Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243

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 Soibangla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) : standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

Diffs

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

1. 2018/10/14 Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of
   WP:NPOV
   .
2. 2018/10/11 Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story) at
   Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), and conspiracy theorizing
   on the talk page.
3. 2018/10/14 Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing. The details of the bizarre QAnon allegations should not be included on Soros's page, and certainly not where multiple people had already objected in a discussion started by Soibangla.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Notification on 4 September 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Their edits at

π, ν) 00:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't intend to withdraw this; the addition on

π, ν) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification diff

Discussion concerning Soibangla

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 Soibangla

I am beginning my statement now, but it is not yet complete, I will provide notice when it is

Accusation: "Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump"

It was one paragraph, three sentences, supported by three reliable sources. If there had been a consensus reached that the lede had been somehow "locked down," I was not aware of it. The added paragraph was certainly relevant to Trump's BLP, whereas the two subsequent paragraphs, which had evidently reached consensus before this apparent "lock down," are more suitable for the Trump presidency article, not his BLP.

Accusation: "Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story)"

The WSJ uses a paywall for most stories, so linking directly to WSJ will not allow users to check the ref. However, WSJ chooses to bypass their paywall when they tweet an article, so I linked to those WSJ tweets so users can access the whole thing. This is just the way WSJ chooses to make their content available, I am doing nothing devious.

Accusation: "Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing"

There was nothing suspicious about it, nor was it a denial. Another user had unilaterally declared that consensus had been reached, made an edit reflecting that perceived consensus, and then I made a subsequent edit that complied with that perceived consensus.

Accusation: "edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out"

"vaguely concerning" but "I have no specific diffs to call out"? What does that mean, exactly?

I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious.

I will have more to say, pressed for time right now. soibangla (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BullRangifer

This is an absurd filing. Lesser methods of DR should be used, and differences of opinion and complaints about a sourcing style don't belong here. Soibangla does much excellent work. I think you should reserve drastic measures like this for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. --

This board should be a last resort not the first!, DR or ANI is thataway →. –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Soibangla

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

• I have to repeat what I said in response to the above request: This looks like a content dispute to me. Arbitration and AE do not resolve content disputes. If the edits are problematic from a content point of view, such as regards neutrality, accuracy, content forking, etc., then the way to correct this is consensus-building on the talk page. Content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, but it normally takes a long history of problems or obvious, severe violations for them to rise to the level where AE action is needed, and I don't see this here. I'd therefore take no action. Sandstein 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I find myself agreeing with MelanieN. This topic area should be approached with caution and discussion is encouraged, however there may be room for bold edits in moderation. The reported conduct does not in my view rise to sanctionable conduct at this time, but may do if it becomes part of a longer term behavioural issue. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with those above. The editor made a bold edit - apparently well backed up by sources :) - it was reverted and, hopefully, will be discussed somewhere or the other. Vague comments about edits in other articles are, um, vague, and I'm surprised that an editor of power-enwiki's caliber is resorting to this sort of thing. The latest example of
  WP:SYNTH, though it does look like synthesis, is best discussed as a content issue. AE should be resorted to when you have a well documented case for a violation of an arb ruling and this is nowhere near that. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Opening statement by AGK

I am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by Debresser.

1. In #VanEman, immediately above, Debresser cited two diffs that were around 27 hours apart – and requested enforcement of a 1RR (one revert per 24 hours) general sanction. To be clear, I have recommended enforcement action in that case – but only as a result of different diffs of user conduct which I came across during a review of the request.
2. In #Nableezy, above, a meritless request for enforcement was submitted.
3. Nishidani, enforcement requested August 2018, was again closed without action.

I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests.

I would only like to say that in my point of view, both Nishidani and Nableezy have behavioral problems, and are moderately disruptive from time to time. The fact that this forum has decided that there were no grounds for action, does not mean that there were no grounds for my reports. Just like in real life, not all court cases end in convictions.

