Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive219

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

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3-day block

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I sent him an email, which is all I can do in my current blocked state. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.

If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Wikipedia in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Wikipedia, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Wikipedia is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Wikipedia is an on-Wikipedia thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to have my enforcement action reviewed here and to reverse it if there is significant opinion that I have erred.

I'm on a tablet at present so this will be quick notes to which I will add diffs tomorrow morning.

Debresser was topic-banned for two months, by me, which he appealed unsuccessfully. He started collecting notes on his talk page for things to do once the ban was over ([1]). Someone pointed out that this was a ban violation, so Debresser asked me for clarification. I think I was unambiguous in my response that such edits are not allowed. He continued making his list, including an article that very clearly falls within the scope of his ban, so I blocked him for 72 hours to enforce the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Let's not relitigate the topic-ban here. It was appealed and the appeal was declined. GoldenRing (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: That may be your opinion of topic bans, but policy is quite clear: topic bans include "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)." The idea is the user is supposed to be taking a break from the topic. GoldenRing (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As those below, I'd be very happy for Debresser to be unblocked early if anyone was convinced that he was planning to abide by the topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser writes "when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area".

I strongly disagree with this statement. Debresser was topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine for calling me "anti-Jewish", without any proof whatsoever. That Debresser still doesn't see that his behaviour is troublesome, is very worrying. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I think bans should never apply to a user talk page. It's not disruptive and nobody is forcing anyone to read it.

@GoldenRing:, I understand the policy, I was just saying what I believe. The purpose of a TBAN is to stop disruptions to a page or talk pages. There is no disruption to Wikipedia on the whole when a user posts on his talk page. In many cases, it's good for a user to be allowed to vent and cool down, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser in his unblock request challenged my bona fides, as if I were aiming to get him off Wikipedia, when I warned him 3 times not to violate his Tban, without recourse to AE. When he sought to take this to AE I advised Debresser not to do so. He reverted that advice, as is his right.

Just for the record, this is not about just 1 infraction, but several.

• (1st rt) at Cave of the Patriarchs. When this was noted, D replied that he he hadn’t noticed the ban notification blinking away when he returned to edit, though it was posted on his page 11 hours earlier.
• (2) 15:31, 21 July 2017, he kibitzed edits on his talk page, criticizing IP editors.
• (3) 21:14, 25 July 2017 also here
• I notified him these were obvious violations
• He wouldn't take my words for it but was warned by GoldenRing, when he requested input and agreed to stop commenting the I/P area on his talk page.
• (4)He went ahead anyway, and broke his topic ban again, commenting on Meir Ettinger, which I happened to have written a day before.
• (5)And did so also here at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A History of the Palestinian People
• He appealed his 3 day block, which concerns just 1 of these 5 infractions, and now we’re here, with him being told he could be unblocked if he understands he mustn’t make IP comments anywhere on wiki.
• HIs reply to this 5 hours later seems to be that even this ‘if’ condition is unfair, and that he is a victim of wiki injustices. Go figure. Remonstrating with GoldenRing because, under the subatomic textual microscope, the configuration of his gentle prod to D to be reasonable, is odd. He's bent over backwards not to be punitive (no brownnosing intended). I agree one shouldn't be punitive. I insist however that making the obvious deductions from a clear pattern is what Wikipedia sanctions are all about. If an admin can recall 5 successive Tban infractions, even after repeated warnings, being treated with such exquisite care for the protesting feelings of the editor, to the point of ignoring the pattern in the comments of the editor making them, they have better memories than I.Nishidani (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Debresser should be unblocked since its the first violation of recent topic ban. Capitals00 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested on Debresser's talk page that he just make his notes on his computer, as he is presumably using a computer to make the notes on his talk page he could just as easily open up notepad or an equivalent program and make notes to his heart's desire. The response is My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Wikipedia. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. That right there is the problem, the belief that he is entitled to do whatever he wishes whenever and wherever he wishes. He got off light with a time-limited topic ban, seeing as at least one admin was going to make it indef, and he had been warned against making notes on the topic area prior to the block. But the need to keep pushing the limit, to prove that he is entitled to do what he wishes where he wishes, that is the same attitude that led to the past topic bans. Debresser, all you have to do is say I understand I may not comment on the topic area and I will refrain from doing so, in any way, anywhere on Wikipedia for the duration of the topic ban. And boom, block lifted. But you want to assert your right to ignore the parts of the ban you dislike. That's your choice obviously, but I cant imagine that its going to be successful. nableezy - 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser wrote on his talk page @Nableezy Although I am not sure you are not, in fact, anti-Semitic. He modified that to remove that bit, but the tendency to attack others, to make such claims publicly without evidence, demonstrates how little use this topic ban has done for the user. I'd support an indef ban at this point. Debresser has to internalize the point that he may not attack other editors without any evidence for his incendiary charges. Full stop. nableezy - 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• GoldenRing's block was clearly valid. Editing or commenting anywhere on the site about a page within the topic area, including in userspace or on user talk pages, is a topic ban violation. However, I'd be willing to support unblocking early if Debresser clearly stated that they understand they cannot comment (generally or specifically) about any page falling within the topic area or any edit related to the topic area anywhere on Wikipedia until the topic ban is lifted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given Debresser's recent comment stating he intends to take notes "wherever I please" (copied above), I'm both inclined to not lift the block and inclined to issue a warning that doing this in the future will lead to a block that lasts the duration of the topic ban with talk page access removed. Thoughts, Dennis Brown and SoWhy? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would simply echo Rob here, GoldenRing was within his authority to block. Qualifying a violation doesn't prevent sanctioning for it. If you can show you understand that, then unblocking would be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debresser, You are topic banned from anything related to "Arab-Israeli conflict", broadly construed. This means anything, anywhere, anytime, so long as the ban exists. You can say "I will make notes wherever I please.", if you please, but you should expect escalating blocks or extensions of the topic ban. This is the same as any other tban. You aren't special. This is the same as would be expected of any tbanned editor: no mentioning or skirting the topic on ANY page. Let me remind you that if you are brought here again, the likelihood of your tban being expanded from two months to 6 months is very high. I would strongly suggest you don't even take notes at home, and instead, go focus on something completely unrelated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As GoldenRing correctly points out, WP:TBAN explicitly includes talk pages in its scope. One can disagree that this is reasonable, as Sir Joseph does, but that does not make the policy disappear. Such bans are meant to deter the editor from doing anything related to the topic to avoid further problems and we all know how user talk pages can sometimes turn into content discussion pages. That said, echoing my colleagues above, if Debresser demonstrates they understand this, I see no reason not to unblock early. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: As I noted above, my agreeing to an unblock was conditional on Debresser understanding that writing about a topic anywhere on this project can potentially lead to more conflict, since even notes in userspace might cause others to start a discussion on Debresser's talk page or somewhere else, thus creating more conflict even without Debresser's direct involvement. WP:TBANs serve to prevent any such potential disruption. If they cannot understand that, the policy is clear on how to handle it. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: It's not about "leading a double-life", it's about understanding that anything you write on these pages might be seen by others and thus might lead to further problems as described above. There are soo many online services that allow you to take notes outside Wikipedia without having to save them on your PC and there are many that are completely anonymous and without needing registration. I see no reason that forces you to make notes on Wikipedia. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 3 August 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

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 5 August 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:ARBBLP, WP:ACDS :

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

1. 3 August 22:28 E.M.Gregory adds a section to a BLP alleging subject is "noted for her fulsome praise of Venezuelan dictator"; he cites only an op-ed column from the Los Angeles Times
2. 4 August 11:01 After I deleted the new section with an edit summary that indicated it was a BLP violation ("'known for' that? read BLP much?"), an IP editor restored it. In this edit, E.M.Gregory expanded it using two more op-ed columns as sources.
3. 4 August 12:08 After I again deleted the section with an edit summary that indicated it was still a BLP violation ("when did opinion columns become reliable sources for facts, especially for a BLP?") and left him a message about the sourcing problem and the sanctions that apply to BLPs, E.M.Gregory reverted me with an edit summary of "expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement"
4. 4 August 12:16 After I deleted the section once again with an edit summary that indicated it was still a BLP violation ("where In WP:BLP is the exception to use crappy sources because the authors are well known columnists?") and left him a final warning, E.M.Gregory reverted me with an edit summary of "as I said before, enhancing sourcing now"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on August 4

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After his and my third reversions, I left a third message for E.M.Gregory, explaining that one does not add or restore poorly sourced garbage to BLPs and then "improve the sourcing"; one fixes the sourcing and then adds or restores the material. I also asked that he self-revert to avoid this filing. Obviously, he refused to do so.

