To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

פֿינצטערניש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the Israel-Palestinian conflict

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The only possible notification I can give is this: @Sandstein:. I am not able to edit their talk page. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Here is the diff of the notification I just gave. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have also sent the following email to Sandstein, and am including the whole thing for transparency's sake.

If you copy this to your talk page, please do not include my email address.

First, I wanted to inform you, if you weren't aware, that I have appealed my ban from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that I was unable to edit your talk page in order to notify you of this, so the best I could do was ping you and send this email.

Secondly, it's obviously not true that the issue isn't with what I am writing, for a few reasons:

1. Icewhiz has demonstrated a clear problem with what I am writing or requesting be written, as shown on the discussion page for "Human rights in Israel", where my request that information about a controversy be added was immediately met with a purely political, purely opinionated response.
2. Icewhiz chose this route specifically instead of simply asking you to protect the page.
3. Icewhiz has shown no good-faith interest in keeping any of the edits that were made to the article that would benefit the reader in getting a full picture of the controversy surrounding Dareen Tatour. Good faith means that if something would help an article, you keep it while also protecting the page. Bad faith means that you use policy to keep it out of the page, without addressing the content. This is obviously an attempt to use policy to control what facts end up in an article. Otherwise, the edits would not be reverted; the articles would be protected and the edits would be considered on their merits.

So obviously the issue is with what I am writing.

פֿינצטערניש (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by פֿינצטערניש[edit]

I was not treating Wikipedia as a battleground, nor was I arbitrarily assuming bad faith. In fact I had first begun to interact with User:Icewhiz through a straightforward request that a controversy over Dareen Tatour, one condemned by PEN International, be added to the page on human rights in Israel, which was protected against my editing it. On the other hand, their responses, seen at Talk:Human rights in Israel#Dareen Tatour, make it clear that they were there, from the start, to make the discussion political rather than about whether condemnation from international human rights organizations should be added to the article.

Subsequently I edited an article on Dareen Tatour to remove loaded language and add condemnation from other groups (PEN International in addition to PEN America). This article was not protected. But instead of asking an administrator to protect the page, they chose to inform me specifically about it, which makes me wonder what they would have done if someone who agreed with them had made edits to the page. They then proceeded to remove from the lead of the article all information (existing prior to my edit) about the fact that Tatour's conviction and sentencing was widely condemned by human rights activists, an omission (or erasure) of facts that they have shown no interest, even now, in correcting. The lead, as it stands right now as of this edit to my statement, still omits the primary reason for her notability, which makes it obvious that this had nothing to do with informing me that I wasn't allowed to edit the article; the intent was specifically to omit facts. Thus my conclusion of bad faith was the only reasonable one. I considered their warning a blatant abuse of the discretionary sanctions, because it was. Anyone who genuinely wanted to help the project would have seen the problem as the page's lack of protection, not the fact that I specifically was editing it. As I stated in my original defense, the user is either a bumbler who doesn't understand Wikipedia or they have an ulterior motive, and the former is obviously untrue. They obviously know Wikipedia in and out.

My assumption of bad faith on the part of Icewhiz, and subsequent response, was only after interacting with the individual and observing their behavior. I do not see Wikipedia as a battleground; I simply find it important that all the facts be added to articles, whereas despite Icewhiz's thorough knowledge of Wikipedia policies and awareness of how to use them against anyone who brings up facts that make Israel look bad, they are clearly using the site as a battleground. This is evident from the actions they take and the general theme of their responses to the discussion on Dareen Tatour - which, unlike my initial comment, were specifically political from the very start. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC) additions and redaction of a misspelling in italics פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC) bolded the word arbitrarily which had already been italicized in my first edit פֿינצטערניש (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I'm copying what I wrote on the user's talk page in response to this appeal: "I have read your appeal below and will not be lifting the ban. In your appeal, you are mostly blaming the other user for what you consider their inappropriate conduct. This is inappropriate in an appeal; see, by analogy, WP:NOTTHEM. You do not address your own conduct by which you accuse the other user, multiple times and without evidence, of being a paid agent of the state of Israel and of spreading propaganda for that state. Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith towards one another, and to resolve disagreements about article content by discussing the merits of the content, not by attacking one another personally and casting aspersions against the other and their motives. See, generally, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ASPERSIONS. Because you do not understand and abide by these basic conduct requirements, I believe that you should not be editing controversial topics for the time being." Sandstein 06:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile[edit]

I edited alongside this editor at Dareen Tatour.

Their behavior at that page was constructive and source-based, in contrast to that of the editor who brought this case to AE.

This editor’s English wikipedia contributions are limited, but they have made 3,300 edits globally. @Sandstein: could there have been a process mistake here? ARBPIA3 does not specify that the 500 edits need to be made to English wikipedia...

If the editor would take it upon themselves to apologize for the personal attacks against Icewhiz, and the failure to WP:AGF, I would be supportive of them being given a second chance. Their edits so far show the potential to be additive to this project, and I think we might have been guilty of WP:DONTBITE a little too soon. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am willing to apologize for the personal attacks against @Icewhiz:, and for the assumption that they were deliberately spreading propaganda, as well as the implication that they might be doing so for money. I'm aware that such behavior on my part can be toxic and make collaboration difficult. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I am also willing to commit, for the sake of the project as a whole and for the sake of an atmosphere conducive to collaboration between all editors, to no longer making such accusations against anyone without direct smoking-gun evidence, no matter how strongly I believe them. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

I politely informed the user of the DS regime and the general prohibition. To which they responded with this, this, and this - calling into question my physical fitness as well as my editing. I will note I chose to report this not only after fully notifying the user of the DS sanctions, but also a a further specific exploratory note on the general prohibition and its applicability to their edits.

As for the "additive potential" and DONTBITE - the user has an on-off record on en-wiki dating back to 2015 - including such BLP questionable edits such as this on 5 January 2017 which categorized a BLP as a Nazi, and edits on other Wiki projects. I will note the following edit performed on 21 July 2018 across a number of Wiki projects - an.wiki, el.wiki, simple.wiki tr.wiki - in which Israel was modified to a theocracy. A similar edit was also performed on the same date on this this project - en.wiki. This change was reverted as un-constructive across all the wiki projects I looked at.Icewhiz (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

Though the user was topic banned[1] he still use his talk page to violate his ban[2].@Sandstein:,@Fish and karate: could someone revoke his talk page access thanks --Shrike (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC) @Dweller:You misread the ARBCOM decision "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits" As the user was account with fewer then 500 edits this sanction is apply to him --Shrike (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Fish and karate: The user keep violating their topic ban [3] --Shrike (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by E. M. Gregory[edit]

• My error. I had taxed the editor with holding a discussion on a persoanl talk page that ought have been at the article's talk page, and when s/he asked me to move it, I thought, well, I complained, so I'm morally obligated to comply with the request. Although I can see that I wought to have wondered why s/he was blocked form that a page, i never had that thought. What I felt was that I had been rude to an editor I had no previous relationship with, and that it was only polite to help her/him out by making the move. This sort of imbroglio is why I mostly stick to adding content. And to the more black-and-white judgments at AfD. I see now that I ought to wonder why the editor was not allowed to join the discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC) This comment was made in response to Fish&Karate below: moved here by Vanamonde (talk) 10:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 5)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by פֿינצטערניש[edit]

