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

Request concerning Nishidani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[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 :

Specifically Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.

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

1. 28.9.16 Personal attack in the claim that I am "drifting", in the claim that I argue "from self-esteem". WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT claim that my objections are not policy/guideline-based.

He acted precisely in the same manner the last time we disagreed on the talkpage of an IP-conflict related article, Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar, with blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior.[1] The insults were at other pages during that same time.[2][3]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_11#Amendment_request:_Debresser_.28August_2016.29.
• Was warned recently.[4]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

Further comments

@Kingsindian Content dispute? This post is about incivility in a very specific and sensitive area, where there exist clear standards of behavior, that have been violated. This post is about tendentious editing. When an editor asks for a policy/guideline even after it has been provided again and again, and does so on various talkpages, to create the false impression as though those who disagree with him refuse to reply to his "legitimate" request, and thereby show them as though illegitimate, that is extremely disruptive behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy If all you see in this post is a complaint about the words "drifting", then you are either trying to deliberately mislead editors here, or you are completely unfit to edit articles in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@All I find it telling that editors with a well know POV try to make it look as though this post is about some triviality. This post is about a very smart editor, who knows how to hide his blatant POV and tendentious editing behind a mask of adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but is guilty of minor but systematic transgressions for years now, and it is about time he is called to answer for that. This WP:AE post is about what just a small example of that behavior, which I hope suffices to get him warned or temporarily topic banned, and my hope and expectation is that Nishidani will see it as a warning and mend his ways. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani Why do you say I represent the Israeli point of view?[6] (and many more edits that prove I am a good editor, who does not let his personal opinions stand in the way of good editing) Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Wordsmith If all you saw in my report is 1 mildly standoffish comment, then I suggest you read it again. Shame on you. Debresser (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount Nice collection. In my post I only wrote about his insults to me, not other editors, and even there you found another good example I had already forgotten about, since this way of denigrating talk has become expected from Nishidani. The only correction I would like to make to your post is minor, that I didn't "boil over", rather calmly reached the decision to post here in an attempt to finally stop Nishidani's POV pushing. I am glad to see my take on Nishidani's editing is shared by other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ijon Tichy You are falling in Nishidani's trap too. I don't have to quote the policy page to quote policy! If I say something is not reliably sourced, do I have to provide a link to WP:RS? If I say something is not relevant, e.g., do you really need a link to a policy page, or is it evident that information should be relevant? Debresser (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani 1. A suggestive question is not a reliable source, even if the person who asked it would be a reliable source if he made a clear statement. One of the two uninvolved editors who replied at WP:RS/N said so specifically. 2. With only two uninvolved editors replying at WP:RS/N and one of them saying "In short, it is not encyclopedic." and the other "The only question I see is if his comments *should* be included. Which would be an NPOV issue. Personally I favour inclusion but there might be a slight BLP issue", how did Nableezy, or anybody else for that matter, reach the conclusion that the WP:RS/N was in your favor? That is delusional! It is precisely this type of behavior - deliberately misrepresenting consensus, and other types of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior - that I think warrants that Nishidani be sanctioned. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Wordsmith I see no reason to make this about anybody but Nishidani, whose behavior has been most polarizing and uncivil. I think the clear conclusion of all the material brought here is that Nishidani, and he alone, should be admonished to be civil and to respect the opinions of other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

This is vexatiously piddling, and coming quickly in the wake of Debresser's earlier problems here (arguing without regard to policy), doesn’t look like he has absorbed the lesson. Indeed, above in the indictment, he expressly shows that he has not accepted that verdict by directly referring to my behavior at Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar and citing as evidence a diffwhere I pleaded with him to drop the chat and argue from policy. He was sanctioned for refusing to listen.

This is essentially a clash over whether the same interpretation of the rules should be applied to events regarding Israeli victims of terrorism, and Palestinian victims of terrorism, regardless of the ethnicity involved. I insist that editors are obliged by WP:NPOV to adopt the same criterion everywhere. Several Israeli victim pages include the names of the injured. No one objects. When I added the names of Palestinians maimed in an Israeli terrorist attack, Debresser suddenly objected. After 14 years of wikipedia, that one can still hairsplit and argue the point to exhaustive attrition on very simple policy guidelines in the I/P area is a further sign that it is totally dysfunctional. The seriousness of commitment can be generally judged by a simple glance at the edit history of each editor: who is actually constructing an article, and whose edit record consists mainly in raising objections to the addition of content, by revert and then by engaging in extenuating wikilawyering on the talk page. Since I have interests I in both areas I am never obstructed if I go and write up, say, to cite a recent example, Elio Toaff, I can triple the content in a day, undisturbed: if I touch the I/P area I am drawn into absurd melodramas over the simplest edits, which are contested, reverted or challenged at sight.

Regarding the specific complaint. Debresser in opening a thread to challenge my addition made an insinuation about my motives. I made the briefest of responses to this WP:AGF violation, and asked that one focus on policy, as did the other editor. Debresser’s comments here, here, here, here, and and here, are void of policy considerations. This is exactly the substance of the complaint made at the earlier arbitration case regarding him. He keeps talking past requests for policy justifications for his position, trusting in his opinions or suspicions. Having started the thread motivating his challenge by a personal insinuation against me, he ended it by protesting I had not observed WP:NPA, and jumped at an opportunity to report me.

When I asked him for the nth time to respond by policy his answer was I am applying good editing rules to this article

It is this that I referred to in the diff he adduces. In my judgment, his repeatedly ignoring requests to cite a policy ground for his objection, and, when asked to focus, simply replying ‘I am applying good editing rules to the article,’ sounds to be like an argument from self-esteem. To answer a request for a policy reason with the riposte:’I am a sound editor’ is to privilege a confidence in one’s own personal judgment over logic, policy and the reasoned objections another editor might raise. I.e. self-esteem gets the better of a neutral rule-based system of collaboration.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to Debresser's link to the warning on my page by Lord Roem, I responded here, and I think my record since will show I have hewed closely to that advice.Nishidani (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kingsindian. All reports are based on 'content disputes'. The difference is, is the dispute being handled by respect for the rules, i.e. policy, or not. If an editor, as Debresser in the Mahmoud Abbas case, and, I believe here, refuses to cite policy when repeatedly requested to do so, it is no longer a content dispute, but a behavioural issue. He had 3 months for that, which he leveraged back to a month. Fine, that was fair. I'm bewildered as to why he would try to get back at me on such trivial evidence for insisting he just begin, after 90,000 edits and a sanction, to adopt solid policy grounds to oppose edits. I should add that I do not want a sanction: I'd like to see Debresser simply warned strongly to take to heart the advice he was given when he was sanctioned. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debresser by this and this, you are suggesting I am such a subtly devious editor I get away with pushing a blatant POV, and that my recourse to policy is just a ‘mask’.

I take care, among other things, to try and see to it that the Palestinian side of the conflict is fairly represented just as numerous editors (like yourself) edit the Israeli side of the conflict to ensure fairness. I don't see the latter as being 'blatant' because they represent a POV. That's their job and it is perfectly respectable. The only thing is that both perspectives must accept that there are 2 points of view to be described, not one. WP:NPOV is obtained by balancing POVs, not by erasing one of them as ‘blatant’. If you think our interaction is to be governed by a suspicion, as you declared recently that my contributions are to be read as ‘inspired by’ this ‘blatant’ POV, then anything I attempt to register is subject to challenge, not on policy grounds, but by reference to my putative bias. Were that principle adopted, no one would be allowed to edit the I/P area. All policy reasons can be dismissed as a ‘mask’, which, effectively, may throw light on why you ignore repeated calls to cite policy. If it’s a ‘mask’, policy for you becomes meaningless or a pretext: it need not be addressed because your diffidence about the editor’s supposed ulterior motives is enough for you to oppose this or that edit. That way of thinking creates obvious problems here.Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The premise of the load of diffs AnotherNewAccount provides is that one should not discuss in detail proposed edits on the talk page. One of the deepest problems here is the profound unfamiliarity of many editors with the history of this area. Time and again, one is dragged into detailed explanations about the most trivial issues because many editors appear to not have familiarized themselves with the technical or scholarly literature. Indeed, offense is taken if one tries to set down facts or authoritative interpretations on a talk page, and they are airily dismissed as WP:SOAP. I thought collegiality meant consensus building through ample discussion. Nope. Shut up. If a group of editors assert that:'The Golan Hights is within Israel', one sets out the documentation. If they wikilawyer it, and are reminded that this view is that adopted, singularly, by the ruling Likud party and is authoritatively endorsed by the Likud Prime Minister, they feel insulted. My point was, by all means defend an 'Israeli official POV', but do not try to enter as a fact a specific party position with the complex constellation of Israeli politics. It is a running complaint since 2010 by members of either Likud or Yisrael Beiteinu, which is part of the present coalition, that Wikipedia maps of Israel do not show the Golan Heights, and that funding and courses are in place to get young students to register on Wikipedia and change the maps.

In any case, this is the 10th or 11th time I've been dragged into AE over 6 years, a venue I myself have used with great austerity, only once, against a sockmaster who represented an Israeli pro-settler NGO, and was permabanned. It seems to be a popular pastime. I don't know if the point is to wage a war of attrition to get me to retire in exhaustion, or swing a permaban. Speculation is pointless. Once more, all I can say is that if any diff above, checked in context, seems to suggest my behavior is problematical, then I'm quite willing to respond to any administrative challenge.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As to hasbara, it is not a put down term by Israel's enemies. It is what the Israeli Likud-lead government funds since 2013, providing scholarships to students willing to 'defend Israel' by writing on social media, such as Wikipedia.It is endorsed by Binjamin Netanyahu.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kamel Tebaast. Could you please refrain from confusing what is developing into a complex complaint. Taking me to task for putatively 'intellectualizing' Ariel Sharon' (?) by my having mentioned the facts established concerning his career ((duly documented on the pages you link) is extremely obscure and serves no evidential basis. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debresser. I can't let you get away with your latest assertion you know policy. This is the record you allude to.

*(1) I am not disputing that Gilbert Achcar is a reliable source 13:04, 24 July 2016

*(2) How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? 14:08, 24 July

• (3)How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? 23:06, 24 July 2016
• (4) Nor is the source reliable, because there is only a suggestive question 09:51, 25 July 2016

I.e. In response to repeated requests by 2 editors to clarify what you meant by 'Reliable Source' you said Gilbert Achcar, one of the world's foremost authorities on the Arabs and the Holocaust, was reliable, but not if if his quote contains a question. Then you said he wasn't reliable. You then repeated that your objections are policy based, refusing again to speak policy.

