Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive196

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TripWire (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/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

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

1. 9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
2. 9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
3. 8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
4. 4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
5. 8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."

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 3 July 2015 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 April 2016 and 19 May 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

• Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
• The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
• TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
• The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
• TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[1]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On The Wordsmith proposals: I think we are beyond the stage of civility now. TripWire did learn something from their last topic ban. Their strategy now is to quietly push POV without being noticeable. For example, if we look at the diff 1, they deleted content sourced to scholarly sources {{sfn|Schofield|2003|pp=63-64}} and Yaqoob Khan Bangash's journal article, and replaced it with content citing fake sources (the same Schofield book with a meaningless page number 278, and an opinion column from Dawn [2], neither of which supports the new content). In fact the Dawn column argues the opposite point of view. This is just a reckless WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, meant to pick a fight. Anybody looking at the edit would simply think it is a content dispute and wouldn't know that anything is wrong. Likewise, the talk page comment, "The sources are fine. It is your understanding that is wrong." is not particularly uncivil. It is the unwillingness to engage with the actual subject but nevertheless revert edits that makes it BATTLEGROUND. Even after I reported the issue here, TripWire didn't bother to find out what the issues are, calling it simply "WALLOFTEXT." I am not sure how civility parole would address this behaviour. How am I supposed to engage with an editor that has no clue what is going on?

I rarely recommend topic bans. I argued against the topic-ban for Towns Hill and I also argued with Bishonen against the topic ban for Saladin1987, even though, ironically, the latter was banned for edit-wars and personal attacks against me. If an editor brings up valuable points and looks half-way reasonable, I prefer to reason with them rather than to punish them. In the case of TripWire, none of that works. I think topic ban is the right course of action here.

TripWire is of no particular use to Wikipedia. Other than the Kulbhushan Yadav page, where their contribution is apparently 35%, no other article shows any contribution above 1-2%. Their main participation on Wikipedia has been to edit-war and disrupt other editors that do actually contribute. Before TripWire entered the scene in June 2015, the India-Pakistan space was quite stable. As Future Perfect at Sunrise has rightly pointed out, TripWire's entry has been "harmful to the project." Their presence and behaviour has set a bad example to all new editors and derailed even seasoned editors like FreeatlastChitchat . ARBIPA sanctions are here precisely to take care of editors like them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the proposed IBAN: I have quite a few reservations about the proposed IBAN. But I promise to think about it carefully overnight. Meanwhile, I would like to request RegentsPark and NeilN to provide their input on the viability of the proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After an overnight consideration, my reservations about IBAN are unchanged. The edit restrictions on Kashmir conflict pages implemented by RegentsPark have been working well so far. I would welcome their extension to all pages involving India-Pakistan conflicts. As for the matter of DS socks or other socks, I have always acted within policy and will continue to do so. This is not the appropriate place to debate the policy itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the socks problem: TripWare states that I used [their] edits/comments (diffs) against the sock here at the AE report. I have double-checked all my diffs and none of them involve any socks. On the other hand, until a sock is identified, reported and blocked, we must treat them like any other editor. I am at a loss to understand this idea of "supporting socks." -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More on the remedies: As I have said above, I welcome the extension of the entire package of restrictions RegentsPark implemented for Kashmir conflict. I am not confident that the aspersion restriction alone is enough. In fact, I don't believe a serious problem of aspersions on individual editors occurred. It did occur for sources, but that is, to an extent, legitimate, as part of interrogating the sources.

I am also not confident that we, as a community, are at wit's end yet. No serious edit-warring occurred in all the cases I mentioned. No serious breach of civility. Aspersions on editors was also not an issue. The problem was really disregard for Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and WP:NPOV. So I would prefer this to be treated as an issue of individual conduct rather than a systemic issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final (?) comment on the remedies: I don't think the remedy (2) is necessary because the aspersions were really cast on the sources rather than on the editors. But, since RegentsPark has proposed it, I will accept it, and aim to get better in future. The remedy (3) needs more clarity. Does "India-Pakistan articles" mean all of India articles and all of Pakistan articles? Or only India-Pakistan conflict articles? If the latter, does it include Balochistan conflict articles, which is where the problems have arisen at the moment? Finally, if TripWire is going to be sanctioned, I suppose they need to be told why they are being sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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.

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

• 9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.

And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?

• 9 July 2016. This Asian Human Rights Commission edit was neither RS nor encyclopedic. How can a petition/appeal posted anonymously at an 'Appeals Website' be reliable or encyclopedic? This was amply explained to Kautilya3 in the edit-summary and even at the talk page that AHRC isnt reliable nor official as the website itself states in its "About Us' that it is "non-governmental body" which he conveniently ignored.

I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.

It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?

Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.

Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?

• 8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???

For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):

• 02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
• 02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
• 02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
• 05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
• 14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?

Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.

• Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.

• 8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:

Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:

• Freedom Mouse a banned sock added POV and then opened a talk-page discussion: Content removal. This led to exhaustive discussion just because the sock was supported by Kautilya3. Had he not done so, precious time could have been saved. Thanks that Freedom Mouse got banned soon and the duel ended.

• The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.

• Now most recently his third sock 2a00:11c0:9:794::5 re-added the same content which led to six talk-sections, namely Chuck Hagel, James Dobbins, Siraj Akbar, Kulbhushan Yadav, Israel, and even an Rfc!.

All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.

That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.

Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?

The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?

• Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?

• AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

• Response to Kautilya3's fresh WP:ASPERSIONS:

• I think Kautilya3 misunderstood The Wordsmith's advice against casting aspersions and that's why he has continued with his mudslinging unabated by even reusing the same diffs that he has already provided for like an umpteenth times. Or may be, his fresh aspersions against me were precisely due the same unbending, churlish attitude Kautilya3 have been displaying that have caused so much disruption on Indo-Pak topic area. I'll leave this for the worthy Admins to decide.
• I also dont understand how and why is Kautilya3 drawing a comparison between me and other editors, while at the same time he also displays his 'holier than thou' attitude and his ample 'magnanimity' for not asking a topic-ban or some other punishment for editors X, Y or Z during his other conflicts. This misunderstood sense of superiority over other editors and authoritative behavior as if he sits at some higher pedestal among the hierarchy of WP coupled with the false understanding of being perfect and someone who can never go wrong is the actual cause of this commotion and the sole reason behind his impossible justifications which are nationalistic and which he often retracts once confronted. Someone with such an attitude who also provides refuge to chronic socks makes it almost impossible for other editors to constructively engage with them.
• Lastly, his comments about my contributions to WP is a textbook example of WP:NPA. Who made him the judge to decide that editors who only contribute a certain percentage of content to articles are the only legit editors? Going by his understanding, editors who only add/remove categories, only correct spelling/grammatical mistakes in articles, fix syntax, fight vandalism, prevent sock disruption etc should all be banned from WP, right? My contributions to WP are well documented in my edit-history and seriously I dont require any certification from someone. Speaking truly, it is precisely because of the refuge that editors like Kuatilya provide to chronic sockers which he then also uses to further his POV that editors like myself and those named by him above are unable to contribute much content to WP. One can only do so much in fighting vandalism, preventing sponsored socks from disrupting WP and contributing content. After all, editing WP is not my day job. I take WP as a hobby and apart from building it, preventing it from disruption goes along with my editing experience. That's what we all do at WP, dont we?