• Any discussion about the contents of פֿינצטערניש's edits, or of the general value of the editor to Wikipedia, appear to be completely irrelevant, since Sandstein writes explicitly that the block was not based on the content of the edits, but was because the editor didn't qualify to edit in that subject area at all due to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, and had been told so before they continued to make edits there. Unless it can be shown that these facts are wrong, that the editor was qualified to edit in the ARBPIA area, or that they were actually never informed of that restriction, then the block should stand as legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'm a bit puzzled by the initial warning: this account was not an IP, so not subject to edit count, and had edits much older than 30 days, so why did this even start, Icewhiz? That said, my advice to פֿינצטערניש is to withdraw this request and reflect and return with a less adversarial attitude and a different approach before asking for the sanction/block to be lifted. Your first responses to Icewhiz screams out that your personality is not suited to collaborative editing here. Demonstrate to us that that wasn't so. Because at the moment, you're reinforcing the perception, not overcoming it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. There's an embiguity in the ruling caused by an Oxford comma. "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure". The comma before the "and" implied to me that the words preceding it apply only to IPs. So it read to me that IP editors are welcome if they have more than 500 edits and 30 days and registered accounts just need 30 days. If that is not the case, this is poor drafting and should be fixed. Bump that up to Arbcom. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC) Shrike see this addition. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggested revision: "All IP editors are prohibited from editing [XYZ]... Registered accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days tenure are also prohibited." Sparse language that's unclear is a bad idea. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, must be "fewer than 500 edits OR with less than 30 days tenure". (Not commenting on case, since involved.) Zero^talk 12:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making my point about poor drafting even more strongly. We need to bounce this up. Any Arbs watching this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've passed the issue on to our mailing list. I had no idea it was being interpreted in such different ways. So far as I've understood it it's "and", not or, and at times the clock has been reset on editors gaming the system - the edit clock, that is, we can't reset the actual time. Otherwise all an editor would have to do is register an account and wait 30 days, which was never the intent. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Doug. (For those who are confused, I am not Doug and, to the best of my knowledge, Doug is not me. See the banner at the top of my user page). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dweller, it means the equivalent of extended confirmed, which is both. The reasons 30/500 blocks have become more common this year is because all of the main ARBIPA3 articles have been protected, meaning that users who are committed to editing in the area (and are usually POV-pushers) have started as a trend to seek out obscure articles related to the conflict to edit to the point where blocks have unfortunately been necessary rather than ECPing every possible article in relevant category trees by hand. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Tony. Whatever we mean, we ought to say it, and say it clearly. Especially if it's going to be thrown (gently or not) in the faces of newbies. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result of the appeal by פֿינצטערניש[edit]

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

• Recommend not removing the block, and allowing it to stand. The entirety of פֿינצטערניש's appeal is focused on pointing out what Icewhiz has done wrong, rather than taking responsibility for their own actions, which were a clear breach of ARBPIA3, and which is just reinforcing the fact that פֿינצטערניש has issues with BATTLEGROUND. Fish+Karate 13:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it's also worth warning פֿינצטערניש that one further instance of using their talk page to create content in breach of the topic ban (as they did here: [4]) will see a lengthier block imposed, with talk page access removed. And I'm going to politely remind E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) that proxying for a topic-banned and/or blocked user as they did here is not ok, as they may not be aware of this. Fish+Karate 09:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note: comment by E. M. Gregory moved to separate section above: it can be bureaucratic, I know, but the sections are there for a reason.
    • Is cool. Fish+Karate 09:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have removed פֿינצטערניש's talk page access for the duration of the block, as they are again using their talk page to produce edits about a topic from which they are now banned ([5]). They can appeal this via UTRS. If this means I am now 'involved' (I'm never quite sure what constitutes involvement, it's nebulous) then please feel free to move my comments appropriately. If the removal of talk page access is inappropriate then any admin may feel free undo that tweak to the block without prior consultation with me. My suggestion is to concurrently extend the block duration, but I'll leave that as a matter for discussion here. Fish+Karate 12:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I edit-conflicted with you while attempting to revert their addition and leave a warning saying that talk page access would be pulled the next time, but I think pulling immediately was also within discretion. This does not make you involved, as as far as I am aware, you have only interacted with them in an administrative capacity. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Reading through this mess, I see two legitimate questions we need to address; 1) whether edits outside en.wiki contribute towards the 500/30 requirement (it's not made explicit at WP:ARBPIA3, but common sense would suggest "no") and 2) whether the 500/30 requirement should be enforced via t-bans or page protections, other things being equal. That said; the language used by the appealing user is appalling, and their appeal addresses none of their own behavior, so I would deny the appeal at this time. Vanamonde (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Agree that only edits on en.wiki should count towards the 500/30 requirement. Edits on other wikimedia projects will/may have different requirements, policies, etc, and are not analogous. Fish+Karate 10:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  The intent was that this would cover only en.wiki actions. We can't anticipate every page where 500/30 will be relevant, so I'd say T-bans. Doug Weller talk 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per my comments above, the block is certainly good: the user isn’t extended confirmed and never has been, which from a functional level is what the restriction means and how it has traditionally been interpreted (namely, the conditions for extended confirmed were designed to match this restriction.)
  To Vanamonde93’s point re TBAN’s: see my response to Dweller above. We’re quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns on further ECP (it should still be done, but we can’t reasonably be expected to protect every article in the topic area, and those who want to be disruptive have proven this year that they will find the unprotected articles.) I personally prefer enforcement through blocks to TBANs in these cases, but I think Sandstein was within discretion, so I’m endorsing both the block and the TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As no admin has commented in over 24 hours, and there is not a consensus to lift the sanction, I am closing this appeal as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2018 (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 Noto-Ichinose[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Noto-Ichinose (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision :

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

Rapid additions of the AfD template to BLP articles. No AfDs have actually been created so far, only the templates were added. These are the first edits after the user came off a 72 hour block a few days ago, and after the BLP topic ban was imposed.

1. 18:41, 10 August 2018 UTC
2. 18:42, 10 August 2018 UTC
3. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
4. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
5. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
6. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
7. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
8. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
9. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16:38, 6 August 2018 72-hour block for "Disruptive editing--POV editing, edit warring, unwarranted warnings, and finally an ANI boomerang (thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=853728167)"
2. 17:21, 6 August 2018‎ Topic ban from BLP edits

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.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 17:21, 6 August 2018‎ by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs pretty much speak for themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, nice catch Calton! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [6]

Discussion concerning Noto-Ichinose[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 Noto-Ichinose[edit]

Statement by Calton[edit]

Can someone run a checkuser? Because at first glance, their most-recent edits seems to follow those of PaleheadedBrushfinch (talk · contribs), who added a slew of PROD tags to the same articles. --Calton | Talk 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Noto-Ichinose[edit]

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

• Clear case of go-ahead-block-me-see-what-I-care. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Concur. I'm convinced they don't care. Tiderolls 21:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I disagree with my honourable friends Sarek and Tide rolls; I think it's a case of I-have-no-idea-what-topic-ban-means-and-I-don't-want-to-find-out. It's surprisingly common, and therefore I generally give topic banned editors one vio for free, with a mere warning. This, though, isn't one vio, it's nine, and there was obviously no time to warn. I recommend a 48-hour block. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Id block for this, and not for a second shorter than a fortnight, and would be fine with anything up to two months. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• What Courcelles said. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd also look at what Calton said above - all the AfDs were on articles PRODded by User:PaleheadedBrushfinch, who PRODded dozens of articles about notable women, whilst bizarrely creating articles about notable brothels... as for Noto-Ichinose, I'd just indef them now and save ourselves wasting anyone else's time later on. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Hmm, I saw what Calton said, and checked; CU had already been run two weeks ago but nothing came of it, apparently. After Black Kite's comment I figured I might as well see if something was missed, and lo and behold. As for Noto-Ichinose, I blocked them twice: first per NOTHERE since they deserve that, as a timewaster, and then as a CU block. Thank you all, esp. you, Calton. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (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 Philip Cross[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (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/BLP issues on British politics articles :

On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed.