I noticed that AGK is worried about "reprisal". May I remind you that it is me, who was reported here a week ago in a clear attempt at reprisal. I myself do not have such inclinations. In addition, please feel free to research the issue, and you shall see that there simply was nothing that could have provoked me to seek reprisal. Specifically regarding VanEman, I hadn't seen him in over a year, and even that was not in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, ArbCom restrictions, like ARBPIA, include a clause about proper behavior in the spirit of community editing, not to mention decorum. Most of my reports were not about straightforward violations (like my last report regarding VanEman, which was accepted). They were specifically about editors' behavior, as in long-time patterns: editors using derogatory language (Nishidani and Nableezy), editors being pushy and ignoring the opinions of other editors (Nableezy). And in all my reports there have been admins (and certainly non-admins) who have said that there is some truth about the issues I reported, just that it is not actionable. Please check that.

So a warning about what? Not to report edits that are not actionable? How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not? Especially since were are talking about discretionary actions.

By ruling time and again that there were no violations, ArbCom has effectively decided to ignore Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing, which reads "Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles". However, it would be completely unfair to propose to sanction the editor, who tries in good faith to uphold the rule that this forum has itself instituted. Or does ArbCom want to remove that point from its decision now? Debresser (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Huldra's comment In that WP:ANI discussion too, all commenting editors agreed that Huldra's edits were problematic, just that the closing editor decided it is a content issues, and not actionable at WP:ANI. How using misleading edit summaries is a content issue, I don't understand till this day. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Kurtis' mention of a January report of mine I can't believe you really try to hold that report against me. We all know that trying to game the system by waiting a little over 24 hours is actionable! I was sanctioned not long before that for an edit I made after 1d3h. In view of that fact, you have to admit that at least the report wasn't unreasonable. (Especially galling was that the very same admin who sanctioned me for my revert after 1d3h refused to see as a violation Nishidani's edit after 1d5h. IMHO that was a biased decision, and not one of ArbCom's better moments.) Debresser (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

@Kurtis Is this sequence of edits the kind of report that would be too broadly interpreting

@Roland What is disruptive about this section? It needs to be clear if Kurtis proposes reporting a straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation is acceptable, and wants a restriction only regarding reporting "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" (since that is obviously more prone to interpretation)? That is apart from the question if other admins will endorse his proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roland And let's be honest, if this is indeed, as I think, a straightforward violation, then it will be very interesting to see if admins will have the moral integrity to act on it. Based on my experience with some of the admins here, I have my doubts. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy In reply to this edit: October 22 18:50 - October 22 09:16 = 09:34 < 24h. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy In reply to these edits: You are right. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I've reviewed Debresser's reports to AE over the past two years. Apart from the ones mentioned by AGK, there's also (in reverse chronological order): Nishidani (January 2018), El_C (June 2017), Nishidani again (May 2017), and finally Nishidani (October 2016). Of these, the only one that resulted in a sanction for the reported party was the 2017 AE submission concerning Nishidani, with Sandstein implementing a one-month topic ban from Israel/Palestine articles – and even then, several commenters felt that the diffs provided were not actionable. There does seem to be a pattern here, albeit a sporadic one. The question is, does it warrant a sanction at this time? Or would a final warning be sufficient? Kurtis ^(talk) 19:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: "How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not?" – To tell you the honest truth, a lot of it just boils down to common sense. It's inevitable that some AE reports are going to end up as borderline cases, and the decision is usually determined by factoring in things like the editor's past history, the seriousness of the violation, whether they're making a good-faith effort to learn from their mistakes, etc. But there's also an expectation that the filing party will use good judgment in submitting a report. To give an example, in January of this year you reported Nishidani for violating a 1RR restriction. The two reverts you cited were, by your own description, over 24 hours apart. At the time, the two of you were engaged in a content dispute. Bringing the situation here made it look as though you were attempting to gain the upper hand. Whether you realize it or not, this is a common thread for many of the reports you've made to AE and ANI over the past few years.

