussion here found that no violation had been made." Very lawyerly put! Yes, a case here found that no violation had been made... by me! It did not conclude that about your actions, rather the contrary (just see the quote and diff above). Waleswatcher (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: "Waleswatcher has been doing some drive by edits on the topic. Rather than actually engage in discussion WW creates a hostile editing atmosphere by entering the topic area, making sweeping edits then only engaging in talk page discussion after people complain. WW doesn't come here with clean hands and has generally hurt civil editing of the article." I'm not going to speculate on Springee's motivations for writing this (it's off-topic and out of place), but I'll just say I strongly disagree with it and that the two of us have been on opposite sides of a number of disputes on that article.

@Bishonen: Can you please explain how Thomas.W's edit is not a patent violation of the following remedy? Thanks.

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Waleswatcher (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Same question to you as to Bishonen. And another - what's the point of these "remedies" if nothing is done when they are violated? Waleswatcher (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Springee)

I don't have much to say on this other than Waleswatcher has been doing some drive by edits on the topic. Rather than actually engage in discussion WW creates a hostile editing atmosphere by entering the topic area, making sweeping edits then only engaging in talk page discussion after people complain. WW doesn't come here with clean hands and has generally hurt civil editing of the article. Why do I mention WW's behavior in this context? Thomas.W's edits are responses in part to the disruption caused by WW. I agree that the removed material does need to be cleaned up but the originator of this ARE should have worked to clean up the material rather than delete with no talk page comment (there was an active talk page discussion regarding the material). I certainly can understand the desire to revert a wholesale deletion with limited comment and no talk page discussion. I would suggest the actual solution to this issue is use the talk page to clean up the material then add it to the article. Springee (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I'm commenting in this section, not because I consider myself involved in the gun control area, but because I'm on friendly terms with Thomas.W and thus potentially biased in his favour. I agree that the removed material which Thomas.W restored wasn't illegible nor incomprehensible, but merely poorly written. It should have been cleaned up rather than removed, and I agree with Tom that removing it as "illegible" wasn't a legitimate challenge. Nor, however, would I have called Simonm223's removal "vandalism", as Tom implicitly did. I don't believe anybody has violated DS in this instance. None of the editors involved here have a very pleasant tone on Talk:AR-15 style rifle, but then that unfortunately tends to happen on that talkpage. Bishonen | talk 14:32, 24 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

This is related to my complaint above (and in fact is about the same material). I am not sure Thomas.W ‎ violated the DS. I get that they reinserted material that is very poorly written (to the point of being misleading) I cannot see an DS violation. But I do feel that is attitude "drive by", "test edit/blanking/vandalism" is problematic. The edit whilst it may not be (strictly speaking) "illegible" (you can read the words) it is a jumble that makes it hard to follow, thus the edit by Simonm223 was clearly made in good faith.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thomas.W

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

So: an editor reverted a perfectly legible edit with the combative edit summary "RV an illegible edit", and now wants us to sanction the editor who was offended by this, right? Not happening. For the record I think the edit should not remain (it is not great English, it uses prenominals in an appeal to authority, and so on), but as an edit, and as a course of conduct surrounding the edit, this is a garden variety content dispute of a very low level that should simply be discussed on Talk. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad grammar" that otherwise uses reasonable RSes is not a reason to edit war. Grammar can be fixed, and unless the text was completely misstating the conclusions of the source, it is not a reason to editwar. No action against Thomas.W. --Masem (t) 14:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (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#Editors_reminded :

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: [50] A highly uncivil edit, with personal attacks, a bad faith accusation, unbecoming language and general unpleasant and intimidating phrases and tone. Completely unprovoked by anything but the fact that I undid his edit, and disproportionate. All of that in an area which is sensitive enough without editors sowing animosity, especially if those editors have been specifically warned not to do that (see most specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Nishidani has been a regular guest here from early stages onwards, with topic bans, blocks, and warnings like the one cited above from archive 200, and even a few self-imposed periods of penitence which failed to last long.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't seen Nishidani around in a while, but he unfortunately has not mended his bad ways. His inflammatory and insulting language, consciously or not intended to intimidate his opponents, is unacceptable on this project, and especially in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I tried to reason with him on his talkpage,[51] but he only digs himself in deeper,[52] so in stead of arguing or getting angry, I decided to just bring it here and let the community decide if that was an appropriate edit. I so informed him. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken Since I have conceded the point in the discussion, this report is clearly not for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in the discussion, and it is a shame you should put forward such a bad faith accusation. As you can see on Nishidani's talkpage, I consider this a behavioral issue, and as such it falls within this forums discretionary sanctions, and I ask the community to give its opinion regarding Nishidani's behavior in view of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as stressed in WP:ARBPIA. Debresser (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

What led me to edit this page was, on reading it, noting an egregious error:-

This term (Arab Jews) 'is proposed by cultural studies scholar Ella Shohat to refer to populations commonly termed Mizrahim or Sephardim.