On 9 August 2018, ArbCom enacted a clarification of that remedy by modifying it to read:

"Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

On 12 August 2018, Cross made a series of edits to the talk page of Wikipedia's BLP Louise Ellman, a British Labour Co-operative politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Liverpool Riverside since 1997.

Wikipedia's relevant policy states in pertinent part:

"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase 'broadly construed.'"

In providing an example of weather-related articles, the policy expressly includes, "and their talk pages [emphasis added]."

Accordingly, Philip Cross's edits to the talk page for Louise Ellman violate ArbCom's topic ban.

This request for enforcement is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just three days after it was clarified. KalHolmann (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Philip Cross[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 Philip Cross[edit]

Self-reverted. I can assume my old edits will be regularly challenged on talk pages by the same handful of users and I have no public means of responding. I was civil to User:RebeccaSaid and AGF. Philip Cross (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As it is raised below, I should point out that I did not know the topic ban applies to talk pages and must thank User:KalHolmann for pointing it out to me. I was not topic banned for my edits, but my off-Wiki behaviour [and the COI issue this created]. The tweets in question from last May, which I admit were problematic, have been deleted. My Wikipedia and Twitter accounts are no longer directly linked. Philip Cross (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modified with thanks to IP user 121. (etc) below. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Calton[edit]

As User:RebeccaSaid is referring to one of my edits I think I should respond are the first words I see in that edit.

Personally, I'd feel better about this report if it had been done by someone other than Philip Cross'S self-appointed parole officer. --Calton | Talk 01:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shrike(Uninvolved)[edit]

I second Calton sentiment also the user has self-reverted I think warning will suffice in my opinion --Shrike (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by RebeccaSaid[edit]

I raised a legit example of double standards regarding sourcing on the BLP of Ellman. It was a valid question, I raised it generally and it wasn't directed at Philip Cross, hence why I didn't ping him. If I was after his opinion I would've asked him on his own Talk Page.

I note the "self-revert" justification is being raised already. as it was in the previous breach. Philip Cross. So editors can effectively ignore their TB & as long as they self-revert after a breach has been raised - that's fine?

With regard to who raised the case, what's that got to with anything? A breach is a breach. It's not like he wasn't advised after his last foray onto pages that fall within his ban.... Word to the wise......... --RebeccaSaid (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by 2017 Complainant[edit]

This is the second enforcement case for violations of his topic ban by Philip Cross within a few weeks of the ban being imposed. The first time no action was taken, and it's remarkable that inaction is still being suggested for a second offence committed only days after the first let-off.

Is it normal for early and repeated topic ban violations to be simply ignored in this way? One problematic aspect of the original Philip Cross case, the case that led to the ban, is that the problems with his editing were raised multiple times over many years by multiple people, but nothing was done. Is that pattern of non-accountability to continue on the enforcement of his belated ban? Is it all just a matter of who your friends are?

I note that some editors supported the previous no-action decision only with the proviso that the enforcement case must serve as a warning and that further violations would have to be met with some kind of sanction. Obviously, given that the second offence took place only days later, no such warning effect was actually achieved.

Philip Cross in his statement above did not attempt to deny the ban violation. His position seems to be that he should be able to violate the ban to "respond" to "challenges," relying on self-reversion to get out of trouble when his violations are pointed out. If no enforcement action is taken again this time, then his position will have been effectively accepted by Wikipedia and his topic ban will be nugatory. 121.72.186.230 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philip Cross has stated above that he believes that his topic ban was not for his edits but for his taunting of people he dislikes on Twitter while editing their pages. In fact ArbCom applied two sanctions to Philip Cross: a warning and the topic ban. The warning relates to the conflict of interest created by his abuse of certain individuals while editing their BLPs. The ban covering the whole topic of British politics, broadly construed, clearly relates to his non-neutral edits in the area of British politics. Possibly this failure to understand that his editing in the topic area has been problematic has contributed to Philip Cross's obvious lack of respect for his ban. 121.72.186.230 (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

(posting here as while I'm uninvolved with this dispute I don't consider myself neutral regarding British politics)

I'm in favour of a short block on this occasion - PC wasn't specifically asked for his opinion on this occasion, the question wasn't one that only he could be reasonably expected to know the answer to, and there can't be many subjects less clearly covered by the topic ban (which was clarified only a few days ago) than a sitting MP. Self-reverting when called out on topic ban violations is not a free pass, and really only cuts the mustard when the violation is borderline or it is done immediately, without prompting, after a good-faith mistake. I'm unconvinced that this was a mistake. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

The edit was a violation of the topic-ban, but rather innocuous -- it was simply a talk page comment providing information, now self-reverted. I would suggest a warning to Philip Cross, and a suggestion to them to simply remove such BLPs from their watchlist. They can create a custom watchlist if they get occasionally curious about how these BLPs are faring nowadays. But having such BLPs on the normal watchlist creates such temptations. Also, directly bringing up these violations with Cross on their talkpage is a more lightweight method, instead of opening an AE request. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Philip Cross[edit]

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

• Self-reverted, so I'd close this with a mere caution to Philip Cross to be more mindful of his topic ban in the future, with the advice that future edits and self-reverts may not be looked on so kindly by passing admins. Courcelles (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Okay, I'm actually fine with a block, though I still prefer this line in the sand: If I see another violation of this topic ban, I will block Philip Cross for no less then a month. If, IMO, the violation was deliberate or egregious, I'd make it longer without AE protection. It is time for this topic ban to be taken seriously, whether a short block is issued by Sandstein or another admin for this violation, it absolutely must be the last time. I absolutely cannot be clearer about this point. Courcelles (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm not too happy about this series of edits; while PC was posting there in response to queries about content he had previously added, I'm fairly certain he is aware that such a response was still a t-ban violation. I would be okay with a warning on this occasion, but only with the understanding that PC is not going to be cut any more slack. Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Philip Cross, I find it difficult to believe that as an editor of 14 years standing, with 130k edits and then some under your belt, you are unaware that t-bans apply to every namespace. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In my view, a block is now necessary to deter Philip Cross from future violations of his topic ban. While it is good that he self-reverted the edit, we shouldn't need to have an AE thread each time this happens. Sandstein 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (My comment here is as an uninvolved administrator, not as an arbitrator, and should receive no more weight than that of any other administrator.) In my opinion, a block is now necessary. A short one, perhaps just 24 hours even, but a block nonetheless. We were just here with another case of boundary-pushing that was not acted on due to what was effectively wikilawyering. If PC receives another warning rather than a meaningful sanction, I see this happening again. If he didn't understand what a topic ban was last time, which I find somewhat dubious, he was given ample opportunity to review the rules. At this point, he is expected to know them. I also note that PC should expect some amount of scrutiny on his past edits, given that they reflected a conflict of interest. Conflict of interests usually attract scrutiny due to the tendency to edit in subtly biased manners, even when there is no direct intent to do so. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Given that there is agreement that this was a topic ban violation, and in consideration of the discussion above, I am blocking Philip Cross for a week. Sandstein 12:53, 13 August 2018 (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 202.161.64.247[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

202.161.64.247 (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:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant : As per talk page of the article there's a "limit of one revert per 24 hours restriction when reverting logged-in users."