Your idea of what constitutes a violation is much, much broader than that of most people. Going forward, I think it would be a good idea for you to avoid making any AE reports that aren't clear-cut cases (e.g. an editor makes multiple reverts to a 1RR article in a single day), as well as ones in which you're an involved party. I also recommend that you get into the habit of using other avenues for

dispute resolution rather than escalating tensions by immediately pursuing sanctions against other editors. You'll probably find it a lot easier to get things done when you begin to think of them as collaborators rather than antagonists. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Just a note: Debresser doesn't only report editors to AE, he also reports you to AN/I, last time he reported me there was in July 2017. (It was closed without any sanction), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. As I said at the time: I misread "2nd century BCE" for "2nd century CE". And Debresser, without giving me any opportunity to explain, took it straight to AN/I. As I said back then, drama much? (Also, it isn't the first time Debresser have dragged me to AN/I, with no result), Huldra (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

This page is not the right place for this discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

These sanctions are set up as a destructive way to end disruption that has not been reasonably taken care of by other means. When sanctions are placed the situation is generally, "enough is enough". If this is becoming a game that is in itself highly disruptive. Everyone here is a volunteer, from editor to admin but we don't have a shortage of editors. The opinion however has been bumped around a time or two that we have a shortage of admins. Admins time aside we also don't want to run off good editors. If -insert any editors name- is coming here for retaliation or any nonsense then the appropriate action should be taken, what ever that may be. A warning, the stated purpose of this noticeboard, or some punitive action. Case by case due to the facts of the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Surely Debresser's latest comments above[1][2][3] are a breach of his topic ban, and an an egregious example of

@RolandR: - Debresser isn't under any topic ban, you should strike your assertion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Uhh, Debresser, you claim the revert you made was undoing a "straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation". That kind of demonstrates the point that you have no idea what an ARBPIA3 violation is, the edit you reverted was emphatically not a revert. You just did a blanket revert without even a semblance of an explanation, and have as of yet declined to even pretend to justify it anywhere. You seem incapable of actually identifying what a revert is, in addition to the problem of understanding exactly how long 24 hours is. nableezy - 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problem there is my edit wasnt a revert. It doesnt touch what Shrike reverted at 06:16, 22 October 2018‎ UTC. That you bring it up here is yet another example of what this section is about. You bringing up totally and completely bogus "violations". nableezy - 18:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved admins

• Yes, we do see Debresser quite a lot here with, as far as I can recall, often non-actionable requests. I wouldn't object to a restriction against making new AE requests. Sandstein 11:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Because discussion among admins has died down and we are back to the usual unhelpful pattern of recriminations among involved editors, I'm closing this thread. Any admin remains free to take whatever action they deem appropriate. Sandstein 07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have procedurally re-opened this in order to enforce. I will close in short order.
   ■ 17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Whether it is retaliatory or not, there is a clear pattern of poor/inappropriate reports to this noticeboard. I would prefer a strong warning however, with a restriction on AE requests if the problem continues. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I am enforcing as follows:

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 13zmz13

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

13zmz13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

 :

Diffs

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

1. 11:53, 21 October 2018 editing an article clearly under
   WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (see Talk:Shurat HaDin
   ), in spite of only having 116 edits
2. 11:55, 21 October 2018 same
3. 12:25, 21 October 2018 same

If

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
  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 Date
• 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

I (and another editor) have tried to make 13zmz13 understand that they shouldn't edit the IP articles (see here), alas they seem to think that rules are only for lesser mortals than themselves. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning 13zmz13

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 13zmz13

I have yet to receive even one iota of evidence that suggests Shurat HaDin is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"... 13zmz13 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

• I wonder why user:Huldra nor user:Zero0000 did not warn in similar manner other user User:Spiny Norman that edited the same article [4] --Shrike (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

• Shrike asks why Huldra and Zero warned 13zmz13 but not Spiny Norman. Maybe this is because SN has made just one, minor, edit to the article while 13mz13 has so far made fifteen POV edits, and reverted repeatedly. And note that one of 13mz13's recent edits was a reversion of a self-correction by Zero of a typo; this is the essence of edit-warring and blind reversion. RolandR (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This article is about an Israeli organization that fights "Israel's enemies" (mostly Arabs and Iranians) by means of law suits. Of the law suits prominent enough for their own article sections, approximately 75% directly concern the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim by 13zmz13 that it doesn't know the article is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" is absolutely unbelievable. Even the specific section edited by 13zmz13 (most recently with an additional revert after this case was filed, also violating 1RR) concerns a law suit against "Palestinian solidarity activists". Please give this contempt for the truth the reception it deserves. Zero^talk 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 13zmz13

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

• Shurat HaDin is entirely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because it describes an organization which deals primarily with legal issues related to that conflict. 13zmz13's conduct and insistence to the contrary is disruptive. 13zmz13 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ScienceApe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

