Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231

יניב הורון

No administrator appears interested in taking action at this time. Feel free to unclose this thread if you are. Sandstein 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, specifically

Editors counseled

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

17:19, 17 April 2018 Insert serious allegation about links to the Munich massacre..without any source

23:03, 21 April 2018 Reintroduce a source which has clearly false information ("Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque")

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13 March 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement
13 April 2018 blocked under Arbitration enforcement

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

Previously blocked under Arbitration enforcement, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

IMO, both of the above edits are quite outrageous...this editor is, IMO, not ready for the ARBPIA area. I suggest a topic ban from the IP area for ...quite a while. Huldra (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised to see some editors arguing that since Jerusalem Post is WP:RS, then we must allow anything from it. Well, for me there is one thing that trumps WP:RS, and that is: is it true?

Take the village Al-Attara (which I just expanded): Adam Zertal (who was a professor in archaeology) writes that Victor Guérin found 300 inhabitants here. I absolutely totally refuse to put that into the article. Why? Because Victor Guérin wrote that about 'Atara.....and Zertal has mixed up the two villages. (See User:Huldra/Guerin if you doubt me.) Yes, professors can also be wrong. Inserting an article with the headline "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" (when there are sources calling it a mosque going back centuries) is just as bad. We are directly misinforming Wikipedia readers. I thought we could do better than that, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the reported editors last 500 edits, 167 are marked undid, and 8 are reverted. (Out of total edit count of about 1,500: about 520 are undid, or reverts). Compare that with some others who have commented here (all of us more or less heavily involved in the IP area), Of the last 500 edits:
Huldra: 12 undid 30 reverted
OtterAm: 9 undid 3 revert
Shrike: 14 undid 39 revert
Number 57: 0 undid 26 revert
Icewhiz: 15 undid 2 revert
Pluto 2012: 2 undid 5 revert
Zero0000: 46 undid 36 revert
Nishidani: 4 undid 1 revert

Huldra (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון several of your reverts (in addition to the ones I pointed out) have been questioned on this page. If you have a problem with any of my reverts, then please point them out to me, (though perhaps not here, in order to avoid cluttering up this page) Huldra (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:OtterAM: you are absolutely correct in stating I have a lot of articles on my watch list (more than 6,800), still, my reverts/undoing is a tiny fractions of the reported user. Also, you accuse me of WP:OWN..of which article? I have hardly edited any of the two articles I linked to (Eg. I have 2.6% of the edits, adding 1.7% of the text Rachel's Tomb). Finally, no-one can "survive" in the IP area without dealing with editors of all types of opinion. And I mean no-one. However, what we don't need, is editors who do silly, uninformed, thoughtless and plain wrong edits on a regular basis ....irregardless of their political views, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Huldra (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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

In this case I haven't broken any rule of Wikipedia. There's no edit-warring in the first place! Here I wanted to show that Kamal Nasser was targeted as part of Israel's Operation Wrath of God, which is a fact, but making sure that his involvement in the Munich massacre is an allegation. You reverted my edit anyway, and I didn't insist. Regarding this edit, the JP source explains that Rachel's tomb wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque" before 1996. You may not like my edits, you could revert them or discuss in talk page, but you have no right to censor me because I disagree with you in an article or two. I mean, are you serious?--יניב הורון (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: with all due respect, I don't think you are the best person to talk about POV-pushing. I'm no less biased than you, Huldra or many others, but I always try to edit based on reliable sources and encyclopedic value. You can't silence someone because they disagree with your political opinions. In any case, my edits are far less POV than most editors in ARBPIA. But if you don't like them, you are more than welcome to discuss them in the talk pages. So far I haven't enganged with you in virtually any single article or talk page (including this one!), so it seems strange that your are complaining about my way of editing right now. I guess for some people is easier to ask for censorship than debate using actual arguments.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: ~~Maybe it's because of some natural loathing for "Jewboys", but~~ I didn't break 1RR. As you can see here, I was only reverting content removed by SantiLak, which I didn't write in the first place. It was there long before I started to edit the article. And I gave my reasons in the talk page, where you are more than welcome to engange in a civilized discussion instead of harrasing people at AE.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Nice try, but everybody can see that in this case, I was not restoring content that I added, but content that was already there before SantiLak came and removed it. I can disprove your accusation very easily. My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27, right? Well, this version of February 15 mentions exactly the same thing that SantiLak removed in April: "The European Union has been criticized for funding Israeli political non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that attempt to undermine..." Therefore, it's not my content that I was restoring.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPS1992: I edit in a wide range of topics, mainly Jewish-related. As you can see from the discussion above, I did nothing wrong. I didn't break 1RR, and I was not engaged in edit-warring. Huldra's arguments to censor me are laughable. It's true that in the past I've been blocked for violating the third bullet in ARBPIA articles ("If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert"), but I was already punished for that and I've learned my lesson. Now I'm familiar with that rule. In the case mentioned by MShabazz, I was NOT restoring content added by myself. In other words, I was not the "original author" of that content. You can check by yourself.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Oh, no. Don't change rules now. The ARBPIA bullet clearly says "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." It doesn't say ANYTHING about "by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it." [therefore becoming its "original author"] I'm not the original author, therefore I'm allowed to make a second revert after 24 hours have passed since MY last revert (not SantiLak's revert). This is my first revert, this is my second revert after 24 hours (not 18 hours, since you don't count from other user's revert, unless I was the original author of that content). Also take a look at WP:Civility next time you feel the urge to swear on Wikipedia.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a previous discussion involving MShabazz where he complained about "Jewboys" in Wikipedia. I'm an Israeli Jew, so I hope that won't be a problem for him. Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with our present discussion so I'll just scratch it out.--יניב הורון (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I thought it was MShabazz who complained about "Jewboys". It was a stupid comment on my part and I apologize for that.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was investigating who is MShabazz, the same way he was checking my edits with a magnifying glass to censor me. I never had a discussion with him before, but I found out that he was removed from his position as administrator a few years ago. Is that right? Nevertheless, the "Jewboy" comment wasn't from him, since he is Jewish himself. Apparently some disgusting racist told him "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." Again, I apologize to him for the misunderstanding. In that case he was the victim.--יניב הורון (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade:: Just to clarify, my previous sanctions were because I was not familiarized with ARBPIA rules. I didn't have experience in Wikipedia before. The first sanction was because I made this edit before I had an extended-confirmed user (while the article wasn't protected at the time, hence my confusion). The second one was because I didn't understand the third bullet of ARBPIA, which has nothing to do with 1RR: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert." Nevertheless, when I understood the rule, I accepted the sanction and didn't repeat the violation again. However, in this case, Huldra and MShabazz have no reason to accuse me of violating any rule. I didn't break 1RR nor the third bullet, and I WAS NOT engaged in edit-warring (as you can see here: one single half-revert; here: one single revert; and here: two reverts, precisely because the other user broke the third bullet). How can you call this "edit-warring" or "being disruptive"? I ask you to be fair instead of considering me "problematic" just because other editors -whose political agenda I happen to disagree with- want to have less competitors in a sensitive topic. Please, check my contributions and you will see I'm not here to disrupt anything. All my contributions (mainly in Jewish and Israeli-related articles) are significant and meaningful, based on reliable sources. I understand if other editors disagree with them, and they are welcome to revert me and discuss in talk pages, but that's not a reason to ban me.--יניב הורון (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:: I'm an Israeli Jew (and proud of it), of course I don't have any "natural loathing" against my own people. On the contrary, I was referring to a comment made by Shabazz in 2015 where he said literally (excuse my language) "the Jewboy has chased out the nigger." After that I tried to apologize because I thought Shabazz was the victim of such a disgusting insult, but later Shabazz himself admitted that HE was the author of the racist slur, apparently because he was tired of being "harrassed" by someone of Jewish extraction. In any case, it has nothing to do with our present discussion, except that it shows that those who accuse me of having a "biased" and "POV agenda" are the least suited to speak about such matters. The irony is that I've never had a previous discussion with Shabazz in any talk page. But for some reason he wants to get rid of me based on spurious accusations. In any case, I invite him to have a civilized discussion to achieve consensus instead of resorting to deplorable tactics to censor editors who don't share his views.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: Please, explain me how exactly I broke 1RR. I made the second revert 24 hours after my first revert, not within the 24 hours period.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:: What is "gaming the system"? Am I allowed to make another revert after 24 hours passed? Yes or no? Tell me the rules so I'll be more careful next time. I thought 1RR only counts for more than one revert made within a 24 hours period. Thanks.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Oh, now I understand what you mean. 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. The reason why I made this second revert was because I felt that SantiLak broke the third bullet of ARBPIA (which is not 1RR, my mistake). Besides, I left him a message on the talk page that he didn't answer so far, explaining why I reverted him back. I did it for a specific reason, in a specific situation. And I did it only once. Check all the edits and you'll see I didn't make more than two reverts in that article, which is not so terrible. But maybe I shouldn't have rushed to revert him so fast. Next time I'll try to wait 30 hours or so to avoid breaking the spirit of 1RR, which is to avoid edit-warring. Nevertheless, to ask for a block or topic ban seems a little bit excesive and out of proportion, don't you think? Specially when there's a doubt if the other user actually broke a specific rule (like the third ARBPIA bullet).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Even though technically I didn't brake a rule, I understand that perhaps I have been over aggressive here. I'll try to make less reverts against other users and participate in talk pages more.--יניב הורון (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Calm down. I've made almost 1,400 edits so far, and I barely started. Sometimes I make mistakes. WP:Newbies, WP:Civility--יניב הורון (talk) 10:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: As I told you before, WP:ONUS is on YOU to gain consensus and show us the encyclopedic value of that piece of propaganda. A reliable source is a necessary, but not always sufficient requirement for adding content, specially so controversial and POV. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. You should start a discussion on the talk page of the article to gain consensus before reinserting disputed content, instead of going to AE because you don't like my way of editing. That's as frivolous as Huldra's request.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: What matters is the quality, not the quantity of the reverts (which is not a bad word). Contributing to Wikipedia also means undoing vandalism and unappropriate edits, although most of my reverts were made against IPs who are not allowed to edit in the first place, NOT legitimate users. I can justify every single revert that I made. Can you do the same? I think that, at this point, every honest user can realize this AE you started is ridiculous.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: lol! And I'm the bad guy here with a "POV bias" that makes me supposedly unable to edit in ARBPIA. Anyway, how about using the talk page of the article instead of AE?