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

1. 14 August 2018 The IP made the edit.
2. 14 August 2018 I reverted him.
3. 15 August 2018‎ The IP made the first revert.
4. 15 August 2018 Zero0000 reverted him.
5. 15 August 2018 The IP made the second revert.
6. 15 August 2018 I reverted the him once more.
7. 15 August 2018 The IP made the third revert.

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 August 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I tried to start a talk page discussion which the IP ignored and made his next reverts. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @EdJohnston: The talk page of the article clearly prohibits the users to make more than one revert against the logged in users. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He is notified. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning 202.161.64.247[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 202.161.64.247[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning 202.161.64.247[edit]

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

• WP:GS/SCW is a community sanction so the AE board is not the place for this. But there should be no problem in putting WP:ECP on January 2015 Shebaa farms incident since it was a battle between Israeli forces and Hezbollah. Most likely any conflicts within the West Bank that involve Israel could be considered to fall under WP:ARBPIA, though the present complaint doesn't require us to decide such a wide question. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2018 (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 Austrianbird[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Austrianbird (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/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.Not complying with [[Wikipedia:Policies and

guidelines]] in regards to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Civility - ethnic based attacks on editors and national groups, edits and comments that are highly provocative, offensive and seem to serve only to stir up conflict. Additionally defensive about Nazi occupation and Nazis.

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

1. Revision as of 10:10, 14 August 2018 Ethnic based attack "Please learn about the Holocaust and other Polish crimes" "It's a shame to be Polish and to deny those crimes".
2. Revision as of 09:41, 10 August 2018 Attacks another editor using ethnic based remarks "And now GTFOOH!I´ve better things to do than to care for a Polish history falsifier"
3. Revision as of 09:00, 10 August 2018 Ethnic based attack " the good name of Poland" (Which good name? ROFL)"
4. Revision as of 18:08, 11 August 2018 Comparing anti-Nazi resistance to IS and Al-Quaida "Since when are unlawful combatants called "combat sabotage unit"? I never heared this definition in regard to IS or Al Quaida fighters"
5. Revision as of 17:21, 11 August 2018 Naming an operation against Nazi occupation "malicious ambush", the resistance leader is named "an egoist"
6. revision as of 16:28, 16 August 2018 Entering own views in the article such as "When we calculate now the percentage of the saviours within the whole folk we must sadly recognise that they´re only a drop in the bucket" about Poles who saved Jews, and under the title "The truth needs being told"
7. Revision as of 07:50, 17 June 2018 Perhaps most shocking. This edit defends the infamous Mengele "What Mengele noticed with astonishment and answered that such good work is new to him as in the most modern German university clinics they can´t report about such unproblematic births. So obviously the claim that Dr. Mengele ordered her to euthanize the newborns as stated in source nr.3 is a hoax!"

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

1. 06:02, 13 April 2018 Informed about discretionary sanctions after his string of edits including claims that resistance against Nazis in Poland simply murdered peaceful German settlers and mayors while in civil clothes or that Jews "could leave ghetto"[8], naming Polish name "Polish pet name"[9]

,

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This accounts doesn't seem to add anything constructive to Wikipedia, the edits seem either Nazi denialism or defence of Nazi actions, or ethnic attacks on Polish people formulated in most vulgar fashion(see remarks about "Polish pet name" or naming editors "Polish falsifier").--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Austrianbird[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 Austrianbird[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Austrianbird[edit]

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

• Based on the evidence here I have indefinitely blocked Austrianbird as a normal admin action. Clearly this kind of blatant tendentious editing and editorializing in articles is completely out of the question even outside AE topics. If an admin disagrees, they're free to unblock the user and we can then discuss appropriate AE actions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Good block, Sandstein. Courcelles (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Agreed with my colleagues above. Closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (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 יניב הורון[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBPIA3

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

1. 14 August 2018 The user reverted me and hence he's the original author here on.
2. 16 August 2018‎ I removed the material and asked him to see the talk page discussion and WP:ONUS. Before reverting, I had opened a talk page discussion and it's seen that an uninvolved user was in partial agreement with me.
3. 16 August 2018‎ The reported user reverted me in less than 24 hrs and restored his material and hence violated the 'original author' provision of the remedy. It's noteworthy that he did the revert without participating in the ongoing talk page discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 13 March 2018 Blocked for violating this remedy.
2. 13 April 2018 Blocked for violating the 'original author' provision of the remedy.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He is notified. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning יניב הורון[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 יניב הורון[edit]

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

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Shrike[edit]

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

Statement by Kingsindian[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

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

Statement by Calthinus (uninvolved)[edit]

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]

This single remark alone [11] reveals that יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here not to collaborate but to game the system. His other comments and a long string of nothing but reverts [12], hints a conflict with the primary policy aspect of WP:NPOV which as defined by ArbCom demands that editors devote themselves to writing an unbiased encyclopedia. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

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

Statement by RevertBob[edit]

Interesting Icewhiz accused me of gaming but is defending this person of it when they seem to have been warned before about it but continue to do it without any punishment. RevertBob (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning יניב הורון[edit]

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

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

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

• I consider this not actionable. This is about conflict between Iran and Israel. The WP:ARBPIA scope is limited to the "Arab-Israeli conflict". Iran is not an Arab country. Sandstein 20:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• It is the current consensus of administrators and the Arbitration Committee at ARCA that Iran falls outside of ARBPIA. The general prohibition applies to articles, not edits. reasonably construed, not broadly construed. As such, this is not actionable. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Calthinus to your question re: Iran and Israel, the committee dealt with this 3 months ago at ARCA, with one committee member noting that she was unwilling to extended it to Iran without a full case. Currently Iran-Israel relations are out of scope. See: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_3_(May_2018). TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[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 Capitals00[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

India-Pakistan standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 16:35, 31 July 2018‎ (UTC) Filed sockpuppet investigation against DraculatheDragon (talk · contribs), a user participating in discussion at Talk:Adam's Bridge, a page covered by Capitals00's topic ban. See below for further explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

• @Capitals00:

1. The "offending action" I'm referring to is your posting of the SPI, your action that I'm requesting admins to review, which you did about three weeks ago. "Offending" with respect to your topic ban, not offending in the sense of taking offense, in case that was ambiguous.
2. Boing! [15] and I [16] both updated the SPI noting DraculatheDragon's account disclosure before you pointed it out here, and I also noted it in my request on this page. It's you, not either of us, who is deliberately misrepresenting this point.
3. Your personal attacks regarding my competence, my understanding of the definition of topic bans, and my motivation for dismissing your misleading investigation, are noted.
4. Boing! has also told you to drop the stick in the SPI ([17]).