Although he will argue that he is a new editor who wasn't aware of the rules, E.M.Gregory has been editing Wikipedia for nearly three years and has made more than 25,000 edits, of which roughly 14% have been to BLPs. No, he is not unaware of the rules, he is willfully ignorant of the rules. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Context here is that Malik Shabazz and I disagree and have interacted about I/P, Islamist terrorism, and many other political issues. Recently, we have locked horns in a series of AfD discussions regarding terrorist attacks.

Another bit of context is that Klein had made defending and admiring Hugo Chavez's and his program for Venezuela as a new path to a bright future a major part of her career. Commentators such as Terence Corcoran who have disagreed with Klein on Venezuela since she spoke glowingly of his repression of the media in 2003 have been beating up on her all year as the Venezuelan economy collapses. Corcoran's January 2017 article "Terence Corcoran: Chavez’s Canadian fan club is awfully quiet about Venezuela’s utter meltdown", which ran over a photo of Klein, [2] is one of many articles I could have added to support the assertion that I had started with, then removed, that Klein's praise of Chavez has been "fulsome" and that it is noteworthy.

I was shocked when Malik Shabazz responded to my first, brief addition to to Naomi Klein. The edit was sourced to an by James Kirchick entitled " "Remember all those left-wing pundits who drooled over Venezuela?"" using Klein as his leading example and quoting her statements in detail.

I responded on my talk page:

"Sourcing a section to bluelinked commentators citing direct quotes from Klein is not POV-pushing. Here: is the edit: [4]. However, I will enhance the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

"For the curious, this is an editor objecting to adding a section to Naomi Klein discussing her long-standing promotion of Venezuela (a country where the economy has collapsed, the government is close to collapse, and the conditions of life are plummeting to appalling depths,) as a shining model of the great success of a new model 21st century socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

and next made a rapid series of edits improving section on Venezuela that I had added ot her page, a section that I had placed in chronological order between sections on Klein's opinions about the Iraq War and Israel. My edit notes read:

(Undid revision 793862330 by MShabazz (talk) expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement) (Undid revision 793864118 by MShabazz (talk) as I said before, enhancing sourcing now.) (→‎Venezuela: expand, source), (→‎Venezuela: tidy up), (→‎Venezuela: expand, tweak, source), (→‎Venezuela: 2nd source, Robert Fulford (journalist) book review), (→‎Venezuela: tweak), (→‎Venezuela: tweak), (→‎Venezuela: grammar), (→‎Venezuela: typo).

I then returned ot my talk page and responded to Shabazz: "*Venezuela section cleaned-up, sourced. Certainly a significant part of her ouvre and a useful addtion to her page. Feel free to expand or tweak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

I believed that with this last edit I was signalling to Malik Shabazz that I was finished editing the Naomi Klein page.

Then he started this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do acknowledge that I lost my cool here. I made a careless, hasty edit, lost it when my hasty edit was immediately pounced upon by Malik Shabazz, then totally lost my cool when he was seconded by GracefulSlick, and Nishidani. And as I said, I lost it in my first two responses here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Graceful Slick, an experienced editor who appears not to have often entered discussions on terrorism0-related pages in the past, recently entered and also started a series of AfD pages on terrorism with very strong opinions, vigourously upheld but, often, with apparent unfamiliarity with unfamiliarity not only with the topic, but with guidelines often used on tthese pages, such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. The 1st. page she references is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. The previous AfD had closed as keep on 9 July. She opened a new AFD on 16 July. This was a convoluted case in which suspect was acquitted of arson by a court, but after the acquittal I started the page - not about an individual, about an arson attack on a Shiite mosque/community center - when the arson made international headlines because new evidence emerged in Germany. Suspect, who had been acquitted for lack of evidence, was transferred immediately form police to security services where his is being investigated for possible deportation. This is NOT your "usual" arson case. Nor is it your "usual" AfD. At one point Graceful slick closed the AfD, as withdrawn by nom, then reopened it after an editor had iVoted to delete - I still don't quite understand how that vote happened after a discussion was closed. But the point here is that the article was being edited during the AfD by several editors who repeatedly misstated the evidence that had emerged post-trail from the German prosecutor's office. For the short course, look at the talk page Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement. Only after the AfD closes ad keep does one of the editors who had been arguing delete appear to actually read the post-verdict material about an ISIS operative in Germany who has been in touch with the arsonist before the fire was set.

• 2.) GracefulSlick's assertion on that filmmaker. The Malmo articlehas a small "Response" section because Trump brought this arson attack back into the news cycle last winter by listing it as an unreported terror attack. The coverage the brought to these attacks certainly brought a new round of news coverage to some events. On this micro-topic, I read the Salon article being discussed, and made one comment: [3].

• 3.) in re: Lard Vilks there are similarities ot the Malmo case. Vilks is a Swedish cartoonist who drew Mohammad cartoons. He was scheduled to appear at an art opening in Gothenburg. An article about this had existed for years. Salman Rusdie-like sutuaiton, placed on Al Qaeda hit list, Al Qaeda publicly calls upon Muslims to kill him, police approach arts center shadowing 3 suspects already known to police, suspects enter art galley asking attendees which one is Vilks, police arrest the thee - all of whom were carrying knives. Coverage has been ongoing for years as new material (like, after one of the acquitted men went off to Syria to fight with ISIS), large round of coverage in later years because Vilks is thought by police to have been the target of the 2015 Copenhagen shootings. Article abut the apparent failed attack in Gothenberg in 2011 was deleted, but given the massive amount of coverage over many years, I copy pasted a section of the article to Lars Vilks. Graceful Slick deleted it. I walked away from the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a pretty clear-cut issue; while opinion columns may be reliable sources for attributed opinions of the columnist, if relevant, they are absolutely not to be used for encyclopedia-voice statements of fact about living people. To the extent E.M. Gregory has violated this rule (and it can hardly be said to be an accidental mistake), they need to be, at the least, admonished about their use of sourcing in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably reflects poor practice rather than anything else. One can separate out two things. Klein has made favorable statements about Chavez. This is not in doubt. How one should describe the matter, should be decided by NPOV. Clearly, the original phrasing "noted for her fulsome praise of the Venezuelan dictator" rather badly fails NPOV.

The current phrasing in the article is a bit better, but basically all it's doing is to take the statements from the op-ed piece, softening them a bit, and then Googling for supporting evidence. This kind of stuff is actually bad practice for NPOV: one is supposed to look at a broad array of sources and summarize it, not simply Google for things which one wants to add into Wikipedia.

But I see this all the time, and I doubt it can be cured, or if it is even desirable. Perhaps I'm too cynical. I don't think this is a BLP issue as such. I would treat it like an NPOV issue. As such I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Perhaps a warning. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though @NorthBySouthBaranof: is correct that opinion pieces can be useful and reliable sources for the opinion expressed by their author, it is my understanding that they may also be used as a source for an assertion of fact. For example, if a New Yorker Talk of the Town quoted a cab driver as saying, “LaGuardia is a bum!” that’s not a reliable source for stating that LaGuardia is a bum; it's just an opinion. But if the same piece asserted that midtown cabdrivers typically worked 48 hours a week and that many were members of Teamsters’ Local 666, these would be reliably sourced since (a) they are facts, not partisan opinions, and (b) they can be checked, and the reputation of The New Yorker assures us that they would have been checked.

It is increasingly common for newly-recruited editors (and sock puppets) to claim that all current mainstream sources are inherently biased, and that all bylined reporters are partisan, and therefore cannot be used even for sourcing facts. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only commenting because I thought, after Colin Powell was roasted for using the word 'fulsome' not in its primary sense of 'offensive to good taste' but in its more recent sense of 'abundant', journos would be more careful. The edits reversed are of course attack dumping by opening up sections to list badmouthing comments about any ('leftist') controversialist. On an encyclopedia, and BLPs, one should spend energy on (a) outlining precisely what the person thinks, and then (b) what intelligent critics say in response. This is usually not done: one trawls for 'fulsome' praise or 'dirt' so that readers are swamped with haphazard 'opinions' that are as useless as tits on a bull. This is getting characteristic of too much editing on bios, Gregory. The next logical move would be to go sequentially to the pages on Ken Livingstone, Ken Loach, Jesse Jackson, Howard Zinn, Dennis Kucinich, Perry Anderson, Tony Benn, Eric Hobsbawm, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Oliver Stone, Harold Pinter etc., etc., and note some commentator abhorring the fact that each 'praised' Chavez (or his programmes) or on one of his presidential bids. ('dictator' is opinionable: he was elected etc.) So what? What were they praising about Chavez's programme? Futile, irresponsible and uninformative. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to present to this case more incidents of Gregory violating BLP and POV to avoid the misconception that this is a secluded incident. Here at this discussion Gregory advocated for a version of an article that uses WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to seemingly attempt to override a ruling of not guilty by a Swedish court of law, regarding a BLP subject. Further below he supported the inclusion of the opinion from a filmmaker, despite concerns about its authenticity and the fact the video interview (where the quotes originated from) never actually addressed the incident in question. At this AfD Gregory, again, wanted to retain an article and use sources to insinuate the guilt of innocent men. Worse still, when the AfD was not going in his favor, he included the material with WP:UNDUE weight at the Lars Vilks article (twice), knowing consensus at the AfD was the incident was not terror related, and any mention of the non-plot needed to be brief as well as neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I do not think that ANI addressed anything. That thread was filed by Gregory as a result of my admittively improper reopening of an AfD and Pincrete's edits that sought to remove some of his BLP violations. We resolved the issue away from the discussion before any of the diffs I provided here (and more) could be presented which would have resulted in a discussion strikingly similar to this one.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Am bummed to see this. E.M.Gregory you are probably correct that there is a hole where content about Chavez should be in the Klein article, but the initial edit, sourcing it on an op-ed piece attacking her is just... not good.... And then the expansion using more content from the same source and adding an additional opinion piece that was also critical of her --Venezuela’s collapse and the ‘useful idiots’ of the Canadian left -- just dug that hole deeper.. especially when your editing had already been flagged as a BLP issue.