Statement by Malik Shabazz

יניב הורון is misinformed when they argue that they have done no wrong because they haven't been edit-warring. They have been engaged in POV-pushing, which is far worse. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of their POV-pushing, consider this edit, which parrots Benjamin Netanyahu's anti-NGO slurs but doesn't demonstrate being here to build an encyclopedia. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of edit-warring, they made that revert and restored the POV-pushing 24 hours and two minutes after they inserted it, and only 18 hours after it was removed by another editor. I believe that is both an attempt to game the system and a 1RR violation. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care whether you have a "natural loathing" toward Jews, you violated WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, which says an editor can't restore material they added within 24 hours of another editor removing it. You added the material at 21:33 on 18 April and restored it at 21:35 on 19 April. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did write that. I was being harassed on Wikipedia by a Jewish editor (who has since been perma-blocked for harassing other editors) and receiving threatening e-mails from other editors and from Wikipedia trolls. I lashed out at him because I was frustrated that he was harassing me and engaging in what I consider to be racist taunting and nobody at WP:ANI seemed to give a fuck. I was the subject of an emergency de-sysopping and I resigned my position about the same time ArbCom voted to remove the bit. I have since been offered the bit again without an RfA, but I declined.

To get back to the matter at hand, evidently יניב הורון can't read very well, because they clearly violated the 1RR restriction that applies to ARBPIA articles, which requires a 24-hour minimum before an editor can restore their material to an article. And by restoring somebody else's material, an editor is taking responsibility for it, so they can't later say "But I wasn't the original authot". Look at the two diffs above. In a space of 18 hours, יניב הורון reverted another editor's removal of material they had added (restored) to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, the old "But he started it" defense is meaningless when an editor breaks a bright-line rule like 1RR. As a sysop, you ought to know better. Please don't insult my intellectual or further embarrass yourself by continuing that twisted "logic". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More smoke and mirrors from Number 57. Are you also arguing that יניב הורון wasn't gaming the system by making the same edit 24 hours and two minutes apart? Your defense of the indefensible here is very disappointing; you never struck me as a partisan editor before. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the 1RR violation and system-gaming that I wrote about, and which you appeared to be responding to when you started your section addressing me. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your message because I hadn't read it as carefully as I should have. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now we know of two instances this week in which יניב הורון waited 24 hours and two minutes to make their revert. Is somebody going to do something about this obvious gaming? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, how I wish editors would stop ~~bleating~~ repeating "Jerusalem Post! Jerusalem Post! as if it were a mantra. The source cited is a goddamn editorial column, not a JPost article, as any of you would know if you actually read the damn thing, and editorial columns are not reliable sources for facts. Sheesh! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Icewhiz has provided the edits to which I was referring. I thought somebody else had cited another article where יניב הורון had done the same thing. Because I'm not able to find one, I've stricken my comment about two instances. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

Did the user against whom enforcement is requested really just write this, or do I need new spectacles?!? MPS1992 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what you linked is a lengthy polemic from someone called User:JordanGero, who was blocked for harassment more than a year ago, not anything that Malik Shabazz said at all? MPS1992 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But. You also wrote above My first edit in Wikipedia was on February 27. This year, 2018. But you are angrily linking to things about "Jewboys" that were said in August 2015. Something's not right here. MPS1992 (talk) 02:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that you need to spend less time "investigating" other editors, and indeed less time in the topic area altogether. MPS1992 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

I would have settled for the one-week block, but this editor's behavior here and on the topic overall gives me no confidence that it will magically make them change their ways. Their talk page alone is a good indication of how "collaborative" this editor is in this sensitive topic area. Since יניב הורון cannot keep their biases in check, cannot adhere to editing restrictions, and cannot edit collaboratively, they are not needed or wanted in the topic area; it is a priviledge they simply have demonstrated they do not deserve.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון you say two blocks like it isn't a big deal yet you have only been here for two months. Considering I could have reported you during this discussion and you would have been blocked, this is not a good trend. I see about five warnings for edit warring, and it is all related to the I/P topic area.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

@MShabazz: If you go back to the start of that dispute, the first edit in this chain was by Onceinawhile to remove the source; it was then restored by Icewhiz, then removed by Huldra, then restored again by יניב הורון. If יניב הורון has broken the spirit of the rules, then so has Huldra. However neither has broken the rules as worded, so I don't see this as actionable. Number 5 7 05:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Unfortunately I think your judgement has been very poor here, as are your comments aimed at myself. The rule is that you can't reinstate your own edit. If it were meant that you can't reinstate someone else's edit, then it would be worded that way. The original rule was worded this way ("In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."), but was amended to the current version (in spite of my objections). It's nothing to do with "he started it", it's a simple case that יניב הורון hasn't broken 1RR as he's only reverted once. Number 5 7 07:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Are we even talking about the same thing here? My comments are regarding יניב הורון's behaviour at Rachel's Tomb (hence the diffs above), where he reverted Huldra after less than a couple of hours. Number 5 7 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Apologies, I thought the 1RR accusation was regarding the edits at Rachel's Tomb. I agree that leaving it a few minutes after 24 hours to make another edit is gaming the rules. Number 5 7 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Huldra raises two issues. Both should not be actionable:

In the first instance Yaniv added information to a non-BLP (died in 1973) that " All three men had made Israel's Operation Wrath of God target list for their participation in the massacre of eleven members of the 1972 Israeli Olympic team in Munich." This should have been sourced (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) - however this is not a BLP - and the information itself is correct (and was subsequently re-added by Pluto2012 with a source).
The second instance, is a WP:KETTLE situation - as Huldra herself reverted once. Yaniv did a single revert. Huldra misrepresents this this source (written by an expert, published in a RS) - since as Huldra should know we do not use article (or book) titles for sourcing (as they are often sensationalist) - we use the actual contents. The article in question does not deny previous Muslim use - in fact - it actually lists quite a bit of previous Muslim use. It does contend that previous Muslim use was also identified to Rachel and that the identification with Bilal ibn Rabah is very recent - from 1996 - and implausible (as this figure is known to be buried in Damascus). None of the sources presented on the talk-page state otherwise for this structure built by Jews (in the 19th century, and previously in the 17th). In any event - a single revert should not be actionable.Icewhiz (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE Israel–European Union relations - Yaniv actually did not break 1RR there. SantiLak broke 1RR (the "original authorship provision") with Revision as of 11:12, 18 April 2018 and Revision as of 03:36, 19 April 2018 (so authoring (or reverting) - and then a revert 17 hours later). Yaniv asked SantiLak to self revert - user talk page post at Santilak. Yaniv probably should have reported SantiLak to AE or AW on his failure to self-revert (as the violation was quite blatant) - instead he reverted them after 24 hours were up - which was not correct - however this is an inexperienced editor.Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: The revert at 24hrs+2minutes was wrong by Yaniv - but the user he was reverting had violated 1RR (17 hours) and was asked to self revert - Yaniv should've held off from reverting and taken it to the appropriate noticeboard (where it was actionable).Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SantiLak: 1RR in ARBPIA is a bit different. See "consensus"_provision_modified "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours" (it is also in the edit notice). So even if your original edit was not a revert (could be argued), you were the original author of the non-revert edit.Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon:, Yaniv was correct in saying the other editor broke the "original author clause" of ARBPIA's 1rr. If this were standard 1rr, he possibly (depends what one sees as a revert) would have been incorrect.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: - in the diff sequence below, the original author was not Yaniv, but Santilak. This is the sequence:Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:12, 18 April 2018 - Santilak changes the lead - he's the original author of the edit.
Revision as of 21:33, 18 April 2018 - Yaniv reverts - he's not the original author of the revert (as this is a plain undo, the original author are the authors prior to 18 April).
Revision as of 03:36, 19 April 2018 - Santilak reverts - this is a violation of the original author clause - this is 4:03 after Yaniv's revert (well short of 24) which is where the timer starts per the recent clarification (it is also within 17 hours of the initial authorship - making the clarification moot).
Santilak TP Revision as of 17:29, 19 April 2018 - Yaniv asks for a self-revert.
Revision as of 21:35, 19 April 2018 - Yaniv reverts (he shouldn't have. He should've gone to AE) - 24 hours + 2 minutes after his prior revert.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: My reading of the Jan 2018 clarification on the "original author clause" 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. is that it applies, once (just the first time it is reverted), to the original author. It does not apply to the revert of the original author (on which normal 1RR would apply). Either way - I agree Yaniv shouldn't have reverted, he should've taken it to AE following a declined request to self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pluto2012

MPS1992 and Malik Shabazz's comments are full of sense. This editor arrived 2 months ago and already "investigated" on the past of another contributor. His global behaviour is agressive and suspicious. He games the system in reverting after 24 hours and... 2 minutes. He fails Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. He should be topic-banned of the articles related to the I-P conflict. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAM's suggestion is contradicted by Solomon's wiseness... "They are all bad. Let's just send them back to their disputes." In other words he defends the idea to go on with the bad climate generated by some people who are wp:nothere rather than supporting those who would like to have the chance to develop articles and/or who are "fed up" to keep extinguishing fires. And he dares to compare other contributors to one who after 2 months, has been warned 5 times, blocked 2 times, and who has just been trapped 2 times in gaming the system in reverting after 24 hours and 2 minutes. What do you play for OtterAM ? WP or something else ? Pluto2012 (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tritomex

Nothing shown here by Huldra, justifies sanctions against יניב הורון In fact I do not see why Huldra sees Jerusalem Post article as unreliable, nor I see any proves (sources) that the claim sourced with JP [9] is falls. In fact I found many additional WP:RSN that states that the identification of that place as Bilal ibn Rabah mosque dates from 1996. This dosent mean that the place was not considered a place of worship, by Jews, Christians and Muslims as well for centuries. As in the case of all questions that could be related to Arab-Israeli conflict, there is a lot of bias here and very little substantial from editors who could be seen as uniinvolved.Tritomex (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 73.95.138.207

Clearly a WP:NOTHERE and engaging in blatant edit-warring with a battleground mindset. Look at the following edits [10][11][12][13]the first four in rapid succession on random articles with no other common denominator other than to be disruptive toward the editor named Agustin6.