• IBAN: I'll abide by what the worthy admins decide, but what remedy will be there to prevent Kuatilya from willfully/knowingly own chronic socks, barring him for assisting socks in airing their views, comment and actually edit indirectly through him despite being universally banned, and stopping him from using these socks/edits as a cover to push POV, which infact was the main reason behind what had ensued here?

• Response to Sutish: I am sorry, but I think there's some misunderstanding here. The points I raised are not entirely groundless. I beleive that you must be familiar with a chronic socker DarknessShines2‎. Off late, he has gone so bold that he dont even bother to hide his identity as can be seen from his SPI archives. Just see, despite being blocked how he approaches Kuatilya after he has been interacting with him at talk. In another example, DS asks Kuatilya to restore restore his version of the article once he was challenged. And it gets stranger when a blocked sock is able to get a FULL article published at WP which is deleted THREE times by Bbb23, Future Perfect at Sunrise and NeilN respectively and even then DS pleads to Kuatilya to get his deleted article restored! Why did this happen? Because it was Kuatilya who gave space to a blocked sock by owning his edits and let this cat and mouse game to extend over a considerable period of time by letting the sock to engage in discussions of considerable length and indirectly sponsor them. A few examples: [4], [5].

The question here is, why block the socks if we are to listen to them?

• Allow me to explain how this works:

• A sock (Curro2) adds a false 'citation tag' to a content which is properly cited/sourced at Balochistan Liberation Army article. Then comes the second sock (DarknessShines2) and he builds upon the false case initiated by Curr02 and repeatedly removes the tagged info [6], [7], [8], [9]. The game is then caught, DS' IP is blocked and the info is restored. However, Kuatilya uses the diffs to my attempt to prevent disruption to WP by socks here against me to add to weight to his AE report. Now, DS' sock is again back and precisely doing the same thing from where he had left. If, now, I revert the sock, I may very well be presented as the culprit once again.

• Kuatilya tags some info in Balochistan Liberation Army as being unsourced, days later comes DS who remove the info tagged by Kuatilya and in that garb also removes Musharraf's statement which he was already trying to remove earlier but had failed and also remove two sources. Meanwhile, the same sock also goes on WP:ADMINSHOPPING [10].

• DS' sock goes on an edit-spree at Balochistan conflict page. Opens several talk-page sections [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and even an RfC. All these discussion are supported by Kuatilya, Bhartiya29 and Spartacus!. Kautilya comments in favour of the Sock at the RfC, removes content from the article as suggested by the Sock, and then uses my edits/comments (diffs) against the sock here at the AE report against me.

Now, it isnt hard to see what exactly is going on here. How a group of editors is systematically ganging up against me to get me off WP without getting directly involved. I was reported at the AE previously by Spartacus!, an involved editor who also supported the socks, who then had to withdraw his report. Before that I was reported here by D4iNa4 with whom I have never ever interacted at any of the conflict pages, but oddly he reports me for the same articles. And now Kuatilya. The bottomline, the casus-beli for all this was DarknessShine and his socks and the open support provided to him by certain editors. Seriously, as I have mentioned earlier, DS have never attempted to hide his identity and it wasnt difficult for these editors to see that they are supporting a sock, but they did it anyway. Ofcourse, a lone editor like myself wont be able to counter this onslaught, still I never edit-warred, nor crossed 3RR and constructively engaged with all the opposing editors, No wonder none of them have been able to point a single policy that I have violated. But, ofcourse, if you get reported at the Admin Boards for enough time, you are bound to received some sanctions, and this is probably what they are aiming at.

• Re-Recap: Sir, a topic-ban on me for Balochistan related articles for preventing disruption to them by socks? If that's how you want to go about it, I am afraid this will continue to happen. Which will further be complicated when the counter socks will then do this. I have no problem with staying away from the topic area provided there is a remedy for the sock-fest and the backing they get. I would humbly request to have a re-look at the decision as it was The WS himself who was against issuing topic-bans. Thanks.

• Socking Aspersions: First, I'll like to clarify that I have never accused Kuatilya for socking, only that he did nothing about it, rather a tacit support was provided - an action which was challenged by me and which infact resulted into registering this report. Following are just a few socks/IPs (of DarknessShines2) which were active (only) on Balochistan related articles (all previously being edited/watched by Kuatilya). These all are now blocked. But the point to note is that none of them were ever reverted and / or reported to SPI by the complaint or the editors who have commented against me. All of these were blocked either by an SPI by myself, some other editors or directly by Admins once it was brought to their attention. Topic banning me from Balochistan articles may provide a free-run to these socks, unless there's an alternative. I would request the Admins to go through the block log / contribs of these socks and you'll know what I mean (Data from DS SPI archive]):

• 2a00:11c0:9:794::3
• 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5
• 2a03:4a80:7:400::/57
• Freedom Mouse
• 2A03:8180:1101:B3:0:0:0:7
• 82.21.35.147
• Azad Baluchistan
• Azad Balochi
• 2A00:11C0:8:794:0:0:0:7
• 2A00:11C0:8:794:0:0:0:8

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [18] [19] [20]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

• Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
• This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
• Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: IBANs just create more drama, as is nowadays frequently noted at ANI. Such a remedy will achieve absolutely nothing here. I could have predicted where this will end up even before TripWire's previous sanction and I really shouldn't have to spell it out: sooner or later they will be indef'd, unfortunately. And if there is blame to be attached to Kautilya then any remedy should be proportionate, bearing in mind the concept of first "offence".