Diffs

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

1. 21 October 2018 You're inability to understand a
   strawman fallacy
   reveals quite a bit of how low your IQ must be - personal attack
2. 21 October 2018 Knock off the obvious biased white knighting - personal attack
3. 21 October 2018 Stop with the idiotic strawmanning and white knighting first.; Oh you're the white knight etc - personal attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see [5]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These personal attacks by itself show this editor needs a

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 ScienceApe

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ScienceApe

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

• I agree with the filer. Science Ape is indefinitely topic banned from
  bludgeoning and unpleasantness on article talk and edit warring at the article. The user may appeal the ban no more frequently than every six months. Bishonen | talk 16:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]

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

Request concerning Onceinawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Onceinawhile (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

Diffs

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

1. 27 Oct 2018 First introduction of text.
2. 02 Nov 2018 Revert after text [10] was removed not waiting 24h

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [11].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• The provision in question is pretty clear If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit..It was violated
• Also there is an issue of
  WP:TE
  .If admins interested I could provide additional diffs that user use sources that don't mention the neologism. --20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@

[12] --Shrike (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Onceinawhile

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 Onceinawhile

I was not aware of the change in the rules. The banner was changed in a subtle but important way in May this year, ostensibly to clarify that the 24-hour rule for new edits applies from the point of the revert, not from the point of the original edit. I now see the change at ARBPIA took place even earlier than this, but it was not put on the banner until May this year. No-one ever notified me of these changes to ARBPIA, and I don't have the banner on my watchlist. I am not sure how I am supposed to keep up with these changes, but I apologize for not doing so.

If I had been informed of the rule, I would have immediately self-reverted. I would like to make a show of good faith now, but I am not sure how I can. The only evidence I can offer is that that revert was my last edit to the page, and I did not participate in the ensuing edit war. I made 20 edits to the talk page instead.

As to powerenwiki's comments, the nominator's subsequent participation in what had by then become a classic edit war puzzled me, because he and I had reasonably constructive set of discussions during the prior week on the article talk page, with no suggestion that he objected to the 5,622 bytes of information now in question, and also because he made no subsequent talk page contribution to justify his change of heart.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One reflection on the rule - it starts "If an edit is reverted". Is the word "edit" supposed to capture new content as well as changes to existing content? I have been thinking about what the rationale might have been for this new rule; I presume that the spirit of the new rule related to the age-old problem of identifying which was the "first revert". I had never imagined that the addition of new content to a new article could be considered as a "first revert". It all seems very strange to me, but I commit to ensure full compliance going forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I see at least 6 different editors edit-warring over this change. Why is this the only editor that should be subject to Discretionary Sanctions?

• I accept Onceinawhile's submission that, wrongly, they did not think
   ■ 21:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Request concerning Malik Shabazz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : specifically, violation of TBAN imposed by DS.[13]

1. 03:04, 7 November 2018 - removal of ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice from talk page. The Land of Israel#Modern usage, Land of Israel#History, and Land of Israel lede contain conflict related material - the notice is not off topic (one may possibly claim that removing an ARBPIA notice from a clearly unrelated page (e.g. Thrombosis) would fall under an exemption - but in this case the notice is clearly applicable to significant parts of the page).
2. 03:12, 7 November 2018 - article itself is closely related to the conflict. The edit itself removed "Zionist baby killers" as a cited example of contemporary antisemtism - the phrase itself being conflict related.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17 August 2015 - 48 hour block for "Repeated personal attacks and incivility"
2. 20 January 2017 - 4 day block for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for your personal attacks on others ("dickhead", "moron") in the context of discussions about the WP:ARBIPA topic area"
3. 12:47, 23 May 2018 TBANed from ARBPIA for 6 months.
4. 3 June 2018 Warning of TBAN violation.
5. 6 July 2018 Blocked 31 hours for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard".
6. 09:07, 30 July 2018 - blocked two weeks for "topic ban violations, incivility and personal attacks".
7. 10:31, 30 August 2018 - blocked 72 hours for personal attacks.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:47, 23 May 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This complaint is about the 7 November edits - the October diffs are possibly stale and are are not as clear cut, however they were added to show a possible pattern.