Add to this that this editor has already been blocked TWICE and warned multiple times for edit-warring in his short time here. Then it doesn't seem SO odd to include the circumstantial evidence that this editor jumped right into the mix with a clear understanding of how wikipedia works. Then ADD to that edit summaries like these two [14][15] which are battleground in tone and certainly WP:FORUM. Suggest ban to give editor time out to think about his actions and a topic ban. Would offer something more but at work and had to rush this as it was. Gotta go.73.95.138.207 (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SantiLak

@Icewhiz: With all due respect, I don't think you understand 1RR. You claimed I violated 1RR and יניב הורון didn't because I made a content edit and then made 1 revert yet they just made 2 reverts. That's a textbook case of 1RR by יניב הורון. I didn't make 2 reverts and there is no such thing as the "the original authorship provision." I should have reported them for edit warrring and violating 1RR but I didn't because I felt like following BRD. Like another user said, it's a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, a topic ban is very appropriate. - SantiLak (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OtterAM

As a number of people have pointed out יניב הורון has not actually broken any rules with the two edits that have been brought to attention here. I don't think the edits stand out as being egregious either. For example, the Jerusalem Post -- an 85 year old English-language Jewish publication in Israel, and is a well known source. Thus, it's not clear that the information would be suspect for the second edit that Huldra mentioned.

This topic is full of editors who, in my opinion, like to over wiki-overlitigate the smallest offense. The accusing editors here have certainly done their share of controversial edits. @Seraphimblade: I don't think it would be fair to topic-ban this one editor as you suggested below because I don't see qualitative difference between his style of editing and the style of editing of other long-standing editors on this topical area.

Regarding these statements, why can't we just return the pages to their consensus version. Then, if people really care so much about these two controversies, start appropriate request-for-comments sections to decide which version to include. OtterAM (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Huldra's argument above, where she states that the Jerusalem Post article is wrong – I think this line of argument is on the wrong track. If she believes this to be the case, it seems like it would be more reasonable to settle this as a Request for Comment, where she can lay out her research that Rachael's Tomb has long been considered a Mosque, not at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. It seems reasonable that יניב הורון's edit was in good faith, and glancing at the history of that article, it doesn't look like he was edit-warring over that edit.

I think that this use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement looks like a case of WP:OWN. It's already quite difficult to get any edits to Israel/Palestine to stick, but the the existing mechanisms of request-for-comment seem to have worked quite well. OtterAM (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've perused יניב הורון's edits – including the reverts – and am supportive of about 80% of them and neutral about most of the rest. In fact, there are a number of instances that some anonymous IP or random editor adds something bizarre to an article on a Jewish topic (not necessarily Israel or Palestine related) that יניב הורון has noticed and reverted. In fact, I'm quite happy he's here because he has prevented a lot of subtle damage to these articles from accumulating. Huldra is another editor with eyes on a lot of pages, so I think it's a bit hypocritical of her to complain about יניב הורון's contributions here. OtterAM (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, Huon, Black Kite, Seraphimblade, Sandstein, SpacemanSpiff, and NeilN: It looks to me like this whole thing was brought to A/E falsely, and the discussion about whether a claim from a newspaper column is trustworthy should have been discussed on the talk pages rather than been brought here by Huldra. The edits in question by יניב הורון have all followed the rules from WP:ARBPIA3, and these rules generally seem to be fair and to function well after users figure out exactly what they are. Given that יניב הורון didn't break the rules, and appears to have made the edits in good faith, I would suggest that we let him go on his merry way... OtterAM (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This is a relatively new and inexperienced user who was close to violating 1RR on one of pages (it is not unusual for such contributors to follow rules very literally, although yes, that might be the "gaming"). I do not think that merits a topic ban. Editing in ARBPIA area is extremely difficult. I also agree with Sandstein. As a note of order, there is currently a thread about the same user on the ANI [16]. Not sure how you usually treat such cases. Both complaints, i.e on the ANI and that one, look to me as an attempt to exclude an "opponent" who has been involved in various content disputes. My very best wishes (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is comment to statement by Nishidani below. The edit under discussion is this edit by Yaniv. But that was a reasonable edit! It removes an emotional phrase sourced to NYT editorial that provides exactly zero information on the subject of these protests. Such opinions do not belong to "Background" section. Whoever placed this phrase on the page was POV-pusher, not the other way around. Placing this to a different place (i.e. in "Discussion" on the bottom of the page) still might be OK. This depends on context. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by E.M.Gregory

This discussion is a shinning example of one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia: experienced editors with an OWN attitude and political POV who pounce on new editors who disagree with them politically - and vote them off the island, or chase them off with persistent aggression. To my sorrow, I have encountered Huldra [17] before, most memorably at the nightmarish Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis; she is WP:NOTHERE]]. I am less well acquainted with (יניב הורו) [18], but I do know that the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude taken by too many editors in the I/P area makes Wikipedia a nasty, brutish place. Promising editors become disgusted and leave, or - if we stay - shy away from the politically fraught arenas where good editors are most needed. Editors who are sufficiently aggressive can and do slant articles in highly POV ways, simply by making editing unpleasant for those they disagree with. And many good editors like Sandstein spend enormous amounts of time on discussions that, like this one, are driven by intense POV animus. I do see that legal sanctions serve a purpose. But also that they are a tool too often used merely to "win." End of rant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This edit made just hours ago is illustrative of how useless this editor is. With the claim of "restoring source", he reinserted a dead link. Obviously he never even clicked on it, or if he did click he didn't care that nothing was there. If he had gone to the trouble of locating an archived version, like I did before I deleted the link, he would have seen that it doesn't even mention the topic of the article. Nor does it mention any of the matters raised in the paragraph to which he attached the dead link. I shouldn't have to clean up after someone with such a blasé attitude to article integrity. Zero^talk 23:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

The diff presented by Zero0000 had nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA.So I don't understand how its relevant.--Shrike (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey

Just noticed this, and I have to say that while Yaniv made some mistakes, this report strikes me as particularly frivolous. Regarding any improper past actions taken by Yaniv, I am willing to mentor him if necessary. At the same time, this is a clear issue of WP:KETTLE, when one editor participating in an edit war blames the other one over a technicality (talk about gaming the system). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Today, as this discussion continues, in the following edit Yaniv challenges and removes a trite, commonplace judgement of the New York Times, writing in his edit-summary:

‎Background: I can think of many more "desperate people", including Hatians (who don't receive that much help nor attention). Removing editorial with no encyclopedic value whatsoever.)

I.e. He took out a description of the context sourced to the New York Times because he dislikes their choice of language, of referring with attribution to the Gazans as 'desperate' and privately thinks it is inaccurate. There is no policy ground given in the edit-summary, and when asked on his page to revert, he cites WP:ONUS in defence. This POV-warrior defence is frowned on, because thus used, WP:Onus trumps WP:RS because it becomes a form of entitlement to erase anything regardless of the quality of the source or of any other policy regarding sound practice, and then throw the burden into the other editor's court.

Despite the apocalyptic descriptions of the I/P area as a death zone where the well-intentioned are driven out by hypocrites or battleground POV paladins, it works under the ARBPIA3 regime because that demands experience and a thorough knowledge of the rules that at least relieve these pages of haphazard loose cannon editing, wild card reverting of WP:RS out of distaste. Yaniv's latest edit confirms Zero's point above: it is an open invitation to make revert battles inevitable. Whatever their POVs, the great majority of IP editors respect high quality mainstream RS, a shared recognition that oner should not cavil over the obvious which reduces the conflict considerably. This editor doesn't, and allowing him to edit with this singular license to contest even what is generally accepted is unfair. It means those who side with his perspective can rely on his ignorance of good practice to remove 'stuff' they themselves do not normally challenge. My example is not a content dispute: it is an instance of the editor in question refusing to observe what is a shared agreement about sourcing out of sheer distaste.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply you have inadvertently corrtoborated the point made by Zero above, i.e. that you edit without even examining the sources you restore or erase. I.e. you stated

I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual. I usually don't revert well-sourced content, but in this particular case the material was an opinion piece written by a non-notable individual.

You called the Editorial Board, the pubisher and top writing staff at the New York Times, a 'non-notable individual.'