• (5) Since my objections are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you have not been able to refute them, or to show any serious consensus here, the text must go 18:56, 25 July 2016
• (6) Do I need to quote policies to prove that on Wikipedia as a matter of policy information must be relevant, and reliably sourced? I don't think so! 18:52, 26 July 2016

There is no other descriptive word for the above than WP:STONEWALLING/WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

• So Nableezy did the due thing. He took the 2/1 impasse to the RS/N. The verdict of two was not in Debresser's favour. His response?
• (8) WP:RS/N seem to agree with me, that is not a reliable source. . 23:35, 26 July 2016

Even blind Freddy and his dog, sniffing at the RS/N discussion, should be able to twig that Debresser's response is farcical. Such are the rewards for trying to get some useful information into an encyclopedia anyone can edit (stuff out of).Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(A suggestive question is not a reliable source)

This repeated statement only proves you have no familiarity with WP:RS. A reliable source is what is acceptable for articles. Whether a recognized RS can be cited for an opinion is answered (yes, with inline attribution, at WP:OPINION), on that page. Whether such an opinion, when it contains an observation modulated as a rhetorical question (your point) can be quoted, is covered nowhere in wiki policy. That is your opinion, and is nowhere underwritten by wikipedia guidelines. We are supposed to be rule-governed here, to stop subjective opinion or bias from disrupting editing.

I still persist, despite all evidence to the contrary, in believing (perhaps it is one of my irrational(counter-factual) beliefs) that rationality, and things like simple addition, have some function in the world and its workplaces. This is not a content dispute. It is about the ability to read accurately both policy and sources, and evaluate them with detachment.

Nableezy and Nishidani were for inclusion. Debresser was for exclusion (2/1)

Third party input was asked for by Nableezy at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

The question posed was: is Gilbert Achcar RS?

Grammar's Li'l Helper said he would not answer that specific request, but noted one could question whether the quote, being an opinion, was relevant to the page.

Only in death does duty end wrote ‘Achcar is undoubtedly an expert in the field in which he is commenting. So he satisfies the 'RS' part for the purposes of inclusion.’ He too asked whether it ‘should’ be included.

This means, as to its RS status, Grammar's Li'l Helper would not comment; and Only in death does duty end said it qualified. Neither replied to clarifications, meaning one external editor said that Nableezy and myself were correct in claiming Achcar is RS (3/1). You had a 3/1 verdict that Achcar was RS: 2 opinions wondered whether it should be included, but didn’t say it couldn’t. You refused to accept that verdict. Your own opinion, without any policy grounding, was that it must not be included. If you read the whole page Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli or pro-Israeli opinion is quoted saying Abbas is Israel’s best partner for peace (Efraim Sneh); Abbas is Israel’s strategic asset (most Israeli insiders); Abbas is profoundly corrupt (Elliott Abrams, Jonathan Schanzer); that Jewish groups suspect his writings show Holocaust denial. What your editwarring did was challenge, citing as a guideline WP:BRD, which is not a wiki policy, an overview opinion by one of the most deeply informed scholars in this specific field (not a politician or partisan as the others) dealing with the contradiction in Israel’s policy regarding figures like Mahmoud Abbas. Reaction? Stop! Any source pointing out a contradiction regarding Israel's attitude to Abbas is intolerable, and one must stonewall to exhaustion until one gets rid of it. Nishidani (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don’t mind being held up to higher standards than people who complain about me are, I don’t report them, they know they’re free to say with impunity that I spout ‘pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook; that I have an 'obsession to demonize Israel while promoting a Palestinian nationalist agenda, that in my writing this innocuous analogy an editor can lash out smearing me as someone who pushes the Israel-nazi analogy, a useful idiot or, as NMMGG (just after using this kind of language to interlocutors) says I provoke by introducing ‘gratuitous analogies’ (meaning Israel=Nazis). I find it odd that this multiple crossfire, often envenomed, what I put up with on a daily basis for years as I plug away actually creating articles, is all immaterial. If Debresser's complaint has substance, by all means feel free to apply a sanction, no problem. But apply the same yardstick to all the other diffs made by those supporting that indictment. Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fine which what seems to be the closing verdict below, and undertake to try and pull my socks up. Just one thing that should be cleared up. I don't like this repeated insinuation hanging over me like a dark cloud: Scarpia is correct I made no analogy between Israel and Nazi Germany. I made an analogy between two soldiers killing themselves in close combat on their home territory, one Jewish Russian, one Hamas Palestinian. That does not mean I have some 'personal admiration for Hamas' methods'. To the contrary. Military men think differently than tabloids - I grew up listening to men who fought in 5 wars. They would have thought of such analogies as the IDF's former chief of staff, Benny Gantz does:'There were some Hamas actions during Operation Protective Edge which, had they been committed by the IDF, we would have dragged brigades to the Western Wall for a thanksgiving prayer and praised them "that whole night".' That is another of my dreaded analogies. They are the foundations of NPOV. Detachment, realism, reading in depth beyond the tabloid spin, neutrality, so that the reading public can see all sides of the picture. Encyclopedias are not comic books. They are supposed to illuminate comprehensively, not comfort one side by caricature. Now, can we all get back to editing?Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani[edit]

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

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

Content dispute. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does the mass of diffs in AnotherNewAccount have to do with the original request? Are people simply allowed to randomly throw mud against the wall hoping something will stick?

The discussion at Talk:Israel#Map_of_Israel is about borders of the map of Israel. One position, which was the original one, is to show Israel's boundaries under international law, namely the Green Line. The problem is that Israel does not consider these the legal boundaries and claims some territories outside these lines. Some random drive-by editor removed the map saying that the Golan Heights isn't included in the map, so it's invalid. This led to an interminable, and so far inconclusive discussion, though we seem to be close.

Nishidani's points, contrary to AnotherNewAccount's characterization, are about the content and take the position of international law. There is a contrary argument which some people make on the talkpage: whatever the status of international law, one should at least show territories over which Israel has "de-facto control". The details are very thorny; see the comment I made here.

Now, because of repeated edit-warring, some people, including me, have made several compromise proposals, which people can read on the talkpage. As far as I know, Nishidani agrees with my proposal.

This absurd diff dump by AnotherNewAccount, who has never participated on the talkpage, is silly. As I pointed out here, AnotherNewAccount considers what other people write to be "childish rubbish", and talk pages to be "lunatic asylums", so this is not surprising. I'm sure this approach is very civil and constructive. It's easy to snipe from afar with no consequences for doing so.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Jesus christ, somebody says youre drifting and thats a "personal attack" that requires coming to AE?

Statement by AnotherNewAccount[edit]

Debresser clearly filed this in frustration after several run-ins with Nishidani of late. I haven't been here the last few days, but up until then I was observing Nishidani's conduct on Talk:Israel, which included some extremely insulting putdowns of several editors including Debresser, despite being asked several times to stop. Also stonewalling, soapboxing, and tendentious nitpicking over precise details to justify the retention of a map that clearly failed to reflect the reality of complete Israeli control of the Golan Heights - which he refused to accept for ideological reasons.

• [7] Pretty much his first comment in the discussion was a POV-push, apparently Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights was "snapping off territory gained in war" while Russia's annexation of Crimea was merely "resumption of its 2 centuries+ sovereignty".
• [8] Bad faith characterization of other editors' reasonings.
• [9] Implication of the invalidity of a forming consensus (that the article's map should show, in light green, the disputed area of the Golan Heights, which Israel has controlled and ruled unimpeded for almost fifty years) as he considered it formed by merely an "ad hoc majority of people strongly attached to Israel". (Incidently, his later attempt to get "neutral input" over on WikiProject Maps was slapped down when a genuinely neutral editor all-but sided with the "unfavorable" view.)
• [10] First partisan reference to the idea that this disfavored view is "Likud" in nature. (Note: Likud is a right-wing Israeli political party, and the current ruling party in Israel.)
• [11][12] General stonewalling.
• [13] Accuses other editors of "Likudization via imaginative maps".
• [14] Assuming good faith, I think Nishidani was being facetious here, but this was a tendentious suggestion that mischaracterized the other editor's intention
• [15] First condecending putdown, against Bolter21. Nitpicking over the exact details of "annexation". General high-handed attitude.
• [16] I hardly know know where to begin with this tendentious reply.

1. Spectacularly rude putdown against Sir Joseph, declaring his intention to ignore him because this reasonings are just "throwoffs from rote learning from bad textbooks" and "this is all meme replication from school textbooks or middlebrow newspapers."
2. Trite dismissal in "...everything you say is impressionistic", followed by one of his irrelevant anecdotes.
3. Bad faith mischaracterization of opponents' editing as "...a Likud venture...". The filer Debresser politely expressed his frustration with Nishidani constantly calling the opposing view "Likud".

• [17] Reply to Debresser. More inappropriate Likud/Netanyahu references. Nishidani uses erudite-but-vague language here but I think he's essentially accusing other editors of parroting the Likud party line.
• [18] "I guess the next move for the ethnonationalization here will be to map the West Bank as an integral part of Israel." - another bad faith mischaracterization of opposing editors' intentions.
• [19] Insulting putdown against filer Debresser, and was immediately asked to stop.
• [20] Soapbox. In particular, "You keep harping on the hasbara theme..." (the term "hasbara" is used as a term of distain to imply the opposing editor is promoting propaganda).
• [21] Issues a rambling reply that Sir Joseph's points come "directly from the standard 'how to reply' talking points lists", followed by another of his wordy offtopic rambles.

Collating the above has taken much of the evening, so I can understand if Debresser didn't have the will to do it himself. Judging by the diff submitted above, Nishidani is continuing with the problematic talk page attitude towards Debresser after he was asked to stop. I think Debresser has boiled over, and justifiably so. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kamel Tebaast[edit]

Thank you, AnotherNewAccount, for teaching me a new policy: WP:SOAP. In case your fine examples weren't enough to move Nishidani into the semi-finals, here are a few more:

• [22]: Nishidani's SOAP that led No More Mr Nice Guy to remove unwarranted material and ask Nishidani if he could "kindly cut out the SOAP?"; and TheTimesAreAChanging to refer to Nishidani's rant as "mostly pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook (complete with Nishidani's trademark comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany, which is obviously necessary".
• [23]: Illustrating a typical Nishidani SOAP, in one edit, as to whether Yasser Arafat should be referred to as a terrorist, Nishidani managed to slide in an ad hominem attack on me, that I "lack detachment and wish to skewer the subject of the article"; discounted that he could use straw man tactics; intellectualized Ariel Sharon's stature (notwithstanding that he killed Arabs, was the architect of the 1982 Lebanon War, responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre); and culminated with a hypothesis that "We hsve [sic] a fair statement of Arafat's ambiguity in his lead, we have a one-sided hypothesis of Ariel Sharon in his lead."
• [24] (If you need more, just go up above to AE Sean.holyland) KamelTebaast 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

The curious thing about AnotherNewAccount's rather impressive-looking charge sheet is that you would have expected him to lead with the strongest part of his case, yet examination of the first diff actually tends to highlight as problematic the behaviour of Kamel Tebaast, who has commented above, rather than that of Nishidani. The comment Nishidani makes is innocuous and factual. Kamel Tebaast comes the closest to making a personal attack, which is what this incident is nominally about, with what could be called a honeyed insult. If anyone there is pushing a point-of-view it is also him.
Things crumble further with the second diff, where AnotherNewAccount's description misrepresents Nishidani's comment.
International law is very clear that the Golan Heights is Syrian, not Israeli, territory. The third diff shows a group of editors trying to claim that that clear legal position is only a point of view. Again, the effect of the diff is to highlight the behaviour of editors other than Nishidani as problematic.
And so on ...
    ←   ZScarpia   23:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: "I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary." Exactly a month ago, on the 3rd of September 2016, a ban preventing No More Mr Nice Guy from commenting on AE discussions was removed. The ban was imposed on the the 6th of July 2013 for raising an AE incident in which he accused "an editor of serious and ethically tainting misconduct, namely antisemitism, on specious grounds." That editor was Nishidani. The incident was the final one of a series raised by No More Mr Nice Guy in which, on various pretexts, he unsuccesfully tried to have Nishidani banned. It's to be hoped that the "dozens of diffs" threatened by No More Mr Nice Guy aren't just going to reiterate his previous complaints, especially given how recent the removal of No More Mr Nice Guy's ban was.
Given that this incident is nominally about personal attacks, its again curious that another editor trying to have Nishidani sanctioned supplies a diff which highlights an instance of an insult being issued by a 'friendly' editor, in this case one calling Nishidani a "useful idiot" in an edit comment.
    ←   ZScarpia   21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@No More Mr Nice Guy: "Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above ... ." I doubt that the example given, this, is really what most people would understand by the term "Nazi analogy." As for being provocative, hatting another user's comment wouldn't be the least in a list of methods used to achieve that end.     ←   ZScarpia   21:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Innaccuracies in No More Mr Nice Guy's latest comment:

• "An editor stating his personal admiration for Hamas' methods": in the diff given, Nishidani doesn't express any such admiration.
• "Making an analogy between those and how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust": the story of Eliazer Papernik, a Jewish Soviet soldier who died during an attack on the Germans (specifically, he was a member of an NKVD platoon), is not well described as being about "how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust", not being directly Holocaust-related.

