Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive213

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – WJBscribe (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Blocked you from editing for 48 hours by WJBscribe for this edit to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank in which Huldra restored a reverted edit (the removal of a map from the article's infobox) without obtaining prior consensus. Huldra was specifically informed of the restriction on restoring reverted edits without consensus above, see User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles.

Administrator imposing the sanction

WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

• Whaw. User:WJBscribe: Yes, I was definitely aware of the editing restriction, I requested it! But it was put in place because if *one* newish editor made changes to an article, then it took *two* editors to return to status quo. It was never meant to keep everything in status quo until everyone agreed!! If this is the interpretation, then we can just shut down, as there will never be agreement about everything in the IP area. If you look at the talk page, you will see many editors from all sides discussing. To be blocked for 1 edit is a new interpretation, something I definitely was not aware of. Huldra (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have read "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit"...as meaning that the *same* editor cannot restore one of his own reverted edits......but I never took it to mean that anyone else could not restore it either!! ......and I don't think anyone else in the area have interpreted them like that, either (nobody reported me..) Huldra (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I have participated on the talk pages for ages, besides the one edit WJBscribe links to on 21 March, also 20 March, 19 March, 19 March etc.
• And I repeat, I have not understood User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles to mean that no one could reinsert an edit before everyone agreed. If this is what it means, then I got a lot more than I asked for, back in December: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. Huldra (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:WJBscribe: You wrote, about Oncenawhile: "That makes me hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule". Well, I had no idea that I was violating a rule. And to repeat: I thought I knew that rule...as I had asked for it! Huldra (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, if the December 2016 amendment is the way WJBscribe has interpreted it, it in effect puts all articles under ARBPIA in 0RR. And that has never been discussed (And I, for one would be against it, as it wouldn't be workable). And that was definitely not what I meant should happen, when I asked for 1RR to be strengthen! Huldra (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:BU Rob13: it might be that my reading of the remedy was skewed by the fact that I know intimately what triggered the December 2017 amendment, namely me asking for "That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period." I never dreamed it could, in effect, mean 0RR. (And that is something I would greatly object to. I know far to well how difficult it is to agree to what is "consensus" in the IP area, and would strongly object to such a remedy.) I asked for, (and thought I got) that status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. In this case, however, there were many editors involved. To decide what is "consensus" in such a case can, in my experience, be nearly impossible to determine. Huldra (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Shrike: I have always self reverted if I have become aware of doing something wrong! But that is the problem here, I’m not sure I did! *If* the admins agree that I did, then I will 1: self revert, 2: go straight to WP:ARCA to get this rule changed. (Btw, reverting will bring back an WP:OR map, which nobody is for?) Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:BU Rob13: I started a RfC Talk:Kfar Ahim on 12 January, it was closed, for the second time, today. After 11+ years in this area, I know there is absolutely no problem too small not to be quarrelled over. Normally it works out somehow.....everyone keeps to 1 edit a day, + lots of discussion on the talk pages. AFAIK, nobody of "the regulars" in the IP area has asked for a rule the way WJBscribe has interpreted them, which basically takes away that one edit a day. And I mean what I said above: I will go straight to WP:ARCA to try to get it changed, if that is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:WJBscribe, no, it isn't that I think a consensus is always impossible to reach. But Nishidani puts the point quite clearly; a single editor can always claim there is no consensus (And in the IP area Murphys law rule: what can go wrong, will go wrong.) That you do not follow what you yourself state, namely "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" is bad enough, but what I did is worse: When I went to WP:ARCA in December, it was to get a minor adjustment to the 1RR rule (And I think I speak for most of the "regulars" in the IP area, when I say that 1RR has generally been good). BUT: instead of a minor adjustment, I apparently got a monster rule, enabling me to be blocked, without notice, and without me knowingly making a mistake! Pinging the arb.commers who voted for this, to see if this is what they meant: Opabinia regalis Doug Weller DGG Callanecc Kirill Lokshin GorillaWarfare DeltaQuad Huldra (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:El_C, User:Opabinia regalis, as I said above, I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong. This time I was blocked without any warning, by an admin who has earlier stated that he "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" .....alas, that was a courtesy apparently not extended to me, only to Onceinawhile. That none of you other admins have the guts to unmake an injustice make me not wanting to be a part of this place. Huldra (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:El C, I don't blame you, I know that the penalty for weel-warring is mostly instant desysop. The one I blame is User:WJBscribe, who blocked me without any warning, and without me knowingly breaking any rule. I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists! I see User:Newyorkbrad, writes here "In my view, "blocking without warning" should never take place in the sense of "the editor was blocked even though he or she didn't know he or she was doing anything wrong, and would have stopped immediately had he or she been told."" ...but that is exactly how I was blocked, and is still blocked! But apparently this is totally acceptable behaviour from WJBscribe? And I am absolutely not "wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day ", but as I have said, I would go straight to WP:ARCA to modify this monster rule, if 0RR is in fact correct interpretation. I addition to the examples mention by Oncenawhile, I can mention Palestine Liberation Organization, where there was also a bit of a scuffle among "the usual suspects", and none of us waited for a "consensus" on the talk page. Huldra (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant edits to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank were as follows:

1. A map was removed from the infobox and replaced with a different map by Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) [1]
2. That edit was reverted by Shrike (talk · contribs) [2]
3. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) once again removed the map (but did not replace it) [3]
4. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) self-reverted after being reported to WP:AE for restoring a reverted edit without consensus [4]
5. Huldra (talk · contribs) repeated the replacement of the map [5]
6. Huldra (talk · contribs) then posted on the talkpage: "To have an OR map, done by a WP editor in the lead is outrageous. I have reintroduced the official map [Oncenawhile] inserted" [6]

Huldra (talk · contribs) was aware that the topic area was subject to the following AE sanction: "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She restored a reverted edit, and then expressly acknowledged having done so on the talkpage. I note that in her appeal, Huldra suggests that her edit not violate the AE sanction because she did not restore her own edit. That is not required by the AE sanction as I read it. The onus is on those who wish to restore an edit that has proved controversial - because it has been reverted - to establish consensus. Huldra did not engage in talkpage discussions to establish a consensus either for the replacement of the map or, in the meantime, that there should be no image in the infobox pending resolution of the dispute. Such a discussion had in fact been commenced, see Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Lead map - consensus to remove?. Instead she dived straight in and continued to edit war by substituting her preferred map to the infobox. I believe this is exactly the sort of behaviour the AE sanction is aimed at preventing - edit warring without prior attempts at seeking consensus - and that the block is proportionate to the severity of the breach. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting in response to Huldra's comments that I do not think her position is the same as Oncenawhile's, for whom I recommended a warning instead of block. Oncenawhile was unaware that reverting without consensus was prohibited. Huldra was aware of the applicable AE sanction. She apparently thought that what she was doing didn't fall within the AE sanction. That is something different. Where one is aware of an AE sanction, care should be taken not breach it. Huldra knowingly dived into an edit war in a topic area subject to sanctions in relation to reverting without prior consensus. She did so at her own risk. That she thought that her edit was technical permissible is not a good excuse IMO. WJBscribe (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to an early unblock if the concerns raised by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) in relation to future conduct are satisfactorily addressed. WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I don't think those concerns have been addressed. Her recent response to you shows that Huldra is still be focused on her belief that she should have been told her edit breached the sanctions before being blocked, and that I treated her and Oncenawhile inconsistently, rather than addressing whether she will now approach edit wars differently in future. IMO what's lacking before there can be an early unblock is (per BU Rob13) "an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future." She still appears to be wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm not asking anyone to jump through hoops. "...they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough." Fair enough, I won't object to you unblocking if that's the case, but when has Huldra said she'll abide by the rule? WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I read what you've quoted as referring to the past, not the future. If you think that's a commitment to abide by this AE sanction in the future so be it, but I think that's a pretty generous interpretation of her words. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me interpretation was clear no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.Also it clearly says editors so it doesn't mean one editor.But if its not clear to Huldra she can ask after her block expires at WP:ARCA--Shrike (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was me who reported you [7]--Shrike (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra Are you willing to self-revert if you get unblocked?--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra The is map is not OR at all but that beyond the point.There is seems to be agreement that you did broke provision.The only question is that you was not aware if this is the case I support you unblock if you willing to self revert Shrike (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I object misrepresentation of my position I think the old map is good and until something better is found it should stay.Another thing I don't understand why @Zero0000, El C, Nishidani, and Sir Joseph: commenting as uninvolved editors the convention as far as I know was if the editor is active in topic area there are involved.--Shrike (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: It seems that she is not willing to self-revert I think this should be condition to any unblock.--Shrike (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to apply this consistently if we are going to apply it. For example, a few weeks ago at UN Watch, this happened:

• 22 February 2017 (9 edits) Drmies makes a variety of edits
• 04:56, 23 February 2017 IP partial revert (Try to gain consensus in the talk page before deleting such a massive amount of content. Some of this information is important and supported by secondary sources.)
• 04:58, 23 February 2017 Nableezy reverts per ARBPIA3
• 12:40, 23 February 2017 Shrike reverts Nableezy to restore the IP's version

Is this a breach? There was no attempt to discuss, unlike at the article which is subject to this AE. It's all very confusing to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, Sir Joseph wrote "it is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit". Yet just one week ago, this happened at Ahlam Tamimi:

• 16:03, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland reverted an IP per ARBPIA3
• 16:07-16:09, 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted Sean hoyland
• 16:14, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland partially reverted Sir Joseph
• 16:22-16:35 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted many of the same points again

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 says that a successful appeal requires evidence of consensus and it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. The latter statement is incorrect; only Shrike had reverted the map (one person is not "multiple editors"). Oncenawhile only "self-reverted", not "reverted"; it's clear that they are opposed to the map. As for "evidence of consensus", nobody except Shrike is arguing in favour of the map (it's not clear to me what Shrike's position is; nobody has given a source for the map so far). Thus, a good case could be made that the edit is not a violation at all.

Speaking more broadly, the block by WJBscribe is not correct for several reasons. Firstly, to insist that a map without a source be kept in the article based on some interpretation of rules about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin is ridiculous. I remind people that WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN are core policies of Wikipedia.

Next, what was the need to act hurriedly, without even giving the party a chance to respond? And why was Huldra not given a chance to self-revert? What was the need for admins to act here, anyway? This kind of enforcement will make working in this area nigh impossible. WJBscribe seems to not appreciate this point at all. The provision was not meant to shut down all editing of the article till everyone agrees. In that case, we might as well wait for hell to freeze over.

Lastly, see Oncenawhile's comment about Shrike's editing on another article (the IP in question is a sock of AndresHerutJaim). This is not to demand that one of Shrike or Drmies be blocked; I would like nobody to be blocked. It's to say that these remedies need to be applied with common sense and people be extended the basic courtesies (like allowing them to self-revert, or discuss with them first) before hauling them here, and admins not be trigger-happy. In the past, I have seen admins use full-protection to force discussion on the talk page. That would have been much preferable to this kind of enforcement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I apologise for incorrectly putting this first into the "uninvolved" section. Although I have not edited the article in question for 5 months, I have written to the talk page recently.)

I find this all quite confusing. It is very clear that Huldra requested a particular rule modification to favor the status quo in a revert contest, but got something different without realising it. That by itself should be enough for the block to be replaced by a discussion. I also took the word "editors" as applying to the person whose edit was reverted and not everyone. The way this is turning out, editing in the area will become impossible. Anyone can revert without giving a reason then reply "I disagree" to every counterargument. Also, I don't see a good argument from the blocking admin that consensus hadn't been achieved. Shrike was the only dissenter, versus Oncenawhile and Huldra and (to some extent, though I didn't make strong statements) myself. Moreover, Shrike has agreed that the map can be improved and we are working towards that. Better consensus than that is rare in the IP area. Zero^talk 23:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, there are two fatal deficiencies in the new rule that must be addressed to arbcom.

1. It allows a malicious reverter to effectively stop article improvement by making regular reverts without even providing a reason. The onus for gaining a consensus is then put on the reverted, who have to start a talk page discussion even if the revert is completely unexplained and ridiculous. This is not a boundary case; it will happen for sure and it will be used to target individuals as well as articles.
2. There is no time limit specified for when the revert was. So, in principle, before making any edit editors must examine the article history right back to article creation to see if they are repeating a previously reverted edit, and then the entire talk page history to see whether a consensus (whatever that is) was achieved in the interim. This is absurd.

Zero^talk 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is something else I want to say. I've been working in the IP area of Wikipedia for more than 15 years, which I'm sure is longer than anyone else. I have never seen any editor produce such a huge amount of well-written and well-sourced copy as Huldra has. It is quite distressing to see one of the project's best editors sanctioned because she misunderstood the arbcom ruling that she herself requested. What are we coming to? Zero^talk 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.' (Shrike)

Read that way this gives an enormous preponderance of power to any one editor (contrarian or not) to remove anything at all he or she might object to, on whatever grounds, whether the policy given is cogent or erratic. At Archaeology of Israel which is not under the ARBPIA ruling, one editor is constantly reverting 2 others because, I assume, he believes that 'his initial revert means no one else can restore it unless a discussion is opened up on the talk page, where his consensus is required. The original intent was not to license trigger-happy reverters, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Huldra That remedy doesn't require that everyone agrees. It does require that there is consensus for your edit. The remedy says nothing about this only applying to those who originally reverted; the goal is to stop all edit wars, not just edit wars engaged by one editor. I don't think this remedy is particularly open for misinterpretation, and the blocking administrator was definitely acting reasonably in blocking here. A successful appeal will need to include at least one of the following: evidence of consensus, evidence you weren't reasonably aware of this remedy, or sufficient explanation to convince uninvolved administrators that the block is no longer preventative. Moreover, I'd like to hear what you thought the use of this edit was. Regardless of remedies, it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. Edit warring is restricted entirely, not just when you pass 1RR. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Huldra: I wholeheartedly reject the "hard to get consensus" defense for a slow moving edit war. Start an RfC, wait for it to be closed, then act (or don't!) on the result. An experienced closer such as myself or any number of other admins or experienced non-admins can be trusted to cut through the discussion and make an appropriate determination. If consensus for a change can't be reached, we default to the status quo in most cases or the version with least potential to harm for potential BLP violations. This applies in all topic areas; slow moving edit wars are never okay. I guess the most pertinent question here is whether you'll repeat this if unblocked, but ideally an unblock will also be preceded by an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think there was a genuine misunderstanding here that isn't likely to be repeated again. I, myself, am leaning toward unblocking due to that. Unless there are objections. El_C 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I also ought to note that, for someone as intensely involved in ARBPIA articles for so many years, she has maintained a rather clean block log throughout the years. El_C 17:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Earlier today, WJBscribe advanced a fair point about the provision's use in preventing edit wars due to 1RR tag-teaming. I would like to note, for the record, that despite my public objection to the rule as counterintuitive, in this case, it may have indeed stopped just such an edit war in its track. And that's always worthwhile. El_C 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The provision does need to have its own projectspace page so it can be further clarified. Reverts do need to be well-argued for it to apply, I would challenge. El_C 00:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just about ready to unblock early (there seems to be consensus for this), unless there are no further objections. El_C 19:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WJBscribe, I think it's unnecessary for the user to go through hoops—they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough. The User views this as a form of 0RR and they are not wrong about that. But they are allowed to disagree with the rule—their unblock should not be contingent on them reciting conduct that takes it on. Agreeing to abide by the rule so long as it remains in effect should be good enough. El_C 22:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong." [and] I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists!" Unless there are no further objections, I'll be unblocking in the next hour. El_C 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it generous? I asked the user what they would do now and they say they always abide by the rules. You think that changes now? Because it's in the past-tense? You want the user to just plainly say I will follow the rule, and I don't think it's necessary, I think that it is implied. El_C 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW this part of the sanction appears totally counter-intuitive to me. It is effectively stopping development of any articles under ARBPIA because as soon as anyone edits, they can be reverted for no reason whatsoever with the expectation that a talk-page consensus should then occur. I do realise that this is effectively following WP:BRD but I would expect that the initial reverting editor give a very good reason for reverting, which at the moment is not happening. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was introduced because of the frequent issue of tag-teaming in this topic area, which meant that whichever side had the greater number of editors would always be able to 'win' the battle to get material included by being able to outrevert the other side. Number 57 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that 2 days is a reasonable length for an infraction that was technically committed, but given the mitigating factors I think unblocking early would be a good idea. I also firmly believe that uninvolved admins need to do a thorough examination of this restriction, and whether it is helping or hindering the development of the topic area. If it is unduly restricting legitimate edits, it may be advisable to ask ARCA to come up with something more fine tuned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus that the block was invalid.
• To the extent that it was discussed, there is moderate consensus that the remedy may need further clarification at ARCA.
• Most contributors support an early unblock, largely on the strength of AGF. Other contributors would join this opinion if they had reasonable assurance that Huldra agreed not to do it again, at least until/if the matter is clarified at ARCA.
• Huldra disputes the validity of the block, but has highlighted her record of self-reverting and abiding by these remedies, and has committed to taking the matter to ARCA for clarification. Opinions vary on whether these commitments are sufficient. However a reading of this discussion and of policies like AGF indicate a consensus for giving her the benefit of the doubt.
• On this basis, and noting the preponderance of views from contributors, there seems an active consensus that - again without disputing the validity of the block itself - a slightly early unblock is low-risk and permissible under AGF. On which basis I've gone ahead and lifted it. As always, happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (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

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TracyMcClark (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

:

ARBPIA DS, consensus must be reached before reinserting a reverted edit.