This means that once more you reverted without examining the source, namely

The Editorial Board,Israel Courts Catastrophe in Gaza Protests New York Times 2 April 2018 Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They did not state as your edit summary claimed that Gaza was more desperate than, say Haiti. They stated Gazans were among the most desperate people in the world, something that all experts, whatever their POV, concur on. The onus in wikipedia also is an onus to understand the topic and above all read sources before contesting them spuriously and speciously. Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishudani, as it states at the top of that editorial: "The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom." An editorial is an opinion, not a source of reliable facts. Some opinions are notable, but it is an opinion, and it is the opinion of a group of journalists with political Points Of View. It can be used in and only in thee same manner as any opinion expressed by notable persons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are supposed to comment in your own section. It is 'disingenuous' of editors who know the topic area,who will have read hundreds of mainstream articles like this or this, where over 1,000,000 children must wash or slake their thirst daily by drinking water drawn from acquifers that are 97% contaminated by sewage, which is deemed by the World Bank, the UN are probable uninhabitable by 2020, whose infrastructure has been wiped out three times in the last decade by intense bombing, all minutely documented by all Gaza experts from Sara Roy to Jean-Pierre Filiu and Norman Finkelstein as a case of catastrophic dedevelopment, to feign ignorance by suggesting that when the NYT board reflects this consensus and says the Gazans are 'desperate', this is an RS problem, or an opinion. Do that, means you haven't simply googled Google Books to see what the monographs universally confirm, or the mainstream press. No one, save Yaniv who notes that have a reconstructed mall in the city of Gaza, can deny the obviousness of the NYT comment, its reflection of current knowledge, in good faith.Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

Without looking too deeply into the merits of this request, as I'm hardly a fixture in the I/P area and have only previously interacted with יניב הורון once or twice, I must say that Nishidani's latest comment is quite mistaken regarding Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editorial, even from the editorial board of The New York Times, is never a reliable source for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice, according to WP:RSOPINION. Of course, the content that יניב הורון removed was attributed to The New York Times, but—crucially—not identified as an editorial, and it's not clear why it would belong in a neutrally summarized "Background" section at all. When one considers that the very next sentence is also devoted to an opinion piece, this time by Peter Beinart in The Forward—initially with attribution to Beinart but then allowing Beinart to speak for the UN in wikivoice—it appears that poor quality sources have been juxtaposed in a questionable way to slant a "just the facts" "Background" into advancing a particular narrative, when—as My very best wishes has noted—commentary of this kind would be more appropriate in a subsection dedicated to "Media commentary". Note that יניב הורון only challenged the emotional language of the New York Times editorial, not the Beinart opinion piece, presumably because he knows that there are better sources than Beinart for the same factual claim. In any case, the diff presented by Nishidani as a "smoking gun" should be regarded as non-actionable and a content dispute.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidbena

While I have only recently come to know of Yaniv Huron (Hebrew: יניב הורון), and have had some of my own edits reverted by him, I still have no qualms about the contributions of this new editor, seeing that he adds a new vitality to our encyclopedia. While it is true that he has made a few mistakes (as we all do), overall his contributions are very good. His mistakes have been pointed out here, and I think he will learn from his mistakes. Let us give him the benefit of the doubt.Davidbena (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning יניב הורון

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

This is gaming the system and I'd be inclined to do a one week block, especially after the last four day block. Also, the behavior on this request itself doesn't give me much confidence that this block will do much, so I'd be amenable to a topic ban in addition too. —SpacemanSpiff 03:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be confusion on what's what, my opinion/recommendation above is based on the statement from MShabazz above, not the original complaint. —SpacemanSpiff 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Please fill out the sanctions and awareness sections of your request correctly. Sandstein 05:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As reported this does not look actionable to me. Diff 2 is nothing more than a content dispute if all that's alleged to be wrong with this diff is that it introduces false information. Whether that is so and whether the sourcing is adequate is a matter for talk page discussion. As to diff 1, certainly a source would be preferable here per WP:V, but it's not a BLP, and there's not been an edit war or anything like that about the content, so I think a {{cn}} tag would have been a better reaction than this report. The report borders on the frivolous. However, @יניב הורון: please explain what you meant with your comment above that you have a "a natural loathing for 'Jewboys'". Sandstein 20:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the 1RR gaming point made below, but I'm ambivalent about whether it merits action in and of itself. This would require a more comprehensive review of the whole editing situation than I, for one, am interested in undertaking. Sandstein 11:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been here less than two months, has been blocked twice already and still doesn't seem to understand why their behaviour is problematic. A block is indicated, but I think we really need a topic ban here. Black Kite (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Kite, though I think a block might be just punitive if a topic ban is applied. But this editor clearly is disruptive in that topic area as shown by the previous sanctions, and I think that indicates they need to be removed from it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry if I wasn't clear - a topic ban would negate the necessity for a block. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון broke 1RR after incorrectly notifying someone else of breaking 1RR on that page. That's a few days ago, but I don't see how that isn't edit-warring and deliberately and knowingly violating restrictions. Huon (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am technically wrong by two minutes. Clearly gaming the system. Huon (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz:, thanks for pointing out the specific provision that יניב הורון apparently meant to say the other editor violated; they only referred to 1RR both in the edit summary and on SantiLak's talk page, which doesn't have that clause. That said, 1RR (in either incarnation) clearly isn't meant to have editors sitting around with stopwatches to wait 24 hours and two minutes to revert instead of 23 hours and 58 minutes. This is adherence to the wording of the instructions while ignoring the spirit. Huon (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MShabazz: Could you please diff the two 24-hour-plus-two-minutes 1RRs for me? I've had a look through their contribs but can't see it today. On that note, this is not exactly encouraging - I make it 28 straightforward reverts in the past 24 hours. Some of them are fair enough, some are simply using the undo tool to disagree with people. I think this user could do with substantial experience editing other, less controversial, topics before they return to this one.
I'd also like to take the chance to agree with MShabazz's interpretation of the "consensus" provision of ARBPIA3, which states: If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. This is clearly saying that if you're reverted, you can't reinstate that material for 24 hours; 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," as opposed to anyone else who is free to re-insert the material before the 24 hours is up (subject to everything else, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@יניב הורון: The problem is that you did break the rules. You made this edit at 22:33, 18 April. It was reverted at 04:36, 19 April. The 24-hour rule of ARBPIA3, which I quoted above, means you can't reinstate that edit until 04:36, 20 April, but you did so at 22:35, 19 April. You have argued the rule doesn't apply because you weren't the "original author" of the material; I have explained to you the plain meaning of the rule above and yes, it does apply to this situation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: AFAICT, what you've shown is that both of them violated the 24-hour rule. I'm not sure what's so hard about this; if someone reverts your edit, don't reinstate it for at least 24 hours after the revert. GoldenRing (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Although the motion you link says "enacted" the text hasn't made it into the case page. I'll take up with the (other) clerks why this is. Thanks for the pointer. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing, Huon, Black Kite, Seraphimblade, Sandstein, and SpacemanSpiff: No admin has commented here for over a week. Is there any appetite for a sanction (a topic ban was suggested)? Or is a logged warning enough? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I expect we'll end up here or at AN/I again soon, but I'm willing to let myself be proved wrong. Huon (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

Cassianto is topic-banned from infoboxes for three months. Sandstein 21:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Cassianto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jcc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cassianto (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/Civility in infobox discussions#Cassianto_and_infoboxes_(II) :

infobox probation

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

Cassianto was placed on infobox probation. Infobox probation prohibits him from posting more than one comment in any discussion about infoboxes. Cassianto has posted more than one comment on Mary Shelley and Stanley Kubrick.

14:53, 1 May 2018 Mary Shelley, first comment (fine)
16:11, 1 May 2018 Mary Shelley, second comment (not so good)
08:08, 2 May 2018 Mary Shelley, third comment (really not good)
19:02, 30 April 2018 Stanley Kubrick, first comment (fine)
20:04, 30 April 2018 Stanley Kubrick, second comment (not so good)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a, Cassianto just came off his self-requested block.

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

n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: @SchroCat: That's ridiculous, at Mary Shelley Cassianto was replying to someone who said that they wanted an infobox. If we follow your logic, then in theory as long as he doesn't explicitly use the word "oppose" or "support", he's free to personally attack and reply to anyone who does. This is exactly the bludgeoning, intimidating behaviour the infobox restriction was designed to prevent. In fact, Alex Shih explicitly mentions these troublesome "follow up comments" in his support vote for the initial probation. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Cassianto

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 Cassianto

Knock yourself out. I've made it my policy NEVER to plead for forgiveness as this is just a website and I'm just a volunteer, so it bothers me not about being blocked, especially as I'm more tan keen to sit out self-requested blocks. FWIW, and having said that, I wasn't aware of the "no more than one comment" bullshit, but knew of my restriction NOT to touch idiotboxes, which I haven't. Unlike some people on here, I have a private life to attend to so I didn't concern myself with the intricacies of the outcome. Cassianto^Talk 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SchroCat

Rather predictable that at least one person would have so little to do with their time that they would start stalking someone who has just been through ArbCom. I guess that speaks more about the stalker than the 'stalkee', but there you go.

The comments made by Cassianto are absolutely nothing to do with infoboxes, so unless a really, really anally retentive reading of the decision is wanted, common sense should just be to ignore this. Just to remind the committee, the probation was not, as the filer claims, "Infobox probation prohibits him from posting more than one comment in any discussion about infoboxes": that is not correct. The measure the committee voted on was that he is "indefinitely restricted from ... making more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article".

The comments on Shelley are not about "discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article", but are about a hugely experienced "new user" who can find an eight-year-old RfC in an unconnected subject, but is unable to find the consensus on that specific page's archives; a "new" user who can put together this as their third edit, and one who has learned how to ping users and wikilawyer, all in a very short space of time. Yes, there is a microscopic chance they are a former IP editor who has now registered, but the duck quacks. Either way, the comments were not about infoboxes.
The comment on Kubrick is also not "discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article" and is a comment on the unlikelihood that the recent ArbCom decision will have any real benefit. Given the spike in IB comments recently, I am as sceptical as Cassianto is that it will result in anything other than increased hounding of certain individuals. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I suggest you actually look at the restriction Cassianto is under, and what he actually said. If the aim of the committee was to make sure he made no more than one comment in a discussion, then it is poorly phrased. As I've demonstrated, he has not made "more than one comment in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article", and has not therefore breached his restriction. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JCC, As I have shown, he has not breached the restrictions as they have been written and voted on. If the intention of the restriction was something else, then it is poorly written, and unusable.