    ←   ZScarpia   23:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy[edit]

In general editors should refrain from analyzing the personality or character traits of fellow editors. It was not a good idea for Nishidani to make a remark regarding Debresser's self-esteem. That remark did not help the discussion. It would have been sufficient for Nishidani to request that Debresser provide a clear policy justification when Debresser makes a controversial or a contested edit (Debresser appeared to brush-off Nishidani's repeated requests that Debresser provide policy justifications for his edits). We assume good faith in each other and we trust that Debresser (or any editor) must have a good reason when he makes a controversial or a contested edit, but we are required, by WP policy, to verify that the edit is policy-compliant. Thus, it is incumbent upon Debresser, that when an editor asks him for a policy justification, that he not answer with something to the effect of 'trust me, I know what I'm doing.' (We are all required to trust, but we are also required to verify.) In the future, if Debresser can't provide that justification, then it is better that he refrain from making the controversial or contested edit until that time when he can provide it and discuss it on the article talk page.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the editors who provided diffs about Nishidani's behavior (Kamel Tebaast and AnotherNewAccount) have presented the diffs in good faith. However, it is impossible to fairly and objectively analyze the diffs without giving careful consideration to the full and unique context of each diff. Once the (typically complex, nuanced, specific, and unique) context is fully and carefully considered, it appears that in almost all cases Nishidani was entirely correct in saying or doing the things he said or did, and that in the remaining small number of cases he was as close to being correct as can be reasonably expected when editing in a highly controversial and contested topic area (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) with many sub-topics that are very complicated, broad, deep, messy, and intricate. The I/P area is one of the most difficult and most challenging topic areas to edit in WP.

Another factor that exacerbates the already-considerable difficulty is the fact that the data over the last several years show that the I/P area tends to attract people who often don't bother to read the high-quality sources that Nishidani provides, or they read them too quickly and superficially, or they read them carefully but they don't understand the nuances or intricacies involved, or people who don't have a genuine interest in history in general. Or they don't understand - or refuse to understand - the discussions that Nishidani provides [which are necessarily long and detailed, because of the many complexities, layers, nuances and subtleties involved, and which Nishidani does a good job of summarizing, explaining and clarifying; Nishidani never resorts to WP:SOAP]. The data additionally show that the topic area also tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats, anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, people who are gaming the system, or people who are using the WP I-P conflict topic area as a battleground, or as a vehicle for propaganda. Nishidani's overall track record over the last several years, including the last several weeks, in this highly challenging and difficult topic area, has been excellent. Nishidani is not perfect and there are some minor areas where his behavior could be improved (as I have alluded to above), but his contributions are strictly based on source-based reasoning and on full adherence to NPOV and NOR, and he strongly insists that others likewise limit themselves to making only policy-compliant contributions; and he also does a great job, overall, in dealing with many difficult or disruptive editors.
Ijon Tichy (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Debresser, I think Nishidani should not have commented about your self esteem. I also think Nishidani should refrain from offering any further analysis of your personality or character or emotional/ psychological makeup, because it's not constructive to article-building efforts. May I also ask that you refrain from escalating the situation --- please don't make any further allegations that Nishidani has laid a 'trap' or any similar words that may be seen as personal attacks or violations of AGF. Because, again, this does not contribute to article-development efforts. May I recommend that both you and Nishidani read WP: Don't escalate. Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is my reasoning for reverting NMMNG's edit where NMMNG hatted a comment by Nishidani on the talk-page of Hamas regarding a Jewish Soviet soldier who committed suicide while taking out as many Nazi soldiers as possible.

Throughout the last 3,000 years of Jewish history, there were numerous cases of brave Jewish soldiers killing themselves while trying to take out as many enemy soldiers that invaded or occupied the Jewish soldier's homeland. Even the Jewish bible describes at least one such case. Courageous Jewish soldiers committed suicide while attempting to kill as many as possible ancient Greek soldiers, ancient Roman soldiers, and many other enemies of the Jewish people in many wars over the last three millenia, including among other examples, in relatively more recent times, Nazi and Nazi-allied soldiers (e.g. in the Eastern front, in the Jewish ghettos in Europe, in the forests, mountains, cities and underground tunnels in Germany, France, Holland, Italy etc), British Mandate soldiers in Palestine, Egyptian and Syrian soldiers in the first few days of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 (when Arab soldiers surprised and temporarily overwhelmed Israeli defenders), etc.

It is important that Wikipedia articles discuss these Jewish soldiers with the utmost respect and dignity. Working together as a WP community, we need to discuss, build consensus and decide which terms, exactly, we are going to use to describe these Jewish soldiers on WP. And, in compliance with NPOV, we must use the same exact terms to describe Muslim (including but not limited to e.g. Hamas), Christian, Buddhist, Hindu (etc) soldiers who committed suicide while attempting to take out their enemy/ invading soldiers.

Ijon Tichy (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Perhaps IjonTichy above can explain how gratuitous Nazi analogies like the one KT shows above, (which I hatted and Ijon restored [25] and is now responsible for) and stories about Nishidani's escapades in the nude are necessary for improving articles? Because Nishidani makes these analogies, which only serve to provoke, and tells little personal anecdotes, which only waste everyone's time, very often indeed. I can supply dozens of diffs if necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZScarpia, hatting is one of the things WP:TPO suggests for off-topic stuff, which is a generous description for an editor stating his personal admiration for Hamas' methods, and making an analogy between those and how some Jews behaved during the Holocaust. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rhoark[edit]

I've read through the diffs from AnotherNewAccount. Only the last two seem to be anything other than ordinary content disputes, and those two seem to have been provoked by other editors straying first into aspersions. Rhoark (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I just want to add that I agree with ANA and Debresser. Nishidani hides his actions with extreme verbosity. He is extremely condescending to others and if you dare disagree with him you can bet you will get labeled as a mere child like, not smart enough to understand his texts.

Result concerning Nishidani[edit]

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

• Seriously? A single diff of being mildly standoffish is now a personal attack worthy of asking for a topic ban? If that's the worst behavior going on in the IP topic area, we should probably just tell Arbcom we don't need DS anymore. This has all the hallmarks of a vexatious filing. Debresser, if I'm mistaken please tell me why and why there should not be a WP:BOOMERANG here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AnotherNewAccount: See, THAT is a request with some meat in it. Its going to take some time for me to look into that evidence, so please bear with me for a day or two while I evaluate it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. After reviewing everything that y'all have posted, its clear that a lot of participants here have behaved in an extremely poor manner for a while now. We have two choices, then: I can either hand out bans like candy to everyone here who has earned one (quite a few of you), or I can close this with a general warning. You go back to editing your articles, and I keep track of the people I would have sanctioned. If I see those names again with fresh examples, then the banhammer comes down. I think the latter option is best for everybody here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Request concerning ה-זפר[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ה-זפר (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

[1rr]

• pov pushing
• vioaltion of npov

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

1. Revision as of 19:19, 15 September 2016
2. Revision as of 21:55, 16 September 2016
3. Revision as of 18:21, 18 September 2016
4. Revision as of 18:50, 18 September 2016
5. Revision as of 16:49, 22 September 2016
6. Revision as of 03:04, 23 September 2016
7. Revision as of 21:49, 23 September 2016 "the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."

In the edits above he puts Hebrew before Arabic in the infobox and main article text, changes the map to an Israel north east map removes "occupied" by Israel in infobox and changes it to "control", adds Israel time zone.

I warned him at his talkpage and he continued to edit war and violate the 1rr after:[26]

He has not made one single post at the talkpage, he is just resorting to edit warring. I asked him to please discuss at talkpage and get consensus and he just continued to edit war:[27] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A4%D7%A8&type=revision&diff=740892709&oldid=740860033

Discussion concerning ה-זפר[edit]

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

Statement by ה-זפר[edit]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

This editor is damn annoying, but that isn't specific to his editing in the IP-conflict field. I think that it would be more beneficial for this project if WP:AE would explain to him the essentials of community editing one last time, and put him on probation. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]

My experience with ה-זפר has largely been limited to the article about Israel, but I find that the editor rarely uses edit summaries or the talk page, and inappropriately marks most edits minor. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning ה-זפר[edit]

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

• In addition to the two blatant 1RR violations after a warning specifically about it ([28]), I'm quite spectacularly unimpressed by the attitude shown in these edits: [29] ("the edit was neutral and enhancement of the article head. discussion net required."), and [30] ("Enhanced the head. Added currently administrated by. My edit is not disputed. I'm just adding current administration status. [de facto and de jure cannot be used]"). For clarity's sake, ה-זפר: If someone disagrees with or reverts your edits, they are in dispute and discussion absolutely is required. This type of aggressive, dismissive attitude has no place in a sensitive area like ARBPIA, and I'd support a lengthy topic ban for both that and the blatant 1RR violations and general edit warring. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The editor in question has clearly chosen not to comment here, given their continued editing. I'm unimpressed with what seems like ongoing contempt for the normal editing processes of Wikipedia, which includes discussion. Barring any further explanation from this user, I think a lengthy topic ban is necessary. I'll hold this open for a few more days waiting for comment. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree that the user shows clear signs of m:MPOV. Given the lack of substantive response to challenge, a topic ban is inevitable. I suggest this be indefinite, since I doubt that time will fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Request concerning MShabazz[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MShabazz (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

WP:1RR; WP:GAMING; WP:EDITWAR

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

1. 2016-09-23T20:53:03 MShabazz REVERT 1.1 MShabazz raised COPYVIO issue, however, aside from that, he also: 1) deleted RS quote directly from the Tennessee resolution condemning BDS; 2) deleted RS quote from Tennessee resolution reaffirming support for Israel; 3) deleted RS anti-BDS/pro-Israel quotes from Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding NY’s anti-BDS resolution.
2. 2016-09-23T20:54:23 MShabazz REVERT 1.2 MShabazz 1) deleted RS Jon Bon Jovi anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote; 2) deleted RS Howard Stern anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote
3. 2016-09-23T20:55:43 MShabazz REVERT 1.3 MShabazz deleted RS Alan Dershowitz’s 10 points why BDS is immoral.
4. 2016-09-23T20:56:37 MShabazz REVERT 1.4 MShabazz 1) deleted the RS quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S."; 2) deleted RS quote by the UAW executive committee.
5. 2016-09-24T12:30:35 GHcool reverted M.Shabazz
6. 2016-09-25T00:27:11 MShabazz REVERT 2.0 Just outside 27 hours.
7. 2016-09-25T02:02:48 Kamel Tebaast reverted MShabazz
8. 2016-09-25T04:33:30 MShabazz REVERT 3.0 Four hours after second revert; approximately 31 hours after first revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Unaware

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict [44]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint[edit]

MShabazz made three reverts in the BDS article under WP:1RR. His first edit alluded to two COPYVIOs. Those edits were questionable, at best, not "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Regardless, this is not whether or not those edits were WP:COPYVIOs, but whether MShabazz's subsequent reverts violated the 1RR. Does MShabazz, or any editor, have carte blanche to revert at will in a 1RR-protected article while using WP:COPYVIO as a safety net? For the sake of argument, let's assume that both edits were in fact COPYVIOs. MShabazz gamed the system by creating an umbrella with WP:COPYVIO, thus enabling him to delete properly sourced text while violating the WP:1RR in order to push his anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian nationalism POV.