I think you (all commenting admins) might benefit from giving NeilN some time to respond as they're relatively familiar with the subject matter and the participants (both those specifically named here and more generally in the context of South Asian articles). - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment from TripWire after my message above says it all. If they think Kautliya is tag-teaming/meatpuppeting then they need to prove it, and ditto for the ludicrous claim that K is socking - WP:SPI is >>>> thataway. It is demonstrative of the battleground and nationalist-centric position that TW adopts and it needs to stop. Just do that topic ban, please, and if deemed necessary then give K a slap. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've rescued this from premature archiving. The diffs I see here could be interpreted as tendentious editing, but they could also be seen as good faith efforts to improve these articles. I'm far from an expert in this topic area, so I'm unable to decisively determine which. The rhetoric from editors on both sides of the nationalistic conflict further obfuscate the matter. That being said, I don't see anything that rises anywhere near the level of making a block or topic ban necessary. My instinct is that it would be best if TripWire were admonished for tendentiousness, and works to be more careful in the future. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading the walls of text here and on my talkpage, plus the copious diffs presented, it is clear that there is a huge problem in this topic area. The battleground mentality is pervasive, and nobody here has entirely clean hands. Something obviously has to be done. However, I'm not convinced that handing out a few topic bans will actually solve anything, and there are a number of editors who have terrible attitudes but nonetheless contribute quality content. I'm thinking that we need to get more creative with Discretionary Sanctions than we ordinarily do. I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a topic-wide ban on casting aspersions. There is also precedent for a civility parole placed on individual editors, with varying results. I would rather not have to go there, but I won't hesitate if I think it necessary. Before actually enacting anything, I'd like input from some other AE admins. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've taken the time to go through this as well. I'm with The Wordsmith on their hesitation for a new topic ban here, but I do like TopGun's suggestion for an interaction ban. This would allow Kautilya3 and TripWire to edit the content in dispute and seek content dispute resolution while cutting off an aspect of their editing which is disruptive. If tendentious editing continues after a sanction like that, I'd then come to the conclusion that a topic ban is necessary. I'd like to hear The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)'s views on this idea before implementing it. As for your proposed civility/casting aspersions restriction, I personally would prefer a more focused remedy than something topic-wide, at least at this point. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be willing to give a more conventional two-way IBAN a try. We can always revisit the civility parole idea if necessary (and I'm sure this topic area will be back at AE again), there's no need to be hasty to impose an old restriction that hasn't been tried in years until the conventional means have been exhausted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely. I'll hold this open for another day to see if there's additional feedback from other admins or the editors involved. Otherwise, I'll close this with a two-way IBAN under the usual parameters: "banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI or AE reports about each other except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinged here. While I'll be on here, it will be only for short stretches of time. I might be able to go through this in the next day. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping response. I'm not a big fan of IBANs because they end up creating more drama than is good for Wikipedia, especially when the editors in question overlap in editing interests. I'm busy in real life and cannot look into this in detail but, and this is in extension of what I've said above, it does seem to me that Kautilya3 has been making a good faith attempt to seek a consensus solution while TripWire has been stonewalling (re the discussion on 'compromises' in Talk:Balochistan conflict). The easiest short term suggestion is to topic ban TripWire from Balochistan related articles for a brief period (3 months) and put both editors on an aspersion restriction (no commenting that any editor is biased or has a nationalistic pov). I implemented an aspersion restriction on Kashmir conflict related articles which worked well there (though it seems to have driven the problem into other areas) and making it a blanket restriction may not be a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 00:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The aspersion restriction is an interesting idea, RegentsPark. How did you phrase that in the past? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the link, SpacemanSpiff! Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• To preserve my sanity I refuse to admin or edit in this area but I think RP's suggestion on the aspersion restriction is probably the best way to go and it should be applied to any and all articles in the India-Pakistan conflict area. The text of that is in this diff. —SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An additional element that I can think of that'd be helpful would be DS semi-protection (I don't think the 50/300 rule will be incrementally helpful here though) of both the article and talk pages within this topic area. As was apparent even in this ARE, a lot of the disruption originates from a handful of sockmasters, mostly IP socking, though some pick up accounts soon. This would also have minimal collateral damage as very few real new editors come to Wikipedia thinking "I'll go edit about this conflict and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS". In addition any time an IP or new editor throws out an accusation of the other person being Nangaparbat or DarknessShines, that should result in a block as it just proves that they aren't new. —SpacemanSpiff 14:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the idea of an aspersion restriction on India Pakistan conflict articles. With the caveat that it is not always clear that an article is about the India Pakistan conflict. For example, the Balochistan related articles, the ones that are the source of this AE request, appear to be only peripherally associated with that conflict but, somehow, India vs Pakistan has become the flashpoint there. I guess a 'broadly construed' would address that but, clearly, we've got to put an end to this "you've got an Indian POV" or "you've got a Pakistani POV" stuff. That's not productive and overpowers the discussion on content. --regentspark (comment) 00:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur with the above suggested restrictions, along with a reminder that posting amounts of text that could bore a judge is disruptive and sanctionable in itself as an effort to bludgeon others into submission. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two major issues exacerbating the conflict here. 1) IPs and "new" editors on both sides alleging sock and meatpuppetry. 2) Pakistan's and India's antagonistic history being reflected in their respective media and other sources (think reading news reports from the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War). Thus, one editor's reliable source is another editor's propaganda machine. So, in addition to the aspersion ban (I don't think an interaction ban would work given overlapping interests), I'd like to propose that any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations be ignored on article or user talk pages. WP:SPI is the place where established editors can present their cases. A more formal venue will hopefully discourage these hit-and-run accusations. I have no good solution for the second issue. I would usually recommend WP:RSN but frankly, we don't have enough uninvolved editors who would be interested enough to pick through the issues. On the Balochistan conflict talk page, I made this suggestion: "If you are stuck, then perhaps WP:DRN could help? Or each of you could create a separate section on this talk page, proposing your specific wording and sources, and then others could comment, focusing only on content." That got zero responses which may indicate editors are pretty much tightly tied to their positions. If that's the case, we can start by enforcing strong and strict aspersion restrictions on everyone involved in the area (comment on the content, not the contributor) along with a directive that activities that would normally get your hand slapped (e.g., canvassing, cherry picking content from a source) will result in a block or topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your input. I agree on the aspersion restriction. Redacting spurious accusations of sockpuppetry is also something I can get behind, and can be folded into the aspersion restriction sanction. Your last part I tentatively agree on, only because this area has factions that are so deeply entrenched that nothing short of extraordinary measures will dislodge them. In situations such as these, Arbcom has repeatedly passed an "At Wit's End" principle, which states "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt exceptional measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia." I believe that is what we're facing with India-Pakistan. We would have to come up with proper language to log as a sanction, but I support the idea of adopting seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, to sort of recap here, it seems there's consensus behind the first two and proposals for the second two: (1) a short topic ban for TripWire from Balochistan related articles, (2) putting TripWire and Kautilya3 both on an aspersion restriction, (3) an aspersion restriction writ-large for the entire India-Pakistan topic area, and (4) possibly a 'socking accusation' ban, as proposed by NeilN above. Have I missed or misinterpreted anything? This AE request has gotten uber complicated so I want to make sure I--or any other closing admin--has everything straight. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's my understanding. I would support the second two as well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That is well summarized Lord Roem. I support all 4, including the socking accusation ban. We should make it clear, as NeilN says, that socking accusations can only be made in a formal SPI case and nowhere else. Also, I'm assuming that the aspersion restrictions apply to any articles that have an India-Pakistan overlap broadly construed and, of course, they apply everywhere to Kautilya3 and TripWire. --regentspark (comment) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Support all four but would like to know how short the short topic ban would be. Would like to see some language strongly discouraging gaming (e.g., canvassing, selective use of a source, etc.). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