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Capitals00[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 Capitals00[edit]

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

• Ivanvector claimed "MegaCyanide666 supposedly admits to using DraculatheDragon was made by an IP and doesn't mention DraculatheDragon at al".[18] This was rejected by Boing who said that DraculatheDragon admits to be MegaCyanide666.[19]

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

• Ivanvector then reverted my edit on SPI when I still assumed good faith and attempted to clarify things to him.[20]

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

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

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Capitals00[edit]

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

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

François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:59, 23 August 2018 (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

Temporary topic ban from the history of Poland in WWII (1933-45) :

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

1. 29 July 2018 Wojtek belonged to the Polish II Corps during WWII. Edit worth noting despite probably falling under the vandalism exception.
2. 12 August 2018 Edit removed statement regarding Polish emigration policy from 1936 onwards, which overlaps with the time frame defined in the ban.
3. 21 August 2018 Edit overlaps with the time frame of the ban.
4. 22 August 2018 Major polish politician, in power until 1935. Considered one of the greatest Polish leaders of the 20th century, his ideas affected Polish politics and foreign policy for years. The edit thus falls under both the time frame and subject of the ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

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]

Oh. My. Freaking. God.

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

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

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

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

I had a look at the diffs provided and Volunteer Marek's assertions seem largely correct. The only one that might require additional validation is this one [32] and only then in as far as to confirm that it was a legit revert of a topic-banned sockpuppet, which should be easy for any admins watching these pages to confirm. However I didn't see any indication of "broadly construed" in the TBan documentation, and all other provided diffs have to do with events that happened either long before or long after the specified time period. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Accesscrawl[edit]

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

Statement by JFG[edit]

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken=[edit]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. I challenged this edit on the grounds that it was impossible to ascertain the meaning of it and so grammatically flawed as to render it useless.
2. Thomas.W reverted my challenge claiming my edit summary was misleading.
3. When asked by a third editor to adhere to the DS he refused, claiming my edit was vandalism.
4. When cautioned on his talk page to self-revert and after being made aware that I was not vandalizing the article and was aware of the discretionary sanctions he refused to do so.

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

warned on his personal talk page. warned on the article talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

I should note the recent addition to this case by @Springee: is a bit of a stretch; there's pretty strong consensus on talk right now that that text should go; and we are in the process of rewriting it. @Waleswatcher: simply did us all the favour of putting the original text away until such time as we finish a new version. Their actions are reflective of the consensus emerging at talk. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Thomas.W[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 Thomas.W[edit]

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

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

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

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

@MastCell: I did not call it vandalism, what I did was imply, in a talk page post, that that kind of edit could be a test edit, blanking or vandalism, depending on what the motive behind it was. And the template I posted on their talk page was for "unexplained removal of content", not vandalism, clearly showing that I did not see it as vandalism, if I had I would have posted a vandalism-warning... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Waleswatcher[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Springee: You're really trying hard to make this about me, aren't you? There's now a clear consensus against that edit as it was. There might be an consensus emerging for some version of it to be included. Until that crystalizes, there's no reason for it to be in the article - it's ungrammatical, confusing, and factually wrong in several respects. In fact the active remedies effectively forbid it being in the article, since it was challenged via reversion (by Simonm223) and should not have been reinstated without consensus. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (Springee)[edit]

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

Followup comment. Waleswatcher seems to be intent on edit warring on the article in question. Here the editor is needlessly removing the text in question (again) while there is an active discussion on how to redo the content. [[33]]. Again, this is editing behavior that should be avoided given the disputed nature of the subject. Springee (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bishonen[edit]

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

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

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

Statement by Ivanvector[edit]

I'm commenting up here because I'm familiar with both editors, and what I see here is simply two strong personalities clashing with each other. I don't think it's really any more than that. 72bikers added an edit with atrocious grammar ("illegible" was not an inapt description, I can't follow what they were trying to say or how the references could possibly have supported whatever argument they were making), Simonm223 reverted with an explanation which ought to have been reasonably clear in that case. There was some discussion afterwards about whether "illegible" was the best choice of word, or whether "illiterate" or "unintelligible" were more appropriate, but Thomas.W is intelligent enough to have understood the meaning. In any case, challenging an edit by reversion is widely accepted practice. Thomas.W restoring it because he assumed it was a "test edit/blanking/vandalism" (his words), with all its poor grammar, seems to be a failure of WP:AGF, and somewhat pointy considering he has not participated in the subsequent discussion at all. Maybe he overstepped the "do not restore content challenged by reversion" condition of the discretionary sanctions, but I see no value to a sanction here. There's already a discussion about it moving along well on the talk page, so it seems like the best thing to do here would be to just move on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman[edit]

Thomas.W's comment -- I did not call it [the revert] vandalism [34] -- strikes me as a bit disingenuous. See for example this edit summary:

• "Waleswatcher, get real. The material wasn't 'challenged', it was removed with a misleading edit summary by an editor who to my knowledge has never edited the article before, and thus treated as test edit/blanking/vandalism (take your pick) [35].

"Take your pick" suggests to me that any of the options, including "vandalism", was indeed a valid choice in the situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by 72bikers[edit]

I feel perhaps this could have all been avoided if some admin would have spoke up an curtailed the incivility posted above by slatersteven with Discussion concerning 72bikers. I to believe I should share blame for having started the ball rolling.

Here is what I believed happened. Slatersteven changed this article (placed in the article on the 21st) content (I would point out up to this time no reference of unintelligible) yesterday and left this summery "Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?" which made no sense, there was no Dr jones and appeared to have nothing to do with his changes. I posted on the talk page "I can not understand your broken English", perhaps in retrospect I should have used other wording, but in my defense he has very commonly misspelled words and jumbled words in sentences. I can not be sure but I was contemplating perhaps he had a child and they shared the account. I believe this severely offended him, because after that, mentions of others intelligence and the post above with derogatory accusations of others intelligence.

Slatersteven "a bizarre (and almost nonsense) edit", "It is (in fact) (in my opinion) vandalism (for the purposes of trolling)", "And not wholly supported by the sources (indeed as written a blatant misrepresentation of them This is false", "so badly written it is hard to follow exactly what is being said about what, hence why I say it is troling.","I cannot even fathom the mentality behind it other then being a deliberate slap in the face to any ed who has disagreed with him. It was a willful act of childish vandalism, that is what I find unforgivable, poor editing and general disrespect"

Simonm223 has never edited the AR-15 article before. I would point out Slatersteven comment "It is (in fact) (in my opinion) vandalism (for the purposes of trolling)" would more accurately reflect Simonm223 and his actions. He was posting here though when all this went on yesterday above. I believe he saw statersteven comments picked up the incivility ball and brought it back to the AR article, with edit summery "an illegible edit". This was clearly not justified and way over the top, poorly written ok but cleary not to the degree justifying that kind of hostile uncivil personal attack. Then more on the talk page with his first post right out the gate to Tom "I removed it because it was literal nonsense" his next "I saw mention elsewhere on Wikipedia to that paragraph and it's complete nonsense" Clearly not the tone of civility for he saw the hostility posted by slatersteven as I mentioned "picked up the incivility ball and brought it to the AR article. " More insults "It was illiterate" (I would point out he used the wrong word for his insult) How is any of this justified and clearly not a justified reason to simple blank RS on topic content.

Wiki policy is to fix content as opposed to just throwing it out. Especially since it was well-sourced.

A study by Dr. Fox a professor of criminology and statistics assembled by Mother Jones from 1982-2018 on mass shootings show the weapon of choice overwhelmingly is semi-auto handguns and a very common misconception that AR-15's or similar rifles were preferred. Reworded needed yes, illegible clearly no. This placed between, statistics assembled by (with some help from Fox in the past)[36] by Mother Jones. Clearly just stating professor Fox helped the Mother Jones publication compile the data. Reworded sure, illegible clearly no.

(Professor Fox saying "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons".) This was placed at slaterstevens request. This certainly looks out of place, but illegible clearly no.