Coretheapple, as you have been active pushing for an IB and been aggressive in dealing with Cassianto, I'm not convinced you are any sort of judge, except one who pushes for a pound of flesh, regardless of any facts.

power~enwiki, Cassianto has not said that he has breached any restriction, just that he was unaware of the restrictions. If you plump for a block, it will be purely for reasons of punishment, rather than to stop further disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

power~enwiki, it's fairly obvious there was no "clear violation" of what the committee voted on. If the intention was something else, this restriction is poorly phrased, but action can't be taken if the restriction as written hasn't been breached. - SchroCat (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

This is an in-your-face violation of sanctions just imposed. The fact that these are ad hominem makes them worse, not excusable. Enough already.

I think that the time has come to indefinitely block this user. I disagree that a short block is warranted. Cassianto just doesn't care. We know that because he says so. His "defense" is that he didn't know about the restriction on his conduct. Next he'll say he is unaware of the outcome of this proceeding. and the next. His pals will chime in with wikilawyering. And on and on. How about we end this charade now? Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to power-enwiki: You are correct that arbcom didn't indef, which was probably due to Cassianto's very wise decision to sit out the proceeding with a self-block. We have now heard from him, and seen his contempt for the whole process by word and action. So we can go through this same charade again and again, or it can be ended now. [Reply to Good Day] This would be, in other words, a preventive not a punitive block. Coretheapple (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

This situation (both the provocation by extremely new users, and the hostile responses by Cassianto) is exactly what the Infobox case should have solved. Accusations of sock-puppetry should be made at SPI (or at ANI if there's no way to determine who the master is), not on article talk pages.

As Cassianto agrees there is a violation, pledges to avoid violations in the future, and doesn't seem to mind a block, I think a short block (24-72 hours) is sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple - the committee could have indeffed during the recent case, but chose not to. I don't see how this is sufficient reason to change that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - I took Cassianto's statement to be conceding there was a violation. There's a general deterrent value in ensuring that clear violations of ARBCOM restrictions result in sanctions, even if it isn't necessary to prevent further disruption in that specific case. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

The question is.... Would a block be a preventative measure or a punitive measure. I tend to believe the latter in this situation & so would recommend 'no blocking' on this occasion. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cassianto

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

Sigh. Cassianto these look like pretty clear-cut violations of your editing restriction to me. Do you have any explanation here? GoldenRing (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are clear violations of the infobox probation. Cassianto states that they do not care about either blocks or the "intricacies" of the probation. A different and simpler sanction is therefore required. I am topic-banning Cassianto from infoboxes for three months as a discretionary sanction. Sandstein 21:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein

Article in question is outside the scope of ARBPIA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Mhhossein

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#Motion:_ARBPIA_"consensus"_provision_modified :

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

07:27, 2 May 2018‎ First introduction of tag
13:27, 2 May 2018‎ Second introduction of tag 24h have not passed yet.

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 [19]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The article was protected [20] by USER:Courcelles as part of the conflict.The user refuse to selft revert [21].

Though when I filed the request for me it was clear case especially when article was protected by WP:ECP I am willing to withdraw it as I going to file WP:ARCA --Shrike (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Mhhossein

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 Mhhossein

The mentioned article is not under the remedy Shrike claims. Enforcing the WP:BLUELOCK as an attempt to have "extended confirmed protection" does not necessarily mean that the article is under ARBPIA. Regards. Nuclear program of Iran has nothing to do with the Arab world. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem: Thanks for the intervention. This is related to Israel, but how can it be related to I/P or Israel-Arab area, considering that Iran is even not an Arab country and It's nuclear program has nothing to do with them? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See these comments for clarification: [22], [23] and [24]. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz: Every article with the protection level of "extended confirmed falls under ARBPIA? Everything related to Israel falls under ARBPIA? Don't try to mix these unrelated things. What the hell does that alleged scientific project have to do with the Israel-Arab conflict?--Mhhossein ^talk 08:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: You're wasting your energy if you think people will be misguided by that completely unrelated protection enhancement edit. I'm going to assume that you're trying to game the system by trying to pretend otherwise. "No, it doesn't - the Iran-Israel proxy conflict doesn't fall under ARBPIA, because it is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict (Israel opposes Iran and it's allies, which are not part of the Arab League, while Israel in fact partially cooperates with the Arab League against Iran)." --Mhhossein ^talk 12:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: Enough is enough, don't beat the dead horse. Your ... comments have already wasted our time and energy. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Let me reword your self interpretation: "...Yes, it is certainly true that United States (or UK) is not an Arab country but it opposes the "anti-Semitism", the description of a bias and prejudice against Jews, and not against all Semites. Similarly, United States is a well-known ally of Israel strongly supporting its existence. United States is not Arabic, but it is part of the "broadly interpreted" circumstance that the sanctions were intended to control. I would urge admins to take this into account, and not be so specific in their interpretation." So, every article related to Israel & US should be considered under the remedy since the United States is opposing the Arabs who oppose the existence of Israel. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Be civil. Your comment is a blatant personal attack. You know that outcome would be if you repeat it. Based on you argument, we may connect "everything" to "everything". Btw, after reviewing WP:CIVIL, you need to know "Why the US has the most pro-Israel foreign policy in the world" and "U.S. Policy in Israel/Palestine, 1948: The Forgotten History". Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

I asked Mhhossein to self revert, as did Shrike. As might be evident on his talk page - User talk:Mhhossein#Self revert request he refused, also after it was pointed out to him the article was placed on extended confirmed protection (500/30) due to ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the prior case involving Psychonot and Mhhossein at AE - that was on Ali Khamenei which is not inherently ARBPIA - as opposed to this article which is (including the POV tag which Mhhossein placed since per his words "Netanyahu alleged that Iran for years operated a secret project known as Amad... [25] - so Mhhossein has tied our article on this Iranian project (and POV thereof - this edit specifically) to to the Israeli prime minister.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein:, not every one, but this one [26] was placed by @Courcelles: as 500/30 due to what would seem to be ARBPIA. It would be great to have a clear clarification (if there isn't one already hidden somewhere) of whether the Israeli-Iranian conflict (which this article is obviously a part of) is part of ARBPIA. I think it should be (not because Iranians are Arab - they are not - but it is part of the same conflict in terms of topic area and the editing problems are the same) - and I at least have treated it as ARBPIA in my editing (whether or not there is an edit box or protection - which is present on many of the articles (so it seems that some admins, at least part of the time, seem to consider this ARBPIA).Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While Iranians are not Arab, post-1979 Iran (particularly since 1988) has been heavily involved in the the Arab/Israeli conflict - supporting the Palestinian cause - particularly Islamist factions, supporting Hezbollah against Israel, etc. I suspect that the boundaries of ARBPIA should be taken up with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - as it seems there are differing interpretations here (also among admins placing protection / at AE). Presently - Iran is possibly the most significant state actor that is actively on the side of some Palestinian factions - and most of the on-going Iran–Israel proxy conflict involves Arab proxies.Icewhiz (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I would only note,Masem, that some experienced editors on both 'sides' appear to be confused on this (Syria, hence all the more Iran) as per this remark.Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Sandstein is perfectly correct that this is not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, because Iran is not an Arab country. It is definitely not covered by ARBPIA. The complaint should be moved to somewhere else like ANI, but a single revert is unlikely to get much traction over there. Zero^talk 09:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Beyond My Ken: "the United States ... does not take an oppositional stance in regard to either the Arab world or Israel". That has to be the most counterfactual claim I have heard in this noticeboard for years. Incidentally, regarding the article in question, every Arab country (hard to be sure in the case of Syria) is mortally opposed to Iran having nuclear weapons. The argument (made by someone else here) that an article on an alleged Iranian nuclear program belongs to ARBPIA because Iran supports Palestinians thereby falls flat on its face. Zero^talk 12:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

In the very same discussion Nishidani refers to, one editor says the Israel-Iran conflict does not fall under the Arab-Israeli conflict, and cites a 2013 discussion to support his assertion. Obviously, this is no clear-cut case and it would be unfair to punish anyone for something that clearly isn't understood by everyone. Had Shrike realized this, instead of piggybacking off Icewhiz's initial claim (as usual), we would not be here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

The filing party has a history of initiating misguided reports. I was a subject of one of them at 3RRN last month, which closed as “no violation”: permalink. Perhaps, the filer should be cautioned to better understand policies and restrictions before filing reports at various noticeboards. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

While the opinions expressed by admins below that the article in question is not covered by the discretionary sanctions are quite reasonable, I think that the fact that the subject area is specifically to be "broadly interpreted" changes things somewhat. Yes, it is certainly true that Iran is not an Arab country, but it is also true that Arabs are Semites, and yet "anti-Semitism" is the description of a bias and prejudice against Jews, and not against all Semites. Similarly, Iran is part of the cauldron of the "Middle East" in which the countries all around Israel have taken up a strong opposition to its existence. Iran is not Arabic, but it is part of the "broadly interpreted" circumstance that the sanctions were intended to control. I would urge admins to take this into account, and not be so specific in their interpretation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhossein's reductio ad absurdum response to my comment is completely inapt, since the United States is not part of the Middle East and does not take an oppositional stance in regard to either the Arab world or Israel. The instructions in the ArbCom remedy says that the subject of the discretionary sanctions is to be "broadly interpreted", not that it is to be "ridiculously interpreted and stretched to the breaking point." Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

Even if it was within the remedy, I think it is reasonable to assume good faith and take Mhhossein at his word that he did not believe it was within the remedy. The connection is attenuated enough that I think it would need to be discussed at ARCA and for editors to be made aware of it before it was actionable.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mhhossein

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

Given that Israel is claimed to have found evidence of this Iranian plan, and thus the basis of this article, it clearly is tied to the I/P area. Definitely a violation. --Masem (t) 06:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If other admins feel that Iran falls outside I/P, then I'll accept that. I just consider that these have been typically broad, and given stories like this, we can't say that Iran is completely isolated from I/P. --Masem (t) 13:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, this is outside of the scope of the ARBPIA restrictions. The article at issue, Project Amad, is about an Iranian nuclear program which Israel considers a threat. Iran is not an Arab country. It does have a conflict with Israel, but that's not part of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is what the restrictions apply to. Our article about the Arab-Israeli conflict mentions Iran only in passing. Sandstein 08:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this falls outside ARBPIA. "Arab-Israeli" doesn't mean the conflict involves one or the other, the scope is conflict between the two. Since Iran is not an Arabic country, conflict between it and Israel is not Arab-Israeli conflict. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time that the question of ARBPIA enforcement on Iranian-Israeli relations has come up. The response seems to have generally been that Iran is involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, mainly through its proxies, but that this doesn't make every edit or article related to Iran-Israel relations subject to ARBPIA DS (compare this request with this one and this one and perhaps this one). In this case, I agree with others that Project Amad, while it is linked to Israel-Iran relations, is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore not subject to 1RR. GoldenRing (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!

Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Salvidrim!

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Salvidrim! (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/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors#Salvidrim! prohibited (II) :

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

Today moving an article Drafted by others into mainspace

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently prohibited from reviewing AfC Drafts or moving other people's AfC Drafts into mainspace. In this case there was no AfC template but I don't wanna look like the guy intentionally toeing the line and going after Drafts just because they don't have AfC tags, without regard for the spirit of the sanction. I'm self-reporting here before someone else does. I think it's probably no big deal but "thinking it's no big deal" is part of what landed me before ArbCom so I'm not sure how much my self-assessment is worth. That I should "seek external review" was the point that the case commenters wanted to hammer into my skull so that's what I'm doing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

My face has been notified by my palm.

Discussion concerning Salvidrim

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 Salvidrim

re Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Can you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salvidrim

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

E-960

E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 E-960

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: E-960 (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:ARBEE, page level article restrictions - 1RR (+original author as in ARBPIA)

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

Revision as of 19:22, 6 May 2018 revert 1 of this edit - Revision as of 08:54, 26 April 2018 (with modifications).
Revision as of 20:54, 6 May 2018 revert 2 (reverting an IP - not a 1RR vio, does count for 3RR later).
Revision as of 05:40, 7 May 2018 revert 3
revision as of 06:35, 7 May 2018 revert 4.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

4 reverts on a 1RR article. There are also BLP and RS issues for some of the information added. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba and various discussions at Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland such as Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Should Grabowski be removed ?.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Additional comments by Icewhiz

RE E-960's comments below -

I tagged the article once in the past two weeks - with this edit in 27 April in which I said "tag - better source - literature professor writing about literature." I subsequently refuted the stmt made by this source in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - with RSes showing the death penalty was imposed for this in other occupied countries. It is unclear to me how this is "users Icewhiz ... continue to tag bomb".
In this 6 May edit with the edit summary " FRINGEy source, interview in which he says indirectly - as he said all along." - I perhaps should have been clearer. I was referring (before the comma) to the right wing internet portal wPolityce as WP:FRINGE (which it is, in and of itself) - all the more so when the coverage in wPolityce was of comments posted to Facebook by Jakub Kumoch - the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - this is not an appropriate source for WWII history, and possibly also a BLP vio. After the comma I was referring to the interview in Gazeta Wyborcza (which is not FRINGE) - as superfluous - as we never say (nor has Grabowski in any scholarly publication or in a media interview that we found so far on Wikipedia) that Grabowski estimates 200,000 murdered by the Poles - as Grabowski had always said "directly and indirectly" (or variations thereof). Some FRINGEy outlets such as wPolityce may have reported second or third hand that he had said that - however we do not cover that (nor does it seem relevant!) - so covering his clarification to a question (by Gazeta Wyborcza) about claims by "right-wing historians and publicists" is out of context and irrelevant (particularly since the text E-960 introduced leads off with "directly and indirectly"). Both these issues (the Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador and the "clarification" (which was what was being said all along) - were dicussed in-depth at the talk-page - E-960 returned an old version of the text and as far as I can see did not participate in the recent talk page discussion on this particular topic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning E-960

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 E-960

I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense.

In this example [27] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [28] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring.

In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pls note that wPolityce newspaper is not FRINGE. In 2018, it has around 1.2 million regular readers (and an accompanying weekly news magazine that is available in every newsstand in the country) — though it is righwing, as Gazeta Wyborcza is leftwing. Again, throwing around untrue labels to automatically discredit a conservative news outlet. --E-960 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by NeilN, to avoid escalating the issue, I can step back for the suggested time, and let the content discussion play out on the article talk page. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

(writing in progress...will finish today)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC) I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [36] is very fair in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning E-960

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

@NeilN: These are your page-level restrictions, could you please evaluate this request? Sandstein 13:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a pretty blatant violation and E-960 seems to be aware of this given the apology above. I'm not familiar enough with the sources in question to comment sensibly on the wider dispute, though I note that at least some sources have been removed or tagged for being non-english-language without translation, which is not appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1RR violation involving a sourcing dispute but in light of E-960's assertion that they will be more careful I would suggest they voluntarily restrict themselves to using the talk page for the next 72 hours in lieu of discretionary sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DanaUllman

As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 DanaUllman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: DanaUllman (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

I think DanaUllman should be sitebanned for violation of sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy

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

[37] asks for help undeleting article on Dana Ullman, and immediately veers into characteristic apologia for homeopathy itself.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy
Indefinite topic ban [38]
User talk:DanaUllman contains discussion of the scope of this ban, DanaUllman is well aware that it applies everywhere.

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 at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
Blocked at 23:00, March 24, 2018 by user:GoldenRing for topic ban violations.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, he is, by admission, Dana Ullman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a tireless promoter of homeopathy. He has made exactly one mainspace edit since his 2008 topic ban, and that was promoting a purveyor of bogus diagnostics, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.

His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning DanaUllman

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 DanaUllman

Statement by (username)

Statement by Spartaz

this is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Per the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DanaUllman

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

To the extent that a violation of a community topic ban is alleged, AE does not enforce community sanctions. To the extent that enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy is requested, the request does not make clear which specific remedy of that decision is to be enforced here, and why.
But to the extent that discretionary sanctions may be requested, I would support a topic ban from the topic of Dana Ullman to stop the attempts at self-promotion. Sandstein 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz

Editors directed to WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Icewhiz (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

Misconduct in two matters subject to discretionary sanctions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons

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

The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian (Marek Chodakiewicz - a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.

05:02, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Invasion of Poland with hitting edit summary -> "not about the invasion itself, questionable author, doesn't seem to be used here"
07:00, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers with beating edit summary -> "highly biased author making a very contentious claim - that should at the least be attributed, but probably doesn't merit inclusion"
07:02, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers
07:04, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans with the unclear edit summary
07:06, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans with misleading edit summary -> "UNDUE"
08:19, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peace of Riga
08:36, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Wąsosz pogrom
10:56, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Soviet partisans
11:08, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peace of Riga
11:23, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers
12:15, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Bielski partisans
12:20, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk pogrom with edit summary -> "Fringe view, not lede worthy, particularly since some of it is sourced to a bl"
12:26, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk pogrom
12:32, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Mokotów Prison
12:34, 8 May 2018 Removed source to interview with Chodakiewicz @ History of the Jews in 20th-century Poland
12:41, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk
13:07, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Vladimir Alganov
13:13, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Piotr Śmietański
13:29, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Peter Vogel (banker)

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

User filed (@ least twice) a call for discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [40]. Also several times commented [41], they are well informed of the sanctions.
Alerted also about discretionary sanctions in the other area of conflict [42]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On March 8 the editor Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started [43] to make edits to the page of the living Polish historian Marek Chodakiewicz in a profoundly critical fashion. Edits continued until today. [44] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

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 Icewhiz

I have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly WP:BIASED source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V).

As for Marek Jan Chodakiewicz -

Besides being a historian, he's also a far-right activist.Newsweek 2017 For instance he's appeared in a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy and said: "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!".video Newsweek.
He's been covered by the SPLC (2009, 2017) and HopeNothate. Coverage in Newsweek.[[46]. You may read these for his views on gays, multiculturalism, Obama, genocide and whites in South Africa, Jewish communist collaboration, use of Rivers of blood, etc. Adam Michnik has gone so far as to compare his writings to the Protocols.[47]
In an academic setting, he's been described in a historiography source as the "most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing"[48]. You might see more with this search in these two books: [49][50]. His recent book, Intermarium, as been described in a review in a peer reviewed journal as promoting the return of the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book".[51]. Piotr Wróbel and Antony Polonsky have also critiqued him, with Wrobel saying "The book under review has a visible political agenda and is written in a language full of politically loaded key words. Everyone whose opinions are different than Chodakiewicz’s is a “pundit” (the author’s favorite word). Some, and this is really bad, are “leftist pundits." and "The Massacre is, in my opinion, difficult to read, unoriginal, irritating, and unconvincing" and Polonsky saying "It does not rise above the clichés of old-fashioned national apologetics" and "What is most striking about this book is the lack of empathy with those caught up in these tragic events."[52]. I could go on.... Suffice to say that academic works by Chodakiewicz have been criticized quite a bit.

Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per WP:V, WP:NPOV. I submit that per WP:BIASED review of the use of Chodakiewicz is more than warranted, and obviously removing what doesn't pass WP:V - e.g. this diff GCB presents - in which we were ascribing to Chodakiewicz a claim he did not actually write in his political blog - is required per V policy as well and WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refuted

Note that the editor using GCB as a handle has admitted to editing as an IP as well - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GizzyCatBella - admission here and elsewhere. Editing as one of the IP's in GCB's range in April, GCB introduced the following - text and source. This was discussed as a source with GCB in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek (where this didn't receive support). In conjunction, we also discussed Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty - in which Poland being the only country with the death penalty for helping Jews was outright refuted. Ewa Kurek is mainly covered for making stmts such as "Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II."[53][54][55]. And does not hold a significant academic appointment.[56][57]. So far - one use of a questionable source. However, GCB then added a self-published book (iUniverse) in a number different articles -

I'll also note, given the circumstances that Poeticbent Revision as of 13:19, 25 April 2018 also re-added Kurek.

GCB has not discussed this at the relevant article talk page (complaining instead on the wall of text - see Talk:Irena Sendler#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source and Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/April#Use of Ewa Kurek as a source) - and instead has been reverting. Use of a WP:SPS is a clear no-go, when it is a questionable author as well, making a claim that has been clearly refuted - it is even less acceptable. Repeated reversions of this without discussion are WP:IDHT. In an area with discretionary sanctions - editors are supposed to adhere to Wikipedia policy on WP:RS and WP:V - which is clearly not the case in the diffs above.

Note I did open a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul after the last revert - however this shouldn't have gotten to this - an editor re-inserting a self-published book, by a questionable author, with a false claim, repeatedly - in a sanctioned area!Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - GCB has also been possibly WP:HOUNDING my edits - as might be see in the editor interaction tool. In particular their decision to WP:ILIKEIT !vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darioush Rezaeinejad diff, Revision as of 04:49, 7 May 2018 which I nominated - which is their 4th AfD page edited - in a topic area (Iran) which GCB has not edited at all (or much at all) is quite telling.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've also, in a manner that seems intentional, been using "Itzewitz" (and variations thereof - as opposed to my user name) to refer to me,[58][59][60] going back almost a month.[61] which seems disrespectful and possibly WP:NPA.Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The disputing editors should open a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.

BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

This looks like a content dispute about whether this Chodakiewicz is appropriate as a source. Because arbitration and by extension AE does not decide content disputes, I would take no action here. Sandstein 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Come back after you've debated the source on WP:RSN. Guy (Help!) 07:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others above that RSN is the place to discuss the validity of a source. Unless that question has been resolved, there is nothing behavioural to deal with here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick

Infobox restriction posted at Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 10:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

User who is submitting this request: Bishonen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions#Standard discretionary sanctions

I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:

"You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, until the general infobox RfC is finished, or before 9 September 2018, whichever comes first, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Not an elegant sentence, but Template:Ds/editnotice is extremely constraining. (Note: mention of the general infobox RfC will be removed per below.)

The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision." [There are various links in the text also.] And I thought I'd also add a comment from myself at the bottom of the page, to explain that if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it (the top of the page is dominated in the usual way by a mass of, to me, uninteresting wikiprojects information that makes it unlikely anything else will be noticed or read, but I digress), and they shouldn't be dragged immediately to AE, but politely told about the restriction and asked to self-revert. Plus I'll also explain where to appeal against the restriction, namely, here on AE.

My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@Francis Schonken: but I'm only proposing it for Stanley Kubrick. I'll admit I hope it'll be the thin end of the wedge and lead to comparable page restrictions being placed on other articles with a troubled infobox history, but I'm not proposing it as a "default", nor do I have any notion very many articles will need any kind of infobox restriction. Note that my wording says "nor add an infobox to the article", which you have left out in both yours. It's quite an important part. For some other pages, with different histories and consensuses, one would presumably say "nor remove the infobox from the article". Also, I really want a date, rather than a generalized "within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed", with its rich opportunities for lawyering. ('But it was closed by a non-admin!' 'But it was archived by a disruptive editor!') Also, the expiry parameter in your first suggestion doesn't work — I suppose the template doesn't have it. But I do appreciate the attempts to improve the wording. My proposal is certainly clumsy. (The template insists it must begin with "You" and end with "and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page", so it's quite the Procrustean bed.) Bishonen | talk 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@NeilN: I have to be frank: I'm not well-read enough in general infobox discussions (because I kind of can't stand reading them) to know whether infobox disruption is confined to IPs and SPAs. That's one of the reasons reason I'd rather not bundle an extended-confirmed restriction with the other stuff on Stanley Kubrick. Also, it's an ingenious idea that would certainly sort part of the problem, but wouldn't it more be a suggestion for the general Village Pump RfC? Have you considered adding it there? Or is that RfC considered defunct? I mean, nothing against Good Day's talkpage, but how widely read is it? Bishonen | talk 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Francis Schonken: The Village Pump RfC has been put out of its misery? Good. That'll make it simpler, since its closing statement is no help (not the closer's fault, that, for sure). Then I'll just say "You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before", uhh.. "10 September 2018, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Neat. A bit of luck it didn't get closed a few hours after I'd posted the restriction. Thanks for telling me. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion concerning the page restrictions

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 Francis

Don't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:

{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not start a new discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not re-initiate discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}

(the infobox of that particular article, mentioned in The Wall Street Journal two days ago, is way beyond a "default" option, that being the topic of the current RfC, so I wouldn't connect timing to that RfC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: oops, sorry, was only trying to get rid of the awkward time management formulation – new suggestions:

{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article, nor start a new discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article without consensus establised by a [[WP:ANRFC|formally closed]] discussion, nor should you re-initiate discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after any previous discussion mentioning that topic on this talk page has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}

... or some such ... (omit the text in square brackets for Stanley's article). Anyway, support the initiative FWIW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: the infobox RfC is closed now, so your original wording (I mean, its proposed time-schedule) would be a non-starter when introduced now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Laser brain

I think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning the page restriction

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

Sounds like a good use of DS to me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, this may be more controversial but you (and other admins placing editing restrictions) may want to restrict who can start such discussions on certain articles. I suggested this here. There are people out there who use IPs and sock accounts who don't really care about infoboxes but will start arguments about them just to stir up drama and poke at certain editors. I'm not saying the extended-confirmed restriction should be automatically be bundled in with your restriction, but rather considered as an option for certain articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Probably impossible to get community consensus on this and admins have leeway to judiciously apply whatever restrictions they see fit. Note I'm not suggesting restricting newer editors from participating in re-litigation but just from starting discussions. I know I'll be adding that restriction if I apply moratoriums on discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting as an admin, this is exactly why we applied DS to the topic area. My only suggestion is that you don’t tie this to a specific RfC, which is somewhat arbitrary. I’d just do two or three months from the last discussion closure and leave it at that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Agree with Rob but largely for pessimistic reasons: I don't think that a large community RfC is likely to definitively resolve this issue, and tying it to that is unlikely to be helpful down the road (where even if the community resolves one issue, another is likely to occur, as they tend to.) I would suggest something like No discussions may be initiated about an infobox for at least 90 days after the close of a previous discussion. I'm neutral on the EC requirement Neil suggests. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, noting I saw the close after I read Bish's original proposal and Rob's response. Yeah, the RfC just reinforced the status quo, so I stand by my comment above. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 90 days is way too short, IMO. We'd be having the same ~~damn~~ ~~fuitful~~ conversation four times a year. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - 180 days? 365 days? I don't particularly care, but I think it should be an ongoing DS and not just a one-off until September. This reminds me a bit of the Sarah Jane Brown RM where we did a 2 year moratorium. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - My thinking is September may be about the right time to try to do without the restriction — then, if the situation degenerates again, restore the restriction. After all, the infobox question isn't the heart and soul of the article; it's not like the kind of conflict that keeps Donald Trump eternally under page restrictions; people may conceivably forget the infobox issue once they've had a rest from it. But I'm not married to September, or any particular time. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      - Fair point, and its worth an initial try that way as this would be a first of it's kind. It's not exactly like page level restrictions are difficult to impose. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) with Tony: And as for having the same footful (fateful?) conversation four times a year, NeilN, why should we? It's only because the very notion of a page restriction per the infobox case ds is new (to me at least) that I took it here in the first place; for the future it's the kind of thing I'd just do, as surely would most admins. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
      - @Bishonen: We're talking about different conversations. Tony suggested a moratorium on article talk page discussions lasting 90 days. That would mean infobox discussions could start up four times a year. I would just apply a "fire and forget" restriction: New discussions cannot be opened until a year has passed after the close of the last discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll close this soon, since I've received plenty of good advice; thank you all very much. I note that several people seem to prefer a time-scale something on the lines of "no infobox discussion until at least 90 days after a previous discussion has been archived/closed," rather than a set date. I just think a date is less susceptible to wikilawyering, per above. The disadvantage is that it will become obsolete, but, well, then it can be re-applied if still needed. I'd so much like to see a simple page restriction which needs no Kremlinology to interpret it, so I'm going with the set date to save all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Theres a historic disapproval of arbitrators commenting at AE, but whatever: per my comment at your talk page, belated pile-on support for this appropriate use of infobox DS, and agree that a set date restriction is preferable. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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 Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Alerts alert.dup. Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

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

~~Revision as of 21:14, 25 March 2018 Icewhiz issued DS alert on ARBEE by other user.~~
~~Revision as of 04:53, 9 May 2018 - GizzyCatBella files AE against Icewhiz for ARBEE.~~
~~Latest revision as of 16:08, 9 May 2018 Icewhiz issued DS alert on ARBEE issue by GizzyCatBella.~~

~~; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :~~

~~Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive230#GizzyCatBella - blocked for 72 hours for ARBEE.~~

~~;If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts):~~ ~~Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018~~

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

~~(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).~~

~~; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :~~ ~~WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