Granted from someone you have had past disputes with, but you have no leg here. Even more so because of the immediate clash, which should have caused you to rethink.

If you were aiming for NPOV content based on strong sourcing you would have taken a very different approach. One would have been to to very clearly WP:ATTRIBUTE and use the Kirchick and Macleans opinion pieces to describe criticism, and cite... oh Socialist Review and Daily Kos to provide content and refs for further reading for how people on her "side" view her support for Chavez. And cite something from her maybe, like this Nation piece.

Best of all would have been to avoid either kind of partisan source and look for high quality reporting (not opinion) discussing Klein's views. Which is hard to find (not in NYT, New Yorker, or Atlantic for example). this book reveiw is not terrible and probably would not have drawn the initial revert... it also provides enough discussion of how Chavez fits into the rest of her thinking about the world, that you could have written some more nuanced content instead of just sticking an inflammatory factoid into the article.

But please step back and consider that your initial approach as well as your subsequent restorations were coming at this the wrong way. It is hard to write about this stuff and the BLP DS are there for a reason. Please.

If you cannot see this and acknowledge it I can only support some action being taken. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The request has merit. Opinion pieces, such as those used by E.M.Gregory here, are "questionable sources" because they lack editorial oversight. They must therefore not be used as a basis for statements about living persons (WP:BLPSOURCES). The response by E.M.Gregory does not recognize or address this, but instead goes on about Venezuelan politics, which are irrelevant here. Their comment about using "blue-linked commentators" as reliable sources is also concerning; merely because a person has an article does not mean that what they self-publish is a reliable source. This indicates that E.M.Gregory cannot be relied upon to competently edit WP:BLP topics. I would therefore ban E.M.Gregory from editing BLP-related material, initially for one month.  Sandstein  16:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm. Yes, the sources are not great; yes, E. M. Gregory should be more careful about their sourcing. On the other hand, the facts those sources are used to support are pretty easily sourced so I'm not seeing outrageous BLP violations here. The evidence offered by TheGracefulSlick is more troubling, though I think this was all dealt with at AN/I. Still mulling over what's an appropriate response to this. GoldenRing (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I find this difficult: the case itself is pretty clear-cut--using opinion pieces to build the voice of Wikipedia is unacceptable, and few editors are as experienced as E.M. Gregory. I agree with Sandstein, on the whole, though I don't know if I'd say "cannot be relied upon to competently edit BLP topics"--I would replace "competently" with "neutrally". My difficulty is in the remedy. I don't really think a month-long topic ban is very useful; I rather think that a block for a next infraction is more suitable. Sandstein, however, has more experience here than I do and I am happy to follow them. Unlike GoldenRing I am not happy to just dismiss this. I'm still puzzled that E.M. Gregory made these edits; I've known them for quite a while, usually as a careful editor. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I wasn't suggesting dismissing this; just saying it's not in the stupid-libel-redact-it-quickly category of violations. The Wikipedia-voice statements sourced to op-ed pieces are clearly unacceptable, however I don't think that inclusion of some material re Venezuela in this BLP is particularly out of place, so long as the sourcing is sorted out. I'm rather disappointed with Gregory's response here, too, which does not seem to acknowledge the problems. As you, though, I'm struggling to frame a response that's adequate. Your suggestion seems to amount to, "Now don't do it again," which seems unsatisfactory, but I still think a ban from all BLPs is over the top. GoldenRing (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I broadly agree with this assessment, but I thing we don't need to concern ourselves with whether mentioning Venezuela in this article is appropriate: this is a content issue, which does not concern us here.

      Taking in consideration the above admin comments, notably that they believe that an all-BLP ban is excessive, I am instead closing this with a three-month ban from all Venezuelan politics-related BLPs.  Sandstein  07:24, 8 August 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

DarkKing Rayleigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA : Topic ban violations

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

User who was indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA and insulted the administrator who imposed the sanction with antisemitic and racist slurs has violated his ban (despite it doesn't say in his talk page that it was lifted):

1. Here
2. Here
3. Here
4. Here
5. Here
6. Here
7. Here
8. and many other places

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [4] by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

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 seems pretty clear cut. I'm minded to block for a week - any objections? GoldenRing (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No, although a week seems an inadequate deterrrent. Since being topic-banned (by me) from the ARBPIA topic area in 2014, the user has only made edits in violation of the topic ban.  Sandstein  15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: That's a fair point - I've blocked for three months, but left a note to say that if they can convince us they're going to abide by the ban and edit something else I wouldn't oppose an unblock. GoldenRing (talk) 16:11, 9 August 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

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

1. 07:56, 3 August 2017 1st revert
2. 09:43, 4 August 2017 2nd revert 24 + less than 2 hours later
3. 10:01, 7 August 2017 1st revert
4. 13:14, 8 August 2017 2nd revert 24 + a little over 3 hours later

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Nishidani has multiple blocks for edit warring, most recently for violating 1RR in March [7], and has recently returned from this month long topic ban.

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.
• Etc

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has long been established that waiting 24 hours + a couple more does not put an editor outside the 1RR restriction, particularly if done multiple times on the same page. It's an obvious attempt to game the system. Nishidani has been blocked many times for edit warring and has recently returned from a one month topic ban. He is fully aware of this restriction and violates it repeatedly. I was going to give him a chance to self-revert, but then noticed he did the same thing a couple of days prior (not to mention I was not awarded the courtesy of a warning and still got blocked for 1RR, so it's obviously no longer considered part of the informal etiquette here).

There are two other editors who participated in this edit war who I'm not reporting here:

1. Huldra who appeared on a page she has never edited before, made a revert with the same false summary Nishidani used in a previous revert and did not participate on the talk page before or since. This is obvious tag teaming but I don't think AE is equipped to deal with it.
2. François Robere is new to the topic area and only received the notice a few days ago. From his talk page it would seem he doesn't understand 1RR. In the spirit of BITE I plan to explain it to him, so I'm not reporting him here at the moment.

@KI: Clearly Nishidani was trying to game 1RR, twice in 4 days. In fact, between the last two reverts he actually made another edit a few hours earlier [8], which was within the 24 hours restriction, then came back a few hours later to make the revert. Obvious gaming is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldenring: Are you saying 24+2 hours (twice in a few days) is not a 1RR violation? Because people with waaaay cleaner records than Nishidani have received lengthy topic bans for exactly that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Nice morning greeting on my page. I can't see how I broke 1R- I noted to the edit-warrior they had, but didn't report it, trying to reason. If I have broken 1R I'll revert of course, but at a glance, NMMGG is looking at the page edit conflict purely in terms of what I do, not the context, nor the, to me, incomprehensible edit behavior of the other party. I must to breakfast, and will examine this later.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the 2000 Ramallah Lynching case fairly thoroughly, but have never been able to help ironing out the many defects there because it is one of those I/P pages where, if you touch it, you get edit-warring by people who read one or two sources, and try to 'fix' the lead according to their preferred POV. At first I noticed just a grammatical flaw in François Robere’s edit. Since doing the edits on aborigines requires huge amounts of close background reading, I didn’t have much time to do anything but elementary fixes here.

• 'had accidentally entered and . .were taken into custody' changed to ‘were taken into custody . .after accidentally entering Ramallah’. This also has a POV problem, making it possible to read into the text that the massacre took place under PA police custody (not, as many sources state, in defiance of that custody), which is temporally true, implying PA policed complicity but ignored the fact, already in the body of the text, that the events by no means indicate necessarily PA police complicity.