HappyWaldo (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

Topic ban from post-1932 American Politics :

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

1. 30 July 2016 Editing Milo Yiannopoulos, a person closely related (broadly construed) to the topic of post-1932 politics of the United States.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

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.

I knew of this but didn't know it was enforced or reached any kind of conclusion. For some reason my alerts don't show up on some computers/devices. Anyway, I don't think it's fair that user PeterTheFourth remove Milo's views on feminism, esp the quotes. It demonstrates Milo's provocative, humourous style, and provides necessary qualifiers. PeterTheFourth contends that it's too long, whereas I think it needs further expansion, along with Milo's views on Islam, BLM, and other matters he frequently discusses. - HappyWaldo (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I imposed this short topic ban on HappyWaldo as a result of edit warring on the page for the second time in a month. The sanction was posted on their talk page. Clear violation deserves a first block, probably a few days. I see this as pretty unambiguous. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I will close this as such. The violating edit was almost a day after the topic ban was imposed. I don't buy that the alert didn't show up; that'd be an infinitely regressive defense since it's unprovable. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, there's no reason to doubt that the message showed up. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Doc9871 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

On the talk page of Donald Trump

1. [22] Personal attack. Particularly strange since it was made right after I agreed with him [23]
2. [24] Discussing editors rather than content. Assuming bad faith. Disruptive derailing of discussion. Note edit summary where he "clarifies" his "PA", which is an admittance that he is making personal attacks.
3. [25] Again, discussing editors rather than content. States that I "have no business editing this article" (because... he decided so)
4. [26] Threats and continued refusal to discuss content rather than editors
5. [27] Refusal to address the issue, restatement that he will "challenge" all my edits, pretty much states that they do not plan on abiding by 1RR on the article.
6. [28] Another personal attack. False claim.
7. [29] "Shut up. Signed: everybody". A very explicit personal attack.

Note that most of these comments were made AFTER a notification of discretionary sanctions was issued: [30]

On the Donald Trump article itself. Please be aware that the article is under a 1RR restriction:

1. 1st revert Note that the edit summary is false - the info is in fact in the source as has been pointed out prior to the edit on the talk page
2. 2nd revert Note that the edit summary is false. In fact, it's ridiculously false since the text is in the source almost exactly the same (allowing for paraphrasing). For reference the source is here.
3. 3rd revert Note that the edit summary is misleading (and nonconstructive). My source was an improvement over the previous source.
4. 4th revert This edit summary makes absolutely no sense. What does "Nah. ..." mean? The claim is that the edit was "too sloppy" because of the use of a singular "period" rather than "periods". This is about as spurious and petty of a revert/edit summary as I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

Note that all but the first two of these were made AFTER a 1RR notification was issued: [31] (both notifications were removed)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[32] blocked as part of Arbitration Enforcement on two previous occasions, both fairly recent, for exactly the same article.

1. [33] Blocked for violations at the closely related Donald Trump presidential campaign article.
2. [34] Blocked for 1RR violation at Donald Trump presidential campaign article article.

In regard to the second diff, in case Doc tries to argue that the above listed edit were not reverts, please note the discussion that followed his May 2016 block [35] where the blocking admin, User:Coffee explains to him precisely what a revert is. So he knew he was doing bad.

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

See above. The user has been sanctioned on these articles under DS previously and also received a recent notification (I was not aware he had previous blocks in this area until I started writing this report)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Personally I can't tell if this is some kind of personal grudge (the nature of Doc's comments come off that way) or it's just the topic involved. Either way, it's clear that the user has decided unilaterally that I should not be allowed to edit the article for some reason, and has proceeded to edit war, breaking not just 1RR (which the article is subject to) but even 3RR, making very petty reverts. My edits didn't even change the text, just improved the sourcing so this is clearly a WP:POINT violation, where Doc is basically saying "I will not allow you to make a single edit to this article". Even putting aside the edit warring and the personal attacks, this is disruptive and unacceptable.

In light of the previous blocks the user received on this very article on a very closely related article ("Donald Trump presidential campaign" vs "Donald Trump) I request a two week block from editing as well as a topic ban from anything related to Donald Trump and the ongoing presidential election, broadly construed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also these two previous AN/I threads which document exactly the same problematic behavior in other areas. This means previous warnings have been issued. Repeatedly. [36] a dispute with User:SMcCandlish, closed by User:John, and [37] initiated by User:John (don't know how that ended up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

• Point #7 illustrates the extremely misguided nature of this complaint. "A very explicit personal attack". Yeah, right. This is a complete waste of time. Doc talk 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I should note that Volunteer Marek seems to confuse "this very article" with another article, probably because doing research is bothersome. The Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 article I admittedly got into a little trouble for. I have never been blocked for editing this article in any way. Doc talk 10:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On the AN/I's - I don't recall having any further issues with that editor, almost a year ago. I didn't get blocked or topic-banned in either case. So it's really a stretch to even bring it up. Doc talk 10:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bishonen definitely has an axe to grind here. For the record: I've never socked, never lied about socking, and never supported socking. Doc talk 10:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How can one editor, blatantly biased against me, get to close this that quickly? Is it really that simple? Doc talk 11:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are not an uninvolved admin. You are inarguably involved and have an axe to grind with me. I do not trust your decision to be neutral at all. Please note that the thread was not even open more than a few hours before this decision was handed down. This is grounds for immediate appeal. Seriously not in line with due process. Doc talk 11:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SMcCandlish, thanks for another thorough breakdown of my behavior and how it should be effectively addressed. I think it's a little beyond the scope of the Trump stuff though, maybe? Thanks fer stoppin' by. Doc talk 12:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would admins please explain to Doc9871 that whacking people with a wet trout is not a substitute for a calm exchange of views, and this diff at User talk:Bishonen#August 2016 is entirely inappropriate. I see several aspersions being cast above, and no evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And this edit at my talk shows that Doc9871 has no idea of what reasonable behavior at a collaborative project would involve. Johnuniq (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to get into any dispute involving Doc9871, but this is the same problem as last year. Volunteer Marek diffed my previous ANI complaint, but there were two; the second also closed without action, despite being about immediate resumption of the same behavior after a warning. No consequences = no impetus for adjustment.