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

1. Mar 30 I remove the word "steel coated"
2. Mar 30 I remove "steel coated"
3. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the first edit.
4. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the second edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sept 27 2016.
• Was warned on his talk page to self-revert before being reported.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firstly, the reason why this is a day late is because as an observant Jew I was offline the past day.

In addition to the diffs above, before filing this complaint, I posted on his talk page that his post violates DS. He refused and said it was a content dispute. I then posted again, that regardless if he feels it's a content dispute, his post still violated DS. He refused and then told me to stay off his page. I didn't want to file this complaint, after all, I do believe we should warn first and then let the editor revert and use the talk page. In this case, that didn't happen. (Should we use rubber coated or just rubber bullets, can indeed be discussed on the talk page. The article I read said that it was a rubber bullet, to claim it in Wiki's voice as rubber coated steel bullet may not be correct. But regardless, we have an egregious violation of the DS, I warned him twice and even gave 25 hours to revert.)

• Seraphimblade As to why I reverted, if you read the article, the Israeli statement is that it is a rubber bullet. IIRC, I checked one article and I didn't see any mention of steel coated, and in one, it was in the headline, but I didn't see it in the article, but I did see the Israeli mention of rubber bullets. After TMC said it was in the article, I did look more carefully and did see it, but again, he should have used the talk page and pointed it out. We have DS for a reason. I don't care to have anyone blocked and a warning that after a revert, you use the talk page and not reinsert is all that is needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Please allow my edit here, it's easier to converse) That could be the whole point of DS. TMC should have gone to the talk page and posted that. I was working on the assumption (as someone who is familiar with firearms) that there are many types of bullets, and that rubber bullets are not the same as rubber coated steel bullets. Had he posted on the talkpage and not reverted, we wouldn't be here. As you pointed out in other AE actions, TMC did not follow procedure. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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 is one of the more silly things to fight over. As this B'Tselem page makes clear, what Israel calls "rubber bullets" are actually "rubber-coated steel bullets". There's no contradiction here between the two positions. To be clear, we should use the actual term rather than the euphemism. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better if you tried to address the point of the disagreement rather than concentrate on the procedural matter. It's ok if you didn't read the news article carefully at first, and missed the "rubber-coated" part. The objective should primarily be to get the facts right, not argue about who reverted who, and who broke DS. If you edited it to read something like rubber-coated bullets (which Israel claims are rubber bullets), a compromise could have been reached - assuming nobody pointed out that they are actually the same thing. Nothing is lost if the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few hours or days while consensus is reached. Bringing someone to AE over trivial matters is not helpful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So, here's what I'm seeing here. Sir Joseph changed two instances of "rubber-coated steel bullets" to "rubber bullets" in the article, claiming the cited source ([9]) didn't contain that wording: [10]. I normally would dismiss this as a content dispute, but after a quick look, I saw that the cited source not only does have the exact wording "rubber-coated steel bullets", and very early on in the article as well. So, @Sir Joseph:, I'm interested to know why you left an edit summary indicating the cited source doesn't say those words, when it clearly does. Misrepresenting references and falsifying edit summaries do go to behavior rather than content issues, so I hope there's a better explanation than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sir Joseph, thanks for your explanation. I'll take your word for it that missing that in the cited source was accidental. Still, what I see here is where you made a clear error, another editor corrected it (in the process, making a minor error in procedure), and you, rather than telling them "Thanks, missed that", proceed to drag them to AE for a minor breach of protocol made while fixing your mistake. Certainly, we can all make a mistake or miss something, and I get that, but what apparently happened after concerns me a whole lot more than the minor protocol breach, to be quite honest. DS is to stop disruptive behavior, not play "gotcha" if someone misses a step but isn't behaving harmfully. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• And now we move somewhat into the realm of farce, as I note you made a comment in another editor's section, while seeming to indicate you knew you aren't supposed to do that. If you're going to haul another editor to AE for something this minor, I would at least hope you would be scrupulous in following the protocols yourself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks to be a storm in a teacup that shouldn't have come here. I recommend the request is closed with no action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 2 April 2017 (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

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheBD2000 (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 :

1RR and no reinstatement of challenged material without consensus on Protests against Donald Trump

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

1. 2 April Edited article lede to include disputed material, specifically, "multiple cities" which puts undue weight/influence on the statement.
2. 2 April Reinstated that material after it was removed by revert and without engaging in talk page discussion to create consensus.
3. 2 April Again reinstated challenged material without discussion, and has refused request to self-revert.

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)

• Given DS notice by NeilN here, March 6.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I challenged the edit by reversion and opened a talk page discussion, and TheBD2000 has simply ignored it; the user here has violated both 1RR and the requirement not to reinstate challenged edits without talk page consensus. They have refused to engage in discussion and refused a request to self-revert. I acknowledge that I (inadvertently) violated 1RR as well, and accept any sanctions resulting from that, but I was attempting to work in good faith with the editor and got nothing but blind reverts for my trouble. Refusing to engage in good-faith discussion and consensus-building is not conducive to editing sensitive topics such as this one.

This can be closed - TheBD2000 has agreed to self-revert and begin discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

238-Gdn (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, and 30/500 rule re new editors

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

1. 4 April Removes RS tag (added here) placed re source used to support a statement connected to a violent incident in the West Bank
2. 4 April violates 1RR -- material subject to 1RR in part by virtue of restoring a statement (deleted here) about the above incident ("Ginsburgh published a letter in The Jewish Press stating that the case in Kifl Haris [a West Bank village] was dismissed by an Israeli court when the villagers failed to produce a corpse.")

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 31 March
• Editor discusses talk-page ARBPIA notice: [11]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the 1RR violation: the editor is not eligible to edit in connection with the Arab/Israeli conflict, per the 30/500 rule (also notified about this one: [12]. As the "Controversy" section of the article makes clear, Ginsburgh is notable in large part for his profile as the rabbi of a radical settlement in the West Bank and for his statements about the violent actions of settlers against Palestinians there. We don't have to "broadly construe" the relevance -- it's quite direct.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [13]

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.

The initial deleted statement (from a week or two ago) was indeed unsourced, however I have now posted a published claim that the incident had been dismissed by Israeli courts when the villagers failed to produce a corpse. The editor who is challenging me deleted my addition with the claim that this was not a reliable source. After discussion on the talk page, I reverted his deletion (as abovementioned editor was obviously hoping that I would do in order to post here). There was no good reason why the statement should be deleted, other than the editor's obviously biased view.

I will add that the page under discussion has been poorly sourced and lain stagnant for some years. In the past few weeks I have been making changes and adding substantial new material that challenges the previous view adopted by the page. The challenging editor has obviously taken aversion to these new facts and is having trouble digesting them. I am doing my best to improve the page with new information and also improving the style, however this editor has been constantly thwarting my efforts, hanging on to the previous version as if his life was dependent upon it and showing little tolerance in his remarks. Another editor has chastized him for his forceful actions against my edits, but he continues using the same tactics.

The page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts (as clear to anyone who has seen the court hearings, which I understand are not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source). I am searching for more reliable sources that uphold the statement under discussion. The one I cited is the first.

I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia, so I'm sure there are many rules that I have yet to learn, but I am doing my best to conform to the rules as I learn them. 238-Gdn (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I have now familiarized myself more fully with the rules of ARBPIA. I understand the sound reasoning behind the rules and have no wish to violate them. My intentions for editing on Wikipedia are to present the facts with reliable sources, as I have been attempting to do on the page under discussion. It takes time to learn which sources are acceptable and which may be challenged. I have obviously jumped in at the deep end of Wikipedia, and I'm trying my best to learn to swim. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that article belong to WP:ARBPIA.The arbitrators specifically didn't want to extend the sanctions on "any edit" on any article even it doesn't belong--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user has self-reverted.So I think the matter is moot.--Shrike (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a content matter, I think it is reasonable for Ginzburg to be given some space to respond to the criticism made just before the sentence in question. The source given is just a letter by Ginzburg to The Jewish Press. One needs to attribute the statement to Ginzburg, and phrase the claim carefully so that it doesn't assert things which cannot be checked. And the fact of what happened to the court case should be determined one way or another. Court documents are primary sources, so they should be avoided in the article. But they can be discussed on the talkpage to argue for Ginzburg's position. If some secondary coverage exists, it should be given preference. But this discussion should be on the talkpage, not here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article topic is devoted to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I find arguments to the contrary quite bizarre. To see the weight of the argument against, compare the article before 238-Gdn started major surgery with the article now. Here's a diff: [14] though the changes are so vast that they are hard to follow. A lot of 238-Gdn's effort has been to remove focus from the Israel-Palestine conflict and replace it by hagiographic text that frankly reads like some sort of adoration of this extremely controversial person. A lot of it is truly cringe-worthy and I strongly suspect that 238-Gdn has a personal connection to the subject. Regardless of that, 238-Gdn is certainly on a mission to turn this into a Ginsburg fan page and has never edited any other page except some minor edits. It is very hard to counteract this concerted pov-push by the usual means because a lot of 238-Gdn's sources are obscure Hebrew texts. This shouldn't be allowed and I propose that 238-Gdn be topic-banned from any articles related to Yitzhak Ginsburgh and his yeshivas and students. In any case, Nomo is quite correct that the 30/500 rule forbids him from editing here anyway; edits which remove IP-related information are just as forbidden as edits which add it. Zero^talk 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user can be forgiven some lack of knowledge. ARBPIA rules are not easy for a newbie to follow, this article is not classic ARBPIA material and the talk page was only [very!] relatively recently tagged for ARBPIA.

On top of all of that, it's arguable whether or not the restrictions should apply to this particular article. It's about a rabbi who is notable for educating people about religion who happens to have 'interesting' political views. If we applied ARBPIA to everyone like that, we'd have a mushrooming pile of articles for Arbcom to police.

That said, edit-warring and OWN issues are bad - but they are better dealt with at venues less nuclear than this one. I'd be encouraging the newbie to get deeper into Wikipedia and our norms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think that there is more than enough of an overlap for the 30/500 rule to apply. Given that 238-Gdn also appears to be exclusively interested in this one article, that they have edited for a while, and that they have been notified of the sanctions in place, the naive new user argument also appears to be a stretch. At the minimum, 238-Gdn should be asked to wait till they satisfy the 30/500 rule but I'm open to the idea of additional restrictions as well. Will wait for other opinions though. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Dweller: I'm all for giving new users a bit of slack in general, but: (i) 238-Gdn was told he wasn't eligible to edit I/P topics ( [15]); (ii) He participated in a discussion that explained why other editors believed the article feel within the I/P topic area (Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Kifl Haris and the Israel-Palestine conflict?); (iii) His comment above that "the page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts" shows that he aware that (at the very least) "this one incident" (i.e. the one his edits related to) is relevant to the conflict; and (iv) isn't the whole point of the 30/500 rule that ArbCom have found the edits of new users in this topic area to be disruptive? The point is that people need to make their 500 edits away from the disputed topic area to establish their bona fides. I'd support a 24 hr block and a warning not to edit Yitzchak Ginsburgh until 238-Gdn meets the requirements of 30/500 (on the basis that no edits to Yitzchak Ginsburgh count towards the 500 edit requirement). WJBscribe (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with User:WJBscribe. In his reply to this AE, User:238-Gdn reveals poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and certainly gives us no confidence that he will follow the 30/500 rule in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree with WJBScribe, except that I'm not sure that a block is necessary this time around. I think an unambiguous warning that any further edits in violation of the 30/500 restriction will result in an immediate block will be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Seraphimblade; a final warning and a block next time the user makes an "innocent mistake" straying into this area seems like a good idea. The editor does appear to be acting in good faith, which makes me optimistic they'll be able to prove they can contribute usefully in another area before taking the plunge in the I/P topic area. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• This does not call for large hammer. I think the policy is relevant but let's just make that clear and let them know to edit somewhere else for a while, then they can return there (nondisruptively / following ARBPIA / etc). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (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

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

• "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

• Sanctions (ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

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

1. 6 April 2017 here is the edit where I removed the "King of Israel" paragraph per WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE after consulting a tertiary source (Britannica)
2. 6 April 2017 restoring "consensus version before edit wars" - to be clear this adds content I removed, as well as removing content that I added. I didn't mean to confuse the uninvolved admins.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [16] "blocked for editing in highly controversial areas and not able to demonstrate competence while exhausting community's patience"
2. [17] Blocked for violating 3 month I/P topic ban

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the users previous blocks speak for themselves. Incompetence, using Wikipedia as a battleground, etc. I had previously attempted to engage with the editor, but it seems clear from today's ARBCOM complaint for a minor and unintentional infraction on my part that I have no alternative but to seek formal enforcement of ARBPIA rules. I have never filed a request like this, so if I have made any errors please let me know and I will correct them. He has previously been sanctioned for violating a 3 month topic ban by editing an article where I am working with another editor to develop consensus and cleanup citation. Most likely, today's ARBCOM complaint is an ill-conceived reaction to legitimate consensus building between editors.

I don't know how to withdraw a complaint, but it seems the admins are uninterested in the fact that User:Shrike filed AE to undermine consensus building and citation improvement of Israeli apartheid analogy. I do not want to be accused of filing frivolous, retaliatory complaints, and it seems this has overshadowed the main issues per WP:Wikilawyering by our admins, so please consider my complaint withdrawn

The admins are entitled to disagree with me on interpretation of the consensus clause, but it is improper to accuse me of filing frivolous complaints

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification on talk

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 don't think this should be closed as withdrawn as it was pointed the SS did edit war and broke the ARBCOM prohibition this clear case of WP:BOOMERANG.