Whoever wrote that did not know that (a) Albert Memmi used the term ‘Arab Jews’ a decade before Shohat (b) that in Arabic, al-Yahūd al-ʿArab or the Palestinian variant Yahud Awlad Arab (Arab- born Jews) has been round a long time, and (c) did not know the elementary fact that, in historiography, Arab Jews refers also to Arabs who converted to Judaism. Speaking of the ‘ethnic Arabs’ who constituted the Himyarite Kingdom Simon Schama wrote uncontroversially that many of them were ‘ethnic Arabs’, and that

’ethnically Arab Itureans and idumeans (were forcibly converted) . .it is impossible to differentiate Arabian Jews who had originated as emigrants from pre- or post- Temple destruction Palestine, and the multitudes of erstwhile pagan Arabs who had chosen Judaism,’ that Islam was 'in effect, Arab Judaism’. (Simon Schama, The Story of the Jews:Finding the words 1000 BCE-1492 CE, Vintage Books 2014 pp234-236)

In short, the page Arab Jews is claiming contrafactually that the term only refers to a controversy about modern Jews in Arab countries that arose putatively in the 1980s, when even a superficial knowledge of the subject would tell you that significant Jewish communities (Yemeni Jews) hail from Arab populations. Sure, this is thought scandalous by some because the school meme runs: everyone of Jewish ethnicity hails by direct descent from the Biblical Israelites, something that, if you try to correct on any wiki page, gets you swarmed with reverters. So I set about

18:31, 22 August 2018‎ removing to talk what looks like a classic case (contrafactual per Klein 2014) of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH
18:33, 22 August 2018‎ I explain the problem, and why it necessitates the removal of the sentence, on the talk page. I make a careful construal of what the English means, and note the two sources (and 3 are required) used fail verification
Debresser 21:49, 22 August 2018‎ justifies its retention saying I‘ misunderstood the intention of the phrase,'
21:53, 22 August 2018‎ 1. Undo addition of specific description before the general description. 2. Undo removal of statement which is currently being discussed on talkpage
Note that, despite the fact I questioned the sentence’s reliability, and opened a talk page discussion, Debresser restored it but did not add the requisite tag. For him, at that moment, the garbled, unhistorical piece of WP:SYNTH was hunky dory, and didn’t require further justification.
Some hours later he then 00:08, 24 August 2018 on the talk pages backtracked and effectively admits my judgement was correct. For in the meantime he checked the sources.
The topping on the cake is that, having undone my edit, and having rebuffed my talk page reasons for removing the sentence, and taking as offensive my suggestion he hadn’t read the sources, he not only admitted I was correct, that the sources do not give warrant for the phrasing, and that he does not, as earlier, object to its removal. but after acknowledging the facts, 23 minutes later ((00:31, 24 August 2018‎)), he hauls me before AE saying I haven’t mended my bad ways, intimidate people, and am therefore to be judged an ’unacceptable’ presence’ on this project.

Meaning? Debresser will revert me on an I/P issue (I added content to two pages on August 22, and in both cases Debresser removed it. I.e. also at Jerusalem here). He will contest my reasoning, threaten me repeatedly on my page ([53][54], [55],), admit I am correct, and then ask that I be sanctioned for my behaviour. The only intelligible sense to this erratic attritional time-wasting havoc is, 'I will cause you problems, even if you are right, because, when you edit, you require my consent here on the talk page.’ It's not the first time Debresser has indulged himself in this kind of of weird shenanigans. In reverting on different pages my two contributions, on the same day, he was patently trying to disrupt my work here. WP:Boomerang per WP:Harass.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde,Fish and karate. and Debresser (regarding ‘behavioural issues’) I have no candidacy aspirations for sainthood. When I prepare to edit, I do my homework, consisting of in this case reading upwards of 140 pages ([56]; [57]; [58]; [59];[60];[61]. On most articles (not contemporary) I add nothing that cannot be closely academically grounded. So, when my first edit of a review of a defective page gets an automatic revert by someone who hasn't done the required background work, I consider that profoundly uncivil, ('what the fuck's going on here') like all edit-warring. I've had Debresser challenge my work countless times, even amounting to deliberate source falsification,frivolous and dismissed AE complaints, accusations I conspire against him, with gross excisions, and removal (also here of excellent sources). The point there was that he was asserting 'wording not supported by sources' (The wording was in those sources. Source falsification again, and reverting in the face of it. It's a trait of his editing.) to the point of breaking 1R, for which he was duly sanctioned early this year, and which he immediatelly appealed (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT) only to have the appeal turned down (though I did put in a good word on his behalf). In my book thoughtless reverting is uncivil, especially when the reverter does not even trouble to read the evidence, as is the case here. He sighted my name and reverted unthinkingly. It is deeply frustrating to work hard, for hours, and then have it demolished by a click of the button by someone unfamiliar with the topic, and then be told the issue is, whether I was being civil, as if an encyclopedia's content were built by the exchange of courtesies.Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in extenso because I believe this pattern of reverting without examining the sources is a hounding pattern. It recurred today. I did three measly edits to some pages, and, yes, material is removed with the edit summary:

(1) from whom? He was the commander)’, despite the source saying ‘he defied orders by opening fire.’).

(2)* claiming that Anshel Pfeffer’s Bibi: The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu, Hurst & Co., London 2018 account of Yoni Netanyahu's death (not an I/P topic by the way) nor Adam Shatz’s close paraphrasing review of it 'The sea is the same sea,' Vol. 40 No. 16, 30 August 2018 pages 24-28 is an opinion piece The book is onvious WP:RS. Schatz’s review is obviously, as a Review article, not an opinion piece for such details.((a) ‘Review articles come in the form of literature reviews and, more specifically, systematic reviews; both are a form of secondary literature’. Literature reviews provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.’) and WP:NEWSORG 'Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.' In this case Shatz summarizes the content, ergo not an opinion.

(3) it needs to be supported by secondary reliable sources (such as newspapers), not an op-Ed . It is again, not an op-ed, but a book review, citing a known fact and an instant’s googling would have given the editor proof of the veracity of Schatz’s note. Matthew Haag, Robert Jeffress, Pastor Who Said Jews Are Going to Hell, Led Prayer at Jerusalem Embassy, New York Times 14 May 2018.

It would be nice after all these years, if some administrative support were to be given to content editors who are vexed by POV warriors indifferent to source control, the proper application of policy - not its spurious misrepresentation in edit summaries, and whose purpose in numerous edits is to cleanse pages of anything that might trouble a nationalistic POV. Unlike Debresser, I don't report people, but editors should not be expected to put up with persistent malevolent and pretextual reverting behavior. In just two days over 4 articles, 2 editors have reverted everything I added, and that constitutes an informal denial of my right to edit on this and contiguous topic areas. It's a serious issue, and requires some measures. Nishidani (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

There is no misbehavior in Nishidani's response which rises to the level of justifying Debresser opening this AE request. It appears to me that it's an attempt to use AE for BATTLEGROUND purposes, to win a content dispute, and is therefore a frivolous misuse of AE.

I believe both of these editors have appeared on this page numerous times, and I have no clear memory (because of the number of appearances) of whom I've agreed with and disagreed with in the past. Being therefore essentially neutral, I've edited the article in question and placed my justifying comment on the talk page, but that edit is not connected with the opinion above; i.e. I've got no dog in this fight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

Posting here, as I was once involved in an argument of sorts with Nishidani. Nishidani's behavior is not ideal: phrases such as "This moronic statement was reinserted by Debresser" should be avoided, and it's not good form to say something like "I'm a native speaker therefor I speak English better than you" (aside from personalizing something, it's also faulty reasoning: many non-native speakers I know have a far superior command of English than many native speakers I know). But this is far from the level of incivility necessary to trigger an arbitration enforcement sanction, and I see no reason to take action here. Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