• This copy-edit had therefore an egregious error in fundamental English grammar (Consecutio temporum), so I fixed it, while taking the opportunity to add details already in the given sources.

• Ist revert 13:50, 3 August 2017
• 2nd revert 10:09, 4 August 2017 restoring the erratic grammar.

• On the talk page the editor was told he broke IR, but was not reported. Intelligent discretion seemed the proper move. Ignoring what Huldra and myself said, the editor continued to restore the erratic grammar in the lead. I had tipped off the editor on their talk page 5 days ago, a warning Huldra also confirmed here 20:04, 4 August 2017

NMMGG’s 3 edits to the page when he stepped in on the 8th, did not alter the grammar ce I had introduced, so I took this version of the page as he left it, as indicating his acceptance that the consecutio temporum issue I fixed had a 3 to 1 consensus. Notwithstanding that, Robere insisted on reverting to his preferred ungrammatical version, reverting even NMMGG on this (to me, crucial point), adding that the PA police role is still disputed (well, no source was given for this, just as NMMGG gave no source, indeed contradicted the article, in plunking into the lead the unacceptable:

Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching

• I notified the page why this unsourced assertion, ambiguously implying the police were to blame, which is a caricature of the evidence lower down on the page, was unacceptable and had to be removed, providing 3 sources to show why, and then restored the page, with that emendment, which represented what I, Huldra and NMMGG appeared to accept, asking Revere and all, to set forth proposals on the talk page for discussion before just trying to get one’s own way.

NMMGG’s response was to accuse me of being the edit-warrior and threatening AE action if I didn’t revert, while acknowledging technically I hadn’t broken 1R (as had François Robere) (23:41, 8 August 2017)

NMMGG over several years has a quasi professional interest in anylysing the minutiae of every edit I make since he is convinced I am a major disgrace to wikipedia. He should know after several years that we are on different time zones and that when he made that warning I had been inactive for 2 hours, and when he made this AE complaint, there was no trace of my being online. I was sleeping.

He waited 2 hours and then 01:25, 9 August 2017‎ notified me he had reported me. Please note that NMMGG then, a few minutes later, notified Robere that he had broken 1R unambiguously 5 days earlier, offering assistance. Very very odd, since, as noted above, NMMGG had stepped into the fray, fully aware that Robere had been notified 5 days earlier by myself and Huldra, both of us taking no action against him. In short, double standards. NMMGG has a very low wiki profile, except to step in to disputes, esp. when I am present. Look at his contributions. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing. You are singling me out for for precisely what Robere did at the very outset, not accepting a small correction of his grammar, and reverting together with that, a notably large set of changes.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you are saying NMMGG was very 'generous' in not bringing the IR complaint against Robere but only me, implying that my restraint in not bringing that complaint 5 days earlier was not 'generous', an example of restraint not particularly evident in NMMGG's vexatious use of this page? Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robere, re ' it's the holy zeal of some, and the redundant rules of others'. The rules are not the private property of 'others'. They are institutional rules, above us all. You surely realize the profound irony that I am threatened with a sanction for not having broken the rule which you infringed and refused subsequently to respect by undertaking the obligatory revert? Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. If you have the 1R to heart, to the point of saying no one has a right to revert even after 24 hours, a peculiar reading, then why, when, examining that page before editing it, did you not drop a note to Robere for a day. It was, after all, his refusal to acknowledge the force of the strict 24 hour 1 revert rule which created diffidence. How can one edit or even discuss issues, was the reasonable deduction, when an editor refuses to acknowledge the fundamental rule of I/P editing? Worse still, he called request to be rule-obedient a technique of lawfare. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted François Robere after discussing with him on his talk page, telling him that he broke the 1RR rule. See User talk:François Robere. He refused to self revert, it didn't look as if he believed me, when qouted the rules. I reverted instead of taking the bother to report him. I promise: in the future I will just report him to AE instead.

Note that No More Mr Nice Guy appeared on the article in question, the 2000 Ramallah lynching after both Nishisdni and myself had edited it, and No More Mr Nice Guy had never edited the article before. Huldra (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my apologies, No More Mr Nice Guy has indeed edited the 2000 Ramallah lynching article before (I have no idea as to how I missed that.)

For me the choice was either to

• 1. Report User:François Robere for 1RR violation, or
• 2. Revert him.

I chose the second, as I hate all the bureaucracy of reporting other users. Apparently I should just have reported him. Noted. Huldra (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, there was no 1RR violation by Nishidani. There is some edit-warring by various sides going on. There is a long discussion going on at the talkpage where people are arguing various points. It's a bit heated, but no more than other discussions in this area. There have been compromises by people: for instance, see this edit by Nishidani which uses "accidentally" with attribution in the body. On the other side, after NMMNG made this wrong edit, Francois Robere rephrased it here.

I suggest full protection for a few days while the matter is sorted out on the talkpage. No other action is necessary. Francois Robere broke 1RR and refused to revert, but they're new in this area, so they should be warned and not sanctioned. Francois Robere thinks that invoking the 1RR rule is "lawfare"; it's not, it's simply one of the rules in this area to slow down edit wars and make people discuss on the talkpage. Indeed, Robere only started discussion on the talkpage after Huldra reverted them.

NMMNG's actions here are deeply cynical. They claim that they reported Nishidani to AE because giving people a chance to self-revert is no longer considered part of informal etiquette here; this claim in a situation where it was Nishidani and Huldra asked Francois Robere to self-revert but they refused, is rather baffling. NMMNG is just importing a dispute with another editor into this one for reasons best known to themselves.

I hope the norm in this area of people warning other people who break 1RR is maintained. Most people working in this area are "old hands". We don't need silly wars of attrition here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note about François Robere his made only one revert as his first was regular edit.Its already long established practice that if you not removing newly added text this is not considering a revert but rather edit.
• Nishidani clearly gamed the system my own topic ban for six months several years ago was exactly for that.Though I didn't broke 1RR I was sanctioned nevertheless.--Shrike (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. In this context, I consider it lawfare to invoke Wikipedia policies in order to enforce editorial/behavioral changes that are outside of those policies' intended effects. In this case the 1RR rule was invoked to suppress editorial changes that had nothing to with ideological differences between editors, which is what I assume 1RR was meant to address. This and other needless extensions of bureaucracy are a common complaint on Wikipedia and similar community-driven websites (see eg. [10][11][12]).
2. I'm generally content discussing any edit on the relevant talk page, but it's been my experience with the editor in question that they tend to rely on "how come" arguments rather than sources or domain knowledge, and care little for answering questions that are presented to them. They have thus reverted my changes multiple times without addressing pertinent issues that were raised in the talk page.
3. As a sidenote, I should stress my objection to and annoyance with wholesale reversion of an edit when one's only disagreement is with 1-2 small changes. Both Huldra and Nishidani have done so, and I've found myself needing to re-incorporate my otherwise-consensual changes into later revisions of the article (which were now reverted again), which was both excessive and needless.
4. I have no opinion regarding sanctions against any of the other editors as long as they let me edit in peace, and bring to the relevant talk page in a civil and appropriate manner any objection that they might have. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC),[reply]

GoldenRing:

• "reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces" which are presumably such due to differences in ideology, perceptions etc. As you well know, there are exceptions to that rule as well (vandalism being one), which means its drafters knew it should not apply in all cases; I'll argue that it shouldn't apply to edits that have little to do with factual or representational aspects of the article, but to grammar and style.
• "this is not the space to do it in": With the vast majority of my edits I encountered no objections; on many I collaborated or received assistance from other editors; with a few I found myself entangled in pointless discussions, long explanations on the machinations of common sense, and edit wars, that more often than not ended persisting my edits. Wikipedia can and should be a pleasant working environment and community for Wikipedians; it's the holy zeal of some, and the redundant rules of others, that occasionally prevent it from being one. François Robere (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "generous" of NMMNG to not report Francois Robere, it was calculated. Calculated to advance his editorial goals. There is exactly one person who violated the 1RR here, and it isnt Nishidani. That said, full protection seems the way to go here, with the version prior to any edit-warring locked in place and the "edit-warriors" locked on the talk page to achieve some sort of consensus. nableezy - 16:47, 9 August 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 leaning towards Kingsindian's solution here, though I'm not impressed with an editor who twice reverts a large edit over one word because it's "never been established," then three days later reverts twice to reintroduce that same word into the body of the article "but not in lead", and objects to the sentence, "Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching," because it "ain't grammastical" - as far as I can tell because it is missing a comma. I have a lot of sympathy for the complaint of François Robere at the talk page, if you object [to] that one word ("accidentally"), you can edit it out instead of undoing the entire revision. I'll wait for input from others, though. GoldenRing (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: 1RR is intended to reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces. If you think its application to you is a needless extensions of bureaucracy, you are going to find out otherwise pretty quickly. And if you want to be left to edit in peace, this is not the space to do it in. In this space, you have to edit collaboratively, with editors with whom you disagree. You might be new to this topic, but you are not new to Wikipedia, and you ought to understand all this. It's very generous of NMMNG to only bring a complaint against Nishidani, but I don't think I'd be happy with sanctions on only one side of this dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: You don't get to decide the scope of exceptions to 1RR. If you keep breaking 1RR over content and style, you're going to get blocked for it. And sure, it'd be lovely if Wikipedia was always a pleasant working environment. But there are subjects where people genuinely have very deep-seated disagreements and this is one of them. People are not going to just agree on everything. You don't get to decide how other people approach you, only how you react to them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:20, 9 August 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) 00:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Diaz (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 and WP:NEWBLPBAN