User:Nishidani I didn't report the SS for Ariel Sharon edits so I don't know what are you talking about but thanks for showing that he did indeed broke the policy--Shrike (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like a tit-for-tat complaint. But look at the edit history. 1R was broken.

• Seraphim System adds this material at 11:34, 4 April 2017‎.
• Avaya1 removed it immediately 23:17, 4 April 2017‎
• Seraphim System reverts it back in immediately 23:35, 4 April 2017‎.
• Avaya1 reverts it out again within 22 hours 21:32, 5 April 2017

Shrike notes there is an edit war, and surely observed both infringing 1R. He reverts and indeed reports Seraphim System alone. A selective attention to rules, taking out someone whose POV you dislike on a IR technicality, while silently passing over the same offense when it is performed, contemporaneously, by an editor one might thing is on one's own wave-length. What SS added was a balancing statement, summarizing per WP:LEDE material in a long subsection down the page. Shrike's revert consists of a false edit summary (consensus version before edit wars.) that appears to mean is that anything in the text before Seraphim edited it was 'consensual'. texts are not composed that way. Consensus is a talk page result, not the state of a text before someone edits it. Secondly, his revert restored this in the lead, minus the countervailing POV SS had added.

Sharon was considered the greatest field commander in Israel's history,[4] and one of the country's greatest military strategists and tacticians.[5] After his assault of the Sinai in the Six-Day War and his encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army in the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli public nicknamed him "The King of Israel".

That's fine as the Israelocentric POV, but cannot stand unless something like SS added, giving equal if terse space to the highly critical opinion about his war behavior in RS, is kept to balance the perspective towards neutrality.

So there's poor editing all round, and arguably abuse of the rules to distort NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike. If you had reported SS's 1R violations, you would have been obliged to report at the same time Avaya1's violation. That is the only reason I can think of for you desisting from that temptation. It would have got another editor in the firing line, one that, like yourself, appears to approve an NPOV violation in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm no doubt being slow but at the moment I don't understand why this edit breaches the AE sanction. Could you please explain? WJBscribe (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that Seraphim System made a series of edits which added/removed content. Shrike reverted these edits. I see a revert, not reinstating a reverted edit, so no sanctioned conduct. I also agree with Bishonen regarding retaliatory filings. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be even more of a frivolous request than the one above; from what I can work out Shrike was not reinstating a reverted edit, but reverting new edits to a previous version. If this is indeed what happened, filing this request is more worthy of a block than what was being reported. Number 57 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the diffs provided by Nishidani, it appears Seraphim System has violated the ARBPIA requirement to "obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit" (which they were blocked for). However, Ayava1's second revert is then allowed under the rules ("Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit."). Number 57 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • After being told by Bishonen that retaliatory filings are not acceptable, Seraphim System has bizarrely seen fit to report me to ANI for responding to the diffs posted above by Nishidani. It's almost as if they're trying to get blocked. Number 57 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Retaliatory AE filings are not acceptable, Seraphim System. You can use the thread above to make your point if you have one, which per Number 57 above is hard to discern. This filing seems to be based more on Shrike's block log (two blocks), which is supposed to "speak for itself", than on anything that has happened in the past five and a half years. Shrike's block log does speak for itself in the sense that it shows Shrike has received no blocks since 2012, and the 2012 one was undone per community consensus after less than four hours. IMO this filing can be closed with an admonishment to the filer to please not bring up ancient history and not cherrypick what they see in block logs. Did you not notice the quick unblock in the log, Seraphim System? I would have thought it was quite as visible at the blocks themselves. If Seraphim System wasn't a fairly new user I'd propose a short block for a frivolous AE filing. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 10 April 2017 (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

Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (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/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited : "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."

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

1. 10 April 2017 The edit summary is insulting, "fuck you, asshole". It seems to be a dig at Floquenbeam, restarting a dispute detailed in the last AE report.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. March 2017 Blocked for one month, reduced to one week on appeal.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TRM has continued to camp at WP:ERRORS where his behaviour seems to have had the effect of driving off admins who were initially willing to help. For example, at the previous AE report, Ealdgyth wrote, "... his behavior at WP:ERRORS does indeed come across as heavy-handed, unpleasant, and negative. I stopped even thinking about doing much at ERRORS..." Despite his undertaking in the last AE report, he still seems to have trouble letting issues go. For example, see his current extensive interaction with BU Rob13 which includes edit warring and badgering repeatedly. This doesn't seem to be the behaviour which was promised, "...a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement..."

• The mystery diffs referred to by Bishonen were dummies provided in the boilerplate of the AE template. I left them in by oversight and then tidied up when I noticed them. This is not a simple process, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Moved here from admin section. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As background, WP:ERRORS is on my watchlist and the edit summary stood out as being remarkably pungent. Initially, I thought it was a general retort with perhaps a nod to the Terminator movie. Then I supposed that it seemed to be throwing Floquenbeam's words back at him. Whatever is meant by it, it doesn't seem appropriate as such language can easily be taken the wrong way and it doesn't make for a congenial atmosphere. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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 agree, the edit summary was unnecessary, but ironically directed at no-one bar myself as the reports I removed had simply been ignored. As for "camping" at ERRORS, given this project has so many problems being allowed onto the main page, it's a good job someone is doing that thankless task. It's a pity some reports are going nearly 24 hours without even a courtesy response from someone saying they're not interested in helping. This should be directed more at admins who are accountable for maintaining the integrity of the main page, than me continually requesting assistance. And if removing posts continually added after a discussion has been closed is "edit warring", I'm a monkey's uncle. The two editors in question, both admins, should know better, one of them did. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that few are reading these statements. Let me make it plain: the "FU" edit summary was sub-optimal, accepted, but was directed AT ME. Those were my reports I was removing with that edit, those were my reports which had been ignored/overlooked throughout the previous day. It's very simple to try to make something out of this, as the complainant seems determined to do until such a time I am banned. The monitoring of all my edits by this user is becoming unsettling. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While my edit summary last month may have inspired TRM's edit summary, I don't see how it could have been aimed at me, considering that I took ERRORS off my watchlist weeks ago, haven't interacted with TRM since, and had nothing to do with the error report (and lack of action) in question. And even if it was some kind off poorly thought out "dig at" me, I don't feel insulted or belittled; I would have to care.

What I do care about is this: I'm getting tired of people whom I have little respect for using comments aimed at me (or assumed to have been aimed at me) to try to get TRM in trouble. If something ever bothers me sufficiently, I'll report it somewhere myself. Don't pretend to be protecting my fragile feelings, when what you're really doing is trying to get someone you hate banned, using any ammunition you find. Leave me the fuck out of all your future vendettas. Please someone uninvolved ban AD from making AE reports about TRM unless they are for comments actually aimed at AD. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm particularly involved here, as I've had no direct confrontation with TRM, but I've argued with him on issues related to other people often enough on WT:DYK. I have frequently criticized his attitude there, which is often abrasive. That said, a) he has been a lot better of late, and b) I don't see anything egregious in the diffs presented here. All I'm seeing is (reasonable) frustration at the absence of admins patrolling ERRORS. Honestly, I think we could do a lot worse than close this now, and spend what time we would have spent here, on WP:ERRORS. Vanamonde (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Floq says, this looks like a disingenuous attempt to get TRM into trouble by someone who doesn't care for him. I can't see any substance to it. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as AE boomerang? --Tarage (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Those of Andrew Davidson's diffs that I can access don't seem heinous to me. But then, Andrew, I don't understand how those "difflinks" that you have named "date" (why?) are meant to work. They don't work at all for me, all I get is the message "Firefox can’t find the server at www.difflink2.com", etc. May we have ordinary diffs, please? Bishonen | talk 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• And now I see the mystery diffs were quietly removed by Andrew Davidson as I was typing. Could people please at least not file here until they've got a coherent complaint? There's enough waste of time on AE. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Just for the record, I've moved one of Andrew's comments from here to his own section above. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That edit summary doesn't seem to be directed at anyone in particular. Unless Andrew Davidson is referring to some backstory here (an explanation would be helpful), I don't see anything actionable here. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The diff does provide useful context. Perhaps TRM just liked the phrase and decided to co-opt it (imitation ... flattery.. etc.) Regardless, one fu in response to another fu hardly qualifies as something to get het up about. A gentle shake of the head with a "tsk, tsk" should cover the situation more than adequately. I don't think Floq needs anyone to fight their battles anyway, so either we follow up the ban AD from filing complaints against TRM or just let it go (my preference). --regentspark (comment) 18:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the context if needed: [18]. But I sympathise with Floquenbeam not wanted to be dragged into this. I also sympathise with TRM for getting frustrated that no one actioned (or discussed) his reports to WP:ERRORS for the entire day. Not sure the snarky notes about the time having elapsed were helpful (and some admins have suggested that such edits discourage them from participating on that page, so TRM may be putting off admins who would otherwise be willing to help by adopting that approach), but I can see why he was irritated. In my own defence, yesterday was a very sunny day & also my birthday - so I didn't check WP:ERRORS. I think this should be closed with no action, and we should see if we can get more admins interested in checking WP:ERRORS? WJBscribe (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I too sympathise with TRM regarding the issues at ERRORS. I try to pitch in where I can, but today I've been in front on the Internet for less than half an hour, and have otherwise been AFK. I agree with WJB's last sentence. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy belated BDay! Agree with closing this without prejudice. El_C 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing this as a waste of time, with a mild warning to Andrew Davidson about The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Floq isn't bothered; TRM doesn't seem all to bothered that he potentially belittled himself, let's get on with our lives, eh? Harrias ^talk 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Blocked for one month for continued edit warring and disruption on pages covered by discretionary sanctions, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2017#Macedonia

Administrator imposing the sanction

NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Copied this here myself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for the block to be lifted because I did not begin an edit war and I did not continue a naming dispute. I simply made a valid edit. However, I was obstructed and I was stalked and intimidated to prevent me from making a legitimate edit that ultimately prevailed and from making a further edit request as encouraged.

My initial edit was to remove a Wikipedia recognized copyrighted national Greek symbol Vergina Sun WIPO from being inappropriately used on a template. Not only is the symbol in question a recognized copyright in Wikipedia it is also recognized in the interim accord signed by both parties, that its use by the Republic of Macedonia to identify itself is a provocation towards Greece.

• Article 7 paragraph 2 states: Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the party of the Second Part (FYROM) shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms, displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.

• The minister of foreign affairs at the time, Karolos Papoulias further clarifies in the accord that the symbol of Article 7, paragraph 2, refers to the Sun or Star of Vergina in all its historical forms.

This is ecchoed by Wikipedia itself that restricts the symbol's global use as a national emblem of Greece.

Any use by the Republic of Macedonia is only a reference to its use during the period 1992-1995 before the signing of the accord.

In my attempt to make this simple correction:,

1. I was pushed into an edit war by user:pepperbeast and by user:Gryffindor
2. I was targeted and stalked on unrelated edits by:

• user:pepperbeast

1. Boy
2. Baculum

• by user:Gryffindor

1. Ottoman Vardar Macedonia

The map I edited created borders that did not exist at the time and does not show clearly the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire for the region.

• and by User:NeilN

1. Undoing name clarification that conformed to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia).

Macedonia by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous. Examples of contexts that are typically unambiguous: Tetovo, Macedonia.

On the page reverted by User:NeilN, Macedonia does not mean officially the Republic of Macedonia. That is misleading to the reader. Macedonia also means the province of modern Greece and the ancient Greek kingdom both unrelated to the Republic of Macedonia. This was an unnecessary addition to the sentence and a standard edit of clarification on a topic I am familiar with, that completely conformed to the naming convention.

The targeting that resulted in my feelings of intimidation are clear.

In regards to fair Notice:

The initial notification that the arbitration committee had imposed discretionary sanctions on articles pertaining to the Balkans was understood by me to imply that the template I had edited was being monitored for a disregard of standards of behavior. As I understood it, a clear copyright violation is of no need for arbitration (as proven by the final change of symbol on the subject template) so for me, there were no conduct issues on my part and the notification was routine.

When I was reminded on my talk page of the 3 edit rule by user:Gryffindor I immediately stopped editing activity and only responded to yet another suggestion for the Vergina Sun in the talk page. When the template became fully protected, I thanked the administrator, and as per the suggestion on my talk page by user:Gryffindor I made a request to further clarify the recent move of the template on the templates talk page.

My request on the template talk page:

I requested that the ambiguity be taken out of the title of the template which recently had “republic of’ omitted from its title. I did not ask for anything contrary to Wikipedia’s naming convention on Macedonia only that it be clarified to avoid confusion as per the convention. To highlight how and why the ambiguity was indeed an issue I referenced Article 2 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity which works towards the harmonious interaction between diverse groups and which applies to the use of the name by both countries.

However, understanding that I had been stalked and targeted by three users in what looks like an attempt to intimidate me and to stop legitimate edits being made that clarified the vagueness between disambiguation’s, I added the last paragraph in my request, albeit strongly worded, on the talk page, the place I was encouraged by the notice on my talk by user:Gryffindor and the admin's edit request noticeto address any issues with edits.

In Conclusion:

The request’s denial by admin would have sufficed to end the topic and for me it had ended there, but instead the opportunity was given for both user:pepperbeast and user:Gryffindor to respond with their inaccurate POV while I was demonized on my talk page by User:NeilN and blocked from responding.

I ask that the block be lifted because I was not the instigator of any edit war or false copyright claims nor did I intentionally disregard Wikipedia rules or continue a naming dispute. I clearly used the appropriate wikipeida convention name. My claim of vandalism was an address to being stalked on my unrelated edits by the three users without cause. I do not have a history of causing problems in Wikipedia, disrespecting other users, or of consciously disregarding Wikipedia rules and conventions. What was a simple and accurate edit was escalated by the inappropriate actions of three users, one of which I was aware, was an admin who instead of moderating, escalated the issue resulting in my block and with no accountability on anyone else's part.

I apologize that my frustration at what felt like an attack by stalkers and propagandists, let me to lecture in the final paragraph of my request. For my part as a relative novice of wikipedia still, I will make it my task to learn the appropriate discussion, resolution and reporting avenues to avoid anything similar in the future.

I thank you for your consideration. Vergiotisa (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the appeal well-illustrates why the block was levied. Vergiotisa's editing, starting from September 2013, has almost exclusively focused on the ARBMAC area [19] and they've made false accusations of vandalism and disruptively edited logo content before. Examples: [20], [21] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit to not understanding Vergiotisa's statement above. The interim accord between Greece and Macedonia is not binding on Wikipedia, which was not a party to it. It is also -- I don't believe -- binding onany third parties under U.S. law. The link provided by Vergiotisa as showing that Wikipedia restricts the use of the symbol does not, as far as I can tell, say any such thing. In the first place, it's a Commons image and not a Wikipedia image, but in the second place, the file information clearly says that it's in the public domain in Greece, the country of its origin, so presumably is PD here as well. A public domain image can be used in any way desired, there are no restrictions on its use placed by Wikipedia, Commons, the WMF, U.S. law or any other authority.