There's no excuse for comments like "You really have no business editing this article", and others diffed by Marek (there is no requirement that editors be neutral, only content must be; are any editors neutral about Trump?). The "Don't challenge me ... You have no chance getting me on a "personal attack'" battlegrounding mirrors the stuff last year (e.g.: "Open an AN/I on me if you want."[39] and several other such 'I'm invincible' challenges, "Ask around if I am one to quarrel with. I will 'Wikilawyer' you, and really good. You don't have to like me: you have to reckon with me."[40], "You're playing with fire. You better know when to recognize this."[41], "I will fight this PC nonsense until the bitter end."[42]). (Actually, I just realized this previous matter really is American-political, an anti-progressivism stance.)

Doc9871 uses others' block logs as weapons, and struts that he is immune to repercussions just because his own block log is [somehow] clean [43], [44], [45], [46] (samples from his months-long, bad-faith-assuming and veiled-threat abuse of a single editor, Ihardlythinkso, in a pattern repeated later with me). WP does not need a gangland kingpin. This behavior has to stop.

I suggest prohibiting Doc9871 from:

• Namecalling or questioning the good faith of other editors
• Menacing other editors on the basis of their administrative enforcement history regarding matters unrelated to the topic
• Trying to hound other editors out of a topic
• Threatening any editor with harassment, battleground, or editwar tactics, or issuing 'you can't do anything about me'-type challenges.

Give escalating blocks for recurrent transgressions. This would nip this battlegrounding problem in the bud. All four of these behaviors are consistently exhibited in Doc's aggressive soapboxing against Ihardlythinkso, myself, and Volunteer Marek in series, over a long time; it's not a fluke or coincidence. AE should put out Doc's "fire", since ANI never results in action due to Doc having a bit of a fan club.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I honestly think the approach I outline above, without any initial block or a particular topic ban, would be more effective, because the behavior is not actually localized. I was once subject to a "not questioning good faith" sanction myself, and it markedly changed my approach to other editors, away from my habitual Usenet-style "verbal combat" tactics. (To someone habituated to it, it does not seem wrong, and it takes a while to learn why it is in this environment and how to shift). It's a form of teaching contextual manners and distinction-drawing. I have faith that it would work in Doc's case, while a not-that-short topic ban will probably feel unfair and punitive rather than preventative, and may just increase the angry mastodon mode in the long run. I also speak from experience here, having been twice subjected to short-term TBs, in ways that effectively supervoted in favor of the other party and gave them free reign, leading to a major mess that had to be cleaned up after the TBs expired (and one of those parties has been indeffed; I was right, just being a WP:JERK about it). I think the cases are parallel; there's a good chance that the underlying NPoV issues that Doc is trying, intemperately, to address are legitimate. So a TB rather than some behavioral fencing might negatively affect the content. TBs are a hammer that should only be used on the nails of long-term (or suddenly massively disruptive) patterns of localized disruption, in my view (not as a matter of strict rules, but of what works and what does not). Matters like this are screws, not nails, and need a more subtle tool.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: It could be a bit fuzzy, but "questioning the good faith of other editors" it not very fuzzy at all, as it directly addresses what the editor writes, in public view, about another editor's motivations. My own restriction of this sort was very fuzzy, reading "prohibited from assuming bad faith about other editors", a matter of mind-reading thoughtcrime, and people did attempt to game it (unsuccessfully).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that we already know the TB will not be effective: "You really think this is going to teach me a lesson?", from Doc's response to the TB [47]. TBs can also lead to cases of myopic "fight the injustice" WP:NOTHERE + WP:GREATWRONGS behavior (which is how and why the aforementioned party got indeffed). I would have concerns in this regard given Doc's followup comment, "What it teaches me is that there is no due process here. I was absolutely railroaded on this issue." [48] The "issue" for him is "censorship" from a particular topic, and he believes the motivation for it is political (see same diff). This would not be happening if the remedy was directly and only targeted at behavior patterns across topics instead of just at his ranting over Trump articles in particular. That's all I'll say about it; I just don't want to be in an "I told you so" position a few months from now, with Doc blocked repeatedly, and sour on WP, instead of being successfully herded into being less verbally hostile (which for me was a difficult and probably still incomplete, but ultimately rewarding transition, with off-WP benefits).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I saw the edits on the article talkpage, and was just writing up a warning to Doc before this AE report; I've posted it now. As I imply there, I'm quite prepared to topic ban Doc from Donald Trump-related pages if he persists in his aggressive personalized talkpage posting. Perhaps we can await the result of my warning, as well as of the DS alert and this report, before taking any action. Noting, however, the nasty tone of even Doc's response right here ("probably because doing research is bothersome"), which doesn't exactly suggest he's currently taking any criticism to heart. Bishonen | talk 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Adding: Actually, I hadn't realized that some of the worst posts by Doc on Talk:Donald Trump [49][50] were made after the discretionary sanctions alert, which apparently, just like the warnings (including mine), made no impression at all. I've topic banned him for one month from all Donald Trump-related pages. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Reply to Doc: Yes, it's supposed to be simple. Discretionary sanctions are actually meant to make it simpler to ban disruptive editors from controversial pages; they're not intended to add a layer of bureaucracy. I'm using my admin discretion, as is the intention of the discretionary sanctions. I would have done it without this AE report — as I said above, I was already writing up a warning to you — and it would be a bit paradoxical to let the report prevent me. On the other hand, I haven't "closed" the report. If other admins disapprove of my sanction, they can decide per consensus right here to void it. (Or to extend it, for that matter.) I'm sure there will be more admin input — America by and large isn't awake yet — so I suggest you may consider defending yourself a bit better before they arrive. For instance, if you're serious about me being "blatantly biased", "looking to settle the score,"[51] etc, you may want to offer some evidence. I don't know what you mean by it, for my part. What score? Bishonen | talk 11:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Reply to @SMcCandlish: you would address Doc's aggressive behaviour specifically, with a ban from questioning the good faith of others. I hear you, but the problem with that is that it has fuzzy borders. It's harder for the user to comply with, and to feel secure that he is complying with it. It's easier for others to play gotcha. A topic ban is a lot 'cleaner': simple to comply with, simple to oversee. That said, Doc can certainly be blocked if he persists in what you call a "Usenet style". I hope he realizes that he's on notice wrt to that now, especially as far as attacking Volunteer Marek is concerned. Bishonen | talk 13:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• I concur with the sanction applied based on evidence presented here. If the behavior continues after the month, we can revisit an extended TB. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Their response in accusing Bishonen of "having an axe to grind" is both unhelpful and demonstrates they don't understand the problem with their behavior (and are thus likely to do it again). Also, see this on their talk page. Very much agree with the topic ban imposed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully agree with the decision by Bishonen; this is exactly the type of quick action to curb disruption that discretionary sanctions is designed to facilitate, and there was crystal clear cause for action here. Since SMcCandlish has also provided an indication that disruption has occurred outside the area of Donald Trump, I'll also warn in no uncertain terms that if this type of conduct occurs elsewhere in the area of American politics, the topic ban will be substantially broadened, and will be lengthened or made indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