In regards to the conflict relatedness of diff2 - a reasonable interpretation of "Zionist baby killers" is that the implied nationality of the babies in question is Arab, particularly since the cited WaPo source for that stmt continues in the same paragraph to say "...dismissing Jewish students as “Zionist baby killers.” At rallies on college campuses, speakers regularly list “Zionists” in the same category as white supremacists and Nazis. Progressive leaders circulate lists of acceptable Jewish organizations, including only those that do not address Israel or that define themselves as Palestinian solidarity groups." - tying this to I/P.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

addendum - in 12:35, 7 November 2018 Malik Shabazz used the edit summary "rv vandalism" when reverting a mandatory notice of this AE filing against him. I will note that the AN/I complaint leading to the last block on 30 August - ANI archive 991 section - mentions a previous use of such language in relation to a mandatory notice.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz

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 Malik Shabazz

Despite Icewhiz's assertions, every mention of the state of Israel is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Sandstein had intended to ban me from anything related to Israel, I think he would have said so. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Sandstein, you focus on form instead of substance. Adding an ARBPIA template to a page doesn't make the page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor does removing a misplaced template. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz forgot to mention that I broke the speed limit at least three times on my way to work this morning. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I very much disagree with the notion that removing an ARBPIA template from a page where it does not belong and was added without discussion by an involved editor in the topic area is covered here. If an uninvolved admin decides that a biblical concept is part of a conflict that began in the last hundred years or so then they can do it, but that is not what happened here. The second diff is wholly unrelated, neo-Nazis in the United States not exactly being a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. nableezy - 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Icewhiz is here reporting straight reversions of vandalism as meriting sanctions. That is about as bad faith as an AE request gets. He reports this reversion of an editor who has, citing "eye for an eye", made a couple of vandalism edits (here and here) in response to a favored website being listed as Islamophobic (removing that here). Takes a special kind of bad faith to report that, so much so me thinks a boomerang is in order. nableezy - 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

While Sandstein is correct in noting that "it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism", the edit in question was removing reference to this article, which discusses anti-Semitism in regard to I-P conflict. Moreover, the user was banned from editing "anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", and while anti-Semitism can be practiced by anyone, it is very much related to the conflict. “WarKosign” 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Malik Shabazz

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

• The request has (partial) merit. The topic ban does not cover a "mention of the state of Israel", but rather the Arab-Israeli conflict. The edit in the second first diff at issue pertains to text that relates to that conflict. Specifically, Malik Shabazz removed the template {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}}, which describes the discretionary sanctions that apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the first second diff is not actionable because it concerns "antisemitic anti-Zionism", i.e. antisemitic opposition to the state of Israel, which in and of itself does not relate to the Arab part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism. I would therefore take action only with regard to the second first diff and invite admin comments about what to do. Sandstein 12:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm somewhat unconvinced here, because yet again it's someone immediately jumping on a possible violation by an editor whose edits they oppose. A far better thing is to discuss it with the editor concerned, suggesting they revert rather than running off to AE. For example, here's an edit that I made on User:יניב הורון's talk page suggesting that they may want to back away from that subject. That editor hasn't contravened their topic ban since. My inclination here would to be to warn the editor about any edit that skirts round the edge of their topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Having reviewed only the November diffs, I'm unconvinced a sanction is required. I'm not terribly happy about the template removal, but really the substance of that topic is not ARBPIA related, and it requires some real nitpicking to believe it should be sanctionable simply because it involved an ARBPIA template. That said, I would recommend that Malik avoid such a removal in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it showed the best judgment to remove the template, but I also agree that we don't need to sanction for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning 1l2l3k

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gobulls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

1l2l3k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

User:1l2l3k

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction:

Diffs

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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.

1. [14] Revert after text [15] was removed not waiting 24h
2. [16] First introduction of text.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

The user is well-aware. The page is in the middle of an edit war and one user has been suspended for it already.

• 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
  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 Date
• 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

I don't understand how to request it. This is my first time, and I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talk • contribs) (I've moved this post here from the admin section where it was misplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified him on his talk page.

