Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 19:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#General_Prohibition


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • First sentence to be changed to, "In order to edit any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict an editor must be registered and have more than 30 days tenure and have more than 500 edits"


Statement by Sir Joseph

This clause seems to continuously cause issues or concerns and it seems to me that rewriting this to specifically highlight in this manner makes it clearer as to who can and can't edit in this area.

Statement by Dweller

Worm That Turned, see my comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#פֿינצטערניש, and those of my non-alter-ego, Doug Weller. I genuinely didn't understand the wording because the Oxford comma is confusing (actually, in my book, just darn wrong) and the wording is poorly drafted. Please bear in mind that we will often need to point this to newbies and people with passion on the topic. Both of those are reasons for crystal clarity. There's more discussion about this on my user talk. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Callanecc. Why is it that your wording below ("IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more.") is so much clearer than an official ArbCom ruling and yet you resist changing it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero

I can see this suggestion is not going anywhere. However, there is a different sentence in the ARBPIA rulings that does cause confusion and it would be good to have clarification of its meaning. I refer to the sentence "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." that appears in the General 1RR restriction. Consider this sequence: (1) A inserts some text, (2) B removes it. Some time later, (3) C reinserts the text, (4) D removes it, and (5) C reinserts it again less than 24 hours after edit (4). In the plain meaning of the sentence, C can argue that they didn't violate the rule because the "original author" of the text is A and not them. I've seen this from experienced editors at least three times at AE and on multiple occasions that didn't get to AE. A different problem is that the English language does not usually use "author" to refer to someone who makes a deletion, so a sequence deletion, revert, deletion is not clearly covered. Without thinking about it very much, I propose that the sentence be modified as follows: "If an editor makes an edit that is reverted, that editor may not redo the edit within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Zerotalk 09:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

To Callanecc: I never said the rule was being gamed. I believe that all or most of the appearances I have seen of this interpretation were made in good faith. I'm not surprised, either, because the wording is objectively misleading. Zerotalk 11:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbs, please see this current AE case for a fine example of how everyone is confused about the meaning of "original author". Zerotalk 09:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: Please the AE case in my previous sentence. Practically nobody knows what this clause means. Please fix it! Zerotalk 12:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

I second Zero suggestion to make the original author clause more clear.-12:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I was asked to comment here by two people. Zero0000 is quite correct that the text is a bit confusing, and it should be amended along the lines they suggest. The AE case cited is a good example of the confusion, though in my opinion, it's a clear-cut violation of the remedy. The problem is that the remedy is bad.

I consider the changing of the wording to be putting a band-aid on a cancer. The fact of the matter is that nobody understands the remedy passed by ArbCom, not the editors, not the admins, not even people who pushed for the remedy in the first place. See the current AE case where I demonstrate this.