62.0.34.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

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

1. 08:18, 4 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
2. 17:06, 1 August 2016 Editing in the topic area despite repeated notifications that IPs are prohibited
3. 12:33, 18 July 2016 Editing in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited
4. 13:36, 19 May 2016 Highly POV edit in the topic area despite notification that IPs are prohibited

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been repeatedly warned[52][53] [54] that IPs are prohibited from editing any article that may be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Yet the IP continues to make such edits. It would appear from the content that the same editor has been using this IP for several weeks,

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

WP:ARBPIA3; WP:EDITWAR; WP:1RR; WP:CIVIL, specifically taunting and WP:HARASS.

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

M.Shabazz made three two reverts in a 24-hour period in an article and topic under WP:1RR:

1. 2016-08-06T21:49:48 Kamel Tebaast's first edit.
2. 2016-08-07T06:03:52 M.Shabazz's first revert [of Kamel Tebaast's edit] in 24-hour period.
3. [#2016-08-07T18:40:52 M.Shabazz's second revert in 24-hour period.
4. 2016-08-07T18:44:39 Epson Salts's revert of M.Shabazz's edit.
5. 2016-08-07T18:45:43 M.Shabazz's third second revert in 24-hour period [however, his note states "Reverted 1 edit by Epson Salts

M.Shabazz then taunted to take him to WP:ANEW or [[WP:AE]:

1. 2016-08-08T18:54:27
2. 2016-08-09T20:43:31 This is a taunt to Epson Salts to "report" him, "or kindly shut the fuck up."

M.Shabazz uses threats [I believe to stifle opposing opinions]:

1. 2016-07-23T22:57:20 M.Shabazz threatened to have me blocked for what he termed disruptive editing, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, and adding personal commentary.

The two examples that he gave here and here were WP:BRD, in which his first example, "security" was accepted into the lede and the second example "deleting the word "unilateral", seems to have come to a consensus in the Talk page here.

1. 2016-07-23T23:05:58 I challenged M.Shabazz's threat against me.
2. 2016-07-23T23:25:00 M.Shabazz again threatened me: "My promise still stands, though: "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE."
3. 2016-07-23T23:36:19 I informed M.Shabazz about my BOLD edit and I asked why he didn't direct his energy to the "TALK page" where it was being discussed.
4. 2016-08-07T18:45:52 M.Shabazz informed Espson Salts that his/her reverts "did not appear constructive".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Unaware.

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

• I believe that user:Malik Shabazz was an administrator.
• Made a 1RR pledge here.
• I believe user Malik Shabazz was in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, dealing with some of these same issues, specifically regarding civility toward other users here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

M.Shabazz has made Wikipedia a difficult environment, especially for newer editors who may have opposing views. That is not in Wikipedia's best interest. KamelTebaast 04:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Malik Shabazz's suggestion, I re-read the WP:3RR. It states: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Accordingly, I miscategorized his second revert and have since changed that. However, although Malik Shabazz states that he simply "added to what Kemal Tebaast had written" is disingenuous at best and is one revert.

To his credit, User:Zero0000 warned me about violating the 1RR here. I immediately self-reverted. When I gave Malik Shabazz the same opportunity to self-revert, he taunted me to report him. He can straw man this to death with bad sources and boomerang, but in the end, it is on him for violating the 1RR that some editors seem to want avoid.

I'm also intrigued by editors, such as Malik Shabazz and Nishidani, who are vocal about other editors POV-pushing, when this and this is front and center. Intriguing.

• Comment regarding Nishidani: I was not going to respond to Nishadani's diatribe, but his out of context examples have reached a limit. I will only highlight two that show that his context is misplaced and wrong. First, my comment to "Mark the date and time. I believe that this is the first time that I agree with Nishidani." was after interacting with and witnessing him on several discussions and having literally never agreed with him. As such, mine was nothing more than a lighthearted comment, which, like most things, he took out of context and added an insidiousness slant, as if I could not have reached an opinion in several discussions. Second, and most important, Nishidani's statement below that I failed "to exercise careful judgment as he stems the tide of editors who 'wikiwash history' by mentioning an Arab presence in Palestine" is out of context, wrong, a lie, and I tried several times to impart that to Nishidani. Someone had manipulated a source and wrote that the kibbutz got its name "from the Arab village that once stood here, Khirbet Bait Ilfa." In fact, the exact source read: "The city is named after the nearby ruins of Khirbet Beit Ilfa; it shows no occupation before the Roman period." My meaning was, as I explained several times to Nishidani that changing the source to show that the kibbutz was sitting on top of an abandoned Arab village was wrong. Yet nobody would know that from how he presented it. And where was Nishidani's outrage when he learned that someone deliberately wrote that the kibbutz was sitting on an old Arab village when that's not the fact? Nor did he write below that after he clarified something, I immediately corrected it and placed it into the another section. But why would he, that obviously wouldn't fit his agenda. In any case, as long as we are not discussing the 1:RR, all the better. KamelTebaast 21:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Drmies and Lord Roem, for the clarity about reverts. I'm pleased to learn that this edit should be considered a "re-write", and this undo here constitutes only one revert on my part. Is that correct? And, for further clarity, I can also make additional "re-writes" within the same article (obviously following standard policies). Is that correct as well? Thank you. KamelTebaast 17:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Silly me, I actually thought I was dealing civilly with Nishidani on the Arafat Talk page, but I see that I must deal with him on two fronts. If Nishidani has a problem with me violating the 1RR for my recent edits, he should file an enforcement request. Otherwise, to paraphrase M.Shabazz, he should "kindly shut the...(be quiet)."