If I'm wrong in these statements, I'd appreciate being corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor obviously has a bee in their bonnet about Macedonia, and believes s/he's being stalked and and harassed when someone disagrees with them or checks out their other edits. Their response to the present block is to blame others (me, Gryffindor, NeilN) for their behaviour, and this block appeal is mostly a litany of what other editors did wrong. I think s/he needs some time to cool off. PepperBeast (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm pretty confident NeilN's sanction is reasonable. I might've imposed a short-term edit warring block and a longer (3 month or so) topic ban, but that's just me. The procedural claim they raise doesn't make much sense; they were notified of discretionary sanctions and continued their conduct thereafter. As with BMK, I don't see how the image is a copyright violation, considering it's in the public domain. Sanction should be upheld. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Handling a copyright violation is indeed an exception to the prohibition against edit warring, but in this case, the image in question is shown as being PD and I have not seen any reason to believe it is not properly classified as such. Similarly, Greek treaty conditions are not binding upon us. And it doesn't matter who "started it" when it comes to edit warring. So, if this was a newbie mistake, here's what you do: If someone reverts you, stop right there and take it to the talk page. If you can't reach agreement after a calm discussion, utilize dispute resolution; that's why we have it to begin with. If you edit war, especially in sensitive areas subject to arbitration restrictions, you will wind up blocked or topic banned. I see no reason to overturn the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with the above that while a copyright violation would have been sufficient grounds to act, there was no copyright violation in this case. I think if the block were to be removed at this point it's clear that the behaviour would continue, and given the long history of this dispute on Wikipedia I think it's necessary to be firm on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Ditto. Little if any awareness that they've done anything wrong. An attitude wherein everyone is at fault but the seeimgly single purpose editor in question, is troubling. I agree that being firm can be seen to send a message. I probably would have gone with a shorter block, but a month is certainly within reason. El_C 04:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot find clear evidence of a copyright violation in Vergiotisa's statement. Copyright is not created by bilateral treaties except that the parties may agree to restrict their own uses of something. Wikipedia is not bound by such treaties. What I recommend to Vergiotisa is to first appeal the "public domain" designation of the image at the Commons copyright pages. If the copyright gnomes on Commons agree that it is subject to copyright, then it might be possible to restrict its use on en.wikipedia too. Other reasons for not using the image in particular ways on en.wikipedia should be argued on talk pages and/or dispute resolution noticeboards. I'd want to see a more clear undertaking, with details, that the edit-warring behavior would cease immediately before even thinking about lifting the block. Zero^talk 04:38, 14 April 2017 (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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

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

1. 21:18, 9 April 2017‎ Restoring reverted version without a consensus.
2. [22] Disruptive PROD
3. [23] Calling other user "genocide denier"
4. [24],[25] Edit warring

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 6 April 2017‎ Blocked recently for the same violation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [26]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Ryk72 The matter of East Jerusalem is separate matter from the west bank though for example UK did recognized the annexation of the west bank it didn't extend this recognition to East Jerusalem as the international community considers Jerusalem to be Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) exactly for those reason such matters should be discussed on the talk page--Shrike (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

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.

Considering I left polite note on User:Shrike's talk page after they violated the consensus clause instead of proceeding to arbitration, and that I have not violated any of the ARBPIA rules, I must say I am disappointed by this tactic. I am new so some rules like learning when an article has already been reviewed for deletion I am still learning as I go along, but I am committed to maintaining ARBPIA rules. I do not believe in edit warring. I think this action by User:Shrike is motivated by trying to manipulate the consensus process on another page Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy and part of a pattern of disruptive editing and non-engagement on a very narrow range of topics. Seraphim System (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION: I did not know that restoring another editors content was a violation. I have only ever restored edits when mine has been reverted. This may seem obvious, but since I don't edit war, I am not familiar with the intricacies of the rules in their applications. If it had been brought to my attention, I would not have repeated it. As a matter of principle, I don't think ARBCOM should sanction new editors for good faith mistakes. I also think User:Shrike should be sanctioned for his violation of the consensus clause, I assumed it was a good faith error notified him on talk and he still has still not corrected it.

As for genocide denial, I still consider the content of the page Racism in Palestine to be a form of genocide denial. It was not intended as a personal attack, but I understand it came across that way. I should have been clear that I was speaking of the content, and not the editor. Seraphim System (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: Is this going to be like the electoral college, where the admins ignore the popular vote?

@Kingsindian: I graduated from one of the top-ten social sciences departments in the United States. I am interested in looking into this more - what is the definition of "uninvolved"? Seraphim System (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL I have found out that a very similar issue was discussed and resolved several months ago. It was over the Jordanian Occupation/Annexation issue. There also User:WJBscribe sanctioned Huldra for an unintentional violation of the same Byzantine application of the consensus clause. There was significant objection from other admins. User:WJBscribe continued to push for his interpretation. User:Shrike started a new section to discuss the block on User:WJBScribes talk page with a strange remark about Hulda's gender. The block imposed by User:WJBScribe was overturned by consensus, and that outcome was accepted by User:WJBScribe.

I think I may have erred yesterday in filing a complaint at ANI. It was frustrating for me to be accused of making frivolous complaints. It it walks like a duck, and it talks like duck, most likely its a sock. Even the appearance of impropriety can taint impartiality. But maybe there were alternative paths of dispute that I should have preferred. Seraphim System (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question brings a wikilink into alignment with its target article, which was moved on April 6, following a requested move discussion here Consensus for the move, and, presumably, for the change to any wikilinks targeting it, would appear, rightly or wrongly, to be contained within that discussion. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC) @Shrike: I am confused by your comments. The edit presented in this filing is a simple change of a wikilink from "Jordanian occupation of the West Bank" to "Jordanian annexation of the West Bank", reflecting a successful requested move of that article. This does not relate to "East Jerusalem". Is it possible that a different edit was meant? There may well be issues with this editor's edits, but the diff presented, for mine, does not add up to bubkes. It would be better for diffs like this disruptive PROD to be presented. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit can be read as a technical violation, as WJBscribe does, or as an edit for which consensus had already been obtained, as Number 57 does. Most likely Bolter 21 was unaware of the article move, as he was away from Wikipedia during that discussion and played no part in it. In case of doubt, one should find in favor of the accused, not against. Zero^talk 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually finding this is a violation would set a dangerous precedent. If a consensus has been obtained in a RM or RfC, then an edit to implement that consensus is made and reverted, is it then necessary to start a new RfC to get consensus again? That would be quite ridiculous. Zero^talk 13:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe: You wrote "I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it." You are wrong; it has always been taken as sufficient cause to change links. People who want to argue that the old article name should be retained by changing a direct link into a redirect or pipe can always make that argument, but they have an onus to make a case and just not liking the consensus name change doesn't cut it. The default practice is that when we change the name of an article we also change the links to it. It is a terrible idea to provide editors who disagree with RM outcomes with a mechanism for keeping the old name regardless. This area is becoming a true Theatre of the Absurd. Zero^talk 00:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why these things are not discussed like adults before bringing them to AE, or why the admins are going straight to sanctions, or worse, acting unilaterally for no reason. Why did El C block both Seraphim System and Avaya1 for the edits on Ariel Sharon, the former while they were even discussing on the talkpage? This is absurd.

For instance, a few days ago on the page: Jewish Voice for Peace, I reverted an edit of E. M. Gregory, who re-reverted me immediately. I did not report them to AE, and they did not revert their own edit. There was a brief discussion on the talkpage. MShabazz reverted the edit while discussion was inconclusive. As of now, the status quo ante remains. Now, if El C were watching the page, EMG would have been blocked because they violated the rule, and perhaps MShabazz would have been blocked for "tag-teaming" or "edit-warring" or whatever thing someone complains about. But I didn't complain about anything, and I don't want anyone blocked. The discussion is already talking place on the talkpage. So why is the admin intervening?

Wikipedia has a thousand rules and a million ways to run afoul of them. Thank god we don't file an AE report for every time someone breaks some rule. We don't sue people for every offence in real life either. Admins are not required to act on all reports. This kind of overzealous enforcement is very bad, and will make the area much worse to work in. Please, we are not children, where one has to go running off to mommy every time one's little finger is hurt. This kind of stuff will only breed more resentment and more reports. Already I'm seeing tons of frivolous reports. In real life, there are legal costs involved; but here there is only the cost of filing a report. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: AE does not work on the basis of voting, popular or otherwise. All you can do is to make arguments to persuade uninvolved admins of your case. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim System: I'll respond on your talkpage so as not to clutter this page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit horrified as to what this area has become; from anyone can edit, to everything is chiselled in stone, (unless you discuss on talk.) And all this, when editors haven’t really asked for it.

As for this latest spat, I am at least partly responsible for it. When Bolter rv my edit, I made a mistake: instead of pinging him on the articles talk-page (which has 600+ watchers), I went to Bolters talk-page (which has less than 30 watchers), informing him about the RfC, and asked him to revert, knowing he had not taken any part in the RfC.

And I would have thought that with the RfC there was consensus for change, here. This was nothing like the [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]] example, here we had a straight link to the article. Do we really need to discuss that? How many times do we have to rerun this RfC? Huldra (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Black Kite, lol, that is exactly it. It is complete madness, IMO, but that is just my 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Whilst Seraphim System undoubtedly has an anti-Israel bias in their editing, in this case they were merely updating the link to reflect the outcome of an RM at the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article; this report is frivolous at best. Number 57 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure if follows that the link had to be updated after the move, linking to redirects is fine where appropriate. This was a matter upon which editors could legitimate disagree depending on the context of the article in which the link is used. Anyway, the possibility it might (hypothetically) have been straightforward to establish consensus to restore the reverted edit is no excuse for not doing so. I see a clear violation:
  1. Huldra changes Jordanian occupation of the West Bank to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank [28]
  2. Bolter21 reverts, changing it back to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank [29]
  3. Seraphim System repeats Huldra's reverted action, without obtaining prior consensus [30]

Seraphim System has been blocked previously for breach of the same sanction, so is aware of it. I would therefore therefore propose a 48 hr block for a second offence. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it. We allow linking to redirects or using piped links according to editorial discretion. For example, there is consensus that Gdańsk rather than Danzig should be the name of that article, however it is right that East Pomeranian Offensive should use [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]], because that was the name at the relevant time. Updating links after RMs should, once it proves controversial (Huldra's edit was fine), be discussed in the context of the relevant article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with WJBScribe. This is a violation and the edit summary accompanying the revert indicates that it is not merely a restoration of a link over a redirect. A short block seems appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to be clear here, are we actually suggesting sanctioning an editor for fixing a double redirect, or is there an actual reason why that link should have been piped from the previous name? Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing a link is not the same thing as fixing a double redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but the article had been moved to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank on the 6 April. The disputed edit was on the 9 April. Is there any reason why the link should have been piped through the previous name? Because otherwise it is simply fixing a double redirect. I'm not involved in ARBPIA at all, so I may be missing something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I... think this is not an AE case. The for/against on the particular edits are within reasonable behavior EVEN IN a problem area such as PIA and the editors can all discuss this like adults on the talk pages. This dispute could have gone far enough to rise to disruptive and AE relevant but has not. AE is NOT supposed to be a super-veto venue for content or style disputes on problem areas. We're supposed to deal with individual or group misbehavior on topics Arbcom has had to intervene in previously. I recommend close no action, strongly urge the parties to use talk pages like you're supposed to and AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why fixing the redirect, even with their edit summary, is enough for a sanction. I don't feel there's a risk of future disruption that can't otherwise be avoided through conversation with the editors involved. I would also close this with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (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

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Razzieman (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:ARBAP2, specifically discretionary sanctions placed on United States presidential election, 2020 by Ks0stm on 6 December 2016

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

1. 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User removes info on Anthony Weiner
2. 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User self reverts
3. 22:41, 10 April 2017‎ User removes same info, but this time reverts IOnlyKnowFiveWords
4. 00:55, 11 April 2017‎ User reverts me, re-removing the Anthony Weiner info

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:58, 10 April 2017 , specifically to the 1RR restriction on the page in quesiton

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was inactive for over a year but returned in February 2017 to engage in a series of reverts. Was dormant until yesterday when they continued the behavior. Last 7 edits (and the only edits since January 2016) have been reverts or removals of material on American politics pages.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

So the comedian Bill Maher makes a comment that Anthony Wiener should run for President in 2020 because "He had balls, and he was an asshole" and, since we're OK with a "pussy grabber" we should have no issues with "a guy who sexts teens with a baby by his dick." This is covered by The Huffington Post and added to the article that Anthony Wiener is a speculative candidate for the 2020 Presidential Electon. Razzieman edit wars to remove that entry (which was probably a BLP violation!), is blocked for a month, and admins are now discussing a topic ban? Question to the admins - did any of you actually READ the facts behind this case or just jump in because technically the revert rule was violated? I'm having a hard time understanding why that material should remain in the article. I see no attempts at discussion with the user, the editor who added the information says on the talk page that Maher was probably joking, and Razzieman is blocked a mere 3 hours after being reminded of the DS? NeilN I think you have made a serious mistake. 2600:1004:B05D:87F8:C827:93B3:7C3B:3BF8 (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the content is the whole point. Yeah this editor should communicate better but users should never be sanctioned if they're improving the encyclopedia. I think there's a essay about that somewhere ;). 2600:1004:B008:8835:E57E:7BB2:6B03:37C6 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have issues with this. User:IKnowOnlyFiveWords and User:EvergreenFir please justify why you feel that Anthony Wiener should be listed as a candidate for the 2020 presidential election based on crude Bill Maher jokes. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging user:Jim1138 who has also reverted to include this content. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment - it is a clear BLP violation for our article to call Anthony Wiener a speculative candidate for president in 2020 based on a joking invitation made by a comedian. And we blocked the editor who removed it. 2600:1004:B005:E10C:35DC:3E16:DD16:CA5F (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Blocked one month to stop immediate disruption. Open to longer sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You're completely right about content, IP, but multiple unexplained reverts without even the most basic edit summary is problematic in this area. Can this editor actually communicate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note on their talk page asking for a response. Their past edits are an odd mix of constructive edits, unhelpful edits, and outright vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse NeilN's block for the edit warring. I think we should give the individual a chance to make a statement (to be copied from their talk page of course), but if they don't indicate a clear understanding of what the problem is and how to correct it going forward, I'd strongly consider a topic ban. The American politics area is difficult enough without unexplained, drive-by reverting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe we've at this point left enough time for a response to be made, and the editor doesn't seem to be around. Given that, I'll close this request with a topic ban, unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with NeilN's block. Considering they've only edited in this area since they returned to WP, I also believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been a week and no reply. Agree that reverts were of problematic content, but lack of overall communication is troubling. Endorse block and recommend closing soon. El_C 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two options for whoever closes this thread: (a) close without further action since the block is already issued and no admin objects to it, or (b) keep the block in place and add a topic ban. I would support whatever topic ban User:Seraphimblade has in mind, but my own suggestion is an indef ban from all of WP:ARBAP2 across all pages of Wikipedia including talk, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

BLP violations User_talk:Theadjuster#April_2017_2

Administrator imposing the sanction

NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Appeal copied over by me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This entire warring scenario began when unidentifiable editors began deleting entire passages of my copy from politician Christy Clark's page under the heading of "controversies" and it so happens that the timing of these deletions aligned with the beginning of said politician's election campaign, toward reelection as Premier of British Columbia. I believe that a careful study of the copy and references will show that the copy is legitimate, and that the copy is situated correctly on the page, under "Controversies", and that the copy does reference a host of legitimate and verifiable issues pertaining to the history and performance of said politician.