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

1. 22:00, 14 August 2017 !vote at RfC on Jared Taylor about "white supremacist" description Unless you can find a source saying that he embraced the labels, labeling him as a white supremacist is obviously defamatory and could land Wikipedia in legal trouble. He has also been described as both a white nationalist and a white supremacist by different sources, and WP:YESPOV says "If different reliable sources make conflicting(which is defined as incompatible or at variance; contradictory) assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Calling him a white supremacist against his word would be a blatant violation of NPOV and WP:LIBEL.
2. 5 August 2017 launched RfC at NPOV to prevent describing people as RS describe them, if this contradicts their self-description. It is about Spencer. This is not "dropping the stick" as they were advised at the ANI listed below.
3. diff and diff 3 May 2017 started edit warring over nationality of Jose Antonio Vargas (brought here as boy by Filipino parents, has become journalist and outed himself as undocumented in the NYT and has become a lightning rod for discussions of immigration policy) was reverted by User:Bbb23 and others per BLP.
4. diff and diff and diff 8 May continuation of above
5. diff and diff both on 29 July 2017 continuation of above
6. 10 August created template for people with Hispanic-American names.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 July 2017 ANI thread that boomeranged on The Diaz. The close reads The consensus here is that NeilN and DrFleischman did nothing wrong. The Diaz is advised to drop the stick on Richard Spencer and libel in general.
   • That ANI was prompted by reactions to this remark by The Diaz at the Spencer talk page: I'd also like to point out that calling Spencer a white supremacist could be considered defamatory, given the controversial label that it is. Wikipedia is quite clear that libelous material should be removed immediately. And yes, I've already heard someone tell me that it only applies to unsourced defamatory content, but the truth is that it's not said in that rule. No, this is not a legal threat by the way, I'm only trying to protect the Wikimedia foundation and its editors from litigation.
   • 12 July 2017 reminded of ANI outcome and User:NeilN's warning about making further legal threats, response was to revert with edit note Oh go fuck with someone else

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Per their edit count this account made its first edit Jun 17, 2016 and has about 1000 edits. They concentrate overwhelmingly on matters of nationality, race, murders, etc. which fall at the intersection of the US politics and BLP discretionary sanctions. They appear to have difficulty understanding basic principles of editing in such loaded topics, and the persistent bringing up of legal threats is especially unhelpful and in general it is not clear to me if they are here to build an encyclopedia.

• The August 14th diff (not stale) directly continues the behavior they were already warned about at the ANI - different white nationalist, same behavior.

Am giving you all the opportunity to stop ongoing disruption and prevent the more that is pretty clearly coming at the heavily loaded intersection of two sets of DS. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 August 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.

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

• Unless there's more, I'm inclined to close this without action or with a warning. The diffs at 3, 4 and 5 are somewhat troubling, but are also well stale. Their views on labels are perhaps counter to policy and certainly not going to win over a majority - but if the extent of their expression of those views is starting and !voting in RfCs, I'm not sure I see the problem. As for creating the template - what exactly is wrong with this? They requested a change of {{Spanish name}} to use 'Hispanic naming customs' instead of Spanish; they were told there are differences so they created a new draft template (see Template talk:Spanish name#Template-protected edit request on May 29, 2017, and bear in mind that this is probably about Wikipedia's treatment of their own name, as according to their userpage they are of Venezuelan ancestry and we could take a broad guess that "Diaz" is their surname). I can't see sanctions coming out of this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd close as no action. Everything is stale except the 10 August creation of Draft:Template:Hispanic American name, and the request does not make clear how this violates any Wikipedia conduct policy.  Sandstein  15:35, 15 August 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

GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Twitbookspacetube (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 (1932 cutoff) standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 : Standard discretionary sanctions on any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace

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

1. Special:Diff/795468237 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing
2. Special:Diff/795468959 - re-adding BLP-challenged material while discussion was ongoing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions I can find.

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.
• User has not been alerted to BLP DS as far as I can see, but has been alerted to AP2 DS - both are applicable here.
• Update the user has now been alerted to BLP DS but has continued reinserting the violations/contested material. GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This article is about a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd. I removed the name of the driver from the article on WP:BLPCRIME grounds, as he is not well-known and (obviously, having been charged in the past couple of days) has not yet been convicted of a crime. Rather than start a discussion on re-inclusion, User:WWGB reverted the removal on the grounds that it is well-sourced. I removed the material again, again citing BLPCRIME, and started a discussion on the article talk page. Thirty-seven minutes later, Twitbookspacetube reverted the removal again, citing the talk page discussion as consensus (four editors had commented, admittedly all for inclusion). We've since had another revert-cycle. Twitbookspacetube saw fit to report me to ANEW (closed by User:El_C as no-violation) and has complained, among other things, that I pinged him when replying to him (a grave offence, apparently) and of bludgeoning the discussion (see edit summaries of the diffs above) when I have made two comments on the talk page, one of which opened the discussion.

I requested at his talk page that he self-revert to let the discussion run its course and was told that I was gaming the system.

I ummed-and-ahhed about just blocking on BLP-violation grounds, but considering the talk page discussion is ongoing and I could be argued to be involved, brought it here instead.

• And apparently raising BLP issues at BLPN with an entirely neutral notice is canvassing and forum-shopping. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing to edit-war BLP violations into the article despite ongoing BLPN discussion - Special:Diff/795477358. GoldenRing (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They are now at 5RR 9RR 10RR on this article. GoldenRing (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MjolnirPants: fair point - [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. GoldenRing (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been pointed out elsewhere, the majority of their reversions on that page today are probably exempt from 3RR as they are reverting vandalism - leaving three times they have re-inserted material challenged on BLP grounds, while discussion were ongoing. GoldenRing (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good catch from Doug Weller. @Drmies:, @Sandstein: since this user is in fact subject to an unexpired 1RR restriction, does this not rather throw a different light on matters? According to WP:Editing restrictions#User:Barts1a, they have previously been banned from all noticeboards and "should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages"; given the direct dive for ANEW and the very abrasive response to discussions at BLPN and here, is it time to re-impose that sanction? Any uninvolved administrator can do so. GoldenRing (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/795471557

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.

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:BLUDGEONING at it's finest - the content that the filer is removing was in the article unchallenged until they came along with a WP:BLUDGEON and tried to beat down people that disagree with their removal of sourced content using a blatant misinterpretation of the relevant policy.