Regarding his assertions, I wrote to him here:

"Regarding your points, that is your contention that this is "disruptive" and maybe other "people think" it as well. As the sentence presently reads: "The majority of the Palestinian people—regardless of political ideology or faction—viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter and martyr who symbolized the national aspirations of his people..." Really? Please explain how that works in the context and detail with your explanation above. In the end (literally), the sentence was a check and balance between two divergent opinions of Arafat. However, one (the Palestinian) was fully weighted while the other was a throw away phrase that, insidiously limited his role as an international terrorist by only bringing in the Israeli view. Either take out the "heroic freedom fighter and martyr" or we need to give more context and detail to his actions on the other side."

Obviously this is a content dispute, but Nishidani seems to want to push his POV here as well so he opened that door.

:For even further clarity, Nishidani reverted me here (one revert), then he went in and edited again here. Would that not constitute two reverts in a 24-hour period since his writing was not adding to my original wording, but rather to his revert. Also, In his second edit, he left out the word "him". Would it be allowable for me to fix it? KamelTebaast 20:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you guys are talking about. The first time I was made aware that M.Shabazz was a past administrator was here. I'm still trying to understand why I would be topic banned for three edits where I discussed the issues on the Talk page. KamelTebaast 22:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes, here.

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.

It's 1 o'clock in the morning, and I'll respond to this silliness in greater detail later. But I wish to say that if the novel interpretation of 1RR cooked up by editors Kemal Tebaast and Epson Salts is given any credence, editing controversial articles will become impossible. In my edit to Jewish Voice for Peace at 13:03 on 7 August, I added to what Kemal Tebaast had written; I did not make a reversion. Good night. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Kemal Tebaast calls my second revert is my second consecutive edit to the article on 7 August. It's not a reversion at all, but even if it were, consecutive edits are considered a single edit for 1RR purposes. Of course, you have to actually read WP:3RR to know that. I wrote on Talk:Jewish Voice for Peace that I thought my friends had a problem counting. Perhaps they have a reading comprehension problem as well. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that Kemal Tebaast and Epson Salts re-read WP:3RR and start to use a little common sense. I also recommend that they read WP:BOOMERANG, because the longer they keep up this ridiculous shtick, the more likely it is that their own behavior will be scrutinized. Finally, for all their belly-aching about gaming 1RR, Epson Salts hasn't answered an important question: do they think ifamericansknew.org is a reliable source, and do they think it was a problem that I removed it a little more than 24 hours after I reverted totally unrelated material? Does anybody? That's the essence of this complaint. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Epson Salts, not "special pleading". That would require a violation, which is not the case. By your own admission, I removed a shitty source more than 24 hours after my last edit to the article. Show me how that violates WP:GAME. Only in your mind, and that of Kemal Tebaast, is that gaming the system. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Epson Salts, I see, is still having trouble with reading comprehension. I'll see if I can help them. "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia." Can you explain how my removing a source we both agree is shitty after 24 hours had passed since my last edit on the page was engaging in bad faith? how it thwarted the aims of Wikipedia? No, I didn't think so. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to get side-tracked from the "important issue" here—the fact that Frick and Frack have made up an interpretation of a reversion so ridiculous that, more than 21 hours after this complaint was filed, not a single editor had endorsed it—but anybody who is interested in Kemal Tebaast and their POV pushing is welcome to read my (perfectly civil) discussion with another editor on the subject from last month. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ANI report where Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs) (account created on 30 May 2016) uses perfectly formed procedures. Naturally no one can prove anything except for the obvious: WP:ARBPIA is not working. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief there's only one revert in all of those diffs. The rest is normal editing (and by the way, includes refactoring of what were previously WP:BLP violations). I agree with Johnuniq -- the details of that ANI (including especially the numerous findings by Bolter21) are quite damning, and indeed the OP's entire edit history including this AE is pretty telling. Softlavender (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute, there's no WP:1RR violation here.

A note on the wider dispute, since this is quite clearly broader than the small issue here. Kamel Tebaast is a new editor and they have a strong POV, which is fine as long as they remember that editors are allowed to have POV, but articles should be as WP:NPOV as possible. For instance, these two edits to the Israeli West Bank barrier clearly advanced a POV. If they had simply added "security barrier" to the "separation barrier" description, it would have been fine (indeed, the discussion finally converged to this solution). But simply changing the description is not correct. Similarly, Malik was quite right to warn Kamel Tebaast about his POV pushing in the second edit. It was not a "threat": if Kamel Tebaast thinks that his edits were proper, then they have nothing to fear from an WP:AE report, just like Malik replied to Kamel Tebaast and Epson Salts in this particular dispute.

In general, Kamel Tebaast seems amenable to reason and willing to compromise, so I see no reason they can't continue to work productively in this area. The veiled accusations of sockpuppetry made against them here and elsewhere should either be backed up with an SPI or discouraged. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After User:Sepsis II’s ban, which was basically correct, KT appeared to suddenly think he had some mission to extend the verdict given to everyone else he might disagree with, bymaking inquiries at User:The Blade of the Northern Lights’s page re User:Nableezy, User:Zero0000, and User:Nishidani's general approach. He then went after User:Bolter21 , and now has User:MShabazz in his sights. all within a month.

Apart from the flurry of attempts to go for other editors, his editing is highly erratic, and demands some control. I saw a news blip re Hank Johnson, checked and found, not a wiki echo but a complete symphonic paragraph (WP:Undue/WP:BLP) ballooned out of it to screw him for antisemitism. my correction for balance immediately met KT's approval, and then was partially reverted the next day with the edit summary WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (With 48,000 edits in 10 years, I still fail the 500/30 barrier. Bizarre). One remark caught my attention:'Mark the date and time. I believe that this is the first time that I agree with Nishidani.’ This is very odd, for someone who says he's fresh to Wikipedia. Many of the edits are so bad they demand reverting (as here, for patently using poor sources (like this) or failing to exercise careful judgment as he stems the tide of editors who 'wikiwash history' by mentioning an Arab presence in Palestine. I think ARBPIA3#500/30 is a major improvement, and works. It can be gamed, of course. But people who do so will betray their hand pretty quickly if they do so, by, for one, going after editors by making silly edits that demand reversion, and then using those reverts as evidence to get rid of an established editor they dislike, as has occurred here. Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This began as a spurious complaint Malik had violated WP:IRR. It is obvious he didn't. But the plaintiff seems to run a very fine line here with impunity while we are still here. Yasser Arafat is under IRR. Yet

• (a)18:36, 9 August 2016‎ here KT tried to violate NPOV using an execrably poor source to make a pitch for the subject of the article as a terrorist.

