Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive214

Mar4d

Closed with no action taken. Editors are reminded to be careful about 1RR restrictions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2017 (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 Mar4d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mar4d (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

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

25 April 2017 Changed the section title from "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" to "Insurgents and intelligence operatives", like the section includes only proven convictions, when its full of allegations. On edit summary he wrote "+ref", he didn't mentioned he made a misleading title and added a new event.
24 April 2017 Warned the editor the he went "above WP:3RR", despite he made just 2 reverts.[1][2] See WP:BATTLE.
24 April 2017 Censoring content by removing all mention of Pakistan despite Kashmir conflict refers to conflict of Kashmir in Pakistan, and 4/7 editors on talk page agreed to include Pakistan.
25 April 2017 on SPI, he claims "seems they were not notified about this SPI", when policy is that notifying "isn’t mandatory". Either call it WP:GAMING, or stirring up drama.
25 April 2017 Trying to preserve article about an obviously non-notable person, when the page creator himself requested deletion[3]
24 April 2017 Misrepresenting sources. On edit summary he claims that "source makes no mention of OBL personally involved in the conflict", despite source does back the sentence by saying "led by Osama bin Laden, was inducted by the Pakistan Army into Gilgit and adjoining areas to suppress the revolt"[4]
23 April 2017 clear violation of WP:BLPCAT, the person has never identified himself to be Pakistani. Before making such a category, Mar4d had to first source that information on the article body.

Interesting thing is that this all comes under 2 days, and remains continuous for many years. Above diffs show how he misrepresents sources, engages WP:BATTLE, violates WP:BLP, pushes WP:POV, censors content, etc. Given his block log and this amount of disruption in such a small period, it would be best to have him banned from entire South Asia. D4iNa4 (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I hope you have checked his violation of WP:1RR, WP:BLPCAT, misrepresentation of sources and frequent WP:NPOV violations in this month alone, you can never expect him to edit without creating tensions in this area. Hounding him on every article just to watch his new ways of gaming would be complete waste of time. On a quick look I find some more recent edits that are clear violations.

While undoing this edit, he removed [5] {{cn|date=June 2016}} tag without inserting source and calling it part of "vandalism", though it wasn't.
refers usual content removal/addition as vandalism,[6][7][8] (see WP:NOTVAND)
while he is abusing,WP:ROLLBACK,[9] he re-inserts sentence that is unsourced for 6 years.[10]

So we have already seen, he would remove {{citation needed}} tag when it favors his POV[11], and he would restore the unsourced sentence with the tag when it favors his POV.[12] Ultimately, since he has been blocked so many times and socked (2009-2015) on this subject, I guess sanctions like topic ban are long overdue.

D4iNa4 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[13].

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): 12 August 2016

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [14]

Discussion concerning Mar4d

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 Mar4d

This is a frivolous report filed in bad faith, compiling its and bits with no substance. The tone in which it is written seems reminiscent of WP:HOUNDING. I do hope that the user takes note of WP:BOOMERANG, being well aware of their one-sided editing in the past 48 hours. In my defence, I'd like to point out:

25 April 2017 This edit, as the summary points out, involved adding a reference on militants. Rather than creating a new section, I combined it into an existing section. I do not see what is misleading about copyediting, I do it all the time WP:BOLDly. The section title was too long, so I made it concise. Besides, the content below it touches up on the allegations so it's redundant (see MOS:SECTIONS).
24 April 2017 On this one, you are wrong. Capitals00 made 5 reverts on Rape in Kashmir Insurgency under the 24 hour window, and they were basically edit warring: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] They were also incorrectly claiming WP:CONSENSUS while reinstating those edits. The WP:3RR rule gives no leeway, all editors must not exceed 3 reverts whether involving the same or different material. Instead of filing against Capitals00 at WP:AN3 for 5RR, I chose to leave them a note.
24 April 2017 If you are following the discussion on the talk page, you would know that multiple editors have expressed concern on that content's suitability for inclusion, given the article's scope. I have no idea where you interpreted the 4/7 figure from. Please go through the most recent discussions in particular.
25 April 2017 This one is laughable actually. It is considered courtesy to notify someone when you start SPI against them, you chose not to do that. The fact that you're unhappy over me doing what you should have done, and accusing me of WP:GAMING and WP:DRAMA, is quite telling.
25 April 2017 Irrelevant. Feel free to start a section on that talk page if you want to discuss WP:NOTABILITY, or the reason for turning down WP:PROD.
24 April 2017 Again, you could've asked about this on the article talk page, or even mine. I stand by the original edit. The source makes no mention of OBL being present in the conflict, or that he ever visited that region. It says militias led by him (or in other words, affiliated). Those two are different things. The lead incorrectly states the former, which I corrected. Also note that the first source is a column/op-ed by a RAW official, so it fails WP:RS.

Lastly, the user seems to have enough time for filing SPIs and arbitrations but not enough for talk pages. Please focus on the latter. Adios, Mar4d (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Capitals00: It is most definitely a revert and disruptive. How on earth does blanking a new article with 82 citations qualify as an "edit"? That too based on a years old merge discussion which is inapplicable, as two other editors pointed out. Please don't extend persistent WP:BATTLE, and justify your edit warring for goodness sake. Further, neither Capitals00 or D4iNa4 have clean block logs (not even going to link them). I don't appreciate the cherry picking and WP:ASPERSIONS being casted here, so let's leave it there. I have returned to editing in a good standing, and anyone is free to review my contributions. Lastly, D4iNa4 has just opened another thread on Tyler Durden, a neutral editor which is ridiculous. It is obvious both these users are using WP:AE as their dramaboard to settle a score. Mar4d (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Could you clarify how you concluded on the 1RR please. This edit on 5 April was a revert. This (6 April) was an amendment based on a talk page compromise, as my summary states. Also, as you mentioned that I "never responded" to the notification, I actually did right after it. It was a content dispute. Please go through the second last section of that article's talk page. Mar4d (talk) 08:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: @Capitals00: Topic banned? FYI, THIS remains my first and ONLY edit on that entire article. All my other edits are on the talk page. And this edit was performed due to your trigger-happy 4th revert claiming WP:CONSENSUS, barely half an hour into the discussion! And I have yet to be "shown" any source against my argument, in fact I found a contradiction, hence the reason I commented there. Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit. Mar4d (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Mar4d is misrepresenting my edits here. this is an edit not a revert, this is not a revert since it ended up with self-revert, is not a revert either since it ended up with self-revert.

Mar4d is evidently a heavily disruptive editor. Just what he wrote here is enough of an explanation. He believes that he can maintain non-notable articles contrary to guidelines and commonsense?

Mar4d has been taking up fights with other editors [20] for no reason.

Mar4d had also violated 1RR[21] on Gilgit-Baltistan [22][23] on 6 April while the discussion was on going[24] yet he edit warred before joining the discussion. @El C: I mentioned this because Mar4d has gamed 1RR before as well. He had been blocked in November 2015, for abusing socks in order to evade WP:3RR and WP:1RR for over 7 years,[25] and since he was unblocked after heavy conversation, it becomes necessary to put him under strict sanctions or just indef block. Capitals00 (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes @El C:, first edit is a revert, an editor made the edit[26], Mar4d reverted it[27], then other editor reverted Mar4d[28] and Mar4d reverted again.[29]. Capitals00 (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: you can see that there's mass disruption by Mar4rd and none of us have enough time to revert and argue just to let him carry on disruptive editing on daily basis, and he fails to stand his own argument. For example he claimed that "some of the events attributed to Pakistani armed groups during the 47 war didn't actually occur inside Pakistani territory"[30], and when he was shown source[31] against his argument, he started removing the entire mention of Pakistan on main article.[32] That's why he needs to be topic banned. He also misrepresented my edits and self-reverts as WP:3RR violation over here, how can someone expect him to edit collaboratively with such long term problems? Capitals00 (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like Mar4rd doesn't understand what is WP:REVERT, since he considers normal edit and self-revert, language like "Please stop, you are digging yourself deeper into the cesspit", is just another proof of WP:BATTLE.[33] Capitals00 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: Have you seen the diffs of 1RR violation, gaming with citation needed tags, POV pushing, calling normal edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources, etc.? such issues are conduct dispute, not content dispute. It would be tiresome for a user to try content resolution methods when enough amount of concerning user's edits are disruptive. That's why these sanctions are installed, to just seek sanctions against the editor engaged in misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: He was revertingon Great Bath, which didn't included the removal of citation needed tag, that's how his removal of citation tag seems intentional. What about WP:NOTVAND? I went ahead to correct a bunch of his edits that had been pointed as problematic here. We will see how it goes. Although the 1RR violation that I had pointed out, as well as the misrepresentation of my reverts (Mar4rd) claims I "made 5 reverts", when they were 2 (rest were edits or self-reverts), such conduct constitute WP:BATTLE since he further assured that he is still going to claim them as 5 reverts. I believe that if not sanction, something else would be surely preferred in order to avoid creating a feudal environment. Capitals00 (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: [34] Capitals00 (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: this seems better, furthermore, it seems that Fowler[35] has suggested a much better proposal and laid out a better argument than what we were having since the article creation, I am sure there is hope for better now. Capitals00 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mar4d

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

Please note that I have added Rape in Kashmir Insurgency to ARBIP/Ds. But while it is now subject to 1RR, it wasn't at the time this report was filed. Thanks. El_C 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading SPI/Acejet with some alarm. Under what conditions was the user unblocked? El_C 07:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like discussion was here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read. As for the 1RR violation on April 5—can someone demonstrate the 1st edit is a revert (I already made that mistake once today). El_C 07:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there was a 1RR violation on April 5. I realise it's stale now—however, I also note that, although sanctions are not meant to be punitive, there is the matter of deterrence. Basically, how do we prevent this user from violating 1RR in the future as he did a few weeks ago? As well, it seems the user never responded to the 1RR notification (although I don't believe the consensus clause applies to ARBIP/Ds). El_C 08:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not really seeing anything actionable, except maybe for the 1RR violation I mention above. El_C 08:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issues raised in the request seem to be mostly content disputes. To the extent they have a conduct aspect, I don't see sufficiently serious issues to warrant sanctions. I would take no action. Sandstein 10:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest closing as no action as well since the list of issues raised are almost entirely content related. I'd also suggest adding a mild reminder to the filer that they shouldn't be bringing content disputes to AE but should seek other mechanisms for dispute resolution. --regentspark (comment) 13:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00: I went through the list provided by the filer. 1, 3 and 5 are purely content issues that are clearly being already debated. 4 is a neutrally worded message about SPI notification which the filer, incorrectly and improperly - in my opinion, takes umbrage at. 7 would be a blp violation only had Mar4d persisted, which they did not. About the Great Bath, I'm not sure why the cn tag got removed but Mar4d was reverting vandalism that definitely needed to be removed. Lots of editors have biases in they way they edit content but that doesn't mean that everything they do is suspect. In this case, the issues presented look like a list cobbled together with a '.. smoke there must be fire' approach. --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the 1RR (@Capitals00:. I'm trying to find when and where this restriction was applied to Gilgit-Baltistan. --regentspark (comment) 17:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Capitals00:. Yes, that is indeed a violation (22 hours) and, since it is in an edit notice, hard to see how it could have been missed. I'd still recommend no action with a warning to Mar4d that 1RR is 1RR regardless of whether they are reinserting a talk page compromise or not. (I'll also add the restriction to the Arb enforcement log for future reference). --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that a warning would be sufficient. Would take the course proposed by RegentsPark above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost purely a content dispute. The only part I find myself agreeing with unreservedly is Mar4d's observation that there is a disappointing lack of calm and rational talk page discussion here. AE is not here to sort out disagreements over content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Tyler Durden