Discussion concerning 1l2l3k

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 1l2l3k

My two reverts were done at a distance of 4 days, not 24 hours. The first one was on 2 November and the second one on 6 November. Still, I self reverted, after seeing this report, for the sake of the peace among wikipedians who are discussing in the talk page, in order to promote a better working environment, and also since the reporting party is so upset about my revert. Further, when a discussion is ongoing, the reporting party should refrain from making edits, that's why I did my second revert (4 days after the first one). Also, I don't see any diffs above in his report to be able to say anything else. I'll get back to this report when the diffs are clearer as to what exactly I did wrong. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Not a violation - 1l2l3k didn't originally author anything - he reverted on 2 November, and again on 6 November - and regardless self reverted.

In addition, one should note that filer has engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions - on the Wikiproject Palestine page - 16:38, 6 November 2018, had edited in violation of the general prohibition on 18:03, 23 October 2018 (becoming extended confirmed due to subsequent editing on unrelated topics), and has also played loose with 1RR - performing reverts 24 hours + 13 minutes apart - 15:59, 5 November 2018, 16:12, 6 November 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

• The user was never notified of the sanctions in the ARBPIA
• This case for
  WP:CANVASS instead doing that he filed AE action. --Shrike (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Cleaned up the format of the request and moved a comment by Gobulls to their section as it was misplaced in this one. No opinion otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Gobulls, for sanctions to be possible, you must show that the editor against whom you are requesting sanctions has been made aware in one of the prescribed ways. I do not see that the editor has received a discretionary sanctions alert ([18]), so unless you can show awareness in one of those ways, not just by asserting they are, this complaint will have to be dismissed. (Of course, by having been the subject of an AE request, 1l2l3k will be considered aware going forward, but they must have been aware at the time the claimed violation occurred.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Warkosign

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gobulls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WarKosign

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :

Diffs

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

1. November 11, 2018 violating revert (in my opinion, from my understanding of the situation)
2. November 11, 2018 original revert
3. November 10, 2018 original author

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Unknown

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=867566165

• 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
  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 Date
• 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

I informed him on his talk page.

Discussion concerning Warkosign

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 WarKosign

Gobulls did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that.

This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with 1l2l3k above there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user wrote on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after responding to the message on my talk page.

Please

Someone should warn Gobulls (talk · contribs) about making inaccurate complaints.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Diff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on 15:57, 10 November 2018. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on 17:32, 11 November 2018 - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert".Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Warkosign

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

• I am closing this as not actionable because the request is too confused for me to make out which specific remedy has allegedly been violated, and why. Sandstein 13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 week block for topic ban violation: [22]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a

diff

of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

[23]

Statement by יניב הורון

I made a mistake. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development is related to my topic ban. However, I didn't realize the article was under ARBPIA because it isn't extended-confirmed protected (that's why the IP that I reverted could make such an edit in the first place), there was no template and I was making a small edit about US definition of the organization. If you give me the chance, I'll never edit in that article again, not to mention I'll be extra careful in other unprotected articles. I apologize. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

• I don't have a problem with the block being reduced to time served as long as Yaniv is more careful in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by יניב הורון

Result of the appeal by יניב הורון

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

• Unblocked per Back Kite. Sandstein 18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed [24], logged [25]

Administrator imposing the sanction

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA

)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a

 ■ 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Request concerning Calton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Calton (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

2016 US Election AE

}}

Diffs

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

1. 2 November 2018, 15:11 UTC – First revert on Steve Bannon, a page placed under DS with 1RR + consensus required. This edit restored content, a "See also" section, that had been added by another editor on 2 November 2018, 00:25 UTC, and that I had removed on 2 November 2018, 12:18 UTC. This constitutes a first violation of the "consensus required" provision that states "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As is customary with this restriction, the alert is placed in a prominent edit notice.
2. 3 November 2018, 14:19 UTC – Second revert, violating both 1RR (albeit barely, after 23 hours) and more importantly violating the "consensus required" provision a second time, instead of going to the talk page for an attempt to gain consensus.