MShabazz's reverts were clear, and once he was reverted twice, it was he who should have tried to gain consensus in Talk, not those who reverted him. MShabazz used buzzwords like "cleaning fluff", but his cleaning was obviously and pointedly removing only from the Opposition to BDS section. There were many quotes and quantifiers that MShabazz passed over in his zeal to cut fluff from everything pro-Israel. A few examples:

1. MShabazz "cut the fluff" from the quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S.", but he did not cut the fluff that the UK's National Union of Teachers is "the largest teacher's union in the EU" or that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux represents "325,000 in nearly 2,000 unions"
2. He "cut the fluff" by taking out Governor Cuomo's quote and the Tennessee legislature's anti-BDS quotes, but he left in the African National Congress' pro-BDS quote.

Even assuming that both edits were WP:COPYVIO, MShabazz still made many POV-pushing reverts, specifically deleting RS quotes from Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, Gov. Cuomo, the Tennessee anti-BDS legislation, and all of Alan Dershowitz's 10 reasons that BDS is immoral.

If MShabazz was truly concerned about COPYVIOs, then he could have reverted only those edits and not violated the 1RR. He didn't. He added his cut and paste objections with all of his other controversial edits that two editors reverted, then he arrogantly reverted a THIRD time, just four hours following his second revert.

Following is input by two uninvolved editors who knew nothing about the background or participants, but only based on a hypothetical question regarding WP:1RR and WP:COPYVIO:

• Uninvolved Editor #1:

The only clearly stated exception is in WP:3RR, and my opinion (as just another editor) is that the exception only applies to the actual copyrighted content (with possibly some minimal margin around the edges to facilitate a clean excision). Removing other substantial good faith edits in addition to the copyvio seems like something best avoided to me, in general. This advice is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed.

• Uninvolved Editor #2:

"...Of course, that exception only applies to the copyrighted material itself."

MShabazz should be sanctioned for gaming the system, two reverts just after the 24-hour period, and a third revert just four hours later, totaling three reverts in about 30 hours. KamelTebaast 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Nableezy: Per MShabazz, the possible COPYVIO was not Dershowitz, but only what was stated previously. But again, the COPYVIO is not the issue. And thank you for your clarity: "Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted..." KamelTebaast 16:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Nableezy: What you're missing is that I was the second editor to revert MShabazz. User:GHcool was the first. Anyway, keep fishing with a red herring. KamelTebaast 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Nableezy:

1. My 500th edit celebration is old news. Too bad you missed my 1,000 edit party!
2. Yes, since MShabazz was schooling me on COPYVIOs, I wanted to learn from the master himself. And whaddaya know, I found MShabazz's edits with equal or more copying and pasting than the ones he cited as COPYVIOs. Can't blame an editor for wanting to learn.
3. Isn't Nableezy past his word limit, yet? KamelTebaast 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Debresser: With much respect to you, I disagree completely with your comment that MShabazz's reverts "of material that violated WP:COPYVIO" may have been "unintended". It seems clear that you did not review his reverts or his aggressive attitude that laced his summaries. Or MShabazz's sarcastic edit here. For an ex-admin with more than 100,000 edits who lives by reverting primarily pro-Israel editors (with less than 30/500), his were not "good faith mistakes". Giving MShabazz a warning is laughable. He should be severely sanctioned. KamelTebaast 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Debresser: You filed a complaint above for Nishididani being uncivil by, among other things, saying to stop "drifting", but MShabazz calling me a "genius" is not sarcastic? And that I'm "cancer on Wikipedia" is a compliment? Please, speak to his three reverts OUTSIDE of the COPYVIOs. KamelTebaast 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Nishidani: I that do bring the news made not the match. Your silence [of MShabazz's reverts] is the perfect herald of joy. <--COPYVIO? KamelTebaast 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Copyright violations?
  • Malik Shabazz: In 2002, Prime Minister Said Musa of Belize asked Shabazz to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to represent Belize internationally in perpetuity.
  • Source: In 2002, he appointed her as the Ambassador-at-Large representing the country of Belize internationally and in perpetuity.

Is there much difference between the edits below, as pointed out by MShabazz as being COPYVIOs, and his edit above from the Attallah Shabazz page? KamelTebaast 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Admins, please note: I knew the attacks against me would be fierce. But I had little idea...I wasn't even prepared... and I'm actually stunned, that the usual suspects would not utter one word in defense of MShabazz's 1RR violation, other than attacking me. As I already discussed, begin with the assumption that my edits were COPYVIOs. That does not negate any of MShabazz's many violations. KamelTebaast 01:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Wordsmith: This "reeks" of partisan bias at the highest level. Pointedly, discrimination against anything pro-Israel. This complaint is NOT connected in any manner to the prior complaint; it should not be unilaterally entombed. If the "1RR issue is technically correct", then you should technically sanction MShabazz.

MShabazz expands great effort threatening others and even taunting editors to file complaints against him. Here are just a few examples (one, ironically, concerning 1RR and COPYVIO!!!):

[45] On this very issue MShabazz who violated the 1RR threatened user:GHcool

[46] "If either of you two geniuses would like to try your novel interpretation of 1RR at WP:ANEW or WP:AE, please be my guest."

[47] "...report me or kindly shut the fuck up."

[48] "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE"

MShabazz got exactly what he asked for.

With regard to your statement connecting to Nishidani's irrelevant argument that there have been a lot of great contributions, do you really want to open that can? [Nableezy's article was in 2010. According to others (and from what I've seen in my short time), for the past six years, he has been one of the most aggressive editors to uphold Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel.] This isn't about the positive. Stop the Wikiwashing! This is about MShabazz clearly and "technically" violating the 1RR. He should be sanctioned.

Because of Shabbat / Shabbos / Sabbath, I won't be able to respond for another day. KamelTebaast 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani: @Zero0000: @Kingsindian: @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thank you for joining the chorus of obfuscators. That each of you made this a POV issue rather than writing one word regarding Malik Shabazz's policy violation strengthens the complaint.

• @Lankiveil: Most everyone who weighed in on the 1RR (opposed to obfuscating the issue) actually concurred that only COPYVIO content can be reverted. Even Wordsmith wrote: "The 1RR issue is technically correct..." Maybe the wall of text "appears" to be a settling of scores, but the 1RR violation should not be negated. KamelTebaast 01:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning MShabazz[edit]

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

Statement by MShabazz[edit]

I will prepare a more complete response later, when I have access to my computer (I'm currently editing on my phone). For all his bluster, Kemal Tebaast is belly-aching because (1) he copied and pasted two paragraphs from his sources and got caught (no, I'm not referring to the excessive quotation of the sources, but copying and pasting unattributed text) and (2) I pay closer attention to new additions to an article than material that's already there. Diffs and links to follow. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Copyright violations
  • Kamel Tebaast: In April 2015, with bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.
  • Source: With strong bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and the worldwide increase in anti-Semitism.
  • Kamel Tebaast: In June 2016, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, ordered his agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with the "Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel".
  • Source: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.
  • These are in addition to his excessive quotation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recommend that this nonsense be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer, who has been harassing me. I removed nothing of any substance from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and he cannot claim I did. He is casting aspersions, making baseless (and untrue) accusations about my political views, and this is the second time in two months he has made an unfounded complaint against me on this page. Enough is enough. He is a cancer on Wikipedia, and the sooner he is removed the better. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I don't have any evidence in this case so I can't comment on this specific case, but Malik Shabazz and his alternate account is one of the reasons why I am starting to stay away from the IP area. He needs to be warned to be less aggressive and less of a WP:OWN. His usual first line of conversation is to threaten AE or AN/I action. He is extremely uncivil and it does need to stop.

Statement by Masem[edit]

Only commenting on the COPYVIO aspect: I don't see the removal as being within COPYVIO - text is quoted and attributed to a proper inline source. There may be issues with the amount of text used which falls under other policy considerations, as well as editoral consensus if the quoted material adds that much to the article, but none of those reasons would fall under a 1RR exemption. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy, there is a difference between what COPYVIO calls for - which is primarily of unattributed text is used directly and which should be removed on sight - compared to WP:COPYQUOTE - which does warn about took much "fair use" copytaking and requires a more careful discourse but does not require immediate removal barring blatent problems (100% copy-taking for example). COPYVIO allows for 1RR exemptions, COPYQUOTE doesn't (this is because COPYQUOTE issues can be smoothed out readily with editorial consensus). I do agree that restoring information removed under a wrongly applied COPYVIO edit summary is also not an exemption to 1RR (eg if MShabazz first removed and Kamel restored, any further action on the text in question by either would violate 1RR, and instead talk page discussion should occur). --MASEM (t) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

I collapsed the rest of the section because Kamel Tebaast's last statement should really be examined. There have been a number of accounts that have recently made clear their objective to make articles here "pro-Israel". Not "NPOV", but "pro-Israel". Anything that does not adhere to a fairly right-wing Israeli viewpoint is "anti-Israel". And to be completely blunt, there are nearly no "pro-Palestinian" editors in the way that there are "pro-Israel" ones. There very much are editors that do not edit with a "pro-Israel" POV, and I count myself as one of them, but if we are being fair here those editors' POV is an international one if anything. One that reflects an international consensus, among states and reliable sources, on certain topics, eg that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, that the Golan Heights is in Syria, that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement and not simply an Israeli town. Editors such as Kamel will take including these super-majority views in articles as evidence of "supporting Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel". No, Im sorry, but thats bs. The opposing POV to Kamel's quite clear one is one that would edit that Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine. We have editors that will in the narrative voice of Wikipedia include things cited to the views of extremist settler groups. We have nothing like that on the opposing side. Nobody will take a statement from some Hamas official and include it as anything other than a Hamas official, but to the editors like Kamel that itself is "attacking anything pro-Israel". These editors are not here to create an encyclopedia. They are here to turn these pages in to propaganda. They make their intention as clear as day to anybody willing to pay even the littlest bit of attention. And yall should really do something about it. Kamel Tebaast has repeatedly announced his intention to propagandize on these pages, loudly and clearly. If ever there were a more blatant example of somebody waving a WP:NOTHERE sign I surely have not seen it. He or she is here to antagonize editors he or she identifies as "anti-Israel" and to slant articles to a "pro-Israel" POV. nableezy - 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