Wikipedia guidelines are clear that contested copy (around tone, neutrality, etc.) should be taken up piecemeal and altered or improved if necessary but is not to be deleted en masse. Upon seeking higher Wikipedia Admin support to point out these infractions I was met instead with stalwart edit values and "good faith" suppositions, all of which were seemingly irrelevant as I could not "talk" with the original editors who deleted passages, when I visited their talk page I found no sign of activity. Also I am relatively new and did not even know how to find the talk page for CC until further along, despite best efforts to respond....Most recently my wife did chime in on my behalf, but this was out of her own insistence and not my bidding. Seems unfair to be further penalized for this, just trying to clarify a position that seems to be going unrecognized, or overlooked, or ignored... As for my Mediararus account I was up front with this from the beginning, it is connected to my first and forgotten account with Wikipedia, never used, but I logged in unknowingly with this account as I was logged in via gmail and then did not recognize the different User account until after a few edits. Not sock-puppeting! Never used this account before or since, you will see. And the account is linked to me and not to a made up profile. No intention of sabotage or hiding my profile at all. I don't appreciate the suggestions from editors which suggest otherwise--like a pack of wolves jumping on me, to conclusions... For what its worth, I've brought this matter to the attention of other media, taking an interest in this story, as it appears to others and not just me that this is was a case of political interference, ie. there is an agenda to clear the "controversies" section from Christy Clark's Wikipedia page, timely as it is, during her election campaign... I am still hoping that some reasonable Administrator might intervene here and take a good look at the history on the page--see who deleted what and how, when...verify for yourself if the copy is legitimate, well-cited, etc and if there is problem with tone/neutrality then raise in talk and let's discuss but PLEASE can we not see that outright deletion of verifiable content is not okay and suspicious--ie. not in good faith ??

See ANI thread. User blocked after reverting an "admin action" edit I made. [31] Given this appeal and further talk page posts I recommend a topic ban from all BLPs of British Columbia politicians, broadly construed. Ideally, I'd recommend a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that before the revert that led to the block, I did counsel them on how to proceed and to drop the "vandalism" accusations. [32] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really say any more than I agree 100% with NeilN, and that I too would favour a topic ban from British Columbia politics, broadly construed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Endorse topic ban. Something, intuitively, seems not right. El_C 19:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. The block is obviously justified for ridiculously blatant non-neutral editing, and a topic ban would be as well.  Sandstein  19:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. It doesn't even have to be an admin. If someone removes material on BLP grounds, you need to discuss it and establish a consensus before restoring it. That's not negotiable, and those who do otherwise should expect to be sanctioned for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this should be declined and believe a short topic ban would be appropriate as well. Seeing as there's no support for overturning the block, I'll close this accordingly. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — JFG ^talk 14:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

0RR restriction on ARPAP2/1RR articles, following Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Is there an Admin in the house?

Link to the sanction notice: User talk:JFG#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Administrator imposing the sanction

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notified.

First of all, I admit that a technical 1RR violation occurred as reported, with a 17-hour interval between two unrelated reverts; I simply didn't pay attention. However, I strongly deny the purported pattern of 1RR violations which has been cited to justify the sanction.

This is a wikihounding campaign by SPECIFICO who has repeatedly accused me of violating DS or 1RR simply when she happens to disagree with my editing. She has been making unsupported DS violation claims and vague litigation threats against several other editors, e.g. most recently K.e.coffman here and Darouet there. I have warned this user repeatedly of the chilling effect she is creating, but she keeps trying to corner me on a technicality (and apparently succeeded today). Here are six instances of her direct accusations which turned out to be unfounded:

• 19 February: User Talk:JFG#DS violation (alleged two reverts, when only one edit was a revert)
• 23 February: User Talk:JFG#AE request (AE process opened by Steve Quinn and dismissed as a simple content dispute, but please open the "Unproductive aspersions" hat to see SPECIFICO's statements)
• 26 February: User Talk:JFG#1 RR violation at Russian (unspecified violation, no follow-up)
• 14 March: User Talk:JFG#!RR Violation -- please self-undo (lots of discussion among editors and admins about which edits should be considered reverts, no action)
• 11 April: User Talk:JFG#DS Violation at Russians (unspecified threat)
• 16 April: User Talk:JFG#Another DS violation at Russians (unsubstantiated accusation: one edit is a BOLD cleanup of the article, the other is an exempt revert arguing BLPVIO)

SPECIFICO never managed to find any genuine misconduct on my part. I consider this attitude to be disruptive and borderline harassment, however I refrained from reporting her behaviour and I treated it with as much humour as I could muster.[33] An editor once brought me to AE, and another to ANEW, and in both cases no violation was found; these were misunderstandings about what constitutes a revert. One of the reporting users graciously apologized but SPECIFICO piled on with a kind of "you'll get nailed next time" taunt, yet she never pushed the matter to WP:AE.

Please note also that I voluntarily self-revert when notified of an actual DS violation (for example self-revert + pursuing discussion), whereas SPECIFICO simply ignores warnings when she breaches revert restrictions (for example this thread or that one, ignoring self-revert requests and issuing threats).

SPECIFICO's hounding behaviour towards me has been so blatant that another editor, Factchecker_atyourservice, whom I didn't know, came to my talk page to joke about it by making a parody of her attacks. This thread is also worth reading, whereby another editor, Objective3000, admittedly sometimes in disagreement with me, considered that SPECIFICO owed me an apology for her aspersions.

Imposing a permanent 0RR restriction on me would be validating the chilling effect intended by one adversarial editor, in practice denying me legitimate editing actions towards article improvements in AP2 topics. Given the fuzzy interpretations of what is and is not a revert, I run the risk of being blocked for simply making a bold edit that somebody will construe as a revert of some content. Sanctions are meant to be preventive, not punitive, and this 0RR restriction looks like punitive treatment for a series of mostly-unfounded DS violation claims.

For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours. Furthermore, I request a strong admonition to SPECIFICO for a pattern of hurling baseless accusations at her fellow editors, thereby wasting everybody's time and energy towards unconstructive discussions.

Finally, I'm sorry for burdening admins with a rather lengthy statement; I felt I had to provide enough context to defend myself properly.

I admit that I had looked though and saw the multiple warnings, with diffs. The proclivity for manual reverts (along with SPECIFICO sometimes not linking to prior versions) makes it harder to sort through. There was a flame this time, and lots of smoke in previous instances. That said, my phrasing was "after multiple warnings," not "multiple violations."

JFG said For my inadvertent violation today, I agree to voluntarily abide by 0RR for three days, and I request the formal lifting of this restriction after 72 hours -- I'll go further and reduce it to 0RR on just the page in question for the three days. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: My activity at Alex Jones predates his involvement in the election and has been to oppose WP:FRINGE-pushing editors. My activity at Pizzagate was over BLP concerns and my continued activity is, again, discouraging conspiracy theorists (if it's not fringe, I don't really care what other editors do to those articles). My activity has more to do with conspiracy theorism than with politics, per se. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well a look at 19th of feb show this revert [34], followed by this [35] which JFG's own edit summery says is a "self revert". Yes it is a technicality, but it is two reverts.

I assume the warning on 23 refers to two reverts on the 22nd [36] and [37], opne was (it claims) a reversion of a banned user's material, but still (technically) two reverts.

I stopped here. yes there do seem to also be multiple reverts on the 26th as well. The two instances of double revert I checked are not really egregious, in that one was a self revert and thus only technical violations.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This was a rather hasty response to a nebulous charge. Are we really counting a self-revert as a violation of 1RR as the second revert? I noticed SPECIFICO leveling accusations of edit warring against JFG on the BLP notice board and no action was taken. There is a degree of forum shopping going on and it was unclear what action caused the imposing administrator to invoke a 0RR restriction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean block log for an editor accused of a pattern of edit warring? Not much of a pattern.

Considering the sanction request was made on the article talk page with no discussion and no diffs for a pattern of behavior (which is really a pattern of complaints), this is a rather egregious overreaction to a 1RR violation from an out of process sanction request. JFG has never been blocked for edit warring so the argument for a pattern of edit warring is rather ridiculous. This was an ill-considered sanction. --DHeyward (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the talk page for the article where this request was made has hatted the discussion as being out of process with a notice that bringing sanction requests to talk pages can result in sanctions. This sanction should have never been issued. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: As I said, the request was out of process. Had you acted earlier, the request would have been closed. An article talk page was a poor choice and many admin AC/DS sanctions that have come under scrutiny are those that occurred without input at AE or ANI. Everyone agrees that admins can act unilaterally. Virtually everyone agrees that discussion at AE is preferred for any actions that may be questioned. I would hope the imposing admin would lift their 0RR sanction and let it be discussed but if not, they should be prepared that the bar for overturning that decision is much lower than overturning consensus. --DHeyward (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: If the sanctioning admin had provided diffs or examples of the behavior they were sanctioning, it might be possible to address them. But the admin only said the current 1RR was stale. That diff is all that there is in the sanction discussion. And a clean block log. Not a lot of evidence to address. And we have editors saying a self-revert counts as the second revert in 1RR pages which is nonsense. I can only hope that diff wasn't used as evidence. --DHeyward (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned that Ian.thomson has edited within the area of AP2 most recently in Pizzagate and AlexJones, both of which were prominent in the most recent US election. --DHeyward (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 72 hour agreement for lifting seems reasonable. --DHeyward (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think JFG indeed violated 1RR restrictions on these pages previously. For example, one (revert of this edit) and two (clearly marked by JFG himself as a revert in the edit summary). Here is whole discussion if anyone would be interested in.

I also admit reporting JFG previously on 3RRNB here. Here is why. My reading of WP:3RR was that undoing work by previous contributors (plural) like here would be counted as revert. However, JFG insisted that one must provide exact edit (diff) by specific contributor (singular) that he reverted. I am not sure that JFG was right, but the closing admin (El C) decided he was right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In considering this matter, please note that the sanction would apply to "articles" plural, not just "the article" as User:El C mentioned below. JFG has been active (without incident) at multiple articles where the sanction would apply. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not involved in this incident; but placed my comment here conservatively as I’ve been involved in articles, pro and con, with JFG. There are times that I think JFG makes changes to mainspace too quickly during a continuing discussion, which I find quite bothersome. But, I think that we have to take into account the effect of 1RR and DS. I agree that these must exist. It’s just that, at times, editing articles under DS is like dancing the tango in a minefield. Technical violations are going to occur. I may disagree with JFG on many edits – but, he is a valuable editor involved in difficult articles. 0RR seems excessive and damages his ability to contribute. I suggest a rainbow trout, or a brief 0RR as suggested below. Objective3000 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'd decline the request as invalid. The appeal does not indicate which specific sanction is being appealed. What I'd expect is a link to a statement by an administrator specifying a sanction. The talk page thread linked to in the request does not contain a sanction. This appeal is therefore invalid and can be closed.  Sandstein  14:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link now added by appealing editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd still decline the appeal because it is mostly a series of attacks against another editor, substantially without evidence, see WP:ASPERSIONS. An appeal should only address the conduct of the appealing editor.  Sandstein  20:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @DHeyward: Although I closed the thread and sanctioned SPECIFICO [38] the original sanction itself by Ian.thomson is not out of process as admins can act on any action or requests. However I want to emphasize that article talk pages should not be turned into mini-WP:AE boards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. I was the admin who has gotten many of SPECIFICO's requests to sanction JFG for 1RR violations, but all of these, save one, were not reverts. I'd wait to hear from the enforcing admin's reasoning before deciding. This sanction does severely handicaps JFG from editing the article on an equal footing. El_C 21:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 0RR for 72 hours (a sanction I often apply at at AN3) sounds like a fair sanction for making this mistake. JFG is cautioned to be more cognisant of 1RR. El_C 23:48, 22 April 2017 (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

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 24 April 2017 10.49 Full revert
2. 24 April 2017 11.22 Partial revert of same material

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

• ArbPIA reminder at their user talk page on 5 April 2017 (no idea if this was their first reminder or not)
• 21 April 2017 warned on same article by Black Kite about 2RR

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [39]

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 lost my cool and reverted too hastily, forgetting to discuss the deletion first on the talk page. I backed off from brangling over I/P articles ages ago, after finding the discussions in re: Susya endlessly aversive. I now limit editing in I/P to articles that come up for AfD (like this one,) non-controversial topics like art and literature, occassional sourcing, and terrorist attacks - which I create and edit worldwide. This keeps me out of the swamp of deletion wars and personal attacks in which I/P editing is mired. But it also means that I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule. An error on my part. I do want to point out that the information deleted was sourced to an essay was by Itamar Marcus and published in the Times of Israel.[40] It was written in NPOV voice and was deleted without discussion during a tense AfD process with editors arguing delete on the grounds that the Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing attack was a single-news cycle event with no ongoing coverage. Removing this material during an intensely controversial AfD process framed by several editors as an argument that all terrorist attacks in Israel/Jerusalem/Palestinian Territories should be added to lists rather than kept as stand-alone articles. (Because I edit terror attacks, crime, and attacks that may or may not be terrorism worldwide, I was aware that this argument is contrary to our treatment of similar attacks in other parts of the world.) I do not know what Fram's motives ere in deleting this material, although certainly he has been adamant in opposition ot the existence of this article, describing it as lacking ongoing impact [41], attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable" [42], but because I work regularly at AfD do that edits removing ongoing news coverage from a page have the effect of are making it appear that coverage of an event has not met the criteria of sustained coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory, first read things attentively before making up statements here. I was not "attacking even what the calls "mainstream" media coverage as "unreliable""[43], that was a quote from now indef blocked user Cyrus the Penner (who was on your side of the debate from the start): they were claiming that mainstream media coverage is unreliable, a statement with which I clearly disagreed, but which showed his POV in editing the article and AfD. Don't attribute statements or opinions I have not made to me please, and certainly don't build a whole flimsy defense on these incorrect starting points.