In addition - this edit by GCB at 16:25, 9 May 2018 (concurrent to filing) is a BLP violation as well as contrary to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - consensus (by uninvovled editors) at RSN was that if this were to be included - it had to be attributed to the Polish ambassador in Poland - this is a right wing internet portal reporting on the Polish ambassador to Switzerland's facebook post - which is used to make a stmt in our voice on what Grabowski did - Subsequently, Grabowski acknowledged that his estimate was not the result of original research, but was based on referencing works of other historians, most notably Szymon Datner, and as reported by the Polish newspaper wPolityce: "Grabowski admitted that the number of 250,000 fugitives from the ghettos is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's works. Grabowski simply took into account the maximum number of escapes from the ghetto suggested by Datner, but he rejected his estimates of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski—if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion only 50,000 people) from the number of fugitives, you will get 200,000. Grabowski, therefore, stated that this was the number of Jews murdered by Poles.".Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: - Had this been a simple mistake, I would not have filed. However in this case GCB filed a baseless AE complaint against me, claiming ARBEE awareness, and the after that AE was rejected issued a POINTy DS alert. Note they did not do this formality concurrent to the AE, but after. This is not a simple mistake - as either the AE filing was done in bad faith, or the alert was issued in bad faith. Since they had claimed correctly that I was aware of ARBEE due to me filing an ARBEE AE in 7 May 2018 against another user - they were well aware, at the very least, that I was aware until 7 May 2019. Finally, I submit that a user whose main contribution of late is getting blocked for edit warring on a sanctioned page, and making edits sourced to coverage of Facebook posts, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Holocaust in Poland: Ewa Kurek & Mark Paul, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz (including political blogs), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leszek Pietrzak, and others - some of which were self published - is NOTTHERE for Polish/Jewish history - this is a NPOV and RS issue - however that is a harder case to make (mainly since it leads to a TLDR complaint) - then a clear alert.dup violation (after filing an AE claiming awareness) - the alert here was a clear duplicate - and at the very least there is a WP:CIR regarding policy and finding the previous alert (which is not that hard to find).Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also add (not TLDR) - this diff on a BLP - Peter Vogel (banker) - which is a BLP violation (user was alerted BLP sanctions here). "World Politics Watch" (www.worldpoliticswatch.com - this seems defunct / taken over) does not fit WP:BLPSOURCES. The removal of the material was clearly marked with BLPSOURCES.Icewhiz (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : notified~~

Withdrawn.07:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

I sincerely missed the previous alert that was given to Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and entered the template in good faith. I even wrote that I couldn't see it before inserting the alert template. [62] I wrote:

I know you are aware of this but I couldn't find any record of you being properly informed about it in the past. So here you go, now it is official for easy reference.

If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday ->[63] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:

User filed (@ least twice) a call for discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [64]. Also several times commented [65], they are well informed of the sanctions.

It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing.[66] User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS to the "In addition" it refers to this conversation on the talk page [67] and not to what they claim. This is what I wrote : [68] I advise any uninvolved administrator taking a closer look at editing record of Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Poland related articles to have a proper judgment of the alarming conduct. Please let me know if it is mattering and you need to hear my further rationale. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Admin. Additions to this report of bogus infringements resemble Icewhiz behavior while editing the articles. Stance ALWAYS uncompromised and threatening, changes radical, often turning the narrative of the articles by 180 degrees. Edit summaries are often misleading. If challenged, responds with walls of confusing text, full of "TLDR, BLP, ARBEE, RSN, PPP, WCH, PCHRT, etc." abbreviations to create an appearance of credibility. I invite you guys to have a look at his edit history if you have time and energy for this of course, if not I understand. Until last month I was excited that I can dedicate my free time to build this great project, but I have to tell you that my enthusiasm is slowly evaporating.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Am I reading this right? Icewhiz, are you asking for GizzyCatBella to be sanctioned for giving you a discretionary sanctions alert when you had already been given one by another editor? The earlier alert was in March, I see. Seriously? Your quote "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned" means people may be sanctioned if they issue alerts over and over. If they pester and harass you with them. Not for making a mistake once! I bet that has happened to lots of people. It happened to me last month. Please use common sense. I see you also bring up another diff in an "additional comment", but I have some trouble understanding that one. If that diff is actually the meat of your complaint, please try to reformulate it in a more pedagogical way. If it's not, you had better withdraw the complaint about the extra alert before an admin sanctions you for posting a "groundless or vexatious complaint", per the notice on this page. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Unhelpful report. It doesn't tell us what is supposed to be wrong with these alerts. The Grabowski stuff looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. Sandstein 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crawford88

Crawford88 is strongly cautioned to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Crawford88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Crawford88 (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/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions: From the definitions of discretionary sanctions, "Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, ...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines... etc" (emphasis mine).

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

08:30, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of WP:NPOV (because of its language) and of WP:V and WP:NOR because said language is not supported by the source in question. Furthermore, the reinstatement was made despite my having been explicit about the OR problem when removing said content.
08:32, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of NPOV. The source discusses defaming a government and a country; the content claims defamation of Hindus.

At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.

04:47, 8 May 2018 Once again reinstates content in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V, despite having seen and responded to my warning above. This version addresses the "defaming Hindus" part of the problem, but reinstates the other original research and non-neutral language for a second time.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions.

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

Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.

I haven't used my administrator tools on this page, and as I am aware of WP:INVOLVED, am not likely to do so.
"Hindu" and "Hindutva foot soldier" are not the same either, and if Crawford88 believes them to be, he is simply demonstrating his unsuitability for editing this topic.
The importance of the content I removed is quite irrelevant, as is the presence of other sources. I removed the content because it wasn't supported by the cited source.
Crawford reinstated it, thereby taking responsibility for it, in violation of our core policies. He still does not appear to see the problem with that. Neil, he's responded, as you asked; could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Well, they reinstated original research, were warned about it and reverted it, and then reinstated it again. This is far worse than a lost of behavior I've seen sanctioned here. You're right that an isolated incident may not be worth a sanction under normal circumstances; but that's only when we have some indication that it is an isolated incident, ie that it won't be repeated. Crawford88 hasn't even recognized problematic behavior here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [69]

Discussion concerning Crawford88

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 Crawford88

The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:

'Allegation by media and Church organizations for a case involving a nun's rape and church vandalism': This case has gathered heavy mainstream attention and elections were fought over this issue calling it the tyranny by Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar and BJP.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] The allegation by Vanamonde93 that the source only talks about "defaming a government and a country" is utter falsehood, as it specifically says, "Far from being a Hindutva foot soldier, as the CBCI, the media, commentators and the opposition had alleged, the man was a Muslim and, that too, a Bangladeshi!".

'A certain talk show hosted by Tony Brown': This not so relevant in India, but for American Hindus, this incident's importance can be gathered by the documentation of this event in various books and journals.^[5] including the seminal Encyclopedia of African American History.^[6] WLS - AM 890 is a powerful and influential radio in US over 90 years old in which Brown expressed his anti-Hindu views.

But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of Vanamonde93 which he uses to randomly targets well meaning Wikipedia users who do not tag his line. There has been two reverts by me (on two different days) and I have been careful of not violating any Wikipedia policy. So, instead of having a meaningful dialogue about why he considers there is WP:NPOV and absence of WP:V, Vanamonde93 jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons.

Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ "Nun rape and church vandalism: Hindutva idea or land-grabbing technique?". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ "Christians Say They are Under Siege in India After Nun's Rape, Church Attacks". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ Today, Christian. "Christians Outraged at WB Nun Gang-rape, Vandalism of Haryana Church". Christian Today. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
^ Kumar, M. Kumar R. (2009). Women Health, Empowerment and Economic Development: Their Contribution to National Economy. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 9788184501346.
^ Finkelman, Paul; Wintz, Cary D. (2009). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-first Century Five-volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195167795.

Statement by Sitush

The example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Crawford88

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

@Vanamonde93:, as presented, this doesn't seem to be AE actionable unless you can document a pattern of POV editing in the area. @Crawford88:, bringing an issue to AE is not an admin action and is in no way a gross or otherwise "misuse of administrative privileges". I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, otherwise you're only supporting the complaint brought against you. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot sanction Crawford88 because of the Arbcom-mandated awareness requirement. If there is no further input in the next few hours I will close this request with a strong caution to Crawford88 to follow closely what sources actually state, be aware of WP:ASSERT, and not to overreach when writing article content based on reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe87

Rafe87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Rafe87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rafe87 (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:1RR of ARBPIA :

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per third bullet of ARBPIA, 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. User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after my revert before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later he restored it anyway.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

Discussion concerning Rafe87

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 Rafe87

Statement by Shrike

NeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general everyone should have a chance to self-revert especially if its 1RR--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

GoldenRing this editor has been blocked for edit warring, been brought to AE before for 1RR, and warned about 1RR several times over. How many more can/should be afforded to them before we understand that they are ineffective?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I had a dull moment. I was looking at the diffs like יניב הורון was the one being reported. Since this looks like the editor's first warning, disregard my previous statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rafe87

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

יניב הורון, as far as I can see, these edits came before the mandatory discretionary sanctions alert and Raf87 has not edited since. Is that correct? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: ~~Not really as they stopped editing before the alert and their edit has already been reverted.~~ Looked at wrong article. I'll wait for a statement from Rafe87. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGracefulSlick: Search is still broken here. When was Rafe87 brought to AE? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. This and this is pretty naked canvassing; this edit is pretty clear retaliation for this. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Nun rape and church vandalism: The fringe is now mainstream". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[2] "Nun rape and church vandalism: Hindutva idea or land-grabbing technique?". www.dailyo.in. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[3] "Christians Say They are Under Siege in India After Nun's Rape, Church Attacks". NDTV.com. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[4] Today, Christian. "Christians Outraged at WB Nun Gang-rape, Vandalism of Haryana Church". Christian Today. Retrieved 2018-05-10.

[5] Kumar, M. Kumar R. (2009). Women Health, Empowerment and Economic Development: Their Contribution to National Economy. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 9788184501346.

[6] Finkelman, Paul; Wintz, Cary D. (2009). Encyclopedia of African American History, 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-first Century Five-volume Set. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 9780195167795.

[1]