Closed with no action taken. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2017 (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 Tyler Durden

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tyler Durden (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 :

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

Prefers to use edit summaries for discussion and avoid using the talk page.[36] More edit warring and use of edit summaries for discussion, while no input on talk page: 1 ([37][38] - [39]) 2 ([40][41][42] [43] 3 ([44] [45] - [46] (nothing from 16 March - 7 april)
[47] Censoring any mentions of Pakistan[48], and clear WP:HEAR found at:[49][50] where he repeats the same rejected argument.[51][52]
Page move war,[53] despite opposition[54], and claims on talk page that he needs no consensus to make controversial page moves, but others need consensus to revert his page moves.[55](see the last sentence)
WP:COPYVIO violations[56][57]
Used WP:PRIMARY sources[58] and after getting reverted he started to WP:BLUDGEON the talk page[59] in place of finding the WP:RS.

Diffs show that he is already edit warring, censoring, POV pushing, violating copyrights across South Asian subjects. It seems he doesn't understand consensus building, he would rather edit war, page move war in order to WP:OWN the article per his wishes. His problematic attitude has been pointed out in lengths before[60](then known as Vamsee614) as well, but all he does is repeat himself, in this diff he went further to claim that " I'm very much shocked that you, of all the people, are meaninglessly accusing me of 'POV pushing' and 'endorsing Pakistani deeds', when all I did was merely add relevant and reliable facts. This is outrageous!". D4iNa4 (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [61]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [62]

Discussion concerning USERNAME

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 Tyler Durden

Regarding the change of username, its my personal choice. The character Tyler Durden in the movie Fight Club is a favourite of mine, and so I changed my previous username to the present one. How is that suspicious? And I will do/stop editing in whichever time-periods I wish. I don't think I have to give any further explanation in this regard. Its quite funny that this's even pointed out.
The rest of the allegations are also filed one-sidedly in bad faith by the user, taking bits and pieces, out of the contexts of various issues.

What happened in the talk page of Rape in Kashmir Insurgency is all present there,[63] and it is open to be viewed and verified by the committee. I have broadly described what has been happening there and gave reasons for all my actions elaborately in this post of mine.[64] The filer is unnecessarily attacking me here for merely taking a position there, in spite of me, reasonably explaining it thoroughly, multiple times on the talk page.
I sincerely appreciate the filer's strenuous efforts to dig up content from my talk page to cherry pick issues to target me, although they come under WP:HOUNDING.

Regarding the copyvios pointed out, they are clearly silly issues. One doesn't take action on editors in Wikipedia for being a newbie the first time, and being lazy the other time. That's common sense. Anyways I myself corrected those mistakes and reinstated content, in both the cases.[65]; [66]&[67]
The rest of my conversations on talk pages and edit differences listed out are old stories, and did not take place with the filer or the other user complaining here. One of them was with Owais Khursheed who raised no issue about the affair, after it was over. The remaining all of them were with Kautilya3. He also, never has raised a so-serious problem, in any of them. The committee may take his opinion, on whether there is any actionable issue to be dealt with.

On a side note, if I were really here on Wikipedia to censor material related to Pakistan without an WP:NPOV, I wouldn't take time to write and make edits like these — [68]; [69]; [70]; [71].

That's all I would like to say on this unproductive case. Thank you everyone. Best regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Apart from above and WP:CIR issues. I should note that I find this account to be suspicious. It was created on November 25, 2016 as Vamsee614. Made no edits in December, January, and started making few edits on daily basis since February this year. Capitals00 (talk) 07:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think original complaint details enough amount of WP:CIR issues, that the editor is eager to edit war and avoid making discussion. Do you think that he was correct to do page move war and flood the talk page with wall of text[72] to claim one needs to gain consensus to revert his controversial page move?

He violated WP:3RR on this article as well.[73][74][75]

Because of his inability to collaborate, we are having this mess. He is WP:GAMING the system, because he first agreed "you can feel free to add any content regarding the conflict-related sexual abuse in Pakistan administered Kashmir"[76] and then he went to remove the information because he didn't expected it and finally disliked its existence.[77][78] Capitals00 (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tyler Durden

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

Again, I'm not seeing anything actionable. Seems like a rather thoughtful editor, actually. What am I missing? El_C 08:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more it looks like the impetus for these two reports (this one and the one above) is the content dispute at Rape in Kashmir Insurgency. Hopefully, having applied ARBIP/Ds to the article, will help matters. All the users seem to be involved in discussion on the article talk page. El_C 08:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryanfoster99

Blocked for 48-hours for 1RR violation & topic-banned for 6 months. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:01, 1 May 2017 (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 Ryanfoster99

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ryanfoster99 (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:ARBAP2 article discretionary sanctions placed on Presidency of Donald Trump by Coffee on 00:51, 7 February 2017

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

19:45, 29 April 2017 Added info cited to a non-RS
22:15, 29 April 2017 Restored that edit by reverting a revert
01:39, 30 April 2017 Started section on article talk page (and appears to have edited while logged out
03:33, 30 April 2017 Restores edit citing "no discussion" on article's talk page
22:14, 30 April 2017 Reverts to restore same edit citing "invalid revision reason"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 05:18, 14 April 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When asked to self-revert, the user refused, citing perceived bias.
User also warned about edit warring here
Judging by user's edit history, this user has trouble editing in political areas generally.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:33, 30 April 2017

Discussion concerning Ryanfoster99

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 Ryanfoster99

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have tried to reason with others as to my section, but my edits were reversed without a fair discussion. This page states that they believe in diverse ideas and contributions, yet you block me because I'm posting nonbiased, factually correct information that others don't like? Others never tried to reason with me. This block is unjustified and I request that it be removed immediately and that the reach for consensus continues.

Statement by Murph9000

We appear to have an ongoing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem and WP:BLOCK EVASION from an IP which is evidently the same person. That is the same IPv6 range which was alternating with Ryanfoster99 in trying to force the edit against DS restrictions. The IP hopping may not be deliberate, as it's an automatic feature with some IPv6 connections, but 2601:483:200:8e1::/64 appears to be evading the block.(diff) Murph9000 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ryanfoster99

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

Clear violation of the 1RR restriction on the page. I've blocked for 48 hours. If behavior continues when block expires, I think a topic ban would be appropriate (along w/ additional block for any further 1RR issues). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing as this request is still open, to avoid making a duplicate thread, I've copied the editor's appeal of my block to the statement section above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking a 48-hour block is a bit on the lean side. This account's activity so far has almost exclusively been edit-warring non-RS into AP articles, including Planned Parenthood ([[79] [80] [81] [82] - note this article is also subject to 1RR and the editor was notified of DS early in this sequence of edits) and Fake news ([83] [84] [85] [86] - again edits both sides of the DS notification). I think a topic ban would be well justified. GoldenRing (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough -- I wouldn't object to one imposed now. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly not here to write a neutral encyclopedia, but to promote a political point of view. I support a modern US politics topic ban. Sandstein 05:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer_Marek

Not actionable: outside of discretionary sanctions topic area. Sandstein 14:33, 1 May 2017 (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 Volunteer_Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) warned for making a personal attack and that further personal attacks or incivility will likely result in a block or other sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
[87] You are warned that further comments which constitute personal attacks or incivility, such as this will result in a block or other sanction. This is a logged warning issues under the discretionary sanctions authorised by the Arbitration Committee's decision on Eastern Europe (which you are "aware" of due to this alert). The procedure to appeal this sanction are here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ] :[reply]

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

Gimme a fucking break or better yet go away cuz you're really starting to get on my nerves with your constant lying and smearing and just generally being-full-of-shit-in Volunteer Marek (talk02:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC) A strong personal attack and incivility, using vulgar languages and cursing.
Here's a clue - when you're busy pushing POV on an article and violating Wikipedia policies left and right you actually DON'T want independent eyes on an article, cuz then people see what you're really up to. So filing bogus WP:AN reports where uninvolved editors can see it is not a good idea. That one's free.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC) 16:23, 25 April 2017 Personal attack and aggressive comments.
NY Post is NOT a reliable source. It's another shit source(...)Will you follow through or were you just trying to blow some smoke up some admins' butt? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Personal attack using vulgar language.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[21 July 2015

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) warned for making a personal attack and that further personal attacks or incivility will likely result in a block or other sanction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC) } Warned about making personal attacks.

28 March 2016 Blocked for 31 hours for personal attacks.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Volunteer_Marek continues being incivil and he engages in personal attacks against others. He was asked by several users[90] [[91] to stop his behavior however it seems to have no results.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: this is in connection to Russian intervention in Syria(by Eastern European country) and the warning invoked by Callanecc is in regards to personal further personal attacks or incivility without restricting it to one area only. Additionally the incivility and vulgar and aggressive behavior by VM really should be addressed. This has been going on for years and it is really demoralizing to see it being tolerated time and time again against other editors. If you believe this isn't actionable, would you at least be we willing to reconsider giving VM a warning for using such abusive language and behavior ?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: do you believe it would be better if I transfer this report to ANI if you believe AE is not the suitable venue for this due to different topic area under sanctions ?@Sandstein:--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified:[92]

Discussion concerning Volunteer_Marek

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

Statement by Volunteer_Marek

Statement by jd2718

For this to come under EE the filer would have to show a long pattern of the editor developing interests in many areas to promote an anti-Russian viewpoint. Otherwise, as Sandstein remarks, this is Syria, not EE. It may well be possible to do show that pattern, but the filer hasn't done so. And, frankly, whether or not the editor's work falls under this arbitration, it would make no sense to invest that sort of time unless the filer were looking to do more than correct coarse language. Jd2718 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer_Marek

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

Not actionable, in my view. Whatever one may think of these comments, they were not made in connection with Eastern Europe, but in connection with Syrian civil war issues. No other discretionary sanctions remedy is invoked. Sandstein 13:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's not actionable. Still, VM should do their best to stick to calmer language. Getting heated and personal never helps anyone. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Still, closing as not actionable in this forum. Just the fact that Russia is involved in the war does not make this Middle Eastern conflict an Eastern Europe-related issue. Whether these concerns should be raised in another forum is a matter for the editors involved to determine. Sandstein 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proximity1

Proximity1 is topic banned for six months from Shakespeare Authorship Question and related pages, broadly construed. Bishonen | talk 19:48, 3 May 2017 (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 Proximity1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Proximity1 (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/Shakespeare_authorship_question :

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

[93] Asking for us to create artificial balance and give undue prominence to the authorship conspiracy theories
[94] Pretty much claiming that because Argumentum ad populum is a thing, the "Stratfordian" view must be wrong
[95] Mucking up an essay to promote the idea that believers of fringe positions should be the ones to write about fringe ideas.