No action, I am more zealous about maintaining civility than most admins, but I can't construe [62] as "A highly uncivil edit, with personal attacks, a bad faith accusation, [containing] unbecoming language and general unpleasant and intimidating phrases and tone." The words "stupid", "moronic" and "what the fuck" are ill-advised but are directed at the content, not the contributor, and are nowhere near the point where a sanction is anywhere near being warranted. And that's even with the lower-threshold mentioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Result_concerning_Nishidani, and even if that wasn't from 2 years ago. Fish+Karate 10:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 582: / Line 582: @@
 Meaning? Debresser will revert me on an I/P issue (I added content to two pages on August 22, and in both cases Debresser removed it. I.e. also at [[Jerusalem]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=856064249 here]). He will contest my reasoning, threaten me repeatedly on my page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=856206874&oldid=854979888][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=856206984&oldid=856206874], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=856207185&oldid=856206984],), admit I am correct, and then ask that I be sanctioned for my behaviour. The only intelligible sense to this erratic attritional time-wasting havoc is, 'I will cause you problems, even if you are right, because, when you edit, you require my consent here on the talk page.’ It's not the first time Debresser has indulged himself in this kind of of weird shenanigans. In reverting on different pages my two contributions, on the same day, he was patently trying to disrupt my work here. [[WP:Boomerang]] per [[WP:Harass]].[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 :[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]],[[User:Fish and karate|Fish and karate]]. and [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] (regarding ‘behavioural issues’) I have no candidacy aspirations for sainthood. When I prepare to edit, I do my homework, consisting of in this case reading upwards of 140 pages  ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/2676427]; [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305335498_%27We_Are_Arabs_Before_We_Are_Jews%27_The_Emergence_and_Demise_of_Arab-Jewish_Culture_in_Modern_Times_EJOS_-_Electronic_Journal_of_Oriental_Studies_VIII9_2005_pp_1-47]; [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470274]; [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25470275];[https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.19.3.134];[https://www.jstor.org/stable/1519736]. On most articles (not contemporary) I add nothing that cannot be closely academically grounded. So, when my first edit of a review of a defective page gets an automatic revert by someone who hasn't done the required background work, I consider that profoundly uncivil, ('what the fuck's going on here') like all edit-warring. I've had Debresser challenge my work countless times, even  amounting to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=790832119  deliberate source falsification],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=741524704#Nishidani frivolous and dismissed AE complaints], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=791045511 accusations I conspire against him], with  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herodium&diff=next&oldid=818447686  gross excisions], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herodium&diff=next&oldid=818707931 removal] (also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herodium&diff=next&oldid=819244482 here] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herodium&diff=next&oldid=818631668 excellent sources]). The point there was that he was asserting  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herodium&diff=next&oldid=819244482 'wording not supported by sources'] (The wording was in those sources. Source falsification again, and reverting in the face of it. It's a trait of his editing.) to the point of breaking 1R, for which he was duly [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225#Result_concerning_Debresser sanctioned early this year], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser which he immediatelly appealed (WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT)  only to have the appeal turned down] (though I did put in a good word on his behalf).   In my book thoughtless reverting is uncivil, especially when the reverter does not even trouble to read the evidence, as is the case here. He sighted my name and reverted unthinkingly.  It is deeply frustrating to work hard, for hours, and then have it demolished by a click of the button by someone unfamiliar with the topic, and then be told the issue is, whether '''I''' was being civil, as if an encyclopedia's content were built by the exchange of courtesies.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 12:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
+:::I've replied ''in extenso'' because I believe this pattern of reverting without examining the sources is a hounding pattern. It recurred today. I did three measly edits to some pages, and, yes, material is removed with the edit summary:
+:::*(1) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yonatan_Netanyahu&diff=prev&oldid=856343169  from whom? He was the commander])’, despite the source saying ‘he defied orders by opening fire.’).
+:::(2)* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yonatan_Netanyahu&diff=prev&oldid=856343602 claiming] that [[Anshel Pfeffer]]’s [https://books.google.com/books?id=AKFfDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT182 ''Bibi: The Turbulent Life and Times of Benjamin Netanyahu,''] Hurst & Co., London 2018 account of [[Yoni Netanyahu]]'s death (not an I/P topic by the way) nor Adam Shatz’s close paraphrasing review of it [https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n16/adam-shatz/the-sea-is-the-same-sea 'The sea is the same sea,']  Vol. 40 No. 16, 30 August 2018 pages 24-28 is an opinion piece The book is onvious [[WP:RS]]. Schatz’s review is obviously, as a [[Review article]], not an opinion piece for such details.((a) ‘Review articles come in the form of literature reviews and, more specifically, systematic reviews; both are a form of secondary literature’. Literature reviews provide a summary of what the authors believe are the best and most relevant prior publications.’) and [[WP:NEWSORG]] 'Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.' In this case Shatz summarizes the content, ergo not an opinion.
+:::(3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Jerusalem&diff=prev&oldid=856343843 it needs to be supported by secondary reliable sources (such as newspapers), not an op-Ed] . It is again, not an op-ed, but a book review, citing a known fact and an instant’s googling would have given the editor proof of the veracity of Schatz’s note. Matthew Haag, [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/world/middleeast/robert-jeffress-embassy-jerusalem-us.html  Robert Jeffress, Pastor Who Said Jews Are Going to Hell, Led Prayer at Jerusalem Embassy], [[New York Times]] 14  May 2018.
+:::It would be nice after all these years, if some administrative support were to be given to content editors who are vexed by POV warriors indifferent to source control, the proper application of policy - not its spurious misrepresentation in edit summaries, and whose purpose in numerous edits is to cleanse pages of anything that might trouble a nationalistic POV. Unlike Debresser, I don't report people, but editors should not be expected to put up with persistent malevolent and pretextual reverting behavior. In just two days over 4 articles, 2 editors have reverted everything I added, and that constitutes an informal denial of my right to edit on this and contiguous topic areas. It's a serious issue, and requires some measures. [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 16:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Beyond My Ken====

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