I just want to raise the possibility that the removal of additional material, exceeding the revert of material that violated WP:COPYVIO, was unintended. Sometimes a revert catches too much. No need to slam him with (another) WP:AE for such minor things, which can easily be seen as good faith mistakes. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kamel Tebaast I see no "aggressive attitude" from Malik, and his so-called "sarcastic" commentary was not only sarcastic but also correct per standing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did see that he admitted to removing "fluff and bloat", which is something I can only appreciate. All in all I stand by my opinion that Malik's edits were good faith improvements. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kablammo[edit]

Attribution does not correct a copyright violation. Where material is quoted verbatim, it must be clear from the text that the words are those of another. Without quote marks or similar indicia that the text is the words of another, verbatim or near-verbatim text is a copyright violation, and should be removed. And the editor who inserted the text should be the one to separate the copyrighted material from the rest of the edit. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

The recent surge in reports here is troublesome. We are supposed to be constructing articles, not bickering. Shabazz recently gave us a neat page on Attallah Shabazz; Nableezy brought the Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality etc. It's about time, I think, that one begin to look into the contribs of plaintiffs, while assessing these complaints, to see whether they have a constructive interest in building Wikipedia, or are just here on a mission, or for entertainment, or drama, whatever. No one can work quietly on if every edit is contested by swarming, and everything one does is parsed for a fatal whiff of sanctionable error, ending up in arbitration every other day. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KT. As to your notification to me to respond to your post accusing me of teaming up with the 'obfuscators', no reply.

NMMGG. There are actually quite a few editors on all sides who get things done whatever our differences, and don't just sit on pages carping to exhaustion, trying to extract more and more 'concessions' after two reasonable compromises have been made on one word. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And making just one more attack list of my putative endemic malpractices as an editor is again the umpteenth use of a talk page to sneer at or disniss my bona fides. Document it or drop it. It might help if you examined your contribs for the last 3 years to see if you are actually doing anything constructive here, other than reverting and bickering.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing any of us say, NMMGG, is 'the truth' in absolute terms. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Due, WP:SYNTH are waved and flagged over most contested edits, a discussion emerges, the niceties examined. No one has papal infallibility here, neither you nor I, since discussion shows how labile many of our otherwise competent judgements can be when subject to wider external review. If as you have repeatedly been saying for at least four years, all of my editing in the I/P is personally informed by intellectual dishonesty and, though I can't recall the diff, you think one of your purposes here is to keep me 'honest' then those editors who do not find my editing particularly problematical are either intellectually dishonest by association or are being duped by me. Remember, 99% of the reverts of my edits are made exclusively here, and, since my procedure is overwhelmingly to introduce academic citations that pass the highest RS high bar, the problem may not my editing, fallible as it may be at times, but distaste for what those sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the other diff, NMMGG. I would underwrite every word I wrote there. I derive my knowledge of the Middle East from Israeli or diaspora scholarship, predominantly. Nothing I say on a talk page, has not been more eloquently or eruditely put than what I find in those sources, and, if citing it means some in here, unfamiliar with this tradition of scholarship, taunt me as an anti-Semite (a goy who hates Jews) then it's a paradox, but one I can live with. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Unfortunately, Nableezy's description of the state of editing in the I/P area is quite correct. Zero^talk 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

I concur with Nableezy's statement. And I am not totally happy with TheWordsmith's comment in the last case about "civility". The problem is not "incivility", the problem is (some) people trying to push POV in an unreasonable manner. Everyone has a POV, but some are willing to be fair about the actual facts of the matter, while others are simply there to push propaganda.

In my view, a lot of what goes on in this area is unavoidable. Long, interminable political discussion inevitably leads to (some) bad faith and incivility. I get angry at even my friends and relatives during discussions involving religion and politics; internet discussion with strangers are even worse. People who are committed to improving the encyclopedia manage to find a way in spite of this. The way to handle it from the outside is to look at the totality of the discussion and see whether the parties are making a good faith and knowledgeable effort at a solution which remains close to the facts. Incivility is a red herring.

I think Wikipedia's civility policy is broken in general. Nobody is opposed to civility in general, the issue is how it is used to take out opponents. But that's a rant for another time and venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malik should strike the "cancer" comment. Kamel Tebaast in wrong on everything else. The issue is not WP:1RR because content which is removed on a good-faith basis of copyvio is exempt from 1RR. There should ideally be some discussion on the talk page and some rephrasing to fix it. The insistence of Kamel Tebaast to see everything through a "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" lens is the main problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy[edit]

Regretfully, Nableezy's statement is very accurate. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also regretfully, Nishidani's statements are correct. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Malik Shabazz that this is a case of Boomerang against Kamel Tabaast (KT). In my view, a (short-term, temporary) topic ban on KT would be good for the project, as well as good for KT's future prospects on WP (given that KT is a relative newcomer to the project).

I think Malik is a great editor who works tirelessly to ensure that content, contributed by Malik himself and others, always complies with WP policies. I strongly support Malik in his good work. However, in my view describing KT as 'cancer' is far too strong, and Malik should strike it out - from my perspective it appears to be a PA on KT, and does not help in moving the discussion forward towards a resolution. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

I'm really enjoying the group of like minded editors congratulating themselves on their neutrality while lamenting the POV pushing of the people they disagree with. The lack of introspection could be amusing, if I didn't think they were serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani, unfortunately everything I said in that diff you posted is true, and I'd be happy to document it if the need arises. On that very page you deliberately misquoted policy as you were wikilawyering to keep UNDUE material in the article. I know you are very proud of the fact you write content, and think that should give you special status. Unfortunately you are very much emotionally invested in the topics you write about, and regularly violate NPOV. For this encyclopedia to be neutral, it needs editors to find where neutrality is violated. That's what I like to do. It's allowed. Get over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nishidani, thanks for reminding me that you think that "editors like [you] tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale". [49] I completely forgot about that little gem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MShabazz[edit]

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

• The 1RR issue is technically correct, but we shouldn't be restoring a potential copyvio anyway until there has been discussion about whether it is or is not a violation. This reeks of people attempting to have their ideological opponents sanctioned (like most ARBPIA requests seem to be). That doesn't make me happy. Since this request was filed before I closed the one above as a warning to all parties, I'd be inclined to roll it into that warning. I'll leave this case open for a few days to solicit additional input, but I'm not inclined to take strong action here. As some have pointed out, a lot of you have great contributions to the project. I strongly advise you to continue contributing and stop trying to have each other banned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I haven't read this entire wall of text, but the WP:3RR policy makes an allowance for additional reverts to "Removal of clear copyright violations". If the text in question was a copyvio that was being restored to the article, there is no real problem here. This whole report to me appears to be an ideologically motivated settling of scores, which is not what this place is for. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC).Reply[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.

Request concerning Kamel Tebaast[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kamel Tebaast (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#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29

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

1. 19:12, 10 October 2016 See below
2. 19:17, 10 October 2016 See below

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

30 day topic ban on 13 August 2016

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

• Opened an enforcement request still on this page
• Given a topic ban by Lord Roem on 13 August 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I wrote above in the enforcement request that Kamel Tebaast opened about how this user has been waving a WP:NOTHERE flag since they got here. This example should make that crystal clear. In a dispute about a comparison between the Hamas charter and the Likud part platform (Hamas being a Palestinian group and Likud an Israeli political party), Kamel Tebaast has flagrantly disrupted Wikipedia in an attempt to prove a point (I say attempt because the two things are so dissimilar in terms of sourcing). He or she has vandalized the article on Bill Clinton to include his or her own view that a law signed by Clinton is similar to what the Nazis did and then bragged about it on the Hamas talk page. Maybe that will get yalls attention here. This is a violation of the standard discretionary sanctions included in WP:ARBPIA, specifically the requirements that editors adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia and comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen a more blatant example of bad faith editing among anything other than an IP or throw-away account.

NMMNG, you should read those sources. The ACLU paper mentions the words Nazi and Germany once, no where does it come anywhere close to saying a US president signed a Nazi like law. Im trying to find where the second source supposedly supports that and am not seeing it. And, oh by the way, neither of those were in the edit he made. Kamel Tebaast wrote in an encyclopedia article that a US president signed a law that was similar to what the Nazis did. He did it out of spite. He violated two arbitration cases doing so. How surprising that like minded editors in one of those topics are defending that. nableezy - 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look at the edit and the sources cited. He cited the law, and he cited a US Holocaust Museum page on the Nazi party, one that never mentions the law or Clinton. KI is responding to the after the fact justification, a justification that is completely hollow. Look at the edit made, and look at why it was made. It was specifically in response to the Likud Hamas comparison, and it shows a blatant disregard for both our policies here and basic common sense. nableezy - 21:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast[edit]

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

Statement by Kamel Tebaast[edit]

No vandalism. No bragging. Simply a well-sourced legitimate edit. KamelTebaast 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of my sources is a think that connects between the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and post WWI (and modern-day) Germany. Here is an ACLU post that explicitly connects the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and Nazi Germany. Here is a Boston University paper that connects between some points in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and "Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories prior to WWII". I am truly baffled that (1) someone wants to ban me for a legitimately sourced edit that, at most, should have been discussed in Talk; and (2) topic ban me in a topic area that doesn't even include the article in question. This seems rather punitive. KamelTebaast 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy, your characterization that my edit implied that Clinton "signed a Nazi like law" is inflammatory, misleading, and disingenuous--similar to your complaint that it was vandalism. One point in that bill was similar to one of the points of the 1932 Nazi platform. I'll respond to the others after Yom Kippur. KamelTebaast 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

I think Kamel Tebaast is not long for this world. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought Kamel Tebaast was trying for a suicide by admin, but apparently they are seriously defending the edit. So let me help them on their way.

It's not clear to me how this source originally cited by Kamel Tebaast supports the statement that the 1996 act is similar to the one in the 1932 Nazi platform. Indeed, the only reference to the 1996 act I found in the entire document is this: Every state in the United States legally bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any non-citizen to vote in a federal election. Indeed, the association of voting with citizenship is such settled doctrine in American political culture that it is part of the only major nationwide civics test given to American students.

The two other sources which Kamel Tebaast mentions above are post-September 11, 2001; which argue against creating a National ID system in such a political atmosphere. For instance, here is the only allusion to Nazi Germany I could find in the ACLU source: A national ID system would violate the freedom Americans take the most for granted and the one that most defines our liberty: the right to be left alone. Unlike workers in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, apartheid South Africa, and Castro's Cuba, no American need fear the demand, "Papers, please." Note that the same document by the ACLU notes that the national ID card provision was rejected in the 1996 act: Most dramatically, in 1996 the House of Representatives rejected national ID cards during the consideration of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (HR 2202, 104th Congress).