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 25 April 2017‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Open and shut, really. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If over 80% of an editor's edits were to argue that the "governmental" account of the 9/11 attacks should be balanced with "alternate theories," leaving as much of a mess as is found at Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#On_neutrality_and_bias_--, would people still be saying "content dispute"...? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

Discussion concerning Proximity1

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 Proximity1

RE: these allegations

 What you have here is a member attempting to shut down ordinary WP policy and procedure by appeal to this panel in bringing before it completely false claims in each of the items below:

   [110] Asking for us to create artificial balance and give undue prominence to the authorship conspiracy theories

  I deny the accuracy of this claim.  "Undue prominence"  to alternatives to Shakespeare's authorship  cannot be fairly alleged in a page devoted to "The Shakespeare Authorship Question" itself as titled-topic.  If anything, "undue prominence" amounting to hostile and outright bias in support of the partisan view favoring Shakespeare is the case at this page.

   [111] Pretty much claiming that because Argumentum ad populum is a thing, the "Stratfordian" view must be wrong

        I deny the accuracy of this claim.  I claim, assert no such thing.

   [112] Mucking up an essay to promote the idea that believers of fringe positions should be the ones to write about fringe ideas.

  "Mucking up"?

  I answer:   The WP policies require that, in the first instance, a member finding bias and lack of required neutrality first raise the issue in the relevant Talk-page of the article concerned.  
      
      I deny the accuracy of this claim.  Indeed, this is a patently hostile mischaracterization of my view-- which is that, indeed, in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority.  Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned.

 I further propose to the Arbitration panel that it examine for good-faith grounds of the complaints being urged by the member bringing the complaint and review them for their possible hostile and suppressive intent and, if the panel finds thes complaints ill or un-founded, that it sanction the member having brought this complaint.

Proximity1 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I just want to point out that disruption is disruption; whether it occurs at talk or in an article. If this user is being disruptive, then there's no reason why DS shouldn't apply, unless there's a disclaimer somewhere specifying that it only applies to article-space edits. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xover

Current Arbs and mop wielders that were not directly involved with the case may wish to refresh their memory of WP:ARBSAQ. WP:BATTLEGROUND, polite POV pushing (the non-polite version is much easier to deal with), and WP:NOTHERE (righting great wrongs, fighting the "conspiracy of the mainstream Shakespeare establishment", etc.) were central themes of the case. I also encourage you try to trawl through Talk:Shakespeare authorship question archives; at the point you give up you'll realise what the problem was (its manifestation was on Talk pages more than in articles). This current AE request is slightly premature IMO (insufficient length of WP:ROPE), but it bears all the hallmarks of previous rounds. @Sandstein: I absolutely guarantee that DS is what's preventing ARBSAQ2 from being needed in relatively short order. It's not an issue that will fade away on its own. Case in point: the current AE (premature though it is, it would have ended up here pretty soon anyway). --Xover (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

No-one seems to have responded to Proximity's argument that "in a partisan controverrsy, no partisan adherant should be allowed to stand in for, to represent for his or her adversaries, their points of view --whether those points of view be of the minority or of the majority. Every camp, every arguant's position should be reserved for explanation, presentation and clarification by partisans, and only by partisans, of each point of view concerned." This is so clearly against Wikipedia's norms and guidelines that it cannot be ignored. Wikipedia is based on a neutral point of view. This does not mean that editors may not hold particular points of view, but does mean that we must edit neutrally. We should not ignore and dismiss the point of view of those we disagree with, and nor may we present our own point of view as unquestioned fact. Wikipedia is not a debating chamber, and articles should not be a place where rival points of view are presented and voted on. If Proximity cannot accept this basic rule, then they have no business editing anywhere on Wikipedia, and least of all in such a highly contentious article. RolandR (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Edits by Proximity1 to Shakespeare authorship question, each reverted:

18:10, 2 May 2017 add external link politicworm.com
15:57, 2 May 2017 add external link politicworm.com
15:00, 2 May 2017 add {{POV}}
14:07, 2 May 2017 add {{POV}}
08:12, 25 April 2017 add external link politicworm.com
11:10, 23 April 2017 add external link politicworm.com

The talk page section showing that consensus is against the external link was on 24 April 2017. The discussion leading to a major cleanup of external links was in February 2011.

The above shows that a minimum of a final warning is required regarding edit waring and advocacy from WP:ARBSAQ single purpose accounts (Proximity1 has 76 edits since 16 March 2017, each of which focus on a particular SAQ theory, and 12 edits prior to that). Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Proximity1

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

Not actionable. These are talk page arguments in a content dispute. Arbitration and arbitration enforcement do not resolve content disputes, only issues of user conduct. No violation of a conduct policy is claimed or apparent here. Sandstein 13:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that there might not be a case for sanctions based on talk page conduct, but this request does not establish it with its evidence. Admins who think they have seen enough based on their own experience are of course free to go ahead with sanctions on their own. Sandstein 18:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein. Having a fringe belief while on Wikipedia is not a crime, nor is posting to the talkpage asking about NPOV balance. We'd need actual evidence of disruption that the normal editorial process cannot adequately handle. As a sidenote, this is the first time I've seen anyone brought to AE under this case in ages. Do we really still need DS for this? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there's no action here. Proximity has appeared only to be active on that page for about a 2 week period, and has roughly a dozen talk page statements (given or take post-edits to clean up their statements). That's far from being disruptive on a talk page, and as pointed out above, using the talk page to discuss fringe theories is far from a problem on WP. Now, if there was an RFC that conclusively said what and what not to include, and they continued to beat the dead horse on the matter, that might be different, but I don't see anything that suggests this is the case. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, more than half of their edits on that page are small revisions to the last "new" talk page thread they posted, standard wordsmithing of one's own position, hence why I say only about a dozen "new" posts. --MASEM (t) 20:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Johnuniq's new info, which shows 4 mainspace edits that are known to be contested that all came after Proximity replied to this Enforcement request (which shows they should be aware of the DS that can be applied), I agree now there should be some type of action, either a topic ban and/or a short term block. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion about this editor on my talk page. He has been reverting at Shakespeare authorship question to restore a POV tag to the article. (See [97] and [98]). Per the common practice in edit warring cases, where people continue to revert after being sufficiently warned, I was nearly at the point of issuing a block. It's OK to decline something as a content dispute if the parties appear to be working in good faith, but this guy is sending up flares to announce he is correct about everything and he is deprecating the reasoning ability of the other parties. "I would be ashamed to offer such flimsy excuses.." and "..smoke-screen pseudo-arguments devoid of merit." EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The user is attempting to bludgeon the talkpage allright (I make it 33 edits to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question in the last week; maybe Masem counts in a different way) and seems unwilling to listen to advice and information from experienced editors — here to push a POV, in other words. But I think this report may be premature for all that. Experienced editors are reminded that they don't have to reply over and over to repetitious complaints or irrelevancies; once policies and guidelines have been explained, it's on Proximity if they haven't been listening. I really like Nishidani's advice to Proximity, "This talk page has 29 huge archives which have explored every angle, objection, fringe lunatic thesis, etc., that the de Verean et al., fantasists have come up with ... I'd suggest you read the archives through from first to last before coming back",[99] which is currently the last post on the talkpage, but it may not take. Therefore I suggest simply a warning to Proximity to not talk so much and listen better, and to not reintroduce the inappropriate POV tag on the article unless and until they get consensus for it being there. If they should edit war further on the article, or post so copiously that the talkpage becomes unusable (I remember one user who was sanctioned for doing that, in the old RFAR), a new AE complaint can be started. Or someone can simply alert Ed, or me, as I have some acquaintance with the article and the original case. And Proximity, you have been advised over and over to start writing right at the left margin, and to indent using colons. Please try. It looks a mess. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In view of Proximity1's continued edit warring to insert a particular external link against consensus, see Johnuniq's post above, I've changed my mind. They seem impervious to both talkpage consensus and the comments here from uninvolved admins, see the timestamps of the edits made. Unless there are objections here, I'll topic ban the user from Shakespeare authorship question and related pages, broadly construed, for six months. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Bludgeoning a talk page with appeals to fringe beliefs is an issue, any way you slice it. That in itself is disruptive. Editors pushing a POV do this regularly in an attempt to talk long enough that others stop, at which point they claim consensus in their favor. Discretionary sanctions are placed largely to allow the community to better deal with civil POV pushing, which is something admins usually struggle to manage. It is a problem. See Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing.
I propose placing a restriction under discretionary sanctions that Proximity1 limit their edits to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question to an average of one per day over any 7 day period (e.g. one edit per day, but this is averaged over a period so they don't necessarily have to wait 24 hours to respond to someone). This is a very minor sanction intended to allow Proximity1 to contribute fully ÷with a rate limit that most editors would never hit. They should also be cautioned that pushing a fringe POV in this topic area is likely to result in a topic ban. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realize the edit warring continued after comments from administrators. In light of that information, I agree with Bishonen that a topic ban is necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this may be due to a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE on Proximity1's part; his conception of "neutrality" is understandable but not the one used by Wikipedia. If this is kept up, it indeed will become disruptive quite soon. I don't think we're there quite yet, but Proximity1 should take this as a warning of what will likely happen if he keeps up his conduct. Huon (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Bishonen here. This is clearly becoming disruptive, and a topic ban is needed. The edit warring certainly doesn't help anyone's case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban is in order, with the initial unhelpful conduct now compounded by edit warring. Support Bishonen's proposed action above. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sandstein 05:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

81.104.12.193

Both pages indef semi-protected. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2017 (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 81.104.12.193

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mabuska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 81.104.12.193 (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/The_Troubles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

All edits revolve around the removal of the Irish name for the Northern Irish settlements of Lisburn and Hillsborough. These names are included per agreement at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Other_names with the names themselves verified to the official body for this topic at [100] and supplementary at [101]. These removals qualify as Troubles related as the Irish language is a strong bone of contention between loyalists and republicans, something recently in the press quite a lot.

3 Dec 2017 Removal of Irish name for Lisburn
21 Jan 2017 Removal of same for Hillsborough
25 Jan 2017 Hillsborough again
2 Feb 2017 Hillsborough again
2 Feb 2017 Lisburn again
10 Feb 2017 Lisburn again
17 Feb 2017 Lisburn again
17 Feb 2017 Hillsborough again
13 Mar 2017 Lisburn again
4 May 2017 Lisbrn again

The following three other IP's appear to be the same user but possibly from a different machine they don't have regular access too: Special:Contributions/86.153.244.5, Special:Contributions/82.7.125.216 and Special:Contributions/82.132.225.167, which combine for another 6 removals of the Irish name from the two articles.

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 Mar 2017 by @Nfitz:.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Daithidebarra: did their utmost to get the IP to engage in discussion as evident from their requests on the IP's talk page and the discussion initiated at Talk:Hillsborough,_County_Down#Irish_Language_name_for_area_known_in_English_as_.22Hillsborough.22_and_Request_for_Discussion, where the IP was explained in detail why their removal was wrong and why the Irish form of the places are included.

Semi page protection would be pointless unless it was for a prolonged period of time as the editor is willing wait weeks or months before returning to redo their removal of the information. The same for an initial block as the editor may not return for a while in which time the block will have elapsed before it could even attempt to encourage them to rethink their behaviour.

Also considering the IP has been editing since their appearance with a POV slant, and that over the past few months their edits only appear to be do with the unreasonable removal of the Irish names for Lisburn and Hillsborough and they are completely unwilling to partake in discussion over it I would say they are not contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way and a long-term block of the IP(s) should be considered.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:81.104.12.193#Arbitration_Committee_referral

Discussion concerning 81.104.12.193

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 81.104.12.193

Statement by Mabuska

@Black Kite:, what is PC1? I'm happy with whatever works best to stop the disruptive edits. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 81.104.12.193

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

Blocking the IPs is pointless, they're all dynamic (2 x Virgin Media, 1 x BT, 1 x O2 mobile). Yes, some of them are long-standing but it would be easy for them to switch IP addresses. Using PC1 for the articles would be far more useful. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with Pending Changes is that regular editors need to spend time undoing the inappropriate edits, which occur several times a month. Since the problem has continued for so long, I'd suggest indefinite semiprotection for the two articles. The semi could be lifted in a couple of years if the problem goes away. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso

User:Ihardlythinkso is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American Politics, broadly construed. This sanction may be brought here for reconsideration after six months. GoldenRing (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2017 (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 Ihardlythinkso

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

"Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."

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

May 5, 2017 (mild) personal attack
May 5, 2017 Blatant (possibly libelous) WP:BLP violation
May 6, 2017 Personal attack
May 9, 2017 Personal attack and politicising disputes
May 9, 2017 Personal attack and politicising disputes

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

August 2, 2016 Topic banned
August 2, 2016 Blocked for personal attacks
November 7, 2016 AE sanction

January 31, 2017 Blocked for personal attacks

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on November 7, 2016 by Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on July 20, 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs speak for themselves.

This editor has once again ramped up the personal attacks and general battleground behaviour. The latest attacks directed at me include a ridiculous accusation of stalking after I reverted his reversion of what I considered a good edit. Of course, before accusing me of stalking, he reverted again.- Mr X 21:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Ihardlythinkso

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 Ihardlythinkso

What do you want a response on? The Donald Trump page is left open to disparaging remarks about the bio subject's character; that page needs to be patrolled better by admins. It's hypocrisy or bias to stomp down on "equal time" remarks about his rival. (And nothing I posted was any worse than available RSs about the character of that person, proof is Jeanine Pirro's opening statement here.) The WP is already liberally biased and I'm seldom on the Donald Trump article Talk especially because of it. Notice editors like Anythingyouwant are ostracized there and nitpicked unendingly until chased away. MrX is part of that effort. He takes a front seat to bias that article, including elimination of me through lecture, reversion, stalking, and insult. (The hypocrisy of recently informing me that as editor I'm "insignificant" and "Good day!" followed by opening this case.) There is no doubt in my mind WP is overrun w/ liberal bias, even the Remembrance Project is laced with coloring the founder with ties and motivations connected somehow to Hitler. As far as battlegrounding with any of this bias, that is absurd, there is too much of it and it has gone on for too long and is too pervasive. No one rational would spend their time in attempt to NPOV it back to respectability for an encyclopedia. And I have no interest at that article except to peek once in awhile, and if I make a post about something it is becauase the absurdity & bias is so rampant, a comment saying the King has No Clothes was called for. So pick on me, go ahead. I do not really give a damn. It isn't about me, it is about the blatant bias that is and has been already there. Be proud. I am not. And would never recommend any friends of family to read WP political articles. I've already seen enough and discussed enough w/ people offline about this to know everything I've said is true. So I don't give a damn about your power to ban me from that article or even political articles. The editor with agenda are those that bias it. Look at my edit history to see if I have improved political articles and if so how. I do not add bias but I might revert it. At the Pruitt lede I reverted a new claim that Pruitt "intends to dismantle the EPA", even though it was not a summary of anything near that in the article, and the refs posted to support the contention lead with an opinion piece. The statement is equivalent to putting mind-reading in Wikipedia's voice, supported by op-ed. Blatant bias. When I specified that I reverted on those bases, MrX reverted me with only "it was a good edit". Wow. Do not blame me for the absurd bias of articles and the majority of liberal NPOV warriors out to denegrate Trump and anything associated with him. I know the hatred is there in MSM, and Wikipedia is a sort of MSM, also dominated by liberal POV. Now one of those warriors is out for blood. And I don't give a care if you give it too him, because as mentioned the status of things is already too-far gone, and I've never ever been a part of any generealized effort to reverse it, I have more realistic things to do w/ my time. But obviously this is very important to MrX and others who support the liberal bias, they outnumber any of the opposers like Anythingyouwant. (Who along with me was accused of "disruption" and "this must be stopped" simply from taking the position in discussion that if it is mentioned Trump did not win a majority of the popular vote, that his implied or stated main opponent didn't either. Somehow, the logic of that is impossible to see, or takes excruciating effort to see, as per comments at that Talk. Give me a break.)

BTW, what was it I was supposed to respond to specifically?

Another thing, the previous ban of me on the Donald Trump article was bogus and unfair (par for the course, good job Bish, I went to your Talk to complain about something else besides the ban you supported, and another user follows me to your Talk to harass me, a user whose biggest objection is that I added a blockquote to a quote greater than 40 words per MoS, and that I changed a piped link from an article specifically about history of women's rights in U.S., to an article about feminism in the U.S., which was more what the relevant article topic was about, and somehow I get blocked at her Talk when objecting to the user harassing me there). The article stated that Trump in the Hollywood tape referred to his assults against women, synonymous to admission of having committed crimes against them, when he never made any such admission, so why is WP stating so if MSM biased RSs exist that like/want to say so? (The answer is, because the editors dominating the article are just as biased and smear-enthusiastic as the MSM.) I did the right thing to protect a living BLP subject from such trashy statements, and what did I get? Banned. Good one. (And now use that ban as further evidence that I need another ban? Oh good one. That's so impressive! Not.) --IHTS (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be specific for me to understand your meaning. (Do mean the list of adjectives I posted about Hillary?) Please be specific what you mean, and where (diff). At my Talk please, not here. Thx. --IHTS (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ihardlythinkso

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

Awaiting their statement, but I'm already strongly inclined to issue an extended topic ban. After being sanctioned in this topic area twice before, and after numerous blocks for this kind of behavior, there's no change in conduct. An indef topic ban with the opportunity to appeal in 6 months seems more than appropriate based on this lengthy record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Sandstein 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave some time for a statement, but I also agree that the material presented here seems to reasonably well speak for itself. This is absolutely not what we need in a sensitive and already tense area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to disagree. This is not the editing approach we need anywhere on Wikipedia, but it seems clear that the AP area sets it off. GoldenRing (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban should be granted. GoldenRing, it is true that AP turns the heat up a little bit, but this is out of all proportion. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make excuses for him. And now we've got that statement.... wow. @Ihardlythinkso: Even if everything you say is true, your bias or point-of-view is not the problem here; the problem is the very combative an uncollegial way in which you approach this topic area. GoldenRing (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO

No action taken. Editors cautioned to be careful about reverting edits in this topic area. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JFG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS / 1RR violation

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

01:42, 10 May 2017 first revert (of this edit)
19:41, 10 May 2017 second revert (of this edit)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

The editor is currently subject to other sanctions but they are not relevant to this case.

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

Warned in May 2016 by Coffee, December 2016 by Sagecandor and January 2017 by Octoberwoodland. Participated in numerous WP:AE threads. Routinely threatens other editors of sanctions (which recently resulted in a custom sanction to prevent disruption).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In her reply below, SPECIFICO alleges that I also violated 1RR today, although none of the two cited edits are reverts. Making unfounded accusations is an unfortunate habit of this editor:

I am asking admins to take into account this pattern of disruptive behaviour which contributes to a poor editing climate on articles which are contentious enough on their face. — JFG ^talk 00:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done. [102]

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

Entirely my error, however I believe that @MrX: subsequently made the same edit as my second one after JFG reinstated his preferred version thereby making it unnecessary for me to self-revert. I will be more careful to check the edit history hereafter. I noticed my error when I saw JFG's own second revert here, after this one here less than an hour earlier. However, unlike JFG I chose not to open a complaint since, like my mistake, his second revert is now moot. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

I routinely disagree with SPECIFICO on content issues at this article, and have been upset by their many warnings / threats of sanctions against editors, myself included, which are typically made without evidence. However, this is a single simple infraction. I don't think it's worthwhile to "catch" someone on a one-off like this: it will just worsen the editing atmosphere. I'd recommend that the issue be resolved on the talk page. -Darouet (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

I agree with Darouet. Best practice is to give an editor an opportunity to self-revert before reporting them, unless of course there is a pattern of edit warring.- Mr X 23:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

The only thing that gives me pause here is the history; on the specifics of this incident, and given the statements above, I'm inclined to take no action on this. GoldenRing (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ GoldenRing above, with the proviso that I don't like SPECIFICO going to JFG's page over and over with challenges about revert rules. If you think there's a violation, bring it here. Thankfully, that shouldn't continue. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would also tend to agree with the above. I certainly don't like the constant accusations of violations everywhere either, but that's already been dealt with. As far as the single 1RR violation, well, yes, it is one, but it's not even of the same material, and I'm inclined to believe error rather than malice, and it looks like several people may have made the same one. I'd close with a caution to be more careful before hitting the revert button, especially when 1RR is in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problematics

Closed with no action as editor was separately indef blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2017 (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 Problematics

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Problematics (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:ARBIND : [103] (page is under 1RR restriction)

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

Continuously blanking the section and content about Pakistan despite consensus on talk page as well as the recent page move discussion,[104] in which he opposed the present article name.

This is violation of WP:1RR, even if he is waiting at least 24 hours 1 minute to make another revert. He is only editor to revert to his preferred version.

What's more suspicious is, that he is an WP:SPA, who registered the account on Apr 21, 2017 to edit these articles, however he has are clear WP:CIR issues. It has been impossible to make him agree and other editors are in favor of the version he continues to revert.[106][107] He has misrepresented the admin Amakuru's comments[108], despite he told him "for now it does appear to me that the consensus view is against you".[109] But he is not getting it, no matter how much others tell him.[110] Capitals00 (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I consider it as 1RR violation. Looks like Problematics is misrepresenting my edits more than that and he is forgetting that he violated WP:3RR [111][112][113] on this article before it came under 1RR restriction. Capitals00 (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 3 May

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [114]

Discussion concerning Problematics

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 Problematics

The above statements are misrepresentative of the actual events. Firstly, the article's scope is disputed, the Admin had confirmed that. It was in that background that I reverted this. And I was justified to do so by WP:NOCON. I explained myself on the talkpage before reverting. After that me and other users were having a discussion and this discussion is still ongoing. Not just me but User:Mar4d and User:Nadirali also lodged opinions on the talkpage in favour of retaining the article's old scope. [[115]] 2. User:Capitals00 then proceeded to falsely claim consensus (which he did not have as I explained here) and revert me. Nevertheless I did not revert User:Capitals00 because of 1RR on the page and even he has accepted I did not violate 1RR (by reverting WP:NOCON within 24 hours)). I feel this claim was filed in bad faith. It should also be known that this user was engaged in an edit war on the page in question, violated 3RR and was accused by another user on the article's talkpage of POV-editing. Problematics (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

This is a content dispute, albeit a pretty complicated one. It doesn't belong here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem, there is no 1RR for this article. For some reason everybody is imagining it (which is a good thing of course). The AE restriction for Kashmir conflict articles is "no second revert without discussion" [116]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Problematics doesn't seem to be dropping the issue and he is still making WP:POINT to disrupt wikipedia. He has been reverted by another editor after this report.[117] I also agree he wasn't born yesterday, and I am not sure about his motive but since he joined wikipedia he engaged himself in disruptive conduct. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's too invietable when disruptive user is reported, another POV pusher(Mar4d, TylerDurden) comes to defend in place of describing how this is not a WP:1RR violation. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tyler Durden

This is a content dispute. No point in bringing these issues here. The filer(s) are unnecessarily and meaninglessly doing this for the third time in the same dispute. — Tyler Durden (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

This is as pointless as the previous 2 threads filed here. From the same article. Someone should leave a note on the filer's talk that WP:ARE is not a drawing room. Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marvellous Spider-Man

This is a content dispute, however Problematics is editing like WP:SPA. --Marvellous Spider-Man 15:40, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MBlaze

Problematics had already violated WP:1RR [118][119], before he made this[120] yet another revert. This is a conduct issue, not a content issue. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 17:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Problematics

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

These are two reverts within the same few hours 1 and 2, and it seems like they're engaging in a slow-moving edit war. Without anything else though, I'm minded to close this with a warning to Problematics and a reminder that 1RR applies to any reversion, whether 'implementing consensus,' 'restoring the status quo,' or the like. The goal is to reduce edit wars and bring the conversation to the talk page. Everyone would be wise to do that. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it appears there is 1RR on the article, though there's no edit notice posted (thus why I'm not in favor of a sanction right now). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad. Thanks for taking care of it. El_C 02:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Problematics has been blocked as a Confirmed sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan. Thanks to User:Kautilya3 and User:Bbb23 for their investigative work. In my opinion this AE can be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FreeatlastChitchat

FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs) is warned regarding their TBAN. No block at this time as request is stale. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2017 (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 FreeatlastChitchat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D4iNa4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FreeatlastChitchat (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 : Violation of indefinite topic ban on Pakistan, India, Afghanistan.[121][122]

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

9 May, abused rollback on a edit that removed some content from the article although didn't constituted vandalism. Freeatlastchithat reverted it 2 days later. Ahmadiyya was founded in India.
18 April Ahmadiyya again.
18 April Muhammad Ali Jinnah, credited as founder of Pakistan
18 April Nominated a Pakistan related article for deletion.

Has made only 19 edits since May 14 2016 and most of them were made in violation of topic ban. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem and Neutrality check again because the latest violation is his last article edit, 4 days ago, Ahmadiyya is most prevalent in India and was founded in India. This article requires lots of cleanup, recently 29,000 bytes were removed by other editor. Same thing was being done by an IP but Freeatlastchitchat halted those attempts with this revert[123] on 9 May, in this revert "Afghanistan" and "India" are both mentioned. Clear violation. Since he returned to wikipedia, he has been violating topic ban frequently. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: [124] blocked before after ARE.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [125]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [126]

Discussion concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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 FreeatlastChitchat

I think I violated the Tban on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. I was just going through my watchlist and reverted the change. I apologize for that, it will not happen again, you can put a warning on my TP and log it if you want to go through the motions. As far as Ahmadiyya is concerned, it is an international religion and does not come under the Tban. Religions do not come under geographical Tbans, but articles about religions in a particular country come under Tbans. So I can freely edit Ahmadiyya, but I am not allowed to edit Ahmadiyya in Pakistan and Ahmadiyyat in India. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FreeatlastChitchat

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

The Muhammad Ali Jinnah article edit would definitely be a violation of the TBAN. My only hesitation is that they seem fairly inactive (2 edits in May, then a several week gap), so this requests feels stale. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was an unequivocal topic-ban violation, but I would close as stale. We should issue a warning to the user for when he or she gets back. Neutrality^talk 17:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Lord Roem. 4 days shouldn't be considered stale. If it is, the result will be editors racing to AE before trying other dispute resolution methods to beat the 4-day statute of limitations. And creating an atmosphere that encourages a race to AE is not what we want to do.--v/r - T P 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I was mistaken, I read this as 18 May, not 18 April.--v/r - T P 00:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No More Mr Nice Guy

No More Mr Nice Guy is blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 21:34, 15 May 2017 (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 No More Mr Nice Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Oncenawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice at top of Talk:Balfour Declaration:

"All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)"
"Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

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

02:39, 9 January 2017 reverts to version first added in this series of edits from September 2016 [127] by User:Epson Salts. I objected to this edit immediately on talk [128], but there was no response, and I did not revert. After editing the article body on this topic over a period of weeks, I then conformed the lead text here [129]
17:29, 25 March 2017 I did not report this, because I had only just become aware of the relatively new sanction myself (see [130]) This was discussed at [131], where the editor stated he would not discuss on talk unless others join. I did not revert (I have not touched the text since the mid-March diff linked above)
00:48, 11 May 2017 Re-reverted after the text was removed in [132] this edit by another user. No discussion on talk.
01:08, 11 May 2017 Same material re-added 20 minutes later. Still no discussion on talk.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Clear from this comment that he was aware [133]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The comments below have been taken off course by other topics merged into the discussion. What appears to have been missed is that No More Mr Nice Guy's edits 3 and 4 above were a clear violation of 1RR. So in aggregate these edits contravened ARBPIA rules past, present and future: the old ARBPIA 1RR bright line, the current consensus requirement, and the soon-to-be-implemented new 1RR wording being discussed at WP:ARCA.

Have said that, what I find much more troublesome is No More Mr Nice Guy's comment at [134], where the editor stated that he felt no need to enter into discussion to support his continuing reverts. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[135]

Discussion concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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 No More Mr Nice Guy

The material has been there since at least September 2016. My edits are the "reverted edit" one needs consensus to "restore" in the requirement Oncenawhile quoed above. If anything, Rjensen is the one who violated the requirement when he redid his edit which I reverted (edit [136], revert [137], restore edit without consensus [138]), but the issue seems to have been resolved (except insofar as Oncenawhile thinks he can weaponise it, apparently). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KI, you're correct. The text was written by me as a compromise between texts Nishidani and Epsom Salts put in the article. Nishidani did not complain about it at the time or since, but apparently couldn't give up the opportunity to try to get rid of an opponent with a ridiculously illogical guilt by association argument. Talk about disingenuous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nishidani brought it up, opening himself to BOOMERANG, could someone have a look at the behavior I complained about here, which he mentioned below? "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." like he did here (among many other places) fits part of the definition of antisemitism recently adopted by, among others, the UK government [139] to "ensure that culprits will not be able to get away with being antisemitic because the term is ill-defined, or because different organisations or bodies have different interpretations of it"? Why is he allowed to harass other editors like this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, thanks for admitting you made an analogy to the Nazis, and tailored your response to your interlocutors being Jewish - "I asked the two editors how they would respond to reading of something similar in their own cultural tradition". Why you think that makes it better rather than worse is anyone's guess. It doesn't even matter that your analogy is ridiculous or that your retrospective rationalization attempts fall flat to a simple reading of your post. What really happened here is that a couple of Jews did something you didn't like, so you said something hurtful, as is your wont. This sort of thing supposedly goes against everything Wikipedia editing stands for, but is allowed for some reason when you do it. Over and over. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The treatment of Jews in Poland by the Nazis in the 1940s is part of whose "cultural tradition"? Jews or Israelis? Do you really think everyone here is stupid? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the good old "Black people call each other the N-word, so why can't I?" defense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, speaking of animus, if you hadn't showed up here and tried to smear me with your disingenuous guilt by association argument, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All you had to do is stay out of it. And I was obviously referring to your last post in my previous one. "Serious reading problems", indeed. Kudos for writing twice as much as everyone else combined, by the way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

I think this request is a bit premature. The article has been changed significantly since the lead was written: the lead would need to be rewritten anyway, and this point can then be addressed. It's not worth fighting over this matter now, per WP:DEADLINE. Since I think that the ARBPIA rule (currently at ARCA) is idiotic and counterproductive, I would definitely not want any "prosecution" under the rule. The dispute is still manageable. That said, I would prefer that NMMNG self-revert and (a) either propose an acceptable wording, or at least reply to my comments here or (b) simply wait till a new lead is written. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not useful to bring in Epson Salts/NoCal here. From what I can see, the current phrasing was indeed by NMMNG. In any case, we need not go into who added what. This is mostly a content dispute, the main problem is that there's no "consensus" version to restore to. The earlier version was made by Epson Salts (a sock), Nishidani and NMMNG. That's just 2 people; too narrow a base for consensus on for such an important part of the article. As I argue on the talkpage, the text does not summarize the source anyway; for instance: Sykes Picot in 1916, which directly contradicted the McMahon correspondence in many respects, is not mentioned at all. I suggest that the whole paragraph be moved to the talk page where an appropriate formulation be hashed out. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original request is, in my opinion, not suitable for AE; it is too blunt an instrument. However, I would like the admins to strongly admonish NMMNG to not make accusations of anti-Semitism against Nishidani. This is not the first time he has done it. He can believe whatever nonsense he likes in private, but it is not permitted to make such serious accusations on Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

The second edit by NNMG is exempt from revert count as it reverted the violation of consensus clause so 1RR and no violation of consensus clause.--Shrike (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC) Still I don't understand why only NNMG is reported other people broke the rule too--Shrike (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor Shrike: You are citing the rules incorrectly. The arbcom ruling allows reverts to enforce the General Prohibition, not reverts to enforce the consensus clause. Zero^talk 13:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

While it's true that I didn't use the magic phrase "consensus clause -- which is so magical that the requirement that it be invoked has never been announced -- anybody but an absolute moron (or a blind pro-Israeli POV pusher) would recognize that I invoked the clause in my edit summary: "removing material that is still under discussion on the talk page -- please read WP:ARBPIA -- a five-hour 'I agree' among four like-minded editors is not consensus". I will note for future reference, however, that at least one administrator is unable to see the reference to ARBPIA and consensus in the edit summary and put 2+2 together and get 4; in the future, I will assume the stupidity of all administrators and use the magic phrase "consensus clause". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that if El C wishes to continue to be considered WP:UNINVOLVED, he should stop parroting the party line.[140][141] I have nothing to do with this complaint against No More Mr Nice Guy, and I don't appreciate his bringing me into it. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

If the first revert restored in January of this year edits made by Epson Salts, then NMMGG was knowingly restoring text that had been introduced by a sockpuppet of one of the most deleterious sockmasters in the I/P area, NoCal100, some months, (October_2016 October 2016) i.e. within fresh memory of Epsom Salts' indefinite ban as a sock. If so, then this is particularly disingenuous, indeed . . .Nishidani (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

El_C. In any complex edit and discussion, one can select any handful of things to prove someone, here Shabazz, is aggressive. All one does is waive looking closely at over all behavior. In this case, The simple statistics are at the Balfour page that,

Oncenawhile has done 419 edits to that page, and is trying to bring it to FA status on this centenary year. NNMGG 7.
Oncenawhile has used the talk page 74 times, extensively. NMMGG jotted 5 brief notes on the talk page, one a self-revert.

That the non-productive, mainly absent editor, refers to 'consensus' to revert someone who has, unlike himself, thoroughly exercised collegiality on the talk page, actually does some positive work in here and that the illusory consensus appealed to is a convenient fiction to restore a sockpuppet's contributions and, it would seem, give the appearance of a rational justification for just destroying someone's careful work. If you find Malik's remark peculiar, I guess you missed this, which is typical of an 'attitude', after which he can spin my note here as proof of an inability to'give up the opportunity to try to get rid of an opponent with a ridiculously illogical guilt by association argument.' NMMGG, as often as not, just guts stuff usually, with no attempt to carefully find a moderate compromise. Admins are required to not only to master the niceties of policy (rather that scour for AGF nuances), but to be neutral, something done by carefully examining in depth all angles. That said, I tend to side with Kingsindian's call, though he does ignore in my view the fact that NMMGG's behavior is not collegial, and that requires a warning.Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NMMGG. When I see people just dropping a line saying 'no' to some proposed edit, I argue the logic of it. In this case 2 editors, with their legitimate national POV, just stated there was no violence worth listing in the relevant article, in denying medical aid to a boy in Gaza, who then died. He died of the heart condition an Israeli hospital had earlier diagnosed him as suffering from. He died reportedly because his application to be treated in Israel (an obligation under the Geneva conventions) was turned down when, according to his family, he refused to become an informant on his neighbours in Gaza. My view was that this denial of life-saving medical assistance was effectively lethal, hence violent. To make the point, I asked the two editors how they would respond to reading of something similar in their own cultural tradition, referring them to a rule imposed on Polish doctors by an occupying army not to treat Jews, who must therefore look after themselves. It is immaterial to the cogency of the analogy that Nazism imposed that rule, the point being the rule is identical in both cases, but, I presume, an editor faced with the analogy, has to ask himself about the implications of his POV, which I assume would be appalled by the lethal consequences of the Nazi prohibition on assisting Jews, but indifferent to the fact that a boy in Gaza died because he was denied medical treatment by the occupying power. I can't find the diff but on some page I vaguely recall El_C saying that it was fair to include this case on that page, though perhaps my memory is inexact.This is not treating editors like 'shit'. It is asking them to reconsider their views in terms of 'neutrality' which means making a judgement on such issues irrespective of the ethnicity or nationality of the persons involved. I expect this should be hatted, as it has nothing to do with this AE issue at hand, and consists of pure distraction. My apologies to administrators, but these repeated efforts to brand me as an anti-Semite by NMMGG go back several years, and I am obliged to respond to them, since he won't desist. Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless arguing with anyone who cannot distinguish the decisions of a person acting on behalf of his government, i.e. Israel, and 'Jews'. I've never thought being Jewish has anything intrinsically to do with the state of Israel, or vice versa. Serious thinking is based on careful attention to nuance, and if you want to persist in collapsing everything into a dumb 'us/them' set of stereotypes, you'll see, in this context, anti-Semitism everywhere, particularly among Israelis or Jews who have no problem working for B'tselem or any other body concerned with human rights. My view of the world is that a very large number of states, the U.S. Russia, China, Australia, Japan etc,. to name just a few, have engaged in genocide, or ethnocide, and violations of the Geneva Conventions, and if I argue any specific issue with people from those states who are critical or indifferent to the victims, while defending their nation, I will invariably bring up analogies, often with Nazis, Fascism, Stalinism, etc., and ask my interlocutor why he or she is appalled by terror, or accepts it, solely in terms of evaluating the ethnicity of the victim. It's the foundational principle of the haskalah. Harangue away if you like, but I will only respond to admins, if they suspect there is something to this bizarre conviction of yours.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Stupid'? No, you are not stupid. You are, and have been for years, making a huge fuss at such analogies, which are normative in the scholarship, while quietly ignoring the fact that the 'Palestinians are Nazis' equation is one of the commonest memes in Israeli political discourse. Any mention of the former gets you outraged, and leads you to lay another predictable and tiresome indictment against 'our' anti-Semite (Wikipedia, you insist, is friendly to anti-Semites, because they won't take your personal complaint seriously): as to the latter, you pretend it doesn't exist. Here's a short reading list for you. Moshe Zuckermann (2002) p.66; Norman Finkelstein (2005) p.57; Yoram Peri(2000) pp.135-136: Peter Beinart (2012) [142]; Idith Zertal (2005), p.175: Joseph Massad (2006) p.134. Intellectual neutrality means never being intimidated by public pressures to skew or spin a conflict by the artful use of a wide-eyed scrutiny of one party's behavior, and a blinkered insouciance to the mirroring of what you find repulsive in discourse on the other. It's duplex thinking, and duplex gives us duplicity. So drop it.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ijon.Any generic parallel between two nations as interchangeable (Israel=Nazi Germany) erases the massive differences, and, in this case, smacks of anti-Semitism, because its blind hyperbole is so absurd as to allow no other conclusion. That doesn't rule out the heuristic value of making analogies on specific acts or policies, however. The point of any analogy is to remind one's interlocutor to be coherent in their value judgements. The British and American government definitions of anti-Semitism result from political negotiations and are disreputable, indeed farcical, for that very reason, and because they imply that numerous Jews of great moral distinction, like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Gerald Kaufman (God bless his memory) were antisemites. We don't adopt political guidelines in Wikipedia on principle, because it would violate, at their core, fundamental policies of neutrality.Nishidani (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re this you have serious reading problems if you think that noting Israeli politicians call Palestinians 'Nazis', is analogous to 'a "Black people call each other the N-word, so why can't I?" defense.' Your animus is evident in this persistent innuendo and the failure to grasp the most elementary rules of interpreting what is being said..Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ijon Tichy

Regarding some of the issues discussed by Nishidani, see also: Criticism_of_the_Israeli_government#Comparisons_with_Nazi_Germany. ---- Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kingsindian that admins should strongly caution NMMNG to not accuse Nishidani of anti-Semitism. NMMNG has made this accusation against Nishidani several times in the past several years. This type of accusation is in violation of Wikipedia policies. Ijon Tichy (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, this is not the first time NMMMG directly or indirectly attacked Nishidani by saying or implying that Nishidani has some hidden motives. In the vast majority of cases, Nishidani, or other users, have asked NMMMG to stop, but did not file a formal complaint against NMMMG at any of the admin noticeboards. Here is a diff (dated Feb. 2016) of a rare case when Nishidani formally complained against NMMMG at an admin noticeboard. In that case, the closing admin appears to have admonished NMMMG to refrain from personally attacking Nishidani: "Starting now, if NMMNG or OID ever again say or imply, even obliquely, that Nishidani supports NAMBLA, they will be blocked for a month ..." Ijon Tichy (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Zero is almost right—as there needs to be 7 votes to ratify the motion. But I suggest until it's ratified, we continue to treat consensus clause violations with some extra leniency. I did so for Malik Shabazz at Marwan Barghouti—issuing a warning instead of a block after he almost-violated 1RR with six minutes to spare ([143][144]—which I consider a flat out violation), partly because his revert was a consensus clause revert (even if he failed to announce it as such, that's what it was). Again, we need the consensus clause to have its own page and shortcut on the project space, so that users know whether, for example, a 1RR exemption applies to enforcing it (which it does not). Coffee volunteered to do so, but he appears to be MIA, so I am looking for a volunteer, everyone. El_C 03:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all the ample aggression (not for the first time, either—understated he is not coming across as), Malik Shabazz fails to realise that it doesn't matter what he announces, as Zero clarified and as I reiterated, 1RR exemption to enforce the consensus clause is not a thing. And if it wasn't for the extra leniency that he was afforded, he would been blocked for 1RR violation. He will not be afforded such lenience in the future. I suggest he tempers his tone. El_C 05:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If Malik Shabazz wishes to "assume the stupidity of all administrators" and infer that I'm an "absolute moron"—that's misguided, but it's his prerogative. Fact is that editors don't get to break 1RR to enforce the consensus clause, as he did the other day. I'll use any example I see fit to illustrate my point. El_C 15:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, if it wasn't clear, I was only addressing Zero's point in isolation, which I am entitled to do without suffering abuse just because I dare mention as an example a user whose hostility, frankly, confounds me. As for the case, I think Kingsindian's suggestion sounds like a decent plan. El_C 15:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request has merit (while most of the discussion has none, consisting of name-calling or content disputes).
No More Mr Nice Guy violated WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction by, on 11 May 2017, reverting more than once within 24 hours somebody else's earlier removal of text that includes the passage "Palestine is not explicitly mentioned in the correspondence". We know that No More Mr Nice Guy's additions of this text were reverts because the complaint shows that the text was added on 25 March 2017 and subsequently removed on 8 May; its re-addition was therefore a revert. The merits of this text and whether it enjoys any degree of consensus are not relevant according to the remedy.
In addition, I consider it established that No More Mr Nice Guy violated the remedy's requirement that "editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit", because No More Mr Nice Guy does not dispute the complaint's assertion that No More Mr Nice Guy did not obtain or attempt to establish consensus for their two reverts on 11 May.
As to sanctions, No More Mr Nice Guy has a clean block log and only one earlier topic-related sanction that I can find, a ban from topic-related AE threads in 2013 (apparently never lifted, but not violated here, as No More Mr Nice Guy is commenting in their own defense). The remedy only provides for blocks as a sanction. Consequently, a brief block is appropriate as a first sanction. No More Mr Nice Guy is blocked for 72 hours. Sandstein 21:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Action doesn't require a consensus or action by an admin who hasn't opined, so I just unblocked him myself. Probably more symbolic than anything, but still. The block was absolutely valid, the block time was absolutely valid, even if others might have handled it differently. The unblock for "time served" was just because the usefulness of the block had worn off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Request moved from talkpage by Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Block for 72 hours: AE request

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notification.

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

I did not realize 1RR was the issue, as the complaint focused on the consensus clause and I thought, based on previous precedent (in another complaint Oncenawhile lodged against me, so he was aware of this) that providing a source as a response to a revert would not be frowned upon. Oncenawhile did not warn me, as is common practice, about the 1RR. Nobody participating in the discussion mentioned 1RR, everyone focused on the consensus clause. I would have self-reverted if I had realized there was an issue, like any experienced editor would have. There's no preventative purpose in blocking me and 72 hours for a first offence for an editor who's been around for years and has never been blocked seems unduly harsh. This sanction seems punitive and I would like my record clear, as I have been able to maintain it for years.

(additional message from NMMNG) ... because of the precedent (that the filer was aware of) and because the filer didn't note next to the diffs that they were a 1RR violation I didn't realize I was being reported for 1RR? Nobody in the ensuing discussion mentioned 1RR, either. I am not arguing that what I did was OK, I am arguing that I was not fully aware of the charges against me and would have corrected the violation had I known, as I have done in the past. I feel like they're missing the point here.

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend declining the appeal. No More Mr Nice Guy has conceded violating the 1RR. The rest is wikilawyering. No More Mr Nice Guy has had ample time to undo their edits after the AE request was made. It was apparent from the complaint that 1RR was the issue, or part of the issue; and in any case the remedy provides for blocks without warning even on the first offense - let alone an AE thread open for days. Sandstein 21:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding any unwritten norms, etc: The rules applying to this topic area are already overly complicated. I therefore apply only the Arbitration Committee's remedies as they are currently documented on the arbitration case page(s), and ignore any other discussions. Sandstein 08:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved Kingsindian

Copy pasting my comments from NMMNG's talkpage (minor condensation):

Hi. First, a correction of a minor factual error in your closing statement: NMMNG's prohibition on AE discussions was lifted a few months ago. Second, at the time this request was made ARBPIA did have the consensus clause operative, but recently, after an ARCA request, it has been dropped because it leads to more trouble than it is worth. Keeping this development in mind, perhaps you might want to re-evaluate the block. In my opinion, it is not necessary and people fighting over silly rules only leads to bad blood; discussion about how to phrase the lead is proceeding (as well as can be expected) on the talkpage.

Oncenawhile mostly focused on the consensus clause, because that was the main issue. I am, in general, in favour of giving people a chance to self-revert before reporting them to AE. And NMMNG has earlier shown willingness to self-revert when asked. This is very common practice in ARBPIA because 1RR can be so easily broken, even by mistake (I have done it many times). While blocking for 1RR is within admin discretion, I think it's not necessary here to prevent disruption. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem and TParis: The closing statement cited both the consensus clause and 1RR violation. It is of course true, as I myself noted, the block was within admin discretion. However, please look at this matter from the perspective of people who edit this area (on all sides). The fact of the matter is that 1RR is very easily broken, even by mistake, because sometimes it's unclear what a "revert" is. In this case, the revert consisted of adding text back together with a reference (which was requested by the person who removed the material).

As a response to someone breaking 1RR, the norm in this area is that people are asked to self-revert, before reporting them for 1RR. I think it's a good norm (I have myself benefited from it in the past). Even long-time sockpuppets follow the norm. It is not worth trashing the norm for dubious gain. You can guess what will happen if such norms break down in this highly polarized area: people may try to report their opponents to AE in the hope of getting them blocked; while they are really interested in getting rid of them for unrelated reasons.

In this particular case, Oncenawhile (as far as I can see, they can speak for themselves), was annoyed at NMMNG because the text was inserted repeatedly without sufficient discussion. That is a legitimate complaint, though, in my opinion, AE is not the correct venue for it; and since the lead needs to be rewritten anyway, it's not worth fighting over. I started a section on the talkpage, and discussion is indeed proceeding, as well as can be expected. 1RR is just a distraction here; a technical infraction largely unrelated to the roots of the problem. Now that ArbCom has dropped its silly "consensus clause", we can once again return to common sense talking to one another, instead of reporting them to AE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oncenawhile

Kingsindian is correct that I would not have reported this if it was just a 1RR breach or just a consensus breach. What I consider unacceptable is that an experienced editor chose to repeatedly remove the same text while making an explicit statement on the talk page that he does not intend to engage in discussion. I objected to the text on the talk page after each revert in January and March, and other editors objected to the same in May, but we were unable to make any progress as a result of this conscious lack of engagement. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Ok, I’m a 100% involved editor ....from "the other side of the divide" as to NMMNG. And I think NMMNG can be a complete pain in the neck, at times. I totally understand Oncenawhile frustration with NMMNG, not engaging in discussion.

Having said that (and having read the whole thing) ...I’m actually in no doubt that this was an honest misunderstanding of the rules by NMMNG. As such, I think he should be unblocked, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

Result of the appeal by No More Mr Nice Guy

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

Decline. No warning was required as an edit notice was attached to the page advising all editors of the 1RR restriction. A second revert w/ an added source is surely a mitigating factor in my mind, but it's still a second revert. This occurred less than an hour after the first. While I may have imposed a slightly shorter block (or issued a warning of some kind) I nonetheless think this was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. For those reasons, I'd decline this appeal. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As initially mentioned, I would've imposed a shorter length block. Would not be opposed to unblocking as time served. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The 'precedent' argument is a decent one and mixed signals from admins is nothing new. But in a topic area with AE sanctions, it's best to be cautious and not count on some de facto rule that isn't written in policy.--v/r - TP 02:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kingsindian: I actually looked at this a few days ago when the AE case first closed. Initially, I was sympathetic. No More Mr Nice Guy added text on 11 May, it was reverted, and NMMNG subsequently reverted. However, if you read the AE case, or the article history, you'll see that the text NMMNG added was removed only three days earlier. In such a small timespan, I'd consider NMMNG's first edit on 11 May a revert of the 8 May edit. I think any reasonable admin would. And I think any reasonable user would consider it a revert as well.
  NMMNG was given a chance to self-revert. The whole AE case was a chance to self-revert. He chose to stick to his guns.--v/r - T P 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. I think the "didn't realise a second revert with source was disallowed" thing is a good enough excuse for what seems like an honest mistake, and I reckon we should be wearing our helpful hat here rather than going round with the rule book stuck up our ass. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as time served. A block was justified, although I might have chosen a shorter time. I think reality is mix of all this, and the AE wasn't just about the 2RR, but all that is moot now. As this was his first block of any kind, I think the point has already been made and any continuation is probably not preventative. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept also as time served. For first xRR offences I usually go with 24 hours rather than 3 days. El_C 07:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, but with full understanding that this is not on the grounds that the block was invalid (it was valid), but rather on grounds that there should now be a clear understanding of the restriction and we will not see the same thing happen again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. Would the next admin who happens along care to enact the consensus here and unblock before the block expires in a few hours? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McE

No action taken. Anyone who wants to nominate Robert Young (endurance runner) for deletion should go ahead with that. A number of admins gave advice, with one suggesting that User:Kevin McE should avoid this article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Kevin McE

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons :

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

11 May Kevin McE removes biographical paragraph, claiming the person interviewed is not reliable.
11 May Same edit, claiming no one on the talk page disagreed with him
11 May "Unreliable, no independent verification"--obviously incorrect, since the sources are The Daily Telegraph and New Statesman.

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

User was notified of AC/DS for BLPs with this edit. This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary), and I left an extensive explanation on the talk page, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This little affair has a long history: as you can see on the talk page, the article, Robert Young (endurance runner), was a BLP nightmare from the get-go--created as a puff piece, it got turned into an attack piece. Admins can see the long and sordid history, which is littered with BLP violations including a number by User:Kevin McE, and a few real bad ones by User:Woodywing. The long and short of it is that I saw no other option than to delete the whole damn thing and start all over again--I explained this on the talk page. (I also left a note on BLPN.) I believe I have good reasons for my actions, and the support of a number of admins, including Ritchie333, who was kind enough to pitch in and help write up a neutral stub. Kevin McE (and Woodywing) were notified of the problems with their edits and yet persisted--Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both. In his zeal to discredit even the subject's own account of his childhood he seems to argue that it does not matter that there are reliable sources for the subject's account; I explained how problematic this was on the talk page. In the meantime, NeilN visited the talk page, and TParis fully protected the article since Kevin McE is now at 3RR (and Ritchie and I can edit/revert through protection, of course--I understand TParis's protection but I'm glad they protected the version that is not a BLP violation and does not tacitly endorse one).

I am neither involved with the subject or this particular editor, but I would rather have someone else confirm that this behavior is unacceptable. I want this editor topic-banned from this article: they clearly cannot edit objectively, and have no desire (or competence) to remain within policy. While we're on the topic, you can see that Woodywing's edits are even more problematic, and they need to be banned from this article as well, but it's Kevin McE's edit warring that brings us here.

No such user, the article has already been deleted and stubbed. You're looking at the "new" version: admins can see that Kevin McE was quite active in that first version also, though those edits were more moderate; calling the informant "unreliable" (diff above) and (in an edit on the talk page "a proven liar", that's not "content". He clearly is way too involved with the subject, which combined with a lack of understanding of BLP is problematic. Sandstein, the dispute isn't so much whether one or more sources are reliable, but rather the principle of reliability: Kevin McE does not seem to understand the principle of voice and of editorial oversight, which is why he keeps removing content--see this comment and this one by Ritchie333, and this one by GoldenRing. If y'all can talk some sense into this editor I'll gladly drop this case. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reiterate: if Kevin McE understands the problems with these edits (having been reverted three times by three different administrators) and edit summaries, I'm fine with dropping this. But please understand I'm not asking for anything draconian: the request is for him to stay away from this one article only. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification on Kevin McE's talk page.

Discussion concerning Kevin McE

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 Kevin McE

In view of the comments made by others, I really don't see that I have any need to defend myself here. The only accusation against me is that I removed information that does not seem trustworthy.

I object strongly to Drmies's attempt to categorise me; "Kevin McE's disruption is obviously based on either a crusader mentality or a personal animosity toward the subject, or both." I have no knowledge of Young other than having been involved in challenging several articles that have been started about him over the course of many years by a whole series of sockpuppets, which many admins have assumed to be incarnations of Young himself or someone very close to him. If trying to keep false claims out of Wikipedia makes me a crusader, then strap a breastplate with a picture of a lion on me. Otherwise do not make ad hominem attacks.

I believe that the conduct of Drmies in this situation is thoroughly reprehensible. Apart from the above, he has made false accusations about my posts; he has refused to state whether he has made himself aware of the history of deleted articles about Young; he deleted an article without any reference to those who had worked on it; he has acted arrogantly and rudely, and unbecoming of an admin. Kevin McE (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Bbb23 below was deleted, apparently I am not allowed to reply to comments about my edits in the place where such comments are made, which seems odd, but hey ho... So I replicate it here: His self-authored attempts at articles about himself here were full of palpably false claims (that he was on top level road race cycling team Milram, that he was a Triathlon champion, etc); he denied accusations, subsequently proven, that he had cheated in the run across America. I fail to see how, in the light of this, my description is flawed. Kevin McE (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No such user

May I suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and dials back some?

Kevin is apparently aggravated now, but Drmies did not help de-eascalate, on the contrary. In particular, I don't find diffs provided by Drmies as BLP violations per se, but a rather plain editing dispute. And I find it odd that removal' of material may constitute a BLP violation, particularly as it is not used to counterbalance anything. – There, Kevin has a point that an interview with the subject is not a first-class reliable source, as it gives ample opportunity for self-serving statements. At a minimum, if veracity of information provided by the subject is challenged, we avoid stating it in Wikipedia voice but use disclaimers such as "claims". And we always have an editorial option to exclude information brought by supposedly reliable sources if there are serious reasons to distrust it – see e.g. Talk:Bijeljina_massacre#RfC: Plavsic "stepping over a dead body"?.

During the dispute, Kevin lost his cool and he probably did violate BLP in edit summaries or talk page comments, but I'd suggest closing this AE with no action, taking a deep breath, and starting a serious discussion what to do with the article, preferably with a clean slate (=minimal stub). No such user (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bbb23

I simply want to highlight this edit made by Kevin at WP:BLPN ("the only source of any biographical information (the subject himself) is entirely unreliable and a serial liar in the media"), which I subsequently reverted as a BLP violation. If this diff has already been posted, my apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

@Sandstein: - My primary concern when protecting the article was that the removal of material only left a single sentence introducing the subject followed by a paragraph of negative information. The removal, then, produced a WP:COATRACK. I'd rather the article be deleted and salted, but I decided that protection with reverted version alleviated the immediate BLP concerns while discussion could happen.--v/r - T P 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@EdJohnston: - Could I recommend that the article go to AfD during the full protection? This article is essentially a WP:BLP1E and Kevin's concerns of self-promotion matched with Drmies' concerns of a negative BLP seem to equate to a "burn with fire" scenario.--v/r - T P 14:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: When an editor removes all material except negative material resulting in a WP:COATRACK, that is a WP:BLP violation. The authenticity of the removed content, and the authenticity of the saved content do not matter. It is better to propose such an article for deletion than to have a negative WP:BLP1E with very minor press notice.--v/r - T P 18:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: You don't seem to understand. Deletion of material is not intrinsically a BLP violation. No one has proposed it is. This deletion of material is a BLP violation because it results in a coatrack. That's why article deletion, and not stubbing, is the only solution.--v/r - T P 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: Calling a living person, the subject of a biography, a liar is not a BLP violation?--v/r - T P 12:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: Seriously? Did you not even look at the diff?--v/r - T P 16:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NeilN

While this request concerns Kevin McE, I can understand his subsequent frustration as admin behavior surrounding the full protection of this article hasn't been the best. While I understand why TParis restored the material before fully protecting, I don't agree the restoration met the level of being treated as an admin action. And Black Kite's removal, while made in good faith, was based on an incorrect assumption as I explained on the talk page. [145] Kevin McE's main argument I believe is that newspaper reports should not be taken at face value. Drmies article edits and talk page posts seem a bit inconsistent on this matter. He says that "newspapers that are considered reliable have editorial oversight" but this edit seems to be at odds with that statement as the source reports the abuse as a fact, and not simply a claim by Young. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Given that edits by admins through full protection have been problematic and that all editors are aware of the increased scrutiny on this article I don't think a month of full protection is called for. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The Telegraph "article" is by a "Formula One Correspondent", and the New Statesman article is by a "Features Editor". Both appear connected with release of a book by the person, and refer to claims made therein.

The problem, alas, is that the "problem editor" here is likely correct, noting that The Guardian in [146] states "“[His] tracker and GPS data are cans of worms,” Robert Lopez wrote to Ultra List subscribers. “There is a day that Rob’s RV got stuck in the desert. The location is known. [...] Whether he legged out the 40-plus road miles or somehow orienteered his way through the brush without navigational aids, [his] time is incredible. And I mean that in the literal sense.”" and so on. [147] states that his sponsor found that Young had received "unauthorized assistance" in his record-=setting trek.

Sports Illustrated in [148] has "So Delmott decided to accompany Young as he ran through Lebo (just east of Emporia) about 1 a.m. on Sunday, June 5. The problem, said Delmott, was that he found Young's RV, but never saw the Brit running. " and ""The part where I disagree with their account is simply whether Rob was running with the RV," says Delmott. "In total that night, I saw the RV at four separate occasions, and never saw a runner. I also got videos, which do not show a runner, or the flashlight they claim he uses to signal a stop. In summary, they might have been scared, but Rob wasn't running down the road." ".

Thus we ought to recognize that an autobiography and press releases for such a book may not be allowed under WP:BLP as being essentially an SPS with no actual fact-checking. And that reputable reliable sources do, indeed, raise substantive doubts about the veracity of the record-holder who was not seen running. Runners World has [149] that Young's "TomTom account" indicates that he did not run large portions of the route. I urgently suggest that no punishment ensue for a person who has accurately reported what the fact-checking publications say, and not rely on press release material. Collect (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report made to the runner's sponsor is at skins.net. The bad part is a chart (figure 3) showing a stride rate of under 10 per minute for long distances (slow walk). "A. Before observation, a high number of sessions had impossible step length implications. This has been shown in various ways previously (Figures 4-7 and Table 1). B. Before observation, there was a significant difference between day-time and night-time sessions, with the majority of impossible stride parameters coming from night-time sessions (see also Table 1 for details)" This is a strong factual assertion by people skilled in making such determinations. I am inclined to give credence to the expert report, noting that Skins ceased supporting Young, and that many European journals have printed this material at this point. Collect (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DHeyward

I never heard of the subject until this AE request. I read an uncritical article and based on that, this article came up [150]. We aren't in the business of truth but we are in the business of attribution. Claiming that someone is not a reliable source for Wikipedia is not the same as calling them liars. That leap is very disconcerting. We make sourcing and attribution decisions all the time based on how reliable a source is for facts. When we remove statements in BLPs sourced to "unreliable sources" we are not calling the author of those articles liars. The BLP violation is making that leap, not removing that material. Every time someone removes, say, a Breitbart cited statement, we aren't calling the Breitbart author a liar. That's a ridiculous leap and kind of scary that we would be here accusing an editor of calling the author a liar and seeking sanctions. For the editor that made such a leap, what are we to think when they weigh in on the Reliable Sources noticeboard and say a source is unreliable? Close the request and send it back to the talk page to work out attribution. If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: I think I said the exact same thing If the only thing left is a negative coatrack, stub it or delete it. I wouldn't characterize deletion or stubbing as a BLP violation even if it removed material that the subject stated as fact. The deletion of material is not intrinsically a BLP violation which is what is being proposed. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary) is the opening accusation. As far as I can tell, the edit summary being discussed only says that the material was not from a reliable source. That is not accusing anyone of being a liar just as deleting the entire article would not be calling anyone a liar. --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@TParis: Your not getting it. The editor under review never said the subject was a liar. He said material was from an unreliable source. That is not "basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar" as is stated in the complaint. We remove material all the time due to unreliable sourcing. It does not amount to calling the source for that material "a liar." That leap, This is right after I warned the editor for BLP violations (for basically calling the subject of the BLP a liar in their edit summary) is an aspersion as "basically" he did no such thing since the two are never equivalent. I would hate to think the complainant sees a liar accusation behind every removal of unreliably sourced material. There is a chasm between saying material is from an unreliable source and saying that material was written by a liar. Unless their is an edit summary I am missing, no one called the article subject a liar and we shouldn't view such removals with that lens. --DHeyward (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TParis: Doh. My bad. That diff wasn't in the complaint. Just saw it and yes, you are correct. Apologies all around. I thought it was an inferred accusation from article edit summaries. --DHeyward (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kevin McE

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 to me, and I would take no AE action. It is difficult to conceive of somebody merely removing material as a BLP violation, except in unusual circumstances (e.g., omitting that a person accused of a crime was later acquitted). The complaint does not make sufficiently clear how the edits are supposed to violate the BLP policy. They may be problematic under other aspects, such as edit-warring, but that is outside the scope of AE. Disagreement about whether a source is sufficiently reliable is a typical content dispute. Sandstein 11:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TParis, you make a good argument that the actions by Kevin McE do raise BLP concerns by resulting in a negative coatrack article. This is the sort of dispute that I'd expect veteran editors such as him to be able to handle with more nuance and tact than blind reverting. I do also have a problem, though, with admins Black Kite ([151]) and Drmies ([152]) now editing the article through full protection, even if they seem to be acting on good faith BLP concerns: this could well be seen as the use of admin tools to gain an advantage in a content dispute. On that basis, I'm still reluctant to sanction Kevin McE alone, and recommend that all interested editors take it back to the talk page and attempt to develop consensus in a collegial manner. Sandstein 19:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein and would just add that Kevin really needs to exercise more restraint in some of his edit summaries. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, actually, agree with TParis. Removal of material can result in a biographical article becoming unduly negative, which therefore may raise BLP concerns. The "serial liar" comment is also obviously a BLP violation. I wouldn't say it warrants a topic ban, but if problems continue, that certainly would become more likely. El_C 03:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that no other admin wants to ban Kevin McE from the article, even though he has been pushing the limits of proper behavior and does not seem to be assuring us of anything better in the future. I would be OK with closing without a ban, but recommend that the closing admin apply at least a month of full protection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:TParis (above) that the article could be nominated for AfD during the period of full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing with no action. The admins who commented have a range of opinions. User:Drmies has requested that Kevin McE avoid the article on Robert Young (endurance runner) and that sounds to me like good advice. One of Kevin's edit summaries was "What a proven liar tells a journalist is not necessarily true" and if he does that again, I think he is risking a block. In the third diff offered by the filer, Drmies, Kevin's edit summary was "Unreliable, no independent verification" which at first glance seems to violate our policy on WP:Reliable sources. The paragraph he is removing cites the Daily Telegraph and the New Statesman which are considered good sources here. If Kevin's point is that Robert Young is a serial liar and these respected papers should not be trusting anything he says, that is going way out ahead of our policy and he needs to get a consensus for whatever he is trying to do. If proper sources question Young's credibility, you can quote what those sources say but you should not be drawing your own conclusion with the intention of stating it in Wikipedia's voice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]