As History's biography wrote, "For two decades the PLO launched bloody attacks on Israel, and Arafat gained a reputation as a ruthless terrorist

I reverted it with an explanation on the talk page. There are a lot of political figures in I/P articles with a terrorist background, on both sides, I noted, but we don't try to push that, or say it is the 'truth' in leads etc.

Today, he essentially reinserted a variation of this.

• (b)17:06, 11 August 2016

while many Israelis and people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians

This was duly reverted by User:Ohnoitsjamie

• (c)18:22, 11 August 2016 he restored it

while many Israelis and people worldwide have described him as an unrepentant terrorist because of his decades of violence, aimed mostly at civilians.

and this was duly reverted by myself again.

Now I have always admitted that I have no understanding of 1R, except to think that, if I am reverted, I don't touch the page for at least a day. I know it's simple, but I can't figure it out.

But it looks to me as though (b) and (c)inserted between a revert within just over an hour constitutes two rsverts to a variation of the same problem in (a) which I had to remonstrate with him about. Whatever the technicalities, he is pushing in material to unhinge NPOV, and doing it against counsel, explanations, and at least 2 other editors.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding eventual measures, this is somewhat complex. KT rushed through, it seems, the 500/30 qualification. His grasp of policy is very shaky. He regards the area as dominated by several POV pushers, and has rapidly resorted to complaints here and at A/1 that have been dismissed. On the other hand, so far there is no need for draconian measures,-KT is relatively new- and we should heed Kingsindian's point that he does use the talk pages, (if only, too often, after an editorial fait accompli on articles). I think a verbal slap on the wrist insufficient, because there is a repetitive pattern even after warnings. Probably a week or two in porridge would get the message over, that, whatever the POV and its strength any editor may have, high standards, detachment and care in sourcing are fundamental. The roughshod has no place here: festina lente. It is salutary also to ask editors overinvolved in the I/P area to show they also can contribute positively to other, less toxic articles. Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those editors who are having difficulty seeing the 1RR violation: According to WP:ANEW, "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Kamel Tebaast added this line to the article - 'JVP endorsed the platform of The Black Lives Matter movement, which, among other things, accuses Israel of "genocide" ' Malik's first revert, at 13:03, 7 August 2016 , removes the words "among other things, accuses Israel of " and replaces them with his own formulation. That's the first revert, a partial one, which undoes the work of Kamel. Then he does this at 01:45, 8 August 2016 - [55] - a complete revert of my edit, which is revert number 2, and on top of that, at 24 hours plus two minutes from the last revert , he does this [56] - another full revert, of a different editor. If the latter is not a sanction-worthy gaming of the restriction, I don't know what is. (and as I've noted on the article's talk page, while I don't think that the material Malik removed in his last edit comes from a reliable source, there is no exception to 1RR that allows for removing unreliable sources. This is "special pleading" , to allow a 1RR violation to stand because it was a "good edit").

There are other issues involved here, including Malik's taunting (as noted by Kemal) and lack of civility , both in his edit summaries and in the talk page discussion; gross violation of Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH policy; and general edit warring against 3 other editors on that page, which he seems to think he owns - but the above is clear cut enough, I think.

(added) Yes Malik, of course in my head, making a third revert 24 hours and 2 minutes after your 2nd one is gaming (which includes, as your own link says, "using the letter of policy to violate the broader principles of the policy."), but that what we're here for - to see what uninvolved administrators and arbitrators thinks about a revert done 2 minutes outside the bright red line. Epson Salts (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: for future reference, could you explain why you found Debresser's 2 edits spaced 24 hours + 2 hours (give or take) on an article subject to 1RR to be , at a minimum, a warning-worthy gaming of the restriction (see your statement here, 2 days ago: [57]), yet Malik's 2 edits, spaced 24 hours + 2 minutes on an article subject to 1RR to not be worthy of a similar warning? Epson Salts (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem:I am referring to this sequence of edits:

• 01:45, 8 August 2016 - [58] -you will note it is described as "(Reverted 1 edit by Epson Salts (talk) to last revision by Malik Shabazz. (TW))"
• 01:47, 9 August 2016 - [59] , this, too , is described as "(Undid revision 733526348 by Mizuki84 (talk) not a reliable source, never in a million years, no)"

These two are spread exactly 24 hours and 2 minutes apart - if Debresser's sequence of edits was , in your words, gaming of the 1RR restriction, why isn't this one? Epson Salts (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see the violation--what I do see is a very, very tendentious (new) editor. What I don't see is whether they've been made aware of ARBPIA 1, 2, 3, and the prequel, though the jubilation in this edit suggests they know what's going on. Note that that edit was made in a thread warning them about edit warring; note the tone and content of that conversation. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There aren't two reverts within 24 hours, period. That first set of edits is a re-write. I also share the same concern that Kingsindian, Nishidani, and Drmies have. Malik isn't the one who needs to be warned here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This series of edits by Kamel are particularly troubling: 1, 2, & 3. It seems they persisted in their addition after talk page discussion showed there was a dispute about inclusion and wording. Based on this concern, I'd like to hear feedback on whether a warning is sufficient or a short topic ban would be appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban at the least. Kamel Tebaast is obviously not the user's first account, per Johnuniq above and other QUACK-y indications. I'm not sure whether the previous account[s] is/are blocked or topic banned, though it seems likely. Apparently nobody has thought it worth while to alert this account to the discretionary sactions; like Drmies I do believe they're already aware of them, not least because in this very report, they talk about M. Shabazz being probabaly aware of the DS because they used to be an admin. Bishonen | talk 13:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

• Epson, Mike didn't do two reverts outside of 24 hours. He did only one revert. The other case you mention was very different, both in form and substance. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban as well. The diff pointed out by drmies and the reverts on Yasser Arafat are concerning and a topic ban will give Kamel the chance to show that they aren't purely agenda driven. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]