AR-15's specifically in the last 35 years have only been used in 14 (This was a error actually 13) mass shootings.[37] Error needing fix yes, illegible clearly no.

Rifles have been used 25 percent of time in mass shootings, semi-auto handguns almost half of the time.[38][39] [40] Rifles used a quarter of the time, handguns half or 50% of the time. How is this illegible?

I do not see how any of this was justification of the tone or general disrespect that was suffered. I believe he appeared more like a vandal than any other editor who was not just a ip at this article. -72bikers (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Thomas.W[edit]

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

• So: an editor reverted a perfectly legible edit with the combative edit summary "RV an illegible edit", and now wants us to sanction the editor who was offended by this, right? Not happening. For the record I think the edit should not remain (it is not great English, it uses prenominals in an appeal to authority, and so on), but as an edit, and as a course of conduct surrounding the edit, this is a garden variety content dispute of a very low level that should simply be discussed on Talk. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Waleswatcher: WP:STICK. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Bad grammar" that otherwise uses reasonable RSes is not a reason to edit war. Grammar can be fixed, and unless the text was completely misstating the conclusions of the source, it is not a reason to editwar. No action against Thomas.W. --Masem (t) 14:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I'd take no action because the confusing request does not make clear what exactly it wants enforced and why. Sandstein 18:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I guess I have a slightly different view. First of all, I don't think Simonm223 has used this noticeboard before, and this process has become increasingly complex and arcane, so I'm inclined to cut him some slack in terms of the form of the request. It's obvious to me what he's trying to say, and more fundamentally, this noticeboard is designed to streamline the handling of complaints and disruptive editing in problem areas, not to erect additional barriers to good-faith editors in the form of bureaucracy.

  In terms of the substance of the complaint, I see more merit in it than Guy and Masem. 72biker's edit was challenged by Simonm223, and then restored by Thomas W. without any attempt to seek consensus. Because of the active discretionary sanctions, the challenged edit should not have been restored without some attempt to gain consensus for it. So Thomas W. violated that provision of the discretionary sanctions. This doesn't look like a gray area to me. It's not a question of a "content dispute"; it's a question of restoring a challenged edit without first seeking consensus.

  Worse, Thomas W. called Simonm223's edits "vandalism". Simonm223 is an established editor with 10 years' good standing and >5,000 edits, and whatever Thomas's opinion of the edit, it was clearly not "vandalism". It was a good-faith challenge by Simonm223, based in part on the incoherency of the edit in question. (And it was incoherent). By labeling it "vandalism" and violating the consensus-required provision, I'd say that some sort of administrative response is indicated. If anyone else sees it that way, then we can discuss whether a warning or a more significant sanction would be most appropriate. If I'm the only one, than I'll accept that I'm in the minority and let it go, but I really don't see how this isn't a violation by Thomas W. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I had concerns, but wasn't sure how to raise them. MastCell expressed them quite well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think this is a case of confused motives and all concerned should just let it go. Simon223 was probably right in removing the poorly written content. But, faced with an "illegible" edit summary, it is understandable that Thomas W. was tee-ed off and consequently unrestrained in their response. The offending edit is not on the article page, a discussion on the talk page has been initiated, and we don't need to flog this horse until it achieves its satori. --regentspark (comment) 01:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• While sharing MastCell’s general feelings, I’m not seeing value add beyond general warnings to not do it again; explain removal of content better, and definitely pay special attention to what you call vandalism. Now can we go do something more productive with our collective time? Courcelles (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2018 (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 Nishidani[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Editors_reminded :

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I tried to reason with him on his talkpage,[42] but he only digs himself in deeper,[43] so instead of arguing or getting angry, I decided to just bring it here and let the community decide if that was an appropriate edit. I so informed him. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

@Black kite Your accusation that this post is to "remove an opposing editor" is a bad faith assumption, and as such is not appreciated. I have interacted fruitfully with Nishidani over the years, but his tone is intended to intimidate and makes working in the already loaded ARPBIA area unnecessarily harder and he has been warned for that several times already. Almost all his comments turn any issue into a battleground, and it is time the community puts a stop to that. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Black kite If any statement an editor happens to disagree with is called "moronic", "stupid", "backwards" etc. etc., year after year and on article after article, then it becomes evident that these are personal attacks on any and all opponents for the purpose of gaining the upper hand in argument, just that they are veiled as though they are addressing the content, but really they aren't. Especially since all those comments contain additional references to the editor (in this case me) like "you have a POV", "you don't check sources", "you don't know English" etc. etc. I can not but agree with Sandstein, that Nishidani's edits are intended to manipulate discussions, and that in a most unpleasant and disruptive way. See the comments of Jonney2000, Icewitz and E.M.Gregory, who also feel the same way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Calton I think everybody here is well acquainted with the concept of "unclean hands". However, in the case I have reported here, my hands are completely clean. Please do not try to obfuscate the issue. The issue is not my behavior, rather Nishidani's. Who is not willing to mend his ways, and continues to disrupt discussions with his unpleasant and unrelated putting down of his fellow editors. How would you like it if every edit of yours (not you yourself, God forbid, just every second edit you make) is called "stupid", "obviously made without looking at the sources" or "based on your lack of understanding of English (we all know that Berkeley graduates don't speak English all that well, now do they)"? Debresser (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RolandR My original complain was very short. Later replies to other editor's comments (like this one), don't count towards the word limit. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2018 (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 Nishidani[edit]

I set about

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

Meaning? Debresser will revert me on an I/P issue (I added content to two pages on August 22, and in both cases Debresser removed it. I.e. also at Jerusalem here). He will contest my reasoning, threaten me repeatedly on my page ([44][45], [46],), admit I am correct, and then ask that I be sanctioned for my behaviour. The only intelligible sense to this erratic attritional time-wasting havoc is, 'I will cause you problems, even if you are right, because, when you edit, you require my consent here on the talk page.’ It's not the first time Debresser has indulged himself in this kind of of weird shenanigans. In reverting on different pages my two contributions, on the same day, he was patently trying to disrupt my work here. WP:Boomerang per WP:Harass.Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments in excess of 500 words again removed as an admin action. @Nishidani: you may be blocked you if you continue to make comments that exceed the word limit. Sandstein 14:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

.Sorry about that. I thought vaguely that the 500 word rule referred to each single response. I made a calculation and see that even the text you left breaks the rule and that you had been indulgent in not excising, as would be appropriate, the excess wordage. So, as a matter of rule compliancy I've elided to come under the limit. Unfortunately, the part where I contested your readings was removed. I resolutely deny, for the record, that a generalization about bad editing using a plural can be construed as a personal aspersion. (494 words) Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Icewhiz. I can't reply per above. But admins should compare my remarks with all remarks in that thread. It is not opinionable that the Balfour Declaration was marginal to the creation of Israel. That is the informed historical 100% consensus.(39 words:494+39=533, apologies) Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

Statement by Vanamonde[edit]

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

@Nishidani:, by pointing out at great length your background in the subject, you're missing my point, which is simply that you need to moderate your language. It is possible to be both correct and rude; and it is possible to be unpleasant without violating policy. Food for thought. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Calton[edit]

• User:Sandstein: Nishidani has a record going back to 2007 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area.

• And Debresser has a record going back to 2009 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area.[47]. Perhaps your research should have included that.

• User:Sandstein: According to the AE log, the user has already had two one-month topic bans.

• According to the AE log, Debresser has racked up four topic topics of varying lengths, along with a couple of blocks for violations. Perhaps your research should have included that.