The Boston University law journal does say that there are some aspects of the 1996 act -- but not only that act, it lists 4 other acts in conjuction, (p. 1) -- which move towards a national ID system. This national ID system is dangerous according to the author and he brings up Nazi Germany in this context. The paper even mentions the Social Security act in this context (p. 20) Again, there is nothing comparing the 1996 act to the 1932 Nazi platform.

It looks to me like Kamel Tebaast has simply Googled "1996 immigration act Nazi" and dumped it all here. Even if the sources cited supported the text added (which they don't), the phrasing is so ridiculous that it would automatically fail WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT at the very least. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

I think this should be closed summarily. Enough reporting each other back and forth! As to the two edits that were reported here: the article edit is sourced, and the talkpage post is worded neutrally (no bragging, which is the subjective way Nishidani prefers to read that talkpage post). Debresser (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

The ACLU and an academic paper made the same point KT should be topic banned for putting (sourced) in an article? How remarkable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nableezy, I don't necessarily think it was a great edit (mostly because I think it should have been attributed rather than stated as fact), but if KI needs 4-5 paragraphs just to explain why the edit is wrong, that would seem like a content dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

Kingsindian of course right but that edit is not in WP:ARBPIA area--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Kamel Tebaast[edit]

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

• Barring any remarkable explanation, I'm inclined to indef block with a concurrent topic ban on Israel/Palestine that would remain in effect if unblocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request concerning Simert Ove[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Simert Ove (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 :

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

1. 03:14, 6 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
2. 01:02, 7 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
3. 05:23, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
4. 22:20, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article

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

Despite a notification about the discretionary sanctions, this editor persists in edit-warring to make a POV addition to an article on a controversial person. Edit summaries and knowledge of Wikipedia suggest very strongly that this is not actually a new account but a sock (possibly of a blocked user).

In response to Ryk72, when attempting to edit this page a big arbitration notice appears, setting out who is allowed to edit the page. It could hardly be more obvious! In addition, anyone editing in this area will know immediately that Israel Shahak was a contentious character, and that dispute over his writings is inexorably linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It should also be obvious that Simert Ove is not a new editor, but a (probably block-evading) sock of someone already involved in editing here.

The merits of edits by Chas. Caltrop are not at issue here. Whether they are good or bad can be discussed in the article talk page; but this editor is permitted to edit here, and Simert Ove's repeated claim to the contrary is untrue. Simert Ove is an edit-warring editor excluded from this page, likely a sock of a blocked user, and shows no sign of stopping this disruptive behaviour. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

Discussion concerning Simert Ove[edit]

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

Statement by Simert Ove[edit]

Despite your selective bias, Chas. Caltrop (talk) is not allowed to edit those articles either, let alone violating NPOV policy every time.--Simert Ove (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]

On 9 October, Simert Ove reverted three times at Israel Shahak — an article she/he is not permitted to edit at all. Request a block or protection of the article to prevent ongoing and future disruption. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ryk72[edit]

Overall, this request is better handled by requesting page protection at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard.

On initial inspection, it is not immediately obvious that the biographical article Israel Shahak is covered by the WP:ARBPIA ruling. It is immediately obvious that there has been no Talk page discussion of the significant changes made to that article by Chas. Caltrop, and that their edits appear troubling. See: Example 1 which re-reverts to include changes that fail WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV & WP:LABEL at even a cursory inspection. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RolandR: There is an excellent technical implementation of Extended Confirmed Protection (500/30), which provides the best method for ensuring compliance with the ARBPIA ruling. Editors were better to avail themselves of it than file requests about individual editors here. This is not an indictment on this filing; rather a recommendation for improved resolution of future issues. I note that Malik Shabazz has made such a request, thank them for it, and note that ECP has been implemented.
Edit notices are largely not worth the pixels they are printed on; their service mostly in providing evidence of malfeasance in the absence of their being followed; the vast majority of editors scroll down to the edit box and carry on blithely.
As to the edits of Chas. Caltrop on that page: if any editor is more concerned about another editor's edit count, and compliance with ARBPIA, than they are concerned to ensure compliance with core content policy, NPOV, then they should have a long, hard look at themselves. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

I completely agree with Ryk72. This can be handled in a simpler way. WP:AE should be a last resort. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Simert Ove[edit]

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

• A reading of the article should explain why it has been marked with the ARBPIA template on its talk page. I would recommend 24-hour blocks for both Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs) and Simert Ove (talk · contribs) for 1RR violation. The 1RR notice has been on the talk page for more than a year. The issue of new editors trying to edit an ARBPIA article has been handled by User:Vanamonde93 who has applied 30-500 protection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I would also be inclined to close this with a simple 24-hour block for both users. I'll leave it open a little longer in case of further comments. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Request concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Template:2016_US_Election_AE, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."

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

1. In this edit at 16 October, 22:08, Volunteer Marek edited the lead of the Donald Trump article, and in particular he edited the last part of the lead dealing with sexual allegations. He replaced a text of 15 words with a text of 67 words (more than quadrupling its size). He added much of the material by reinstating verbatim from a prior version, including the last sentence, and his edit also reinstated various other parts of the prior version. When Volunteer Marek made this edit, there was an RFC ongoing at the article talk page about whether this material should exceed 15 words. Here is the talk page as edited by Volunteer Marek one minute after his big edit to the lead, showing that the RFC (section 23) includes three no's, one yes, and a maybe, and thus there was obviously no consensus for going beyond 15 words in the lead regarding the sex allegations (incidentally, Trump's denial of the allegations could be easily included while staying under 15 words, though editors such as User:MrX have tried to exclude the denial from the lead even though WP:BLP says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported").

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

Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't like filing complaints and such at Wikipedia, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Wikipedia should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?

@User:SPECIFICO, I disagree with just about every word you wrote. If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, calling something a consensus version does not make it so. I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now. Check it out. If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, the RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so). You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but, actually, opposition to removal of the sex material from the lead obviously does not equate to supporting more than 15 words of it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version). I have not analyzed whether this edit that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the question here at AE is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version (not at some previous time). As for your accusation that this edit of mine was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus at the time it was done, though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at previous times (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, you're critiquing stuff I said to James J. Lambden (e.g. "None of the former are mentioned in the article body"), which is fine, but please indicate when you're doing that for clarity's sake. And I will try to be clearer too. Notice that I'm not making up some venal motive here to attribute to you, and I'd appreciate the same if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, I don't follow your further comments. The simple fact is that when you reinstated a 67-word paragraph in the lead about sex allegations, the consensus in the RFC clearly indicated that 15 words or less was sufficient. Fess up and all will be forgiven.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead now include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old;[358] according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, incidentally, the stuff in that quote after the semicolon was added by me a few minutes ago, and so the material in the BLP text about the child rape was even briefer when Volunteer Marek jammed it into the lead without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, also incidentally, Volunteer Marek inserted "rape" into the lead, referring to the alleged child rape of "Jane Doe", and then someone else came along 50 minutes later and put "rape" into the lead a second time.[51]Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Nomoskedasticity, I see that you have decided to replace the 15 words in the lead by reinstating over 70 words. All done without discussion at article talk, and without giving any hint that you care one whit about article talk. So, in the unlikely event that admins actually take some action here to enforce the discretionary sanctions as I've requested, then maybe you and I can engage further about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:MrX, you say "Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me!". Anyone can see above that I pinged you, as was my intent. You don't gain any credibility in my eyes by starting with such an obvious falsity. I am busy and will respond more later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:MrX, you say that you were not pinged, but I took the necessary steps above to ping you. If Wikipedia software failed here (unlikely in my view), then that may explain things. The next thing you say below is also a falsity: "Anythingyouwant started a competing RfC a little over two hours later." No, I never started a competing RFC about this. Here is a diff of me starting the RFC at 21:47 on 15 October. Anyone can see that there was then no competing RFC at that time (I had previously made an edit just like this later one specifically to remove the impression that there was any competing RFC). Adding to this falsity, MrX (who has been a very involved editor at the Trump article which should have precluded closing an RFC per policy) has today purported to close the RFC I started (without mentioning it at this board), and his closing statement is as follows: "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." That is another falsity. I never suggested that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus; in fact, within four hours of starting the RFC I replaced those 15 words in the BLP with 12 words.[52] The very first comment in the RFC (written by me) said "Please note that if this RFC concludes that the number of words [15] is not insufficient, that would not decide whether this number of words is too much, nor whether the wording should be changed without lengthening the sentence". I wanted to keep the scope of the RFC narrow and binary, to reach consensus quicker, which we did. The RFC question itself says "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, 'Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election.' Is this number of words in the lead insufficient, for the time being, regarding this subject?" Obviously, this RFC question does not ask whether the current language in the lead should be retained (and obviously assumes that it may not be retained). Mr X adds below a bunch of further attacks unrelated to this RFC/ sex controversy, accusing me of "Wikilawyering over the term 'firm consensus'; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created." If anyone seriously wants me to turn this proceeding into an utter mess by responding to these bogus unrelated charges, then please let me know and I will do so (though not gladly), and would then reciprocate with a whole bunch of equally unrelated (but valid) further charges against MrX.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. I have re-opened the RFC improperly closed by MrX.[53]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANNOUNCEMENT: A mostly uninvolved administrator, User:AWilley, has now re-closed the RFC that I started. I emphatically disagree that the RFC was unhelpful, and I believe people who were complaining about it were mostly trying to undermine any effort to put a cap on how much sex stuff goes into the lead of this very high-profile BLP. But since AWilley disagrees with me, the RFC is done with, and the present request for enforcement is now moot. I therefore hereby withdraw it. I did not foresee such a thing happening, and I apologize to any bystanders who have spent time trying to sort this out. The behavior at the Trump article and talk page regarding sex allegations in the lead has been disgraceful, and I hope we can at least share consensus about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:James J. Lambden, if any admin would like to take action sua sponte (i.e. of his, her, its or their own accord), that is allowed: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." My complaint above was perfectly valid, but it is moot, and I do not want to devote the rest of October having my soul crushed by the asymmetry principle.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion [55] (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Lambden, my comment (so far) is succinct so I have no idea what you're going on about. You, on the other hand, are bringing up the same ol' crap that you've brought up several times already, so long that you have to hat it, that didn't work the first three or four times you dragged it out. Might as well point out that you are in fact the editor who removed the consensus text here without discussion that Anythingyouwant DIDN'T file an AE report about. If I was following your and Anything's script I would've filed an AE report right there. But I didn't because, unlike you and Anything, I don't treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Anythingyouwant, please don't change your comments after I've replied to them as that makes it seem like I'm replying to something I'm not, as you did here. Make a separate comment please. Anyway, when you state "I have not analyzed whether [this edit] that you mention was done with consensus or not" you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus. I mean, if editor 1 makes revert X and then editor 2 undoes that revert, and you have no idea whether editor 1's edit had consensus then you clearly have no idea whether undoing of that edit had consensus. So you are admitting that this report you filed is spurious and just opportunistic "let me file another report against VM as soon as he makes an edit on a Donald Trump article". It's meritless and just shows that you are playing games, trying to abuse the DS/AE process (as Specifico above mentions) and treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

And that's giving your statement a generous interpretation - that you had no idea whether my edit had consensus or not but chose to file this spurious AE report anyway - and assuming good faith. A less generous, though more common sense, interpretation would be that you knew damn well that James Lambden's edit had NO consensus but supported him (by tweaking it to POV it even further) because it accorded with your POV then ran over here the minute someone tried to restore consensus (also in the meantime filed a nonsensical RfC that nobody can understand as a way of "protecting" the non-consensus version - sorry, filing an RfC isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an article talk page to protect POV non-consensus edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uh, Anythingyouwant - "None of the former are mentioned in the article body" - that is clearly false if you are referring to the version at the time I made the edit [56]. Now since then you have made edits to the article, so that later it was changed. Seriously, this is blatantly dishonest: "the text Marek restored to the lede did not summarize article text... because I changed it later so that it wouldn't, even though at the time he made the edit, it did". What the hell???? But please, keep on digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hell, in fact, you JUST NOW (as in a few minutes ago) ran to the article to alter the text [57] and then ran straight over here to claim "oh look! That text doesn't summarize the article!". No shit. You. Just. Changed. It.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol. My comment at 7:51 [58]. Anythingyouwant's comment at 7:54 [59]. I do like that "Incidentally". As in "oh this has nothing to do with the fact that it was just pointed out I edited the article just now and pretended that my edits had been there for a long time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note - please consider this an AE report concerning Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden as well Anythingyouwant, after making a show of making multiple edits to the article, the purpose of which appears to be solely so that he could come here and claim "the lede restored by Volunteer Marek doesn't summarize the article" (with those edits made AFTER the fact) has now completely erased all of these edits (I guess they didn't serve the purpose well enough, the attempt being fairly transparent) and has simply restored the earlier non-consensus version [60].