On 3 November 2018, 11:07 UTC, I called upon Calton to seek consensus on the talk page, and I opened a discussion there on 4 November 2018, 08:40 UTC, including a ping to Calton for attention. Calton did not reply, although he edited Wikipedia several times since then. Consequently, I decided to file this AE report.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Two prior AE blocks for violating 1RR in the DS/American Politics domain: 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day); see Calton's block log.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Was blocked for 1RR violations on 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day), see the block log linked to above.
• Participated in WP:AE debates several times in the last twelve months, most recently on 24 August 2018 and 12 September 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The disputed content is still in the article, as I did not want to edit war over it. Somebody should remove it if Calton does not self-revert, and the content debate should take place at Talk:Steve Bannon#"See also" section.

Further notes:

• Reading comments by various admins, I concur that the "consensus required" provision is overkill for the Steve Bannon article, and I would welcome its being lifted, with no action on my report.
• Regarding Calton's position, casting
  aspersions on my motives ("you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles", expressed on my talk page
  instead of here), I have replied that we may not like the rules but we must all follow them.
• About the basic content dispute, I note that several other editors have continued the revert game, and I'm the only one who opened
  X1\, Calton, Adavidb, D.Creish, Volunteer Marek, and Wumbolo: Please join the talk page discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@MastCell: Obviously, I would not have reported Calton for a 23h 1RR. The reasons for the report, as clearly stated above, were his two successive violations of the "consensus required" provision, and refusal to engage in a discussion towards consensus. Even today, he still has not defended his edit on the article talk page. I am not amused by your calling me "strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical", and I would appreciate your striking this aspersion in light of the actual content of my report. — JFG ^talk 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AVOIDEDITWAR policy clearly states: Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page. I did that, the reported editor did not. In this regard I'm surprised that you would suggest to "come down a little harder" on me instead of on the person who did not seem to care about the consensus process in this particular instance, and who only replied to this filing by throwing political aspersions on my talk page. — JFG ^talk 20:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Adavidb: I did not mean that you took part in edit-warring: indeed your addition to the text was constructive. I merely pinged you as one of the people who edited the disputed section, so that everybody could chime in on the talk page; sorry for the misunderstanding. — JFG ^talk 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

 Done [29]

Discussion concerning Calton

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 Calton

Statement by Govindaharihari

Topic ban both users from the whole segment not just this one article, American politics editing ban for both users. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

I'd just ignore it (and trout JFG for bringing this). They both made reverts 23 hours apart and haven't otherwise edited

This has been open another week, and no admin has seen it as appropriate to place sanctions. As the separate "Rethinking consensus-required" can handle any process concerns, I move that this be closed.

π, ν) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Calton is a level headed editor who does good work. The inclusion or exclusion of these two See also links is no big deal one way or the other. Imposing 1RR on the American politics sanctions on page where the subject is not a politician but is a controversial complex person is not helpful. Best to let thos drop re Calton and consider taking this 1RR off the page. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adavidb

Despite my being identified above as having 'continued the revert game', I merely added an introductory sentence to the section in question (with the intent of ending the reverting). —ADavidB 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Calton