TL:DR: Facepalm Twitbookspacetube 13:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, after sleeping on it, I agree that the userbox was a bit too far in regards to BLP and would be willing to accept the 3 month topic ban proposed. However, I am still rather annoyed that an admin tried to WP:BLUDGEON their blatantly false misinterpretation of policy onto an article. But, said misinterpretation is certainly getting widespread opposition so I'm sure that it will eventually be completely shot down. I would, however, like to commend said admin for not also violating WP:INVOLVED with any administrative action against me, or anyone else in the content dispute. If such action had been taken, I would have a well justified second case to arbcom on the go about it by now for desysopping. Twitbookspacetube 02:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved but this caught my attention [23] I am not sure that such WP:ASPERSIONS casting is suitable for Wikipedia collaborative envoirment--Shrike (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in a similar situation to Shrike in that I happened to stumble across this issue. I don't see this particular issue of rising to the level of requiring AE, as there seems to be a strong consensus (so far) at the talk page not to remove the information GoldenRing removed. That being said, understand that I completely oppose this consenus, and find it to be a gross violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but I'm aware that consensus rules on WP. One thing I haven't seen is that Twitbookspacetube is at 9RR. @GoldenRing:, you claimed Twitbookspacetube to be at 9RR without posting evidence. I doubted you so I checked and you are off by 1: TBST has made 10 reverts to that page within a 24 hour period. They were to different edits, to be sure, but this looks like an WP:OWNership issue that might require a short page ban. I've left in but struck a point I initially typed above to help elucidate my line of thought as I wrote this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Correction accepted. Thank you for digging further into that. 4RR is still troubling, but not as troubling. I hesitated to mention the (now deleted) user box on TBST's user page, because I'm rather well known for essentially agreeing with the remaining anti-Trump userbox, and I'm not about to criticize an editor for broadcasting their own political views. (It's adds a lot of weight to their views when the editor !votes or opines against type.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that while I don't agree with GoldenRing's interpetation of WP:BLP in this particular instance, to the best of my knowledge, their objection is in good faith. Once an editor has raised a good-faith BLP objection, other editors should not be edit-warring contentious BLP material into an article without consensus. I'll also add that the diff that Shrike posted[24] is very troubling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I just added a note to the ANEW report, where I found that the nine reverts mentioned actually boiled down to maybe four--three reverts of the BLP material, and one minor one where one can easily argue that Twitbook reverted the unexplained removal of sourced content (please look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:GoldenRing_reported_by_User:Twitbookspacetube_.28Result:_No_violation.29 for more detail)--it should be obvious that this and this should be reverted as pure vandalism. Their "you're a Republican" comment is very, very unwise, of course, but that is really the only thing (besides foolishly not explaining all those smaller edits) I can fault them for--it may be enough in itself, but here we look for patterns. And finally, can I just say that "a current event in which someone drove a car into a crowd" is hardly a fair representation of what seems to have been happening? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here I am defending, to some extent, Twitbookspacetube, and then I run into User:Twitbookspacetube/bloodontrumpshands and User:Twitbookspacetube/UserboxTrumpMurders. Now these are admin only, but I deleted them as clear BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of those userboxes still shows up on their user page; a purge will take care of that I suppose. More importantly, I see that this is a supposed CLEANSTART account, which begs an important question or two... Drmies (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The originally reported diffs look like mere content disputes to me, but the userboxes above ("So far, Donald Trump's racist rhetoric has caused 1 death") are clearly WP:BLP and WP:NOT violations. Add to this that this is a "clean start" account created in November, and we must assume that there were some substantial problems with the user's conduct previously. Unless given reasons not to, I suggest a three-month BLP topic ban.  Sandstein  20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The article edits are indeed a content dispute. I don't see any clear BLP issue there since the information does indeed look to be clearly supported by reputable references. Since the article isn't under 1RR or any similar arbitration remedy or discretionary sanction, any edit warring there would be handled through the standard process for that. I do, however, agree that the userboxes were clear BLP violations, and would agree to the suggestion of a three-month ban from BLP (perhaps just American politics-related BLPs, since that seems to be the source of the trouble). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Ponyo noted on the editor's talk page "Twitbookspacetube is subject to a community imposed 1RR restriction via their Barts1a account, which I reminded them of here recently."[25] There Ponyo told the editor "Twitbookspacetube, I'm concerned regarding your creation of this account. You claim that it is a clean start, but I don't believe you are eligible for one due to your extensive history of blocks (with PantherLeapord and Barts1a), edit warring, and the editing restrictions associated with your Barts1a account. Of pressing concern is your return to admin/dispute noticeboards (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, and Example 4), an area that was a particular concern with regard to your behaviour. As you essentially outed yourself here, it is clear that this is an alternative account and not a clean start. It would be prudent for you to link to your previous account on your user page if you are serious about being transparent about your previous accounts. I would also suggest you discuss your editing restrictions with your previous mentor as I see your continued activity at noticeboards as a concern." The editor then thanks Ponyo for raising this. User:Twitbookspacetube claims a clean start with no link. Doug Weller talk 05:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you put all this together, and we have a serious problem here. Doug--I'm thinking that this account simply should be blocked until the editor offers a solution one way or another. Since the user returned to problematic areas, the clean start is out the door, and any previous topic ban should apply. Sandstein, do you have any thoughts on the clean start complication? Drmies (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that any disciplinary issues arising from the "clean start" are a matter for AE, and I don't have an opinion on whether a block (as a normal admin action) would be appropriate. Unless there are any objections, I'll shortly close this as a three-month American politics BLP topic ban, and any admin who thinks that a block is needed can impose it separately.  Sandstein  15:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I somewhat do object. The editor has clearly violated their 1RR restriction from the previous account. I'm minded to proceed with either an indef or a quite lengthy block for evading scrutiny, as well as an indefinite BLP ban based on the number of editing restrictions they're already subject to (though they don't have the greatest history of abiding by them). But to be quite honest, I'm leaning toward a flat indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh geez, I remember Barts1a (I didn't know he'd moved to a new account though). For what it's worth, he seems to be an order of magnitude more productive an editor now than he was back then, when he came this close (makes gesture with thumb and forefinger indicating 1mm) to getting indef blocked, but has apparently slipped back towards edit warring, getting involved in drama that doesn't affect him, and contentious subjects. It's not really textbook "evading scrutiny" when he publicly links the two accounts here, although it kind of feels evading-ish in spirit for not mentioning the restrictions or linking to the old account prominently. I agree with Sandstein's proposed AE topic ban, although I'm a little unclear if the topic area is American Politics, or BLP's, or both. I'd suggest both topics. I won't quibble with the 3 month duration, although I'd have probably chosen longer. I also agree that sanctions for violating unrelated community-based restrictions are not what AE is for, and this seems a little complicated (for example. the restrictions listed here don't match those listed here, and it's unclear who changed them and when). Since I'm not convinced an indef block is called for (he really is doing better now than he was several years ago), I'd suggest ANI. Either that, or some admin unilaterally reinstates the restrictions that were lifted by... somebody, and either gives a warning or a relatively short block for the 1RR violation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, unusual that Floq would be less harsh on it than I would. It still smells a lot like evading scrutiny, since it wasn't at all made obvious what the old accounts were, they were subject to restrictions, and the new account is flagrantly breaking them. All the same, if we want to try a 3 month post-1932 American politics ban (which seem to be where the BLP violations are a problem, so I'm not sure we need a blanket BLP ban as well), I'll go for that, with a short block for the blatant 1RR violation. But I'd strongly advise there be no more issues, and that the previous accounts be clearly linked, i.e., on the user page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd agree with that as well (I was also unaware of the link to previous accounts). Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 15 August 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

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Wuerzele_topic_banned :

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

1. Aug 3 Editing article within topic ban.
2. Aug 3 Edit warring previous content back after seeing their content was removed (with the edit summary notice).
3. Aug 11 Combative talk page comments after WP:GOODFAITH reminder of ban rather than coming straight here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Sept 2015 Blocked by Bbb23 for edit warring in GMO topics
2. Dec 2015 Topic-banned in GMO and pesticide topics by ArbCom

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a bit of an odd case. Wuerzele was one of the more problematic editors in GMO and pesticide topics, and was topic-banned in the initial ArbCom case. They violated their topic ban awhile ago, but that AE was closed by EdJohnston because Wuerezele immediately stopped editing for a few days once the report was made and didn't respond to the AE. The close also included a note that the case could be reopened if Wuerzele returned and issues were still coming up.

The diffs above are another set of topic ban violations. They came to Fipronil, an insecticide page which unambiguously falls within the topic ban, and started making edits. I reverted reminding them that they are topic banned, only to have them edit war the content they inserted back in. I also left a reminder at their talk page about the topic ban and that I was assuming they had forgotten rather than me filing an AE case (probably should have come here instead due to the edit warring in retrospect instead of the good faith assumption).

At this point, they stop editing for a few days immediately after they were called out on their topic ban again, just like the previous AE, so no case was filed until this weekend when they responded to my talk page notice rather vehemently (rather than deleting it due to their ban as I pointed out). I originally was going to let this slide as I mentioned on their talk page, but Wuerzele was topic banned in large part due to battleground behavior focused towards myself and a few others in the topic that's rearing its head in their comments. We also have a trend of Wuerzele avoiding administrative action by not editing for a few days after a topic ban violation, so I figured even if an admin wants to call this stale, it's better to have a continued record for future reference with the last AE in mind. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note Drmies on the WP:NOBAN related comment, but that specifically excludes administrative notices due to noticeboards, etc. I made it clear to Wuerzele they would have been getting an AE notice instead if I hadn't initially gone the good-faith route and renotified them of their topic ban just in case. The complaint at the talk page is rather silly in that sense given the then other option, but that kind of battleground escalation is why the topic ban was put in place. Had I posted more than what I did, that definitely would have gone outside the spirit of WP:NOBAN. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I didn't intend my reply above as interpreting you had a quarrel with my notification, so sorry if it came across that way. I was more so just clarifying the situation on that notification since you brought it up. Situations like that have history of being taken out of context by others in this topic if not clarified (thankfully things have settled for the most part though). Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

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.