The wording ("Option 2" here) should never have been implemented, and I said so at the time. I don't have any confidence that ArbCom will do the right thing, since they have already screwed up multiple times. I may say something more substantial in the future, but that's enough for now. I would prefer a new ARCA where the cancer itself is considered, not just the band-aid. Kingsindian   12:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'm not sure I agree. It's plain to me what the sentence means, you need to have evidence of experience to edit the topic as a registered user. That's been set at 500 edits and 30 days tenure. No matter how it is written, there will be someone who thinks it can be written better and I'm reluctant to support a motion for a change that doesn't change the meaning. WormTT(talk) 19:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
    My frustration stems from the fact that this remedy has been wordsmithed twice already with very little change. WormTT(talk) 07:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There is clearly some uncertainty as Admins have expressed concern. User:Zero0000 has suggested "Registered accounts are only permitted if they have been registered for at least 30 days and have made at least 500 edits." I can't see any downside to the wording, but I might have missed something. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly opposed to further changes of this remedy. It's already quite clear. The remedy says that the following three types of editors are prohibited from editing in the topic area:
    • IP editors
    • Accounts with less than 30 days tenure
    • Accounts with less than 500 edits
  • If you fall into one or more of those categories, the prohibition applies to you. The current wording is grammatically and logically correct for that meaning. It means what we want it to mean. I'm very open to changing remedies if it will increase clarity (see above), but that is not the case here. At some point, we have to stop refactoring this and rely on reading comprehension. I would be surprised if an administrator could not demonstrate those skills when pressed and after the repeated clarifications at this board, but if so, I would suggest that they avoid enforcement in this area. ~ Rob13Talk 08:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Because it isn't so much clearer, Dweller. It is identical. Why are you not now concerned about IP editors being modified by those two criteria in the sentence? They are equally set off from IP editors as in the current writing. ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A plain reading of the sentence is already clear, as is WP:ECP which is based on the ArbCom decision. I've no problem clarifying decisions (as this is), but I don't see a need to amend it. To be clear, IP editors are prohibited as are registered accounts which do meet meet both criteria: 30 days or more; and 500 edits or more. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • We're getting to the point that we'd be changing it just to change it. It's been clarified and amended so many times already that the original purpose behind the remedy is becoming clouded. When the intention, to prevent new and/or inexperienced (or not so new/inexperienced) users from editing in this contentious topic area, is considered along with the words on the screen then the meaning is much clearer. Any way we write the remedy it can be interpreted in different ways, that's language for you. To gain an understanding of a message, one must do more than just read words on a page, the intention and context must also be accessed. In ArbCom's situation, the way people do this is to read principles, findings of fact, arbitrator's comments on votes and clarification requests. We could add a footnote with the criteria written a different way but I don't see that as necessarily helpful given that it could (and likely will) lead to another interpretation. As I said above, there are other pages which have been created to further explain and "flesh out" the decision, for example WP:ECP, {{ARBPIA}} and {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 12:43, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It reads plain and clear to me as well. Oppose any change. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with my colleagues. There is no need to change the wording. ♠PMC(talk) 04:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The very clearest version would actually be something like "Only registered editors with at least 500 edits and at least 30 days' tenure may edit articles in this topic area; other editors may not do so." (The negation of an "or" statement is an "and" statement; see De Morgan's Laws.) By the way, this is as good a time as any to mention again that I dislike the whole concept of a whole topic-area being under an extended-confirmed restriction, but I'll accept the word of those active in the area that the alternatives are worse still. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't say I object to changing the wording - there are many ways to say the same thing - but I don't believe the hypothesis that there is confusion about this that would actually be alleviated by changing the text. I do think there's a lot of motivated reasoning about this topic - as in, people naturally subconsciously gravitate toward whatever interpretation means they get to do what they want - but the problem isn't really in the wording. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of Zero's suggestion

  • While we all pretty much agree with there being no need to change the wording of the general prohibition, I think Zero0000 brings up a good point regarding the use of the phrase "original author" in the general 1RR. I'm not worried about dropping "author", since for better or worse, Wikipedia defines those removing content as an author. I am concerned about "original", though. I think we intended that restriction to apply to the most recent editor who added the content to slow down or prevent edit wars. Is there an appetite for making that more clear? ~ Rob13Talk 17:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit 'meh' on the topic. If there's evidence of the restriction being gamed in the way Zero explained (which hasn't/can't be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions) I'd be more willing to do something. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we need to change it as we never meant it to mean the original editor who added the text, and that's what "author" means to a lot of people, including me. I'm happy with Zero's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm with Callanecc. Meh. I can see how this could be misinterpreted, though I'd be interested in links to the AE threads demonstrating the misunderstanding if you have them handy, Zero0000. Opabinia externa (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Like Callanecc, I'd be more interested if we see evidence of gaming. I don't want to go messing with it unless there's a problem. Katietalk 20:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Huldra at 21:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Huldra

Are edits in user space also bound by WP:ARBPIA3? RebeccaSaid is/was working on an article in her user space, User:RebeccaSaid/Eva Bartlett, Shrike blanked the page, with the edit line "WP:ARBPIA3 new users aren't allowed to edit articles relating to the conflict". I undid it, which one of us is correct? Please clarify, Huldra (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Icewhiz: you write "there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor" ....that of course presumes that you finish with the draft within 500 edits, or less. Some people might do that, but I know for myself that I typically work on drafts much longer than that. Eg., I have had literally thousands and thousands of edits since I started eg User:Huldra/Jisr al Majami or User:Huldra/Maqam Sitt Sukayna (and none of them ready for mainspace yet, IMO), Huldra (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Icewhiz: That is an interesting question, where I dont know the answer. I honestly didn't think Eva Bartlett was part of WP:ARBPIA. (Hey, I virtually live in the ARBPIA area on WP, and I had never even heard of her work on Palestine.) Well, live and learn. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Alex Shih: The usual practice in the area revert the violation in sight and discuss it with users after the violation is removed and that what I did but I understand where you comments coming from and in similar cases I will take more lax approach next time. --Shrike (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RebeccaSaid

Not that this is actually relevant here - but I'll clarify what I was actually doing, why I was doing it and how this situation arose.

The article of Eva Bartlett was deleted as it was created by FromNewsToEncyclopedia, block evading sock of M.A.Martin. This is what the article looked like at the point of deletion. Eva Bartlett. An attack page. The article was retrieved and then proposed for deletion again. AFD.

I started a practice/dummy article in a user space, in order to pull together some actual biographical information which is completely lacking from what is supposed to be a BLP. The intention being to post it at the AFD or within the Talk Page of the article for consideration. The article did not at that stage fall within the "Arab/Israeli conflict" scope. This is because the article subject is not notable for her work around Gaza - she has gained any notability she has for her more recent reporting on Syria, which is reflected in the article.

This morning I posted a brief statement here: ARE Cross & directly under the statement of Shrike, who, incidentally, I've never interacted with before. Within 30-40 minutes of me posting my statement, Shrike blanked my user space, concluded that the article of Eva Bartlett fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" (based on what I'd written, not what was actually within the article itself) and followed that with a veiled aspersion about me having had previous user accounts. Here's the sum of their Contributions to Wikipedia for the day.

To be frank, I am more concerned about the motivation behind this editors sudden interest in my edits, my account & the article of Eva Bartlett, than I am about whether I am "allowed" to edit something, or not. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller I didn't imply that I was being personally restricted if that's what you mean. In plain terms I was questioning whether the article fell within the scope of the "Arab/Israeli conflict" in it's present format, particularly as the main justification given was "Between 2007 and early 2013 Bartlett spent a cumulative three years living in Gaza and eight months in West Bank. During this period she volunteered with the International Solidarity Movement and documented her experiences on her InGaza blog. ", which isn't in the article. The article has been around for a while, nobody has made that distinction before and I felt that restricting the article on the basis of something that might go in the article, or might not, was jumping the gun.
Lessons learnt:
A. polish crystal ball to avoid wasting time trying to improve badly written, biased BLP's - as someone may come along and make a tenuous link to something you're not allowed to edit, and wipe out all your work.
B. Accept that random people will regularly cast veiled aspersions about previous accounts/sock accounts/multiple accounts without an iota of evidence or justification - because assuming good faith is unnecessary when dealing with someone new/inexperienced. Got it! --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
As the article subject is only notable for her work in Syria, there's nothing within the body of the text that covers her actual work in Gaza, apart from mention of her blog (which doesn't even link to the blog, it links to a critical opinion piece - surprise, surprise!), it wasn't flagged up as falling within the scope until yesterday and other new users have edited it without issue - combined, I'd suggest that I would need a crystal ball to realize, at the time of writing, that they'd be a problem in the future. Rest assured, I won't waste any more time here, on what is obviously, a pointless exercise. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Shrike is correct, as WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 clearly forbids editing to any page. There is a single carveout - talkspace for constructive suggestions. Carevout 2 is not an exception, but merely admin discretion on enforcement in article creation ... As to whether the rule should be modified - that's a different matter, but there ain't much point in creating a draft if you can not mainspace it, requiring a proxy editor.Icewhiz (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: - I suspect that an editor that reaches 500 edits mainly by editing to a draft in their user space will probably have their extended confirmed bit removed due to gaming. (Nothing wrong with draft space edits - to the contrary - generally a "good thing" to work in draft (either online or offline) - the issue is the EC bit).Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 3 (clarification): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Correct. You may not work on drafts or otherwise be involved in this topic area in userspace until you meet the requirements for the prohibition to no longer apply. The only exception is the Talk: namespace. ~ Rob13Talk 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Icewhiz: That's usually correct. I've done such removals on occasion where it was obvious small edits were made to game EC. ~ Rob13Talk 13:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
      • She's a rights activist covering Palestine, according to the lead. That's rather unambiguously in the topic area. ~ Rob13Talk 17:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • While entirely correct, I think Shrike's approach here could have been slightly less aggressive ideally; rather than issuing a alert at 08:52, requesting extended confirmed proteciton at 08:59 and blanked the user page at 09:00, I would allow some time for the new user to voluntarily revert themselves, if they would. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 #2 briefly describes that discretion should be exercised. Alex Shih (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @RebeccaSaid:, User:Shrike did not apply a restriction to you as you suggested on your talk page. That restriction is for all new editors and applies automatically. And as my colleagues have said about, that restriction applies everywhere except talk space. It's common for Administrators to take action involving editors they haven't been involved with before, I see nothing untoward about Shrike's actions. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @RebeccaSaid: the subject always fell within the sanction area. I don't think you needed a crystal ball to know that a rights activist covering Palestine would fall within ARBPIA. And sadly we have had a lot of socking within our most tendentious sanctions area. This edit[1] is another one, please don't make such edits until you achieve ECP. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Noto-Ichinose

Noto-Ichinose has received an indefinite checkuser block and an indefinite NOTHERE block. Vanamonde (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
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 Noto-Ichinose

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Noto-Ichinose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

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

  1. 18:41, 10 August 2018 UTC
  2. 18:42, 10 August 2018 UTC
  3. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
  4. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
  5. 18:43, 10 August 2018 UTC
  6. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
  7. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
  8. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
  9. 18:45, 10 August 2018 UTC
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 16:38, 6 August 2018 72-hour block for "Disruptive editing--POV editing, edit warring, unwarranted warnings, and finally an ANI boomerang (thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=853728167)"
  2. 17:21, 6 August 2018‎ Topic ban from BLP edits
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

Wow, nice catch Calton! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning Noto-Ichinose

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

Statement by Noto-Ichinose

Statement by Calton

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Noto-Ichinose

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

Philip Cross

Blocked for a week. Sandstein 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
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 Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles :

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia's relevant policy states in pertinent part:

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[3]

Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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

Statement by Philip Cross

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

As it is raised below, I should point out that I did not know the topic ban applies to talk pages and must thank User:KalHolmann for pointing it out to me. I was not topic banned for my edits, but my off-Wiki behaviour [and the COI issue this created]. The tweets in question from last May, which I admit were problematic, have been deleted. My Wikipedia and Twitter accounts are no longer directly linked. Philip Cross (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Modified with thanks to IP user 121. (etc) below. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

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

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

Statement by Shrike(Uninvolved)

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

Statement by RebeccaSaid

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

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

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

Statement by 2017 Complainant

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

Statement by Kingsindian

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Philip Cross

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Self-reverted, so I'd close this with a mere caution to Philip Cross to be more mindful of his topic ban in the future, with the advice that future edits and self-reverts may not be looked on so kindly by passing admins. Courcelles (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm actually fine with a block, though I still prefer this line in the sand: If I see another violation of this topic ban, I will block Philip Cross for no less then a month. If, IMO, the violation was deliberate or egregious, I'd make it longer without AE protection. It is time for this topic ban to be taken seriously, whether a short block is issued by Sandstein or another admin for this violation, it absolutely must be the last time. I absolutely cannot be clearer about this point. Courcelles (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not too happy about this series of edits; while PC was posting there in response to queries about content he had previously added, I'm fairly certain he is aware that such a response was still a t-ban violation. I would be okay with a warning on this occasion, but only with the understanding that PC is not going to be cut any more slack. Vanamonde (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    Philip Cross, I find it difficult to believe that as an editor of 14 years standing, with 130k edits and then some under your belt, you are unaware that t-bans apply to every namespace. Vanamonde (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • In my view, a block is now necessary to deter Philip Cross from future violations of his topic ban. While it is good that he self-reverted the edit, we shouldn't need to have an AE thread each time this happens. Sandstein 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • (My comment here is as an uninvolved administrator, not as an arbitrator, and should receive no more weight than that of any other administrator.) In my opinion, a block is now necessary. A short one, perhaps just 24 hours even, but a block nonetheless. We were just here with another case of boundary-pushing that was not acted on due to what was effectively wikilawyering. If PC receives another warning rather than a meaningful sanction, I see this happening again. If he didn't understand what a topic ban was last time, which I find somewhat dubious, he was given ample opportunity to review the rules. At this point, he is expected to know them. I also note that PC should expect some amount of scrutiny on his past edits, given that they reflected a conflict of interest. Conflict of interests usually attract scrutiny due to the tendency to edit in subtly biased manners, even when there is no direct intent to do so. ~ Rob13Talk 12:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that there is agreement that this was a topic ban violation, and in consideration of the discussion above, I am blocking Philip Cross for a week. Sandstein 12:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

RevertBob

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 RevertBob

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
RevertBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. User contribution
  2. [4] Example of gaming
  3. [5] Example of gaming
  4. [6] Example of gaming
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 AUG

If it will be determined that the user indeeded gamed the restriction then he was clearly aware of it

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I understand this is a borderline case but I still want the input of admins The user made about 600 useless edits if it where really useful gnomish edits I would not file this case but in my opinion his edits was only intended to gain the ECP flag to edit Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party article @Kurtis: This not about 1RR or quality of his edits(though if its need be defended it raises questions too) but about attempt to WP:GAME to gain the WP:ECP flag

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[7]

Discussion concerning RevertBob

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 RevertBob

About Sir Joseph teaming up with Icewhiz, this was just an observation not personal. However why is Icewhiz calling me a duck, I'm a human and how would a duck edit on Wikpedia anyway.

I digress, like User:Bishonen says, Sir Joseph removed wholesale changes without even checking that I gave clear reasons for changes which included Stephen Sedley's quote being changed (which is libel). He removed these without any explanation.[8][9]

Then when he did actually explain it wasn't even a full explanation [10]. How is he allowed to do this with impunity? RevertBob (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

The totality of RevertBob's recent edits to John Henry Clarke, an article that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, consist of these insignificant spacing alterations. I don't see any reverts being made there. Chances are Shrike meant to link RevertBob's contributions to antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, which include a total of two three instances where he re-adds content that was removed without discussion. He also brought the issue to the article's talk page, and while I disagree with his classifying Icewhiz and Sir Joseph as "tag-teaming" (AGF and all), I can empathize with his frustration. Overall, this is pretty minor for a first-time 1RR violation, and I don't think anything more than a warning is needed here. I have no opinion on the reliability of the links being reinserted, or whether or not the content violates WP:UNDUE. Kurtis (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Shrike: You say that this is not about 1RR, yet you cite the ARBPIA 1RR restriction as the ruling in need of enforcement. Extended confirmed is not a user right that people "game the system" to acquire - it is automatically enabled on any account that has been registered for a minumum of 30 days with at least 500 edits. What you describe as system-gaming could just as easily be an inexperienced editor gradually becoming more active. I still don't see that RevertBob has done anything to warrant a sanction. Kurtis (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

I asked the user to self revert a 1RR violation, which they did not. In regards to gaming EC, I went over the user's edits yesterday and they definitely look like a WP:DUCK. The user was created in 2014, made 10 edits (auto-confirmed), went dormant, then in 2015 edited their user page (then blanked - not a red link), and 2 other edits. Then dormant until 2 editing sessions in 3-7 June 2017, and 23 July 2017 (achieving EC), and then back again in Aug 2018 to edit ECP pages. The user's edits in 2017 are of two sorts:

  1. 3-7 June 2017 - Quite a few edits to the UK and England (e.g. diff) - changing markup caps, and then various BLPs - around 6 edits per page - which are mainly whitespaces, changing he/she to the family name or vice-versa, removing a nickname, and changing the formatting of official website, using a template around birth/death dates, and changing capitalization of markeup elements - e.g. reflist->Reflist. All this in a rather rapid fire pace.
  2. 23 July 2017 - true to their user name of RevertBob - undoing a whole bunch of page moves by User:Chrisisherenow (who was blocked a few months later - in October 2017 for being a sock of User:Eulalefty) - who did the page moves on 24 May 2017. Reverting page moves sure does yield plenty of edits (around 4(?) per move).

In short - this does look suspicious.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Additional 1RR vio (well, 24 hours and 8 minutes to be precise from the previous revert) - 19:44 15 August. This after the AE filing and previous DS notification as well as a request to self revert on the original sequence.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Bishonen: - only makes sense (for EC gaming) if this is a sleeper sock (and reverting a subsequently confirmed sock might indicate a connection)... For a single account - no point in such gaming for a single-user/account. For a sock on the shelf waiting - yes. Note that assuming the antisemitism article is ARBPIA (and it is full of Israel/Palestine) they did break 1RR regardless of gaming.Icewhiz (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

Besides gaming the system, the user has now reinserted the challenged edits once again. It's clear from his behavior that he is not here to collaborate. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: When I reverted the user, I posted on his talk page to stop reinserting non-RS into the article. I made no mention of 1RR because at that time I really had no idea this article was under ARBPIA, and honestly, I don't know if it is or should be under ARBPIA. I made a general note to the user to not reinsert, and it had nothing to do with 1RR. Only after a little back and forth and I saw this report did I think that people think this article under ARBPIA so I sef-reverted. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify even further, Shrike who opened this AE action never mentioned 1RR. The issue was gaming the system to gain ECP, or that is the claim. My only interaction with RevertBob is him accusing me of tagteaming with others and not AGF. I asked him on his talk page to stop reinserting non-RS, indeed I don't think CounterPunch is a RS for a topic as serious as this. Only when I saw that people were turning this into a ARBPIA 1RR issue did I self-revert so that we can get clarify if this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. I think it shouldn't, as OID pointed out just being a topic about Jews, or even Israel, doesn't mean the topic is under 1RR. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

The 2017 page moves were reverts of clearly-problematic moves by the now-blocked Chrisisherenow. It's possible this is a sleeper-sock, but even then I wouldn't consider it an ECP-gaming problem. I don't know if they are a sock or if their edits are disruptive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID

@Bish - topic level sanctions in effect get added to talkpages as/when they become necessary. Editors who have been warned/notified (as AE defines it) are expected to know what is/isnt covered. It would be impossible to label every article (well, incredibly time-consuming for little benefit) that is related to ARBPIA with the appropriate notices as some articles may contain say, one relevant paragraph out of 20. It wouldnt make editing the rest of the article an ARBPIA issue. Anti-semitism in the blah blah isnt intrinsically an ARBPIA article. Parts of it may be (those specific to the Israel/Palestine issue) but 'anti-semitism' isnt by itself an ARBPIA issue only. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning RevertBob

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Shrike:, your diffs for examples of gaming and for dates for previous relevant sanctions don't work, and I don't understand how they're constructed so I can't fix them. Could you have simply forgotten to put in the real diffs? I have however looked at RevertBob's contributions, and the ≈450 edits [sic] he made June 3—June 7, 2017, certainly appear frivolous. But they can surely hardly have been made for the purpose of editing through the EC protection of Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party on 14 August 2018, more than a year later. I'm less sure that all the ≈150 page moves he made on 23 July 2017 were frivolous; maybe he really did care about the spelling of those names. Anyway, it all happened in the summer of 2017. I feel strongly about gaming the EC (or for that matter the semi) restriction, and have not previously hesitated to block for it, but I don't really see how it applies here. I can't envision the user making tiny edits to game the restriction over a year ago, and only now, the day before yesterday, starting to edit through EC protection. The timeline is just too strange. I'd have to be convinced it makes sense. Bishonen | talk 22:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC).
  • @Icewhiz and Power~enwiki: Yes, I suppose it could be a sleeper sock, good point, but there are too many unknowns here, and the editor has engaged on the talkpage. Altogether I wouldn't call their behaviour disruptive. If anybody has a possible sockmaster in mind, I recommend WP:SPI.
After some research, I found that all ARBPIA articles are under a 1RR restriction (you can tell by that that I don't usually admin or comment in this area!), but shouldn't there be some information about that on talk and/or in an edit notice ("Warning:active arbitration remedies" and so on)? I don't see how a new editor is supposed to be aware of the restriction. User:Sir Joseph, who has commented above about "gaming" and "not here to collaborate", would be more likely to know about it, and yet he has reverted RevertBob twice[11][12] in the space of half an hour, very promptly and without explanation. (And then reverted a third time,[13] but that time he self-reverted, which further suggests he's aware of the 1RR restriction.) And Sir Joseph has not engaged on talk. I'd frankly be more likely to sanction him. Bishonen | talk 08:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC).
  • @RevertBob:, on the offchance that you're being serious about ducks editing Wikipedia, see WP:DUCK. Bishonen | talk 12:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC).

202.161.64.247

Already blocked for edit warring as a non-AE action. Nothing to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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 202.161.64.247

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
202.161.64.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

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


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14 August 2018 The IP made the edit.
  2. 14 August 2018 I reverted him.
  3. 15 August 2018‎ The IP made the first revert.
  4. 15 August 2018 Zero0000 reverted him.
  5. 15 August 2018 The IP made the second revert.
  6. 15 August 2018 I reverted the him once more.
  7. 15 August 2018 The IP made the third revert.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 August 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

  • @EdJohnston: The talk page of the article clearly prohibits the users to make more than one revert against the logged in users. --Mhhossein talk 14:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

He is notified. --Mhhossein talk 14:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning 202.161.64.247

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

Statement by 202.161.64.247

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 202.161.64.247

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

Austrianbird

Blocked by Sandstein indefinitely as a regular admin action. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
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 Austrianbird

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Austrianbird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.Not complying with [[Wikipedia:Policies and

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

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


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  1. 06:02, 13 April 2018 Informed about discretionary sanctions after his string of edits including claims that resistance against Nazis in Poland simply murdered peaceful German settlers and mayors while in civil clothes or that Jews "could leave ghetto"[14], naming Polish name "Polish pet name"[15]

,

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified

Discussion concerning Austrianbird

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

Statement by Austrianbird

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Austrianbird

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Based on the evidence here I have indefinitely blocked Austrianbird as a normal admin action. Clearly this kind of blatant tendentious editing and editorializing in articles is completely out of the question even outside AE topics. If an admin disagrees, they're free to unblock the user and we can then discuss appropriate AE actions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Good block, Sandstein. Courcelles (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed with my colleagues above. Closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון

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

Request concerning יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBPIA3
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14 August 2018 The user reverted me and hence he's the original author here on.
  2. 16 August 2018‎ I removed the material and asked him to see the talk page discussion and WP:ONUS. Before reverting, I had opened a talk page discussion and it's seen that an uninvolved user was in partial agreement with me.
  3. 16 August 2018‎ The reported user reverted me in less than 24 hrs and restored his material and hence violated the 'original author' provision of the remedy. It's noteworthy that he did the revert without participating in the ongoing talk page discussion.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 13 March 2018 Blocked for violating this remedy.
  2. 13 April 2018 Blocked for violating the 'original author' provision of the remedy.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

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

  • @Icewhiz: I was expecting you to appear, as you do when יניב הורון faces a problem. יניב הורון is certainly the 'original author'. He had authored the material, I removed it and he reverted me in less than 24hrs. In another case, someone was trying to change the 'original author' by very same wikilawyering as you're doing now. As GR said: " questions of who originally inserted the reverted material back in the mists of time are irrelevant wikilawyering. Here "original author" clearly means "the person who made the edit which was reverted,"... and in this case יניב הורון made the edit which was reverted. --Mhhossein talk 06:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz: You're tireless defending of a user who edit wars without paying attention to the talk page discussion, merits looking at. I urge the admins to keep track of Icewhiz's comments with regard to יניב הורון in boards the latter is reported. Anyway, יניב הורון's editing pattern is certainly disruptive. --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Huon: In this case, the reported user kept reverting although we were discussing the issue on talk page. After numerous warning on his talk, he does not tend to participate talk page discussions. Just see his contributions, which is full of reverts. See fresh cases such as Druze in Israel, Wreathgate. As for the 'Original Author', you can see that he reverted me in less than 24 hrs. He restored his own words. --Mhhossein talk 12:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @יניב הורון: You were certainly edit warring, as the admin said. --Mhhossein talk 13:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

He is notified. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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

Statement by יניב הורון

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

Statement by Icewhiz

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

Mhhossein - you made the edit which Yaniv reverted - the sequence is quite clear - original revert by Mhhossein, Yaniv's revert. If there's anything worth looking at, it is the amount of reports against Yaniv by Mhhossein - e.g. a recent edit warring report which led to nothing.Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: The revert of the IP (which should not be editing due to the general prohibition if this is ARBPIA at all) does not count for 1RR - the ARBCOM decision explicitly excludes reverts of IPs from 1RR - there are 49 hours and 32 minutes between the two reverts - which is not close to gaming. That the filer made this allegation in regards to a non infraction is an indication in regards to the filer.Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Huon: Iranian-Israeli conflict [16] not in the scope per ARCA that the author of the report is participated --Shrike (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC) @Kingsindian: Zero already raised the issue at arca you may comment there --Shrike (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

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

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

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

Statement by Calthinus (uninvolved)

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

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This single remark alone [17] reveals that יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is here not to collaborate but to game the system. His other comments and a long string of nothing but reverts [18], hints a conflict with the primary policy aspect of WP:NPOV which as defined by ArbCom demands that editors devote themselves to writing an unbiased encyclopedia. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

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

Statement by RevertBob

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

Result concerning יניב הורון

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The "original author" argument seems rather contrived to me, but this clearly is edit-warring and gaming the system. From 24 hours 2 minutes when I last saw יניב הורון here we're down to 24 hours 1 minute. At that time they said: "Of course it wasn't my intention to sit around with an atomic clock to revert someone 24 hours and 1 second after my last revert. I don't usually do that." They should never do that. They should be well aware that while keeping the letter of the rule they're violating the spirit. If they weren't sitting around with a clock and waiting until reverting was no longer obviously forbidden, then they'd have to admit that they got incredibly lucky to not revert two minutes earlier. Either way, this needs to stop, and it's not stopping merely due to stern warnings. I suggest a topic ban. Huon (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm somewhat glad to see that I'm not the only one who gets confused by the intricacies of ARBPIA: Some people argue I'm wrong because the IP shouldn't have edited the article, others argue that the article wasn't covered by ARBPIA in the first place, which would mean the IP was allowed to edit. Whether an article that mentions Israel and Hizbollah in the same sentence "could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" seems debatable, particularly since the content in question concerns an attack against Israel from the territory of Syria, an Arab country. Either way, I was wrong insofar as reverting the IP cannot cause a breach of 1RR, either because there's no 1RR or because reverting IPs is exempt. So no gaming of the system (though the timing is still interesting). Edit warring it still is, IMO, but that's not actionable here. Huon (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)