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

• Calton is clearly aware of this filing [30], and has apparently chosen not to respond. It does look to me that both Calton and JFG ([31], [32]) violated 1RR and consensus required, and I would propose topic banning both from the Bannon article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd prefer to get a sanity check before proceeding here, if no other admins have any comments, I'll proceed as proposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpreting the silence by other administrators as a collective shrug. Looking at the underlying content dispute (whether to link 2 articles in a See Also section) I can't help but add to that shrug myself. Looking at the article history it looks like there are 3 users who have technically violated the consensus required restriction (including Calton) and 2 users (Calton and JFG) who have technically violated 1RR with 23 hour reverts. I'm not familiar with Calton but I have observed JFG's editing in the American Politics topic area. My own perception of JFG is that while they typically take predictable positions on issues that divide editors favoring different points of view, they are also more likely to collaborate, compromise, and respect consensus than a lot of the other players in the topic area. I'm still not sure of the best way to handle this, but when I see the "consensus required" sanction being used as a revert rationale it makes me wonder if we need to rethink the sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur in the shrug. I normally expect the administrators who place page-level sanctions to enforce them. In this case, that would be Doug Weller, who created Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve Bannon. Sandstein 16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's reasonable to expect Admins who place page-level sanctions to be the prime enforcer. Having said that, I've changed my mind about consensus required. @Awilley: if you have time could you remove that? If not, I'll try to find time but I'm pretty busy and the talk page header change looks complicated. That was Coffee's design. Edit summaries are easy. Maybe there's another TP header? I'll have a look. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Doug Weller: I'll see what I can do. I've been thinking about trying to add options to the template so the admin placing the restriction can choose whether to do just 1RR or 1RR and consensus required. Also I just realized the template you used is a different template than the one I recently got consensus at AN to modify, and it affects another hundred or so different pages. Luckily it doesn't include the civility restriction, so I shouldn't need to go back to AN for a second consensus to make the changes necessary to bring some uniformity. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Doug Weller: I do think that it is reasonable to expect sanctioning admins to undertake any required enforcement work. Adding sanctions templates to an article generates enforcement work that other admins may not be willing to undertake – especially when, as in my case, I find the templated sanctions themselves somewhat questionable. Sandstein 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • I don't think that an ordinary DS with 1RR needs to be mainly enforced by whoever added it. I take your point about consensus required and Coffee, who created the template, used to keep track of consensus on talk pages, which frankly I think is too big a burden to expect anyone to do. However, the issue for Steve Bannon is now moot as both the edit summary and the talk page banner have had consensus required removed. @Awilley: I hope you haven't spent a lot of time on it, AGK did it for me. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much in agreement with Seraphimblade, Awilley, and Doug. I see 1RR violations by both Calton and JFG. Both are pretty stale at this point, and it's hard to argue that a block would be anything but punitive in either case. That said, they're both experienced editors and they should both have known better. I'd favor a logged warning to each of them about the 1RR violations, and no further sanctions. I am disappointed in JFG; it's either strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical to report someone for a 1RR violation while simultaneously violating 1RR oneself, and insofar as trouts and warnings are handed out, I'd come down a little harder on him for that reason.

  I agree with getting rid of the consensus-required sanction by any means necessary. While it's a good idea in theory, it has proven endlessly counterproductive in practice. I haven't seen much good come from it, and it provokes quite a bit of wikilawyering. I'm fine with leaving this report open for more adminstrative input if anyone feels strongly, but given how long it's already been open I would favor closing it now. MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JFG: You now claim that you reported Calton for violating the consensus-required provision, and not for violating 1RR. In fact, you reported Calton for violating 1RR and for violating the consensus-required provision. It's right there, in black and white, in your original filing, so please don't try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5.

    In any case, as Seraphimblade noted above, you also violated the consensus-required provision, so even if I were to accept your assertion about 1RR, it would still be somewhere between clueless and hypocritical to report another editor for behavior which you yourself were concurrently engaged in. It's okay to be clueless sometimes; I've certainly done things that were strikingly clueless. In those situations, it's usually best to fess up and move on. Your response here—equal parts sanctimony and easily-disprovable falsehood—is more concerning than the original, rather minor, violations. That said, I still think warnings are reasonable (as opposed to the page bans proposed by Seraphimblade), but I'll leave it to another admin to close this report. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @MastCell, I don't think Seraphimblade meant to say that JFG volated consensus-required, I think they meant to say that JFG also violated 1RR. That's the way I read the comment the first time, and I also looked at the article history pretty closely and I only saw the 1RR violation (with JFG reverting to the status quo revision). In any case I'm going to close this now with no action. On second thought I'll let a regular here close this as they see fit. I had mis-read MastCell's comment above thinking that MC had already logged warnings for both editors, which was more than enough trouting for me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, I'll close it, since it's just been hanging open. (Thanks for the bump power~enwiki) ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Aj abdel

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bellezzasolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aj abdel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#General Prohibition : All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

Diffs

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

Before warning:

1. 23:52, 13 November 2018 Changing "Palestinian Territory" to "Palestine"
2. 23:55, 13 November 2018 Kerem Shalom border crossing. Refers to Israel as "The Occupying Power"
3. 23:58, 13 November 2018 changes "Palestinian Territories" to "Occupied Palestine"

After warning:

1. 00:46, 16 November 2018 References 1948 War

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If

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, this diff]

• Also was given a personal note by Shrike at the same time - here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has a clear POV on the conflict, and has continued to ignore the general prohibition, even after being notified of its existence.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:02, 16 November 2018

Discussion concerning Aj abdel

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 Aj abdel

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aj abdel

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

• The request has merit. Blocked for a week. Sandstein 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]