Considering the ArbPIA reminder of early april, and the 1RR reminder of 21 April, it seems unlikely that "I simply forgot that reverting this deletion violated a rule." Your description of [44] as an NPOV source can be judged by uninvolved readers on its merits, but in the end has no bearing on this AE request. Fram (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You sent me a reminder about this in April?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats, striking our one incorrect reading of statements by me, and now adding a new one. No, I didn't send a reminder in early april or on 21 April, other editors did. You can find the diffs at the very start of this AE request. Perhaps, in a enforcement request about your edits, read the actual request and try to understand what people are saying and what the history is before replying. Fram (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: because E.M. Gregory reverted the same thing twice? I didn't really pay attention to what others did separately, and the two edits by MrX are edits he could have done in one go as well (they are two separate sections, if I looked correctly). But if you feel that these as well broke the restrictions and deserve the same treatment, be my guest (I also don't know whether MrX has had ArbPia warnings and recent warnings about this behaviour, which Gregory certainly had, but again, I have not looked in this in detail). Fram (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: E.M. Gregory self-reverted after you advised them to "Just self revert to be on the safe side"... Why this would put them on the safe side is not really clear, his false statements and allegations in this AE request or his inability to see that an opinion piece is not a reliable source for statements of fact about something that perhaps one day might happen don't give me much confidence that there is any understanding of the problems with his edits in this contentious topic area. Fram (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wordsmith. No opinion on whether this is the time when a first block is needed, or a final warning is sufficient. But the "clean record" of E.M. Gregory is dubious (the lack of archiving makes it hard to research this though). It seems that here they received a one-month topic ban from the Israel-Palestine subject in May 2016. So, while his block log is as of now empty, he doesn't have a clean record, not even in this very topic area. " he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert." Yes, after the discussion on his talk page, the ANI request, and this AE request were started, when another editor advised him to do so "to be on the safe side". Self-reverting to avoid a block is hardly a mitigating factor in my book. "the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[28] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping." I was advised at the ANI thread to start an AE request, but apparently following that advise is now "forum shopping"? Not really, no. Forum shopping is getting a negative response at one venue, and then trying again at another: it is not being sent by one venue to another, and then being accused there of forum shopping because you followed that advice. "Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this." AE is the perfect place for people who have already had ARBPIA warnings (which I didn't know for Gregory at the time I filed the ANI request, just like I didn't know about the earlier topic ban until just now), and I felt that the issues were farther reaching than just the 1RR of ARBPIA. Anyway, your fourth point reads "Fram shouldn't have come here, this is forum shopping. Fram should have come here, this is the right place". Please make up you mind. Fram (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: my first post on his talk page asked him to self-revert, but instead he reinserted the opinion piece after another user had again removed it. The situation here is not comparable to yours (which I haven't looked in to). ANI and ARE only came after a request to self-revert was not heeded and a further revert to include the contested material was made. Fram (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Why did you report only Gregory there other users that broke 1RR?For example User:MrX [45] [46]--Shrike (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MrX self reverted and I think Gregory too.--Shrike (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and again here [47] with the explanation "I forgot that...." which seems perfectly plausible to me. Lots of us eidt carelessly at times, forgetting stuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "and again here"? Or do you consider self-reverting as another revert to be added? In that case, why did you self-revert after this AE request was filed? Please stop throwing accusations and incorrect statements around, it really doesn't make you look any better. Fram (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The user have self reverted [48] even before first admin comment. @Wordsmith:There are additional user that violated 1rr and self-reverted do you suggest to warn them too?--Shrike (talk) 19:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC) @El C:Do you suggest same sanction for other user that violated 1RR and self-reverted on the same article?--Shrike (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did inadvertently violate 1RR and I have self-reverted. I was making a series of small contiguous edits and did not realize that Icewhiz had made an intervening edit.

E.M. Gregory seems to have strong views in this subject, as evidenced by his willful violation of two of the article editing restrictions, his 37 AfD comments, and suggestion that Fram and I have a political position with regard to the subject (I don't). This discussion and the article edit summaries hint that E.M. Gregory will probably stop at nothing to win disputes in this subject area.

A block would be an unfortunate mar on his clean block record, but I do think a short topic ban would help.- MrX 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved here, as I have not done editing in this article. The request happened to catch my eye. After reading through the editing history of the article and a bit of the editors as well, I decided to comment. Forgive me for barging in.

This seems to be overblown. A minor infraction of 1RR, which the editor has already admitted to and apologized for? The complainant is being more belligerent than the subject. No sanctions should be applied.

A warning might be appropriate, but given that the editor has already owned up, and by his/her own statements appears to be self-policing against this behavior, it would probably be more of a sop to User:Fram than anything else. Perhaps give both of them a warning - User:E.M.Gregory for hasty editing that lead to rules violations, and Fram for i,,ature administrative action (escalating instead of de-escalating, admin shopping). Dovid (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my 2 cents: I was given my first block after over 10 years in the IP area, 3 minutes after being reported by an obvious sock, without any previous warning, and without any chance to self revert. My second block was also given without any warning, and without any chance to self revert. Do I think E.M.Gregory deserves a block? Absolutely not. The fact that I have been treated like shit by admins, does not mean that I want other editors treated the same way. And, for those of you unfamiliar with the IP area; I’m very much on the "other side of the divide" from E.M.Gregory, in fact, I just AfD one of his latest masterpieces, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis. Actually, I would love to see him topic banned from the IP area...or at least, banned from making any new articles in the IP area. But blocked, when he self reverted? No, that is simply not right, IMO. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI,[49] so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ah, my favorite topic area to see at AE again. Doing some looking into the diffs presented, on the face of things it is fairly obvious that a violation did occur. However, there are several mitigating factors. First, we have a 2+ year old account with a clean record and block log. Second, he's been brought up at AE exactly once in his tenure here, in 2015[50] where no admin suggested taking any action. Third, he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert. Fourth, the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread[51] (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping. Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this. I'm inclined to resolve this with a warning to E.M.Gregory, but waiting to hear more opinions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fram: My research didn't show the topic ban, so I'll review that thread to see if that changes things. A prior topic ban in the area is often grounds for more severe sanctions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If this was on AN3—which in cases of 1RR is actually more likely than AE or ANI—I'd be blocking for 24 hours (due to previous history of topic ban and prior warnings). I still don't understand why the user didn't simply self-revert, as was suggested to them. What happened there? El_C 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the user did self-revert after all, I would be willing to consider 0RR for 72 hours in place of a 24-hour block. El_C 21:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the other user's ARBPIA background to tell whether the warning already extended would suffice here. El_C 22:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't researched the context, so I'm not offering an opinion, merely links for E.M.Gregory's one-month ARBPIA topic ban: [52][53]. Bishonen | talk 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• A one-month topic ban a year ago is hardly grounds for blocking an editor who recognizes their error, fixes it, and where there exists little evidence that the conduct at issue will reoccur. A 0RR restriction would be sufficient, but I don't see the case for anything more severe. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree that a warning is quite sufficient here, and will shortly close as such absent any objection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 25 April 2017 (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

Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

EJustice (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

Prior community discussion of the issues

1. ENI thread: NPOV problem opened 19:30, 6 April 2017 by S. Rich
2. ANI discussion: POV forks being created as school project opened 22:04, 6 April by User: The Wordsmith
3. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017
4. ENI thread: Environmental Justice class project - update from Wiki Ed 15 April opened by User:Ryan (Wiki Ed)
5. Thread at User Talk at Ryan (Wiki Ed) opened 17 April 2017 by User: Seraphimblade
6. ENI thread: Advocacy classes and issues opened 24 April 2017 by Seraphimblade

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

1. Course page with clear BLP violations about Trump (later noted at class liaison page here and removed in this diff) and stating the class agenda: ...in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency. created 18 January 2017. While we have the "neutral, well documented" aspect, the agenda to use WIkipedia to raise the alarm is very clear. Please note that there are 6 sections for this class. Here they are at Wiki Ed: section 101, section 102, section 103, section 104, section 105, section 106. There are 180 students. Some of the articles and their fates have been tracked here.
2. 15 March 2017 Encouraging students to generate POV content, eg I like the bold statements, even more so when supported by articles (like the Mother Jones one about puppy mill lobbyists!) This was made at the Talk page of Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations.
   1. Am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time was in this state and contained OFFTOPIC, POV content like As the most disliked POTUS of the United States in at least 60 years, Donald J. Trump has a highly contentious agricultural platform.^[1][2] and pretty much everything else in that section and other parts of the page.
3. 15 March 2017 comment praising Environmental impacts of pig farming when it was in this state.
   1. I am going to dig in here a bit. The article at that time contained content like The Midwest has traditionally been home to many hog CAFOs, but it became particularly populated with them between the mid 1980s and mid 1990s, especially located in the Black Belt region referring to an area where many slaves traditionally worked on plantations, and after emancipation many freed slaves stayed to work in that area as sharecroppers or as tenant farmers.^[3] The ref is about North Carolina which is not in the Midwest; the ref makes no mention of a "Black Belt", nor race at all, nor slavery, nor sharecroppers. It is about hog farming in N Carolina. The next sentence does deal with race: To this day, many black residents in the Black Belt region face high levels of poverty, poor standards of housing and low quality of education, employment and health care.^[4] This ref does discuss race and poverty but makes no mention of hog farming or CAFOs. It is clear there is WP:SYN going on here, to build an argument. The content that these students generated is shot through with this kind of thing. Not what we do in Wikipedia. EJustice has no awareness of this. These kinds of edits were later criticized, and you will see EJustice's response to that.
4. 15 March 2017 Comment on draft of "Farmworkers in California" in a sandbox: An important topic, so work on getting a strong scaffold/outline to make your big points!
5. 6 April 2017 First comment in an AfD, saying article is education program and that it is fine. Article was userified.
6. 10 Apirl 2017: comments on Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama: Additionally, any thoughts on how the Trump Administration's actions will impact this issue? can you find citations to such analysis?
7. 10 April 2017 comment on draft - note that their attitude is hardening now: 1) keep your eyes on the prize -- focus more on strengthening and deepening your citations and evidence on issues of justice than on combatting those who seek to erase any mention of it.
8. 10 April 2017: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.
9. 13 April 2017 first comment addressing non-students Responding to comments by User:dsprc made in response to questions from students about dsprc's edits, in this section of the Talk page. EJustice cites WP:Systemic bias and doesn't hear dsprc's policy-and-guideline-based objections. They have the "systemic bias" hammer in hand now, and will be responding regularly with that, instead of addressing issues.
10. 13 April 2017 at EJustice talk page, responding to dsprc: Your input above strikes me as gratuitous, meaning unsupported by fact. Feel free to point to actual text that represents non-neutrality or maligning of others. Please also reflect on how much you are violating Wikipedia's own expressed guidelines for avoiding systemic bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#What_you_can_do).
11. 13 April 2017 AfD !vote: ...The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection....Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Wikipedia itself
12. 13 April 2017 partially deletes a PROD. See edit note.
13. ANI discussion: Re: POV Forks opened by EJustice 13 April 2017 (linked above).
    1. says in OP for example .... I think the underlying challenges the community faces with these articles have quite a bit to do with systemic biases. I'd suggest a read of this article to help understand some of the reactions the students' work is eliciting, and a focus particularly on what to do about it. Finally, a number of Wikipedians have suggested that our class syllabus is itself flawed and biased. I would welcome their input to improve it and make it more factually correct.... (problem is not its "factual correctness" - EJustice is not hearing the problem, and does this typical advocate thing, where the problem must be with other people.)
    2. 14 April 2017 not seeing the problems Sections and pages were deleted without any real evidence while the sections themselves were well supported by scientific journal and popular literature citations
    3. diff comment: Their (my students') constructiveness and meekness in the face of hostile editorial responses that seem at times to be motivated by a dislike of topics related to race or class is admirable. Emphasis added. Note responses to that, here and here.
    4. Please also note this series of responses from User:MelanieN, going from at first very sympathetic, to somewhat exasperated and sharp, as their interaction with EJustice unfolds: diff, diff, diff, diff,
14. 03:29, 15 April 2017 at an AfD. key comment I agree with your assessment that the students' work (upper-division students at one of the world's pre-eminent universities) has been treated with untoward hostility. I could anticipate this because this work does get regularly attacked in the real world. (Check out Rush Limbaugh, 2004.) And we trained the students to stay calm in the face of such attacks and to do their best and, most importantly to rigorously source their statements. I disagree a bit about the cause of the turmoil. It is a political topic, but more importantly acknowledging issues of race and class challenges many of the known systemic biases within Wikipedia. Many of these topics though are not political, certainly not by the definition of BLP or the discretionary sanction for post-1932 politics. Are the legalities of tribal lands and waterways really about biographies or direct politics? If not, then what might be at play in seeking to eliminate this as a topic for Wikipedia? The last question there is rhetorical, and it is clear what Ejustice believes the problem is.
15. 17:52, 17 April 2017 Again, in EJustice's view there is no real problem with specific edits students have actually made, nor with the mission of the class and its agenda; the problem is systemic bias among Wikipedians. ...It's (Environmental justice is) a big deal and has a lot to do with understanding and solving environmental problems. So it's educational content the world needs, provided by people trained to create it. ...My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.
16. As is extremely common in student editing, copyvios were found, which EJustice doubted and pushed back a bunch of times to have versions restored - no concern that WP cannot host COPYVIO. Diffs: at deleting admin's talk; at ANI, back at admin's talk page; at their own Talk page; at User:Ian (Wiki Ed)'s talk page; diff, etc.
17. here, I tried to call their attention to the underlying problem with the mission of the class via the excellent Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers essay. Their response which included I think the key thing that editors are getting wrong is their inability to separate topics that are particularly triggering in today's political environment from good neutral content about things like environmental racism..... But the inability of critics to separate their feelings about the topic from the facts makes some of the feedback less than useful. and My frustration with the editors who have engaged negatively is their blindness to their own blindness on this front...their unwillingness to see how hard it is to get this stuff discussed neutrally and to engage positively in the effort to do so. Every time I read WP's guidelines, I am fortified that the intent is to be positive and engaged, so I'm sticking with that.. and later (diff) You strike me as a live tiger This turning things back on people is the same thing they did in the ANI, and is what advocates always do in WIkipedia. They subsequently moved the DS alert I gave them and that discussion to a subpage, User:EJustice/notrelevant. The title of which speaks for itself.
18. comment at AfD, repeated 19 April 2017 here at the article talk page as an instruction to their students: Feedback from instructor: The literature cited shows that more regulation leads to more employment and economic growth in Appalachia. This paradox increases the notability of this subject and the page could be streamlined based on this connection. When I asked what that means exactly, EJustice wrote this. In other words, this instruction to the students was conjecture and advocacy stated as Truth^TM. This is where the class is coming from and where they are being led, in their Wikipedia editing. This is not what we do in Wikipedia. This is a thesis that someone would argue for in an essay.
19. 23 April 2017 another attack on motivations of me and others.
20. 25 April 2017 as above. Which prompted this filing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

(none)

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above and diff on 14 April 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

EJustice's trajectory within WP is very typical of advocates who arrive here, mistaking Wikipedia for something that it is not. EJustice arrived with a clearly stated agenda, has mostly ignored feedback, and has accused those who raised issues with their content of being blinded by their own biases. No self-awareness, no acknowledgement that a bunch (not all) of the student editing has violated policies on many levels (POV, SYN, failing verification, COPYVIO), nor glimmer of openness to seeing Wikipedia for what it is. (It is hard to write about race and class everywhere in the world, including WP - maybe especially in WP with our policies and guidelines and mission, and our community full of messy humans)

EJustice set this POV-editing agenda for a class of 180 people; EJustice is driving (their grade depends on it) and encouraging students to add essay content to Wikipedia arguing an environmental justice agenda, against Trump's agenda; this is the WP:Beware of tigers problem. EJustice has demonstrated this in their AfD !votes, their talk page comments, and their responses at various boards.

I feel awful for the students. See this conversation with a student on my Talk page. That student is trapped between what their professor is demanding and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

EJustice being here under the Education Program has kind of exacerbated the overall problems - pulling out this diff from a volunteer at ANI, already cited above: If it wasn't for the wiki edu connection, User:EJustice would have already been warned, if not blocked, for POV pushing per WP:NOTHERE.

This is.. awkward and unfortunate and is surely something that will be discussed when the semester is over when the Wiki Ed staff are not working like crazy trying to help students complete their assignments.

