Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against a previously alerted editor who engages in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with fewer than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352

Onceinawhile

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

Request concerning Onceinawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions :

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

02.01.21 Unilaterally closing RfC they started themselves, out of process. They then launch a RM, mass ping editors, and later vote against their own RM. Disruptive hijacking of RfC that was going against their position.
05.01.21 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards" and in a thinly veiled manner calling them racist.
05.01.21 Attacking supporters of move of "whitewashing".
01.01.21 Attack against User:Shrike.
17.12.20 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards", ghetto comparison.
12.12.20 "Dripping from your words", thinly veiled accusation of racism against User:Reenem. Also Warsaw ghettot comparison.
12.12.20 Attacking me with accusation of whitewashing. Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison.
11.12.20 Attacking multiple editors with "whitewashing" accusation.
03.12.20 Attacking User:Levivich, accusation of lying ("outright lie").
02.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem and other editors with "consistent anti-Palestinianism" attack.
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, saying they are a "believer in fringe theories".
01.12.20 Attacking User:AlmostFrancis, "ultra-nationalist propaganda".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "anti-Palestinian racism".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions"
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse."
25.11.20 Attacking User:Jr8825 with racism accusations. Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy.

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

04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ([1], [2], [3]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.

Edit made by Onceinawhile yesterday (5.1): "P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.". This is a direct personal attack, "continued double standards", and a very thinly veiled accusation of racism cast at User:Drsmoo. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open:

filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
canvassing for this report. A posting of little substance as most users, including Onceinawhile, edit these pages.
Attacking unnamed editors who raised objections.
Continued bludgeoning, forum post in which he in essence calls his opponents mad through the comparison.

All this while they are on their best behaviour, make concilliatory statements on user talk to User:El C and User:Awilley. Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4], I will also notify other named editors.

Discussion concerning Onceinawhile

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

Statement by Onceinawhile

It is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does.

I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [5]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: OK I will go through and provide the evidence. Let me start by pointing out that the quote you highlight was simply a rhetorical mirroring of this comment from Drsmoo: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing, to which I was responding. I am simply using this mirror to point out that these claims can be made by both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have spent some time going through this. I can explain further but I will need more time.

The edits which the editor pulled out were made over a two month period since my creation of the West Bank bantustans article. The editor who posted this AE, a new account with mostly semi-automated edits, has made their first-ever AE submission with the quality of AE formatting that is beyond me, and I have been here for over a decade. It is also a misrepresentative list (see below); in the two month period I have found only three instances of mutual trading of anti-this and anti-that accusations, including with the original poster themself.

I think the edits below have been misrepresented in the commentary above, and hopefully can be ignored:

#1: This was simply following due procedure, as confirmed at ANI
#3: The AfD and two alternate move names proposed have one thing in common, to whitewash the word bantustan out of the title. I am not aware that the word whitewash is unacceptable, but open to being proven wrong.
#4: I am trying to encourage this editor to actually follow through on his frequent attacks on my work (over many years) with constructive debate. It has nothing to do with this topic.
#5: Nothing here
#8: Included a clear statement that I was not commenting on intent
#9: Perhaps “lie” (which can imply intent) would have been better replaced with “falsehood”; I do not believe there was intent
#11: This was a comment on a specific theory proposed which is definitely fringe; perhaps it could have been better worded but the implication that I was commenting only on the theory itself was very clear
#12: That is the only kind of source which would include the argument that was being made
#17: No accusations made

I have pointed out anti-Palestinian statements in three conversations:

#2 this was a mirroring of Drsmoo’s attack,[6] making a rhetorical point about equal treatment
#7 I don't think this was an attack, but rather a question and an attempt to generate discussion. It was followed up with an accusation of racism by the original poster here:[7] I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate. This is the point re "implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic"; this is what the original poster is referring to with their comments above ...ghetto comparison... Also Warsaw ghettot comparison... Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison... Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy... They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts.
#6, 10, 13-16 This was a single conversation, which got sidetracked into denial of the Palestinian occupation.

Since I created this article, being responsible for the choice of the title, I have been subject to a barrage of on-and-off wiki harassment.

To address the claims of antisemitism or anti-Israel: (1) This article, and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is (and have