They have been an abrasive editor.[27] They have been involved with edit warring [28]. I feel this is a wider concern than just the breach of their restriction. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These look like pretty obvious tban violations to me. @Wuerzele: do you have any explanation for these edits? GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long do we leave this open for? According to X!, this user is usually very active on Sundays and weekdays ([29]) yet they've disappeared since Saturday, when all this blew up. It's looking increasingly like a duck-and-dive to avoid sanctions. @Wuerzele: If we don't hear back in 48 hours from now, at least with some idea when you'll be able to respond fully, I intend to take action on this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone else wants to act, they're free to do so. For the minute, I don't see a problem letting this sit another day so long as they don't resume editing elsewhere. I agree that if there's no response then we're in for a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with GoldenRing. I might could let that talk page comment slide--perhaps they did ban Kingofaces from their talk page, and on one's own talk page one typically gets some leeway, but a topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Wuerzele, much will depend on your answer here. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • GoldenRing, do it. As far as I'm concerned 24 hours is enough. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingofaces, I think you misunderstood me: I have no quarrel with you or your notification; my point was about their response. Please note, BTW, how cleverly I let us have our cake and eat it too. :) We do need Wuerzele to respond quickly or things will end up poorly for them. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it even needs a response. These are obvious TBAN violations, and Wuerzele's response was basically "if you don't like it, go to AE". I would be looking at quite a significant block here. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Since Wuerzele is banned from both GM organisms and agricultural chemicals generally, their edits of Fipronil violate the ban. There don't seem to be any extenuating circumstances, and Wuerzele's absence from this discussion doesn't count in their favor. So I would support a one-week block for violating the TBAN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 18 August 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

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MehrdadFR (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

1RR vio:

1. 09:14, 17 September 2017 1st revert
2. 18:53, 17 September 2017 2nd revert

3RR vio (1 hour 15 minutes outside the 24Hr window):

1. 07:58, 16 September 2017 1st revert
2. 17:03, 16 September 2017 2nd revert
3. 19:28, 16 September 2017 3rd revert
4. 09:14, 17 September 2017 4th revert

WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA / WP:ASPERSIONS:

1. 20:14, 16 September 2017 - do not lie... You're manipulating, that's oblivious.... Please keep in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not outlet of a Jewish state
2. 09:24, 17 September 2017 - you're obviously a POV pusher

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 04:51, 11 March 2015 Edit warring block 1
2. 05:33, 6 July 2015 Edit warring block 2
3. 18:40, 13 January 2016 Edit warring block 3
4. 14:24, 26 January 2016 Edit warring block 4

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.

10:13, 17 September 2017 alerted - this was prior to his latest 1RR. During the 4RR sequence he was not technically alerted to ARBPIA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Page was placed in ECP + ARBPIA 16:54, 12 September 2017 after a high-frequency edit war between IPs on this same issue. In addition, prior to the DS alert, the user was also warned he was in violation of 1RR by myself on his talk 19:45, 16 September 2017, and by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) in an edit summary 09:17, 17 September 2017.

Addendum: 15:51, 18 September 2017 is a further 1RR vio in relation to the 18:53, 17 September 2017 revert (2nd revert above).Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC) 16:00, 18 September 2017 Is yet another.Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

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.

Situation here is pretty obvious, AMIA attack is legally unsolved case and that's an undeniable fact, and few activists are desperately trying to change it and promote one-sided politically motivated accusations, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Everything can be found on Talk:AMIA bombing in detail: investigate journalists are deleted from article (WP:CENSORED), as well as five other scholarly sources, books by lobbyist organization such as WINEP are promoted, and so on. Involved user obviously invited his fellow Israeli to vandalize article, and then they play on alleged "consensus" and "1RR" card. --MehrdadFR (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was protected on September 12 by Samsara because of the Arbitration case (here). As I first became aware of such arbitration then, I added {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} to the article talk page, just in case, on September 17 (here). The discussion escalated anyway, so on September 18 I pinged both users to remind them of those discretionary sanctions here. Then I was informed that this AE had been already filled. Checking the background a bit more, I noticed that MehrdadFR had already been warned and then deleted the warnings. Then, he broke the 1RR: here MehrdadFR deletes and replaces a lot of info, Icewhiz reverted him here, and MehrdadFR restored his edit here (all the same day, September 18). Cambalachero (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm not much interested either way in the Arab-Israeli dispute. I watch this article because I usually work with articles about the politics in Argentina, and the AMIA bombing is a frequent topic of news, even to this day (I also created the related articles Alberto Nisman and Memorandum of understanding between Argentina and Iran). Cambalachero (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Clear violation of the 1RR restriction, with a history of relevant blocks. The response here indicates a WP:BATTLE approach to editing. MehrdadFR is blocked for a week, and as a discretionary sanction banned from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for six months.  Sandstein  16:58, 18 September 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

HidariMigi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive178#Tillman :

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:CIV and threat of intimidation:

1. 23 September 2017 - Tillman posts a personal attack directed at me on the Ross McKitrick Talk page (“Don't you have better things to do in your Real Life? Give this a break, OK?"); although he had already been advised that continuing to edit within that article, even on its talk pages, was a violation of his topic ban.

1. 24 September 2017 - Receiving no reply in the day since his last comment, Tillman posts an threat on my User Talk page, stating he has “opened a file” on my behaviour; threatening that he is “considering filing a formal [BLP] complaint” against me which, "You won't find responding there to be much fun.” He further attempts some sort of chilling intimidation, "This would be a fine time (imo) for you to take a break from editing Ross McKitrick. I'll be watching."

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

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

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

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

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

• Tillman is obviously aware of the sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Balancing out his positive edits, he is habitually uncivil to editors he disagrees with, issuing threats to make things unpleasant for them (such as to myself, and for example, Jess, [31], [32]).

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

25 September, 2017

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.

What appears to have brought this on: A note by me at the complainong editor's talk page, [33]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Khirurg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC :

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

Taunting editors about past blocks. This is very common.

1. "Anyway the more you comment here, i am not surprised by your block."
2. "Probably no shock as to why you got blocked"
3. "On blocks you have fine form over time"
4. "who also has a history of past blocks"
5. "and claim the usual edit warring gibberish. Whe\n he held the username ....., he had form in that area

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

1. "do not feed the trolls

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

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

1. "when he used the username...
2. doubles down
3. I tell him to stop
4. his reaction

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

1. [34]
2. I tell him not to
3. his response
4. and again

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

This behavior by Resnjari is persistent and has been going on as long as he has been editing Balkan topics ([35] [36]). Many of his comments are clearly intended to get under the skin of Greek editors without crossing the line into overt name calling. It has helped him avoid incivility blocks so far, but taken as a whole, his talkpage behavior contributes to a permanently charged and highly negative atmosphere to Balkan topics. Any discussion where Resnjari get involved quickly devolves into a circus where such snide remarks and taunts are bandied about. I find it particularly bothersome that when told not to do something that he knows bothers other editors, he doubles down.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Recently blocked for edit-warring

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

Warned of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

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.

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

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

was in response to a discussion about Albanian Wikipedia. The editor in question said some unbecoming things [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] about Albanian wiki administrators (who were not informed of the discussion) accusing them of "extreme nationalism", "stubborn", "childish behavior", "childish excuses" and so on. That editor made their own block part of the discussion [43]. The editor also kept persisting with that wording and i said i was not surprised by their block by Albanian administrators. I did make offers to that editor for a solution [44] and did reach one with another Greek editor in a civil way [45], [46]. I am all for keeping civility in a discussion, but editors that cannot give a right of reply while having their reputations tarnished through allegations on other Wikipedia projects, what then of civility in that instance? On privacy issues, the filing editor has no qualms in bringing up issues over the past in reference to myself (as shown here), while sidelining his own behavior toward me due to him changing his username. Both accounts are linked and there is multiple edits of that kind. His past actions have been highlighted because they were uncivil like questioning my cognitive faculties, deleting my comments on talkpages when they violated no policy or guidelines -as it was in relation to dealing with POV related content in an article. Then there was calling my comments "rants" and even accusing me once of violating a 3rr rule and then had to withdraw because i did not. And that's just with me. To the filing editor, i ask how is that conducive to establishing good rapport? To the administrators, if i place links to all that evidence here, because it’s his old username will i get sanctioned? That is what he is inferring i guess. Or is a change of username considered a clean break? Those interactions of the very recent past with the filling editor, i found it all quite offensive.

In the Ilirpedia case, the filing editor took unilateral actions of deletion instead placing something on the new editors talkpage so i personally thought it was a repeat of past interactions i have had with him. In the talkpage, the word "trolls" was in the sentence as i pasted the title and weblink to a wiki guideline which has that term in the title [47]. If its an issue, then Wikipedia itself should remove it. In the end i asked the administrator for advice and clarification on the matter, it was resolved [48]. I cannot go back in time and stop what happened and neither can he. All one can do, well on my part is reflect and importantly be careful in the future from now on. If i have caused offence within the Wikipedia community i sincerely apologise. My purpose over the nearly 10 years that i have been a Wikipedia editor is to above all else bring the quality of content on articles that i can make an actual contribution to a level befitting of an encyclopedia. That is my aim. I have only ever once been blocked in that whole time (for 24 hours) and it was over a trivial matter very recently, as is pointed out.