But EJustice's activities have caused widespread disruption and absorbed a ton of volunteer time, as you can see from the discussion boards cited above. They continue to personalize objections to content created by students, instead of dealing the policy-and-guideline based issues themselves, as shown by the last two diffs above in particular. In the case of EJustice as a Wikipedian, in my view they should be topic banned from contemporary politics, and be informed that this goes for future classes via TAs per MEAT. This is a very bad outcome but I don't see another way. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• shrunk. Acknowledged. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User: Sandstein I thought about that too. Where I came down is that per the dashboard page cited in the first bullet of diffs, the agenda for this class was driven in reaction to Trump's environmental agenda. The focus of this class is raising awareness of EJ issues and of Trump's "assault" on them. If you control+f this for "assault" and "Trump" and look at the article titles created by the students, you will see that EJustice talked about "assault" not only in syllabus but in an AfD, and that the focus of the class is Trump. At the ANI thread they opened they said The topic of environmental justice is particularly tricky right now. President Trump is on the record... etc. Contemporary politics is every where in this. That is why their behavior falls under these DS, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein thanks for reply but I struggle with your analysis. The content generated by the students was specifically and generally Trump related, at EJustice's direction. EJustice's comments accuse those objecting to the content of being full of bias -- that we (I am among them) are incapable of editing neutrally about contemporary US politics because of that bias. So the comments are an effort to influence content about contemporary US politics; we do not permit editors to be active in US politics who behave this way. Not to mention, who drive other editors to add this kind of policy-violating content about contemporary US politics. I do appreciate the nod toward AN should you remain with this position and a consensus of admins ends up agreeing with you. That is a valid alternative route. This also prompts me to consider that a community ban might be a more... appropriate solution. But let's see what other admins weigh in with. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, seems like most people are leaning toward AN as a better venue. I am fine with withdrawing this in favor of that venue. Not sure if that is relevant to a darn thing but wanted to say it. If this is withdrawn, my next step would be to simply provide a link to this request at AN, so that none of us have to re-post what has already been said. If this stays open for further admin input, am fine with too. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GoldenRing my primary concern is a) EJustice's continued intervention on their own but even more so, semesters to come. Action would be to prevent further disruption, which seems not unlikely. Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick note. As the lead to Environmental justice says, "the term has two distinct uses: the first, and more common usage, describes a social movement that focuses on the fair distribution of environmental benefits and burdens, while the other is an interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes theories of the environment and justice, environmental laws and their implementations, environmental policy and planning and governance for development and sustainability, and political ecology." Much of the students editing was actually advocacy in line with the former, instead of describing things in the US through the lens of the latter. This was the key problem (the "live tigers" problem) Am leaning more and more in favor of an indefinite block, not just a TBAN, especially in light of EJustice's response which is the kind of ... difficult interpretation of things that got us all here in the first place; I think a TBAN would just become a source of further turmoil about edges of the topic ban. If we need to move to AN to do that, let's do that. I think that is within the bounds of the DS, however. Jytdog (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to User: EdChem. I very much hear the reputational issues all around that you raise; this is what I meant when I talked about the awkwardness of all this. My sense is that as people have responded here, they have been aware of that. Considered community action (as we are doing.. and one of the reasons why I chose this venue is that it is optimally structured for careful consideration) was required, and the record of what we have already done here will help others see and understand what happened.

But what you write doesn't deal with what happened. EJustice arrived here and did what individual advocates always do, but in addition to arriving wrapped in his own truth and committed to his own mission, he wrapped himself in the flag of Education Program as diffs above show (see especially this) and he committed 180 meatpuppets to amplify his mission - he misled the students with regard to what they should do in Wikipedia and drove them there by their need to produce work that would be graded. He gives no sign that he understands this.

This was the nightmare of the Education Program made real, and the risks of conflict of interest that classroom editing creates, were also made actual here. These students were caught between the policies/guidelines/mission of WP and their external need to do the assignment they were given and get their grades. These unfortunate students...

The normal and appropriate course of action here is a TBAN minimum or as is emerging an indef to prevent future disruption and harm of students, the Education Program, the volunteer community and of course Wikipedia. Any such restriction would be appealable. It would be amazing if EJustice could be resilient and see what they have done and make a successful appeal. Classes like this one in particular ~could~ add a lot of value to Wikipedia and aid the mission. Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take care with regard to statements about off-wiki matters. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Train, there are clerks etc to handle posts that might not be appropriate. Things also tend to be handled in good time at AE, with enough time to reach sound decisions but not allowing things to linger overlong. Both are reasons I wanted to deal with this in this venue. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

Appreciate all the discussion. I will restrict my response to the charge that I violated Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions .281932 cutoff.29. Please correct me if there is more at stake in this discussion on this page.

As this diff indicates, I have not edited within the sanctions area. There was one sentence in our course syllabus that has been the major source of POV claims against me, while the syllabus itself clearly states that the Wikipedia assignments are an exercise in writing neutrally.

It is not clear to me that the syllabus, hosted on Wikiedu.org, is subject to POV rules. If so, would wikipedia editors have the right to alter the readings or other assignments? It is simply a syllabus and its content (POV or not) has no bearing on an assignment in which students were required to write neutral, well supported wikipedia articles to the best of their abilities.

A key issue here is whether environmental justice is by definition a POV term. It is a field of academic research that is over 30 years old, yet Jytdog above states:

:: key comment -- comment on draft: Remember however that your grade depends also on the extent to which you cover EJ in the article.

as if students' coverage of this issue in an article is somehow wrong. If I insisted in a chemistry class that articles cover chemistry, would I be subject to sanctions?

Finally, here is just one example of Jytdog's assuming bad faith on my part. If one understands environmental justice as a field of research, his long complaint above becomes instead a POV itself, arguing against environmental justice as a field of research.

I am sorry if my insistence that the intersection of race, class, gender and other social characteristics with the environment is an important field of research and data, and NOT POV, is interpreted as intransigence on my part. I assure you that it is not. Jytdog's list of complaints across so many articles illustrate the way in which on many topic areas it remains difficult for people to accept the strong research that is available on this subject and instead to treat this work as somehow biased. EJustice (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: I intend to make a more substantive comment, but I will request that you grant Jytdog a waiver on his statement length. This issue encompasses a massive number of articles involving many editors, and extra space really is necessary to put this issue in context. The only reason I didn't bring it to AE myself is because of the sheer scope of this. And as always, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED on 2016 Election-related articles in general and this Berkeley issue in specific. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been dealing with this nonsense since I happened upon one of the articles while browsing AFD. Upon doing some routine research, I was horrified to find the rest of them. A full list (of the ones in mainspace, anyway) is at User:Train2104/Berkeley NPOV articles. A handful of them, such as Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, are okay, though that only came about through a large effort involving many editors resulting from a note I dropped on Talk:Donald Trump. Prior to that, it was a mess of POV pushing and Original Research and Crystal Ballery. Going by the looks of it, roughly half of them have already been deleted or otherwise removed from article space. And through it all, EJustice has maintained that anyone opposing or criticizing the work being done is doing so because of their own biases. I really think there's a fundamental disconnect between what Professor Gelobter thinks Wikipedia is for, and what we actually do here. Many experienced editors and admins have tried to help him understand, but I don't think he's willing to budge. A topic ban for him and his students (many of which have been meatpuppeting on each others' AFDs) is the only way that I know of to end this disruption, short of waiting for the semester to be over and then a massive cleanup. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Anonymous Students: Let me be clear and state that I do not want you to be punished or banned. Many of you were misled as to what sort of things were appropriate on Wikipedia, and that is not your fault. That is the fault of Professor Gelobter, for being given advice on community norms and ignoring it. A few people here have had the chance to work with you on Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration, and they have good things to say about you. I would like it if at least some of you stuck around, learned the ropes from experienced editors, and used your own knowledge to contribute the correct way outside of the constraints of this class. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make this short and sweet.

1. I encountered this group's editing also, and found it beyond problematic.
2. The courses are obviously US politics agenda driven and inherently POV.
3. The 10 April diff [54] is particularly concerning in that it appears to show students being pushed until they conform to the course's agenda. I don't know how this works at UC Berkeley, but this amounts to WP:MEAT in our sphere.
4. Also here he is offering legal advice to his students that are at odds with our norms.
5. The course leader should not be allowed to participate further until they demonstrate that they understand our community processes and norms.

- Bri (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved to a slight extent with EJustice and his students, primarily at one of the articles: Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration. At that article several of us have been working with several of the students, collegially and with good results, and it is a proper encyclopedia article. I have interacted with EJustice himself on only one occasion, the ANI that Jytdog quoted from above. Speaking as a regular editor (not as an admin because of my involvement), I have two points to make.

• "Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration" is a proper subject for Wikipedia, comparable to other articles about the various policies of various presidents. I was unaware of all the other articles that have been created (180 students? OMG!), and having looked at a few now I am pretty much appalled. Almost none of them are proper subjects for an encyclopedia article. "Impacts of concentrated animal feeding operations"? "Environmental impacts of pig farming"? "Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama" for heavens sake?? At most these subjects could be a paragraph in a related article. These are not articles, these are student term papers, and they should have been assigned and graded as such. From the subject matter, to the format, to the neutrality or lack of it, they are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. This was inherent in the class itself, which is frankly oriented toward a particular political viewpoint. In the future this professor should not assign his students to do their term papers in the form of Wikipedia articles, and steps should be taken at the education project to ensure that this does not happen again. Unfortunately, almost all of these inappropriate articles are going to have to be deleted or redirected.

• The user EJustice has been very belligerent about attributing any criticism or deletion to bias, rather than to enforcing the guidelines of an international encyclopedia. That's just a defensive reflex on his part; EJustice knows nothing about the political or social opinions of editors here. That's by design; most of us try to edit in such a way that our own beliefs and attitudes are not reflected in our editing. (I personally have been accused of being everything from a flaming liberal to a Trump apologist.) But EJustice has a fixed belief that anyone who disagrees with his agenda must be doing so because of their own biases. That fixed belief, and the WP:IDHT attitude it generates, are incompatible with being a Wikipedia editor. It appears that EJustice is NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia, but rather to use it to promote his own viewpoint. IMO action needs to be taken on that basis.

I thank Jytdog for this careful research and exposition of this massive problem. Unfortunately AE may not be the proper venue for the problems raised here, and we might have to do it all again at AN in order to take the actions which are called for.--MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem, Sandstein, and El C: You mentioned a topic ban, presumably of EJustice. To be clear, what topic are you considering banning him from? Also a comment: banning User:EJustice himself from editing does nothing to prevent him from sending 180 students here to post POV term papers. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One final comment: If sanctions or restrictions are applied to EJustice, the statement applying and explaining them needs to spell out clearly, one more time, that the problem is not that we object to this field of study. After all, we have had an article on Environmental justice since 2005. The problem is that this instructor's approach is unencyclopedic. The assignment given, and indeed the very premise of the class, was not to do scholarly research in the field, but rather to demonstrate that the policies of a particular named politician are destructive and wrong. ("Besides a few individual assignments, students will largely work in small groups to edit and/or create Wikipedia articles in order to create a neutral, well-documented record of the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency."[55]) That polemic approach was and is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and is the reason for any future restrictions. --MelanieN (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful to Anonymous student 2 for letting us know that EJustice has been urging his students to come here and defend him, even suggesting what they should say ("Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?") It's clear that he was WP:Canvassing for WP:Meatpuppets (another area where he either does not understand or chooses to ignore Wikipedia norms), and I commend the two students who have commented here so far, for not doing that. Instead they came here with thoughtful commentary about their experience and Wikipedia. I think they have reflected very well on Cal students and I am impressed. For his part, I would prefer not to think that EJustice is a good or typical example of the Cal faculty. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have been reminded that I should not always take comments from anonymous IPs at face value, so evaluate this information accordingly. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment here since I've been rather involved in this issue. I fully agree that this is becoming a major problem. Normally, when I've run into issues with class projects, I've found that instructors and students are quite willing to receive and act on feedback, and it doesn't have to go any farther than giving them some advice and being there if they have questions. Unfortunately, that has not been true here. EJustice has seemed fundamentally unwilling to change the approach they've taken, even after having been told repeatedly that it is unacceptable. At this point, I don't know what else we can do but apply sanctions.

To the question by Sandstein, many of this class's edits are American Politics related, but there have also been issues with BLP. Discretionary sanctions always are applicable to BLP issues. But something needs to change here, because this is reaching a serious level of disruption, and with the instructor being unwilling to change what they're doing, I don't know what else to do. I warned some time ago that it might come to this if it continues, and, well, here we are. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this course after seeing the first ENI report linked in the "prior community discussion" section above. Their behavior has been problematic, magnified by the sheer volume of students and articles involved. I echo the comments by the various editors above, and thank Jytdog for bringing this here, for it is sorely needed. The edits are clearly motivated by American politics, and as such, should fall under discretionary sanctions.

Students look up to instructors as role models, and we expect instructors to demonstrate good behavior to their students. However, here, we are considering sanctions against a particular editor, not against all 180 students. We do not know the behind the scenes processes that occurred leading to this, including the choice of article topics, etc. But we do know that the syllabus was deliberately written with a goal in mind, and thus by extension, the course and assignment have an advocacy goal, one clearly not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia. Nor do we know whether or not this user has attempted this course in the past (pre-Trump of course). But clearly they have refused to listen to our advice, and instead accuse us of systemic bias and not supporting his cause - when we try to be as neutral as possible. The fact that there are 180 students, far less than 180 articles (thankfully!), and that numerous SPA/meatpuppet votes were cast at the AFD's tell me that role accounts were likely used. This also violates policy, and is a violation the instructor should clearly be aware of, in addition to the copyright matters above. I echo StAnselm's comment at ANI - we are here only because of the protections (real or imagined) afforded by the Education Program, and if this were a blind meatpuppet army they'd long be blocked.

I support the application of sanctions against this instructor, and urge the community to participate in the postmortem analysis and discussion that Wiki Ed has promised will occur over the summer, in response to this and numerous other course-related problems this semester. The semester is almost over, so I'm not sure of their effectiveness, but Wikipedia does not operate according to the calendar of any particular university. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Jytdog: that a topic ban may not be the best solution - the user's past behavior indicates that protracted disputes over the edges of the topic ban are very likely. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Anonymous Student 2 - wow. It is clear that the instructor is using the students as a meatpuppet army to protect himself and promote his cause. I am going to say firmly and clearly that it is in my belief none of the student accounts should be sanctioned without specific and clear evidence of misbehavior unrelated to the student assignment, and as of this point, I do not see any of that. – Train2104 (t • c) 19:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a statement about this AE request on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation here: Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents#Statement by Wiki Ed regarding AE. It's not posted on this page for two reasons: first, it would exceed the word count; second, we wanted to comment on the situation and our role in it, but, of course, would rather not opine on the outcome of this process. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in large part with the comments above - there have been problems and User:EJustice has not been responsive to feedback, and has blamed other editors for being motivated by bias (I can only speak for myself, but I am not promoting a POV about this and did not appreciate being accused of racial or gender bias). Is there systemic bias? Yes, absolutely - but as I have said before, that is not a free pass to disregard policies like WP:SYNTH WP:OR WP:CRYSTAL etc. Even if all these policy guidelines are followed, there will still editors who are disruptive and non-neutral - but there is not much room for debate here, the policy violations were clear and routine.