• User:Sandstein: ...in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS

• In light of Debresser's track record, I'd call that "fact-based opinion". --Calton | Talk 18:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the metaphor of "unclean hands" is unfamiliar to User:Sandstein. Or the actual definition of the word "aspersions". Has he considered doing any research on those? --Calton | Talk 06:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

As a genius who sometimes writes moronic text, I know very well the difference between my text being called moronic and myself being called moronic. In fact the difference is exactly that which separates criticism of edits (allowed) and criticism of persons (not allowed). Nishidani has my blessing to use insulting words about my text if he notices any words of mine that deserve insult.

Another thing. People who are engaged in disputes in ARBPIA often come here in the hope that they can rid of a pesky editing opponent. Unfortunately the filtering system is very imperfect and on the margin between obviously valid cases and dubious cases there are many which could go either way depending on which administrators are around and how they are feeling today. So this is a type of roulette that can be won by playing often enough. I don't understand why administrators assume that reports are made in good faith for the love of the encyclopedia when, as in this case, they obviously are not. Zero^talk 01:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Sandstein: On this forum it is permitted to call someone a POV warrior and challenge their motivations, provided evidence is brought. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. (my emphasis) Well, this is an appropriate forum, so your claim that Nishidani violated ASPERSIONS by writing such things here, with evidence, is just plain wrong. But, in any case, you didn't even read him correctly since he didn't direct those comments at an individual but rather made a generalization about the area that anyone familiar with it would recognise. Exactly as he wrote in a reply you deleted. Zero^talk 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Debresser: "Later replies to other editor's comments (like this one), don't count towards the word limit." You are not correct, please read the restriction again. Personally I think that the accused editor should have more space than others, in line with natural justice. I also think that administrators who invoke the limit to delete refutations of themselves are behaving improperly. Zero^talk 07:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Jonney2000[edit]

Nishidani is basically a good editor. I do not enjoy interacting with him because he is very aggressive. Over the years I feel that repeatedly it has been implied that I am a racist Zionist or just stupid.

The other issue is that I have a hard time understanding him on talk pages in that he uses overly long and overly sophisticated text sometimes mixed with broken English.

I do not want to see him punished, I just find it annoying.Jonney2000 (talk) 06:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

It would be nice if statements such as:

1. 15:40 23 August Do you understand what you imply in stating 'most historical texts'? You are saying you have thoroughly mastered the literature. Nonsense, and in any case .... So stop the bullshit. It's tediously jejune in its nescience.
2. 13:34 22 August writing the 'Balfour declaration was hardly the most central element' etc. is historically illiterate. Not only .... The rest of the obiter dictum is equally and ridiculously uninformed. Idiosyncratic evaluations of history have no placer here and shouldn't interfere with consensus making.

Would avoid claims on other editors (e.g. the extent of their reading on a subject).Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

As for Debresser not wanting to "remove an opposing editor", just some info: a year ago I brought Debresser here, to AE, as he had called Nishidani and myself for "anti-Jewish", ie racist, and that is not a label I will accept.

Now, the interesting thing is that Debresser at once blamed .....Nishidani(!) for the fact that I reported him! See User_talk:Debresser#AE...even though Nishidani had asked me to "sleep on these things overnight and reconsider". (Hmmm, are we living in a Saudi world, where every female must have a male guardian who is responsible for her??)

Sigh, and we all do moronic edits at times....I once stupidly misread BCE for CE...(and therefor placed a whole paragraph under the "Roman era" heading). Debresser at once reported me to AN/I...before I could explain, or undo my stupidity. I would actually have preferred that he had called my edit moronic (it was) on the talk page ...instead of wasting everybody's time on AN/I..Huldra (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by E.M.Gregory[edit]

Encounters with Nishidani, often at AfDs on I/P articles, are marked by his aggressive, dismissive attitude towards fellow editors:

• "it is incompetent trash, as one has come to expect from the editor's work in this area" [48]
• "I suggest you actually read the article" [49]
• "Delete obviously. Apart from the ongoing defiance of policy, E. M. Gregory's attempt to turn Wikipedia into an ethnic exclusive version of Yad Vashem fails here, because all of the details in the new article are already comprehensively covered in the specialist article dedicated to this violence List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, July–December 2016" [50].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by RolandR[edit]

Why is Nishidani restricted to a total of 500 words in response - and even threatened with blocking if he does not comply - when the original complaint itself is well in excess of 600 words? How is it possible to defend oneself against a lengthy complaint, and numerous other comments by others, without being given the space to do so?

If this rule is to be applied rigidly and consistently, then any initial complaint that exceeds 500 words should be automatically disallowed. And once the subject of the complaint has responded, it should be forbidden to raise any further points which require their response. Anything else creates an uneven playing field, and is unfair to the subjects of complaints. RolandR (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani[edit]

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

• No action, I am more zealous about maintaining civility than most admins, but I can't construe [51] as "A highly uncivil edit, with personal attacks, a bad faith accusation, [containing] unbecoming language and general unpleasant and intimidating phrases and tone." The words "stupid", "moronic" and "what in the fuck" are ill-advised but are directed at the content, not the contributor, and are nowhere near the point where a sanction is anywhere near being warranted. And that's even with the lower-threshold mentioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Result_concerning_Nishidani, and even if that wasn't from 2 years ago. Fish+Karate 10:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Correction, User:Fish and karate: "what in the fuck". Drmies (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The content dispute about Jewish or Arab identity etc. is irrelevant here, AE only cares about user conduct. Referring to a user's contribution (and therefore by extension the user) as "moronic" violates WP:NPA, and Nishidani's overlong wall of text does not address this. Moreover, in the now-removed parts of their response, Nishidani refers to the complainant as a "POV warrior[...] indifferent to source control, the proper application of policy [...] and whose purpose in numerous edits is to cleanse pages of anything that might trouble a nationalistic POV", in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. This is unacceptable conduct, and Nishidani has a record going back to 2007 of blocks and warnings for overly aggressive conduct in the ARBPIA topic area. According to the AE log, the user has already had two one-month topic bans. I am therefore considering imposing an indefinite topic ban. Sandstein 18:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calton: Because no misconduct by Debresser has been alleged here, their past record is not relevant. See, generally, WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 18:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regardless, I think it makes a difference. If a complaint is brought by someone with a history of sub-par editing in that area, and/or is clearly an attempt to "remove" an opposing editor, then IMO our lines should be drawn a lot higher. Like the Volunteer Marek complaint just above, this request is both. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my view, these aspects should only factor into an AE decision only insofar as concerns any sanction imposed on the complainant, but no evidence for any such sanction is being submitted here. We use sanctions to protect the community as a whole from disruption, not the specific complainant. Sandstein 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Per Fish & Karate, this behaviour, whilst obviously not ideal, does not rise to the level of a sanction, especially an indefinite topic ban. As F&K says, the invective is aimed at the content, not the contributor. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If we start indeftopicbanning for "moronic comment" we're going way too far. I do wish that Nishidani would take "overlong wall of text" to heart. It's a good thing I don't see a reason for a sanction in Debresser's complaint, because I can't figure out what Nishidan's defense is supposed to be. Word to the wise: focus on the issue. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "moronic" as such wouldn't warrant sanctions, but the additional aspersions, as mentioned above, do. Sandstein 14:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I am closing this without action at this time, given that I am the only admin that considers this actionable. Nonetheless, I will consider imposing a block or an indefinite topic ban, with or without any prior discussion, in the event of continued battleground-like conduct by Nishidani in this topic area. Sandstein 16:41, 29 August 2018 (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 72bikers[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Slatersteven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

72bikers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun_control#Neutral_point_of_view :

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

1. [52] Undid a revert by Waleswatcher and reinstated a bizarre (and almost nonsense) edit that I undid here [[53]] which was made despite objections to the exact wording he used. To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS, but this is blatant as it is not even well written (and indeed is not even factually accurate according to 72 bikers previous version). And not wholly supported by the sources (indeed as written a blatant misrepresentation of them). It is (in fact) (in my opinion) vandalism (for the purposes of trolling), and a 1RR breach to boot.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [54]
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[55]]

Discussion concerning 72bikers[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 72bikers[edit]

Slatersteven edit summary today.

Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?[56]

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

Context

Slatersteven claimed this source does not list all of the weapons used so OR using it.[57]

Slatersteven claimed this sources was about mass murder and not mass shootings so OR using it.[58]

The 3rd source used [59] There are many more but I did not want to overburden the article with overkill, but can provide if needed.

AR-15 Talk page comments yesterday.

• "On the grounds it does not list all of the weapons used in all of the shootings" Slatersteven [60]

• "On things like case 5 which says Semi auto rifle, but dose snot specify type" Slatersteven [61]

• "Slatersteven the chart defines 4 weapons types semi-automatic handguns, rifles, revolvers, and shotguns. The same as the study." 72bikers [62]

• "Slatersteven there are tools provided that also allow the ability to filter the chart for specific stats, as well a list and link for the sources of every shooting so there is no guessing nor OR" 72bikers [63]

• "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's hence trying to draw definite number form this sources is OR." Slatersteven [64]

• To further support the statistics, "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research"[65]. From 1984 to 2018 in the last 35 years only 14 mass shootings used a AR-15."

But as you point out "Whilst all AR-15's are semi-autos not all semi Autos are AR-15's" I will address your concern to resolve this issue. -72bikers [66]

Article edits

• Slatersteven's last edit yesterday [67]

• My edit to address his concerns yesterday [68]

• Slatersteven's edit today [69] with his edit summery "Dr Jones helped himself to compile his statement?" I honestly I am not sure what he is saying.

• Waleswatcher's right after removing Slatersteven's edit and blanking all of this content [70] with a edit summery "You cannot start a sentence with "Though", and the information here is mostly redundant with the first phrase of this section (and already very well cited). Furthermore)"

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

Todays article talk page (Slatersteven "Why was not just providing his direct quote not doing this?" today on the article talk page. [71])

• My edit after Waleswatcher restoring the content he blanked and addressing Slatersteven concern raised and WW "You cannot start a sentence with "Though".[72]

Waleswatcher recently has blanked content and not discussed it on the talk page as seen toady. [73], [74] -72bikers (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

I said at the ANI I was unsure what to do. I have no idea where to find the remedies, Also I included the discretionary sanctions awareness information [75], they are aware DS is in place. So I am not sure what you are asking for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

OK how does it misrepresent the sources

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

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

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

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

Note the edit has now been reverted by another edd precisely because [[76]] "RV an illegible edit", it was a nonsense edit designed to make a point. So maybe it should have been battleground conduct I reported them for.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

This [77] represents the problem, not one issue. No where do I say that I have final say. There is no attempt to justify or explain the edit he made, just (what is in effect) a strawman. As I said this is not about 1RR but a general tone of PA's, poor editing and general disrespect to anyone who does not share his POV.Slatersteven (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Waleswatcher[edit]

72bikers has just violated the 3RR rule at Mass shootings in the United States. Diffs: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]

link to the 3RR board report: [82]

Edit warring seems to be an ongoing pattern, and what's worse is a continuing refusal to accept the norms of wikipedia editing. 72bikers continually makes edits that are ungrammatical, poorly formatted, riddled with errors, and simply confusing to the reader. When challenged, they post walls of text [83] [84], aggressively berate other editors [85] [86], and generally display battleground behavior. They have forbidden other editors from posting on their talk page [87] [88], which creates a situation where their behavior can only be discussed on talk pages (where it doesn't really belong) or on noticeboards like this one. Personally, I think a topic ban is due. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Springee: Here and here and again here, after I post on something you immediately follow up and try to claim I'm the problem. This looks like WP:HOUNDing. Please stop. Waleswatcher (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Springee[edit]

I want to point out that Waleswatcher isn't exactly an innocent party in this case. I'm sorry to see that 72biker violated the 3RR rule but WW's own editing on this and the related AR-15 article has been disruptive and counter to consensus building. 72biker was likely, and rightly, frustrated that WW would come in, make edits or reversions without regard for talk page discussion then only days later decide to join the discussion. 72biker needed the warning but part of this is due to the poor editing behavior of WW. WW has been recently reported for disruptive editing by myself and at least one other editor. They come here without clean hands. Springee (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Simonm223[edit]

These topics are heated ones and I've tried to be patient with all participants since becoming involved, out of sympathy for that. I got involved with these pages mostly out of concern for the quality of edits that 72bikers had been inserting. I may have been harsh in my criticism, but I am of the opinion that Wikipedia is at its best when major edits are work-shopped at talk before going live and 72bikers does not participate readily in that process, often throwing out tangentially related text-walls or mass-revising their previous comments that have already been responded to, all while failing to provide any constructive response to proposed changes. I will note that my concerns are not primarily a content dispute. I don't agree with Springee on a lot of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues on these articles, but they are very willing to discuss at talk and build consensus when disagreement occurs, and as a result we've been able to make progress toward improving the articles. Disagreement on Wikipedia is fine. But disruptive behaviour is not. And with 72bikers' tendency to make unreasonable demands of other editors, their generally weak grasp of grammar and syntax, their haphazard use of talk page and their tendency to ignore anything they don't want to hear, I really think they're a prime example of an editor whose competence is questionable. This is an editor who said that the page about mass shootings was, "not a gun article," in an edit summary in which they removed a contentious source that was under discussion at talk. In short, I'd suggest a topic ban for firearms related articles, widely construed, would be appropriate at a minimum. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

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

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

Result concerning 72bikers[edit]

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

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

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

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

• There is a WP:1RR restriction with a 'consensus required' clause visible at the head of Talk:AR-15 style rifle. Perhaps that is what User:Slatersteven is asking for enforcement of. But strict application of the 1RR might fall on the heads of a number of people who have edited in the last three days. As the filer states above, "To be fair we have all been a bit lax over there with the DS.." EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As Ed says, the 1RR restriction seems to be ignored on that page, and not only by 72bikers. In lieu of blocks at this point, maybe best to close with a reminder of the 1RR restriction, and warnings to those who have violated it (which, at a glance, would appear to include both 72bikers and Slatersteven). MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeah, that seems fair. Lord I wish 72bikers would be more careful in their edits and more organized in their thoughts and comments. Their heart is in the right place, I know that, but they are going to have to watch it, and think twice before clicking "Publish changes", because next time--if there is one, on this board or somewhere else--they might not meet so much mercy. (As for Slatersteven, I AGF their work too, and while they are more organized than 72bikers, policy-wise, this very report here proves they also need to be more sharper.) Drmies (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: The 1RR restriction — if any? — on the article is kind of moot, as I have just blocked 72 bikers for 3RR violation, per Waleswatcher's report at the 3RR board (permanent link). 72 actually made five made four reverts in 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 02:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Closing, since nobody wants to take action. Sandstein 08:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]