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

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

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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Motion:_ARBPIA_.22consensus.22_provision_modified :

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

Har Adar

1. 19:39, 26 September 2017 Removes that this place is an Israeli settlement
2. 20:14, 26 September 2017 Does so again after having been reverted.

• 2017 Har Adar shooting

1. 18:06, 26 September 2017 Removes that it is a settlement
2. 19:26, 26 September 2017 Again

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned May 2016

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[49]

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.

(EM Gregory talk page stalker) I note that EM Gregory self-reverted at about the time of the filing of this AE. [50] I don't think waiting a few minutes before filing this would have killed anyone. Coretheapple (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

My mistake, for which I apologize. In a bit of cosmic irony, I had just finished making this comment [51] and was about to log off (because I was running late for a real life obligation); I responded hastily but sincerely [52]. I honestly did not immediately see what he was on about, so I urged him to fix whatever it was. As I packed up what I needed for my relal life obligation, I thorough through the fact that I had noticed a discrepancy between info in 2017 Har Adar shooting and what Isabel Kershner was reporting in the New York Times, info that was also appearing in the Jerusalem Post. I had changed to the wording according to those 2 sources from (paraphrasing here,) in the West Bank to straddling the Green Line, or something of the sort. Then both of us had gone to double-check, and both had added info from the same university press book to Har Adar page, but to different sections on that page so that I had not seen his edit at first, and had then consolidated the two citatoions and left what I thought was good wording on the page. As soon as I realized that the changes I had made to Har Adar must have been what Nableezy was complaining about, I logged back in, reverted what seemed to have been the offending edit, and rushed off. I just logged in to discover that this had been taken here. I confess to being guilty of carelessness, of forgetting the arcane rules that apply to I/P while editing what felt like routine facts in yet another terrorism article ( I do a lot of editing of terrorism attacks), of forgetting that in I/P even in a minor wording dispute you have to not revert - these rules do not apply in other controversial areas where I work, (like American politics) or even in the case of very similar articles where the attack occurs in Australia or France. Mea culpa. mea maxima culpa. I cannot promise never to make another mistake or never to forget or to not be aware of a rule, but I do promise to try harder and, especially, to remember my recurring resolve to stay out of the Middle East. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Avaya1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Motion: ARBPIA (December 2016) :

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

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

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

1. 15 September 2017, I removed the image, citing consensus on the talk page.
2. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
3. 18 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.
4. 26 September 2017, Avaya1 reverted me.
5. 26 September 2017, I reverted Avaya1.

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

1. 18 September 2017, Avaya1 made series of edits
2. 20 September 2017, other user partly revert him, with summary: "restoring more recent cited figures to box"
3. 20 September 2017, Avaya1 perform full revert, with summary: "removed for some reason"

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

1. 22 September 2017

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 September 2017

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA :

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

1. 25 September 2017 The reported user added a material and made a new subsection.
2. 27 September 2017 I removed a part of the material per WP:SYNTH.
3. 27 September 2017 I removed another part per WP:SYNTH
4. 27 September 2017‎ He reverted me and restored his material, less than 24 hrs after I had done the edit.
5. 27 September 2017 I notified him regarding the sanction being applied to the article and asked him for a self-revert.
6. 27 September 2017 At first he accepted and made the self-revert.
7. 27 September 2017 He again restored the disputed content.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• I had notified him regarding the sanction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He's notified.

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.

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

1. I don't think Psychonot's violated 1RR, as some 48 hours elapses between Psychonot's original edit and the revert. I might however be wrong in interpreting the rule.
2. Mhhossein himself clearly violated 1RR quite recently in Ali Khamenei ([53] + [54], revert here - [55] 12 hours later), and it took quite a bit of explaining on his talk page (without threatening to bring this to AE) to get him to self-revert - [56] [57] [58]. I'll note that this warning was both due to the "original author" clause (which Mhhossein has cited Psychonot for), and for the original action being a revert.
3. Mhhossein's actions in filing an SPI investigation against me and attempting to open an SPI investigating against User:Dr.K. after a content dispute over whether Newsweek was RS (!!!!) on Ali Khamenei - were a recent subject at ANI - ANI archive: Open an SPI: A new form of disruption at an article covered by WP:ARBPIA.
4. In the past two weeks in Ali Khamenei Mhhossein has been edit-warring with several different editors, and to my opinion is not acting per NPOV.
5. Mhhossein has quite recently 12:39, 27 September 2017 WP:CANVASSed a single editor to support his views on the talk page.
6. While some of Mhhossein's edits are constructive, I think WP:BOOMERANG should be considered.Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - I just got accused by Mhhossein of HOUNDING - 06:10, 28 September 2017 - presumably (6 minutes after) for posting this AE comment (which is on my watchlist) on Ali Khamenei (which is on my watchlist as well, as well as being involved in the on-going editing and discussion there) - and this from an editor with whom I've actually had fairly little interaction with outside of Ali Khamenei Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:, @Sandstein: - Talk:Ali Khamenei (as well as topics such as Talk:Nuclear program of Iran) has an Arab-Israeli arbcom notice. While Iranians are definitely not Arab, post 1979 (and particularly post-1988) Iran has been an active side to the conflict - supporting Islamist Shia (Hezbollah) and Sunni (e.g. Palestinian) factions at various times and has allegedly been involved in various proxy/espionage/revolutionary-guards/etc conflicts with Israel. Iran is stated by many sources to be Israel's chief regional adversary from the decline (1991) and susequent fall of Saddam's Iraq - so I could see why this would make sense, even if the name is not appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This content dispute is about Iran‘s nuclear weapons activities. How does this relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Iran isn‘t even an Arab country.  Sandstein  06:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing as not actionable. Even insofar as this content might be seen as broadly relating to the geopolitical conflict between Israel and Iran, that conflict isn't part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The article about Khomeini is covered by the WP:ARBPIA sanctions only insofar as it relates to Khomeini's or Iran's involvement in the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Sandstein  20:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, I fail to see the relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Icewhiz Yes, it's true that Iran has involved itself at times in the Arab-Israeli conflict. So has the United States. But that does not mean that every action undertaken by the Iranian or US military is now ARBPIA-related. Of course, actions undertaken by any country to directly intervene in the Arab-Israeli conflict are covered under ARBPIA, but only those particular ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:16, 28 September 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

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. 28 September 2017 Made edit for the 4th time, after receiving DS alert.
2. 28 September 2017 Repeatedly making the same controversial edit after being warned, with no discussion on Talk page.
3. 28 September 2017
4. 28 September 2017

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheAaliyahJones&curid=55375936&diff=802858589&oldid=802856936

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 user has ignored the prominent 1RR edit notice and talk page warnings, evidently to promote the fringe theory that Heather Heyer died of a heart attack and not from being brutally killed by a car. Without a doubt, they should be blocked to prevent more of the same.- MrX 22:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both the specific obscure news story used as a cite, and the underlying misrepresented claim, were posted to both 4chan's /pol/ and 8chan a few hours ago, along with a a call to add this to the Wikipedia article. I doubt this is the only time this has happened, either. This editor's talk page post about being a journalism major working on a project, casting Heyer's death as "controversial" and getting salty about how Wikipedia is always "begging for donations" while threatening to tell their peers... it's too cute by far. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The article is under 1RR restriction as part of DS. The user reverted four times. Volunteer Marek  06:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editor states " I'm completing a project detailing why Wikipedia is not generally accepted as a reliable source of information in academia." On their talk pageI've both commented on it and asked them for information so we can contact whoever is running it. I doubt that it is an academic project, but if it is it's a bad research design. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had made a filing at the ANI but removed it when I saw this on the users talk page. Would just like to mention that they have continued this morning,

• 11:58, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=802934185&oldid=802896263
• 12:05, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unite_the_Right_rally&diff=802935201&oldid=802934413

Also of note are 2 talk page discussions at Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#Cause_of_death and Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally#statements_from_Heyer.27s_mother where most editors feel the material should not be included. ‎ TheAaliyahJones did not participate in either.

Thank you. ValarianB (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don’t see this as actionable in this form. The request does not explain which specific conduct policy these edits violate and why.  Sandstein  06:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the info about 1RR. @GeneralizationsAreBad: The 1RR editnotice was placed by you, so I suppose you should determine what enforcement is warranted.  Sandstein  08:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the user continued to restore the same controversial information this morning, I have blocked for 48 hours and logged the sanction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]