That said, I'm not convinced AE is the right place for this - from the diffs provided I don't see any evidence that the editor has edited in the sanctions area himself, or that these articles were even in the sanctions area when this conduct took place - maybe they should have been, but for a significant duration of this course they were not. Environmental Impacts of Pig Farming for example - not in the sanctions area. These pages should have been correctly templated and protected from the start, they were not. This general behavioral complaint should be raised in the correct forum, if only so we don't slide further down the abyss of chaos and disorder. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: It could be brought under the scope of discretionary sanctions - American law pages are not part of American politics "broadly construed" - that statement veers into meta-theories of law territory. The widely established understanding is that the judiciary is considered to be independent of the political branches and they don't adjudicate on political questions - some specific pages may be both legal and political - Statutes passed by Congress could be considered political, because passing legislation is a political process - but the page on Torts or Marbury v. Madison are not pages about politics. Torts is not part of American politics, movements to change the law of torts are part of American politics, as are legislative actions to modify the laws of torts, executive orders, or even agency regulations may be "broadly" construed as being part of American politics in some contexts - I can't deny that Administrative law is part politics "broadly construed", (but litigation challenging enforcement of regulations on legal grounds is not). I want to make this clear going forward - when it comes to torts and cases, x=x and y=y, except when 1,2,3. The whole point of the exercise is that it is not political, it is not democratic, nor based on majority rule or other "political" processes. As for how that applies to the Environmental Justice page - DS could apply because the page is not only about a general area of law - it does include content that is about politics and political movements, and relies heavily on non-legal sources. No problem, if it is under DS it should have been protected and templated, and the usual editing restrictions should have been in place. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I agree that most of the students work has been more political advocacy then law, and this is likely realated to the syllabus and other issues that have been discussed already. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This type ofabuse threatens to undermine the very core principles of wikipedia. The fact that it seems to be supported by outreach efforts means it needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy. Period. --DHeyward (talk) 05:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The course page description mentioning Trump makes it clear that the intent was to edit in the DS area, which combined with the student actions in line with their grading standards makes me believe AE is the right place to deal with this. I think a topic ban from courses involving politics of the United States would be justified, on AE grounds alone, and combined with the blantant defense of plagiarism and copyright violations by a university professor I think makes it the only justifiable outcome if it is taken to another forum. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jytdog: I would support indef or a site ban that can be appealed to AN per the standard option because of their response and the multitude of issues, some of which are outside the scope of DS. I think a tban could be handled within DS, but indef or site ban would probably need to be community imposed. I also agree with MelanieN that it must be made clear that any sanctions must make clear that this in no way has to do with his political views or their topic of research but the fact that he has had no regard for Wikipedia's policies, and actively tried to get around them despite efforts of many of us in the community to help. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Without responding to the off-wiki issues, I want to say that I think we should have a close on this soon at this venue. If the DS apply and the responding administrators feel that sanctions should apply, let them be applied. If people don't feel the sanctions imposed are enough to prevent future disruption or there is a concern about forum, it can be handled at AN. Prolonging the AE process at this point is not likely to add anything that has not already been said. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EJustice has demonstrated a WP:NOTHERE attitude, which can gravely impact Wikipedia's reputation. He has received many warnings and offers for help, and apparently failed to get the point. I see only an indef ban as the correct preventive remedy. No student account should be sanctioned, but the rationale against EJustice should be explained to them. — JFG ^talk 07:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ryan from wiki-ed points out, this is an unsual case where an instructor has agreed to abide by wikipedia rules then basically turned around and ignored them. Restrict the instructor *and any class/students they teach* from live article edits (restrict them to talkpages, draft & userspace etc) and we can all go stop talking about it. Draftspace etc already have the processes in place to evaluate, amend draft articles, and the instructor will just have to amend his class or learn to do things the wiki-way. (Yes this is hard on the students, but that is entirely the instructors fault. As a process issue, meatpuppets are also considered aware of any sanctions that apply to the hidden hand behind them.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that some of the students chosen topics within the umbrella of environmental justice on the course page fell within pesticide related topics, which are also under DS from the GMO ArbCom case. Ejustice themselves did not edit within those pages, but they were directing people to those topics through the course page. I don't think GMO-Pesticide DS are needed right now (it may be a stretch to apply those DS to Ejustice), but just a heads up that if a future class comes up with this professor even under a political topic ban, there's a decent chance they might end up in yet another DS topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really add anything that has not already been said, but I share the opinion that the way the class project was set up was seriously disruptive, that the length of the presentation here is not worth worrying over, and that the instructor is unlikely to become helpful without sanctions. I've taken part in some of the past discussions with EJustice, and it seems to me that EJustice does not intend to change their approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I gave EdChem an edit conflict, but speaking as another academic who became an editor, I disagree with treating instructors and students differently than other editors. This did not happen in a vacuum: there was plenty of helpful advice from WikiEd and the community, and plenty of time to take that advice on board. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this miss unfold for a while, starting from the problematic new articles and including the discussions with EJustice and Ryan at Wiki Ed, and I've been debating whether to say anything. I have the strong impression that Ryan (Wiki Ed) has worked hard behind the scenes to avoid this becoming a train wreck and that EJustice has not listened to, or not understood, some very good advice. Unfortunately, there have been some unhelpful comments made to students and to EJustice – not just harsh/bitey-unhelpful, but also well intentioned but not useful-unhelpful. As an academic who has assessed student work at both undergraduate and graduate levels, I can see how an on-WP course project can get into a huge conflict between academic goals and encyclopaedic writing. As a Wikipedian, I can see how the goals can mesh and what to avoid, and I can see how EJustice can have made some of the mistakes that he has. Sadly, we are well past the point where much of this course's writings can be salvaged, and the paths from here diverge. EJustice needs to make sure he can do a valid assessment of the student work for credit, WP needs to clean up article space, and the future needs to be considered. So, I suggest the following:

1. One or more admins who are willing to volunteer for the task can work with EJustice so he can see what he needs to for grading purposes within WP policy. With plenty of necessary deletions having occurred and continuing to occur, providing material off-wiki is likely going to be necessary. Related to this, we know EJustice will share his experiences with colleagues, as will his students. Doing what we can to support the assessment side will hopefully reduce the reputational damage to WP from those discussions, as will helping all to understand that the WP issue is advocacy and encyclopaedic content, not any particular topic.
2. A decision on EJustice should not be taken here at AE. I don't doubt that DS jurisdiction can cover many of the students and the work, as well as some of EJustice's comments, but I think any decisions on bans and blocks will have consequences beyond just EJustice. Such decisions are better taken by the community as a whole, or by ArbCom, rather than by an AE-admin consensus or a unilateral AE action. Yes, a unilateral action is authorised and justifiable, but I do not think it would be wise. In addition, as Kingofaces43 has recently and accurately noted, the articles touch onto other DS areas (like GMO), and I note that it is also possible that some do not fall clearly within any DS area. The AN option avoids the need to craft an action within a DS area, but rather to tailor it to the actual situation.
3. We need to know EJustice's future intentions, vis-à-vis running course projects on WP. I think an AN-supported ban on such an action without an outline of goals and methods which is accepted by the WikiEd team and the community as consistent with WP is desirable. WP has the right to protect itself from another situation like this one developing, which may ultimately mean a site ban, but I would prefer to avoid that and a ban on post-1932 politics is a potential minefield of edge-testing, etc.
4. We are already seeing some debate on where the edges are – take recent comments from Seraphim System, for example. A page like Marbury v. Madison is clearly prior to 1932, but leaving that aside: the parts dealing with the limits of original jurisdiction and the powers of judicial review are not political, but lame duck Congressional actions authorising judicial appointments of a single political stripe, with an incoming President taking immediate action to frustrate are clearly in the realms of politics, and those parts of the article would be caught within an American Politics DS – remember that DS applies to the topic, which includes the parts of pages on other topics which are substantially part of the DS-covered topic. The problem we have is not the potential controversy of the topic area, it is the setting of a task which is non-neutral advocacy in its intent. In that sense, a topic ban is a poor fit for addressing the actual problem, and if the advocacy issue can't be resolved, then no topic area will be appropriate for future projects (and a site ban would be the logical enforcement remedy).
5. EJustice, I have debated whether to post on your user talk page to point out some perspectives, experienced Wikipedian and academic to academic, but I won't unless you are open to the discussion. I know you must be feeling harried by all that has happened. Wikipedia can be a jungle of overlapping policies and guidelines with unexpected pitfalls, and it can also be very unfriendly. I admire your courage in trying to do a 180 student project as your first foray onto WP, it was brave... but, to be frank, it was not wise. The design you chose was always going to conflict with how Wikipedia operates, and I could point out how many of the problems could have been avoided. I would be willing to have the discussion in a sub-page of your user space, because I think what I would say is relevant to others and I prefer open communication... but I would also be willing to ask that other users not comment in the discussion, restricting their views / comments etc to the talk page. I would also be willing to include Ryan from WikiEd, if you like, and to delay it until after the assessment etc is dealt with (Ryan will be very busy until summer anyway). Please let me know what you think.

Short Version: I oppose a topic ban as a poor fit for addressing the actual advocacy problem, and I strongly advise no AE action, not for lack of jurisdiction, but because AN is a more appropriate forum both for widespread community input and for tailoring a remedy to suit the actual problem. The clean up in article space via deletions must and will continue, but EJustice should be supported / assisted to complete the assessments for grading etc of the students. This is both fair for the students (who are caught between WP policy and incompatible task design which is not their fault) and will hopefully reduce reputational damage to WP from EJustice and the students sharing their difficult / unpleasant WP experience with others. Finally, the discussion in summer with Ryan and others from WikiEd is vitally important for looking at lessons for WP and future student editing, which continues to provide challenges. EdChem (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem I would welcome the chance to have the kind of discussion you suggest, particularly bounded as you suggest on a sub-page to keep us focused on my understanding and learning how to contribute more fruitfully. And I'd welcome the help to facilitate our grading. Hope we get to do it! EJustice (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in complete agreement with EdChem. I too oppose a topic ban and strongly advise no AE action - if need be, AN is the place to take this. I commend EdChem for his thoughtful reasoning. If Wikipedia is truly to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then let's take Ed's statement to heart. Jusdafax 04:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've stumbled upon this page after hearing what my classmates have been experiencing with their respective projects. (My group's contributions hardly caused a ripple, so I didn't experience any of this myself) I can't speak on behalf of the professor or the other students, but I do fully understand the issues that the community has raised in response to our contributions and agree that the assignment did have some inherent conflicts of interest with the stated goals of Wikipedia. I understand this has taken a lot of time and caused headaches for editors who felt rightfully alarmed by the content they were seeing. I just want to say, for what it's worth, we are all incredibly new to this and it actually has been a valuable learning experience about how to present information in a neutral way. It's a learning curve, and we're just starting to exercise our critical thinking muscles.

I would implore editors to not to be unduly harsh with the student accounts... I'm afraid it would do little except leave a bad taste in 180 impressionable young minds that were just trying to satisfy a rubric. It might be wiser to keep that door open so that those that are motivated to contribute more can come back and develop our awareness of WP ethics. My own group discussed our feelings about this very issue, and it has been eye-opening for me to read along with this whole thread.

Thank you for all of your time and it is very heartening to see this kind of passion behind the scenes at WP. Keep up the good work! 128.32.87.206 (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think it is relevant, I wanted to let the community know that students from the class have been directed by the professor, in lecture and via email, to this page for comment. The email states "I've activated the link www.bit.do/ejwiki if you wish to weigh in on whether I should be banned from Wikipedia. Please feel no obligation to do so and if you do keep your input substantive (people will try to bait you). Statements like: "Isn't this the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit?” are great, and use diffs (see the bonus assignment for how). There's also a new, bonus assignment for documenting extraordinary edits to your articles or talk pages." 2607:F140:400:A024:440:DBDF:46D2:3213 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll review soon, but your request is way too long. Please shrink it to comply to the 500-word limit. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what's been been presented is more than enough. It's unfortunate that we have to face this with a university course that has the potential to strengthen existing articles w/ better research and sourcing... but the editor in question is very clearly POV-pushing and refusing to listen to feedback. We've sanctioned with less extensive evidence. I believe a topic-ban is appropriate, with the added proviso that the editor should be very wary about asking his students to edit where he can't. They need to understand what WP is for and what's not appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding that while I think the above is enough to act on my own, I'd like to hear other admins' thoughts before jumping in. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The more I think about it, the more I think AN might be best to handle this if only because this isn't just a potential sanction against one editor, but the entire class, as MelanieN mentions above. I'd feel uncomfortable making such a broad decision on my own, especially when we're not unanimous that DS applies. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with others that the length of the complaint should be overlooked. GoldenRing (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• At first glance we do seem to have conduct issues here that could justify a sanction, but I would like it to be made more clear how this is about the "politics of the United States" and therefore within scope of discretionary sanctions. Apart from a few Trump-related comments, the diffs in evidence are basically about topics related to environmental justice and environmental protection in the US. This is of course a political matter in a broad sense, but then most controversial public policy issues are. My understanding of the sanctions is that they were enacted to deal with disruption in the topic area of partisan or party politics, such as elections-related content. If they are understood to cover every controversial public issue, they'd cover basically everything related to the U.S., which I don't think was the intention.  Sandstein  20:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike Jytdog, I don't think that, just because EJustice may possibly have had political reasons for their actions, these actions are within the scope of discretionary sanctions about U.S. politics. In my view, it is required that the potentially disruptive edits are themselves related to U.S. politics in order to be sanctionable. I would therefore not take AE action here. However, a request for a community topic ban, which is not limited by topic area, might be made at WP:AN.  Sandstein  20:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with Jytdog that, due to the focus of the edits (rather than merely the motivation, as Sandstein claims), it can be seen to fall within the scope of ARBAP2—but a topic ban can work just as well to end the disruption. Clearly, something needs to be done, as the statements by several editors above attest. El_C 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps, we should take this to the wider community (at AN), since the 180 students may also need to be placed under restrictions. Sounds like a plan. El_C 23:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been informed that the students' assignment was done yesterday, so the 180 students may be a non-issue. El_C 00:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a note at AN asking for admin input.

If the class is done for this year, the I guess the 180 POV-pushing accounts are no longer a serious problem. Something needs to be done about EJustice though. I'm not entirely convinced that a than from post-1932 American politics will be the answer; aren't we then risking the same types of problems in whatever area their class is assigned next year? I'm frankly tempted to just indef them, on the grounds that indefinite does not mean infinite and if they can demonstrate that they've understood the purpose of Wikipedia and how they can do education programs constructively then they can be unblocked, but I'd like some more support for that idea before trying it. GoldenRing (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jytdog: Exactly. My thinking is that this is someone who shouldn't be here until we see an attitude change. GoldenRing (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, EJustice has responded, and I'm not seeing a lot of understanding of what the problems are. The next question is what sanction would be appropriate. I'm minded to a topic ban from wikiedu, to prevent them setting assignments, but how would that suit with the scope of DS? If DS don't stretch this far, ought we perhaps to ask the committee to handle this by motion? GoldenRing (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that this falls under the US politics sanctions. If the party is over, there is no point in chastising the students, if there was ever a point to that. The instructor's behavior, however, is far from acceptable, and if they don't respond here, they're very likely to get a topic ban from editing or assigning anything remotely political. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article on Environmental justice (which discusses mostly the USA) falls under WP:ARBAP2 since American laws are part of American politics broadly construed. I think that an admin would be acting within our policy if they issued a topic ban of User:EJustice from everything covered by WP:ARBAP2 as well as an indefinite block under normal admin authority. The block would be appealable at WP:AN and could be lifted if the user agreed to follow Wikipedia policy in the future. Unless problems from the students continue I don't see a need for sanctions against more than one person. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• First a couple of quick points. There is no real doubt in my mind that this falls under ARBAP2. Secondly I think the length of the OP's statement can be forgiven given the unusual nature of the case and its history. After looking it over I have to agree with most of the comments and the OPs statement. This appears to be a fairly brazen campaign to right great wrongs. This kind of WP:AGENDA oriented editing would be bad enough on one editor's part, but this is a highly aggravated case by virtue of the number of people involved and what I can only describe as an attempt to subvert the project's neutrality. I support a topic ban from any articles and discussions dealing with post 1932 American politics broadly construed for EJustice and any course/class they may be running. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]