Just to be clear, here is the timeline

• The text under discussion was added by long standing (since 2008) User:JJARichardson [61] on October 14, 20:15.
• This was first reverted by a newly created single purpose account (I'm guessing - just guessing at this point - sock puppet of a recently topic banned User) [62] and restored by User:JJARichardson with a very accurate edit summary shortly after [63].
• The text then remained in the lede unchallanged and also unmentioned on talk until October 15, 16:11, so basically a full day which is quite awhile for a hot topic like this article, until it was removed without discussion and a fairly ridiculous reason in edit summary by James J. Lambden [64] (do you really think the biggest story of the election is "UNDUE"???)
• This was undone by User:Tataral shortly there after [65] who correctly noted that per discretionary sanctions James. J. Lambden needs to get consensus before making such controversial changes. JJ Lambden is aware of discretionary sanctions and how they work
• The text was again reverted by James J Lambden on Oct 15 17:24 [66]
  • This constituted a violation of the 1RR restriction by James J. Lambden.
  • The edit summary by James J. Lambden falsely claimed that consensus was needed to undo his edit. Note that this is exactly the same tactic that recently topic banned User:CFredkin used to try and railroad his POV into the article.
• This was again undone soon there after (17:55) by User:Steeletrap [67] who again correctly note that the actual consensus which is required is for removing the text.

Likewise, with his latest edit, Anythingyouwant here is edit warring to restore his preferred version and is making changes to the article which do not have consensus. At the very least, he could've waited for this AE report to get some traction or something, but rather they decided to go ahead and try to get their way.

The above 1RR violation by James J Lambden is way more serious than any single edit by any single user restoring or undoing what they thought was consensus (and I just have to point out that at least three other users made the same edit as I did, yet, Anythingyouwant did not file WP:AE reports on them, so yes, there is an element of a grudge stemming from previous disputes here).

I could file a separate WP:AE reports against Anythingyouwant and James J Lambden based on these edits but it could get taken as being "pointy" or simply retributive. It's not. But it'd probably be best if this report here also involved looking over these users edits (recent and not so recent). Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to point out that the edit I made which is the subject of this report, was also made by my count by SIX other editors. Exactly same edit or same substance. THREE of these other-editor-same-edit edits were made BEFORE my edit. I don't see Anythingyouwant filing WP:AE reports against them as well. I guess if he filed an AE report against six editors simultaneously that'd sort of give the game up - the text has consensus. So he picked me. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO[edit]

Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page.

In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that Anythingyouwant has withdrawn her complaint against Volunteer Marek, I urge Admins to consider TBANs for Anythingyouwant and James Lambden, as proposed elsewhere on this thread. Kudos to my friend Anythingyouwant for trying to get this thread closed before her behavior can be fully scrutinized here. SPECIFICO talk 00:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Awilley: A speedy close will just prolong and enable more of this tendentious POV warring by Anythingyouwant. Remember how solicitously Anythingyouwant seemed to be receiving your advice to back off and cease this kind of nonsense over a month ago[68]? She's very good at pushing it to the edge and then playing dead. Fool you once, etc... How many times do we want to sit through this movie? SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by James J. Lambden[edit]

Once again we see Marek's successful strategy: throw enough words with enough denial and misdirection into a paragraph and outside observers won't have the energy to sift through it; or if they do, the waters will be muddied enough they're reluctant to sanction. The final act is an appearance by My Very Best Wishes to defend his frequent accomplice.

The meat of this enforcement request is this, and don't let misdirection and equivocation obscure it:

• The article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions under BLP and American Politics
• Marek's edit summary indicates he was aware the content had been removed
• At the time of his edit there were two active discussions concerning the content, neither showing consensus for restoration: 1 2
• The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act

At the last AE Marek was involved in just over a week ago I made this statement:

That request was archived without comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Volunteer Marek:'s well aware consensus is not required to remove text on BLP grounds. I immediately offered to remove the text added in my removal, but left it as a good-faith compromise between those who wanted no mention in the lede and those who wanted the paragraph Marek restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE requires consensus to restore removed material. The restored material in this case included the phrase "child rape." Whether the RFC stays open or closed is irrelevant - if Marek can show consensus anywhere on the talk page at the time of his edit this AE should be closed. If not, he and every editor who restored it ignored the rules in one of if not the most visible BLP on the site. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EdJohnston: I don't know whether your question was directed to editors or admins but if this request is withdrawn I intend to submit another with the same diff against the same editor. When an editor restores "child rape" without consensus that is to me an open and shut case. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Malerooster[edit]

Just for a point of order, doesn't there need to be consensus for INCLUSION of RECENTLY added material, NOT removal of such? The Trump sexual bru ha ha was added to the LEAD section of the BIO 3? days ago against any clear consensus, despite what others may say, see talk page. If clear consensus forms that this material belongs in the the LEAD, then fine, add it, otherwise don't.--Malerooster (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tataral[edit]

Volunteer Marek is one of a long list of editors who have simply reinstated the version that was agreed on by most editors in the relevant discussion, a version that is a neutrally worded, concise summary of the text in the body of the article. The RFC referred to by Anythingyouwant was widely dismissed as a nonsensical attempt to derail the issue on the talk page and is currently closed with the summary "There seems to be consensus that this RfC is seriously malformed and based on the false premise that a 15 word lead represents a status quo consensus, which it does not." --Tataral (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

Hey Anythingyouwant, thanks for throwing me under the bus and not notifying me! What you neglected to mention was my documented reasoning for omitting Trump's trite denial from the lead.

Anythingyouwant continues to try to WP:GAME the system to gain an advantage in content disputes on Donald Trump-related articles:

• Steeletrap started this RfC On October 15 at 19:27. Anythingyouwant started a competing RfC a little over two hours later. Note the question posed: "At the time this RFC is being started, the lead says, "Allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump were widely reported in the weeks before the election." Is this number of words in the lead not enough [insufficient], for the time being, regarding this subject?". Not only is this awkwardly worded as noted by several commenters, but it begs the question. In my view, this does not represent a good faith effort to determine consensus, but rather an attempt to control consensus by framing the questions with a particular outcome in mind.
• Anythingyouwant used similar tactics in this RfC, attempting to influence the closer of the RfC by Wikilawyering over the term "firm consensus"; using the presence of citations in the lead as a reason for opposing; asking the closer to consider a completely different version of the proposed content; and creating a competing RfC six days after the original one was created.

I'm a little surprised that he would think coming to AE was a good idea, but since he's here, his conduct should be reviewed as well.- MrX 17:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: You may have intended to ping me, but you did not in fact ping me. No such alert was received, so there's no falsity in my statement. You were wrong to try to discredit me in your complaint against Volunteer Marek.- MrX 20:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anythingyouwant: Of course, there's no competing RfC if you make it disappear before starting your own.- MrX 22:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Buster7[edit]

User J.J. Lambden is right about not having the energy to sift through the dozens of daily diffs displaying changes to the article. I try to keep abreast of what is happening at the Trump article as an observer with very few edits to the article or comments on the talk page. The inconstancy of the article is not a magnet to participate. But the strategy to confuse with multiple RfC's is not Volunteer Marek's. Some editors are very adroit at obfuscation. Volunteer Marek is not one of them. Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by D.Creish[edit]

The banner at the top of the edit page for Donald Trump says in big bold letters:

You [...] must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page

Unless VM can prove consensus he should be topic-banned from BLPs.

My last edit a month ago expressed concern over the apparent inability to sanction VM despite repeated requests and convincing evidence. When one editor is allowed to flout the rules others are held to the consensus model can't work. I have stopped editing as a result. D.Creish (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

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

• User:Anythingyouwant now wants to withdraw this AE request, per his statement above. Does anyone object? EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a speedy close would be more conducive to people refocusing on content than trying to determine fault in what seems to be a messy dispute. ~Awilley (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree this request should be closed as withdrawn. Otherwise I would have supported closing as no action required. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Request concerning Shy Twinkling[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shy Twinkling (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:ARBPIA3#500/30: " All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

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

1. Shy Twinkling registered as an editor on 22 September
2. 23 September Adding Israeli flag to List of wars 2003–10 (regarding 2006 Lebanon War with Hezbollah)
3. 27 September Reverting an edit at B'Tselem concerning Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians
4. 28 September Two consecutive edits removing text at Hamas likening its platform to that of the governing Israeli political party
5. 5 October Reverting an edit at Hamas that likened its platform to that of the governing Israeli political party and the settler movement
6. 16 October Reverting an edit at Intifada because "IPs not allowed to edit per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
7. 21 October Editing List of wars involving Israel to change the "results" of the 1982 Lebanon War from defeat to "unilateral withdrawal"

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

1. 27 September Edit at B'Tselem is reverted with edit summary "see WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
2. 30 September Edits at Hamas are reverted with edit summary "WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
3. 5 October Edit at Hamas is reverted with edit summary "ARBPIA500"
4. 5 October Notified on talk page that ARBPIA3 does not allow her/him to "edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area" until completion of 500 edits
5. 17 October Reminded on talk page of ARBPIA3
6. 16 October Shy Twinkling reverted an edit at Intifada because "IPs not allowed to edit per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"
7. 22 October Edit at List of wars involving Israel is reverted with edit summary "New editors are not permitted to edit this article per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not only is Shy Twinkling flouting the ARBPIA3 prohibition against her/him editing the articles listed above, she/he is letting us know she/he knows that—witness the fact that she/he reverted an IP editor for violating ARBPIA3!

My apologies if the dates shown above aren't all correct; my system is set up to show me dates in local time, not UTC. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Shy Twinkling[edit]

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

Statement by Shy Twinkling[edit]

Statement by Ryk72[edit]

I reiterate my earlier statement, that these issues are better handled by requesting page protection for the articles in question at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard; Page protection resolves not only any issues with editors reported here, but also any potential issues with all other editors who do not meet the criteria. I also note that Hamas & Intifada, for example, are both now ECP protected; it is somewhat bewildering that they were not previously so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seraphimblade: On the question of a topic ban, do we consider that the edits are disruptive for reasons other than the editor not meeting the criteria for ARBPIA3#500/30? I've reviewed the edits, and, in good faith, cannot see that they are outside what is generally considered acceptable in this topic space. The first edit in the complaint (#2) is clearly helpful, reverting an edit which transcluded ((Hezbollah)) into a table. The second edit (#3) is misrepresented in the complaint. The third and fourth edits (#4, #5) remove material which might be reasonably considered WP:OR/SYNTH and WP:COATRACK, and should at least be attributed to the opining source. If the only issue is a technical breach of ARBPIA3#500/30, then I would be inclined to ensure the editor understands that ruling; and deal with edits which do not meet 500/30 through revert, protect, move on. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Shy Twinkling[edit]

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

• It takes a special kind of gall to warn another editor about a restriction at the same time you yourself are violating it, and these are blatant violations after multiple warnings. Unless someone very shortly objects, I'll be closing this with a block. I'm also considering a topic ban from ARBPIA, this type of disruptive behavior is absolutely not what we need in that area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I endorse Seraphimblade's view above. This appears to be a Warrior for Truth™ in an area where such people are rarely helpful. Guy (Help!) 12:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Concur, and the block should be at least 72 hours. The actions documented above take some serious chutzpah in the Yiddish sense of the word, which to be quite mild is remarkably unhelpful in this topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Request concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Anythingyouwant (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; see Talk:Donald Trump, where it is noted that WP:1RR applies to the page

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

1. 00:59, 18 October 2016 - First revert
2. 01:05, 18 October 2016 - Second revert

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After seeing two reverts, I went to the user talk page of Anythingyouwant to give them a friendly reminder of the discretionary sanctions active on Donald Trump. Instead, I found that they've been repeatedly reminded of these discretionary sanctions and have apparently chosen to ignore them. Here's a list of their talk page sections where other editors mentioned the WP:1RR restriction or discretionary sanctions in general.

1. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign.2C_2016
2. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#1RR_on_Donald_Trump
3. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Donald_Trump_DS
4. User_talk:Anythingyouwant#Violation_of_1RR_--_Trump

Despite an active RfC, a lot of discussion on this issue, and a good deal of support for including this information, Anythingyouwant's most recent edit summary stated "See previous edit summary. This edit and my last one are pursuant to WP:BLP and I will keep reverting for the stated reasons", indicating that he plans to continue edit warring over this issue. I'm hoping a warning in a more formal venue will be all that's needed here.

(Note: I just noticed the kind-of-but-not-really related AE request above before hitting Save Changes. If anyone wants to somehow merge this, go nuts, but it's probably less messy to handle it separately.)

@Anythingyouwant: There's an ongoing RfC addressing this issue and there's been loads of discussion recently about it. There's a rather substantial difference between removing an obvious violation without waiting for procedure and removing something you think is a violation while substantial pre-existing discussion has not treated it as such. For instance, even those arguing against inclusion at the RfC have done so on the basis of WP:UNDUE representation in the lead, not a BLP violation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/744884824

Discussion concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

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

Statement by Anythingyouwant[edit]

@User:BU Rob13, there is a well-established exception to 1RR, and I quoted it at the article talk page without hearing any objection. Do you dispute that there is an exception to 1RR?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:BU Rob13, are you prepared to say that putting "rape, child rape" into this lead was not a BLP violation? Yes or no? No one at the article talk page has suggested any such thing, and I started a section explicitly about it. Nor does the RFC address anything about rape: "Should the lede of this BLP include any summary of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump? If the material is included, to what extent should it be covered in the lead?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Admins, I have made further BLP reverts. Regarding this edit of mine, here is my edit summary: "Reverting huge edit to lead. Per WP:BLP, as I have explained and no one has disputed, 'Sexual assault is a broad term that often (if not usually) suggests rape or attempted rape'." My view is that numerous editors have tried during the past week to explicitly put "rape" into this lead, and having failed the next best thing is to insinuate rape in the lead. If that is not the intent, it has surely been the effect. In any event, the purpose of my edit was to revert that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Admins, the BLP edit that I just described has been reverted.[69] Rape and attempted rape are among the most common forms of sexual assault, the most common form of sexual assault on college campuses,[70] and marital rape is another of the most common forms of sexual assault.[71][72] According to the lead of our Wikipedia article about sexual assault, "In some places...the crime of 'sexual assault' has replaced the traditional crime of rape, and is being defined as non-consensual penetrative sex." Use of the term "sexual assault" in the Trump lead is totally unnecessary and potentially very misleading, so I will continue to insist on the more specific language about forcible kissing and groping.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Admins, I am done for now reverting the lead so that it uses specific language instead of rape-inclusive language. I await your decision as to whether I was right or wrong to make these reverts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, thanks for pointing out that I inadvertently split your comment. I fixed the error.[73] Sorry about that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Volunteer Marek, please, if you want to insist that I not move your comment to a more pertinent section of the talk page, why do you think it's okay to move my comment without my permission?[74]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

I think on this - the narrow edit in question - Anythingyouwant should get a pass on BLP grounds. If he had made this exact edit earlier - rather than removing a whole paragraph that contained this part - I would not have had any problem with it and that whole AE thing above would've been unnecessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, while the edits listed above can be excused on BLP grounds and do not constitute a 1RR violation, the same thing cannot be said for the following two reverts:

• [75]
• [76]

Here is the relevant discussion on talk [77] where it's clear that there is absolutely no consensus for Anythingyouwant's changes and he clearly knows this, but chooses to start another edit war regardless. Likewise there is a ton of sources using the language that ATW is reverting.

So while I don't think ATW deserves to be sanction for the reverts that were originally made and are subject of this report, these edits are a clear attempt to WP:GAME the rules, they do constitute a 1RR violation, and should be considered sanction able. Unfortunately it seems that with ATW "you give'em an inch and they try to take a mile". Which means that a block would be preventive not punitive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know if this should be filed as a separate report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uhhh, note two other things. In this comment Anythingyouwant clearly indicates that they are aware that "sexual assault" is a potentially valid and sourced way to describe what happened - forcible groping and kissing is "sexual assault" (and ATW agrees). So EVEN IF Anythingyouwant prefers a different description they cannot invoke BLP to make the change. The fact that they did so indicates they are acting in bad faith and making attempts at WP:GAMEing policy.

Second, on this page, at 5:09, Anythingyouwant [78] says "I am done for now reverting the lead ". Uh, yeah, after violating 1RR and "getting his way". This statement shows that Anythingyouwant appears to be "testing the waters" and seeing how much they can get away with. Again, this means that a preventive block is justified.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Now Anythingyouwant is editing my comments and moving them around on the talk page [79]. The way he moved my comment (without my permission) detached my comment from the sources I presented to back it up, making it seem like something it was not. Preventive block... come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh wait, I'm sorry, this wasn't just two reverts but an all out "I'm gonna edit war to get my way" spree

• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]

So that's not just a 1RR violation but even a 3RR violation.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces[edit]

BLP says, "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." Mentioning alleged rape and child rape in the lead is undue, since they have not received substantial coverage. Note that there is currently wide coverage about allegations of sexual assualt against Trump, but none of them mention the rape or child rape allegations. Wikiepdia articles should not draw attention to matters that we believe the mainstream has overlooked or portray subjects in a more or less favorable light than one would find in mainstream sources. The edit made Trump appear even worse than he has been portrayed by his political opponents, which is a BLP violation. TFD (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tiptoethrutheminefield[edit]

I have noticed quite a few cases of what I think is misuse of the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions in order to enforce the removal of, or the inclusion of, content that editors want out or in for pov reasons. Alleging a connection to BLP policies when doing it also seems common, and is used a way of locking down any discussion of the matter. In reality the two things are completely separate, BLP policies always take precedence and they cover every article; short term sanctions covering a select subject area do not. The content deleted by Anythingyouwant clearly violated BLP policies and required immediate removal. I doubt the competence of any editor who could genuinely support the retention of such content, and to invoke American Politics 2 sanctions as a way of avoiding our obligations to follow BLP policies is very ill-judged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dervorguilla[edit]

Some background material about the child-rape allegation that Anythingyouwant courteously deleted: "A publicist calling himself 'Al Taylor' attempted to sell the videotape of 'Jane Doe' relating her allegations for $1m... When the Guardian quizzed 'Al Taylor' about his true identity, the publicist replied: 'Just be warned, we'll sue you if we don't like what you write. We'll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper's ass as well, punk.'" I suspect that the editor who contributed that allegation to the article would benefit greatly from further discipline. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith[edit]

I am recused from acting as an administrator in election-related articles, as usual. However, as an editor I do believe that the BLP exemption was valid grounds for going over 1RR. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Anythingyouwant[edit]

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

• Comment I think its reasonably clear that those reverts are allowed under WP:BLP, which trumps any subject-specific sanctions, and this should be closed without any action. Number 57 15:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I agree with everything in Number 57's comment, except perhaps his inadvertently ironic use of the word "trumps." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• This was clearly a good-faith action taken under BLP, and such actions have long been held to be exempt from revert restrictions. Since the first removal was clearly marked as a BLP removal, it was inappropriate for anyone to put it back at all, absent a clear consensus to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I don't know when "child rape" first appeared in the lead — the Wikiblame tool is being unhelpful, and we all know how bloated the article history is — but Steeletrap seems to have been the first to flesh it out with the addition of "rape" here. After Anythingyouwant first removed both phrases,[84] Steeletrap restored them here, thus pretty much forcing another revert by Anythingyouwant. I agree with my colleagues above that AYW did the right thing in removing an obvious BLP vio. I also propose that Steeletrap be warned. At least warned. Bishonen | talk 10:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• If we close this with no sanction against User:Anythingyouwant we are endorsing the removal of the 'child rape' phrase from the article under BLP as poorly-sourced contentious material. The sources for the charge do appear to be flimsy, though the fact that a charge was made is reliably published, by the Guardian and by NBC News. Trump's campaign has stated this is a hoax. Excluding the child rape phrase could conceivably go against the local editor consensus, if they do come up with a complete RfC that supports including the child rape charge. At the moment the local editors have not done so. The closest they came to this is the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Obvious BLP violation. However, the child rape charge is included in Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations#Jane Doe (1994). I draw no conclusion from that, but it is a point that others might bring up in the future. For now, I recommend closing this AE request with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I don't think we're endorsing any particular result. For me, the question is not whether the material should be removed, whether for BLP reasons or others (which is ultimately a content decision not to be decided at AE), but rather whether a reasonable person could have believed that it should be removed under BLP. In this case, I think Anythingyouwant's concerns were reasonably well founded. What the article ultimately should look like is, of course, up to consensus of editors; if there's a consensus to put it back, back it'll go. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I concur with the above, it was reasonable that a person might remove these claims from the article given the obvious BLP concerns. I don't see any reasonable grounds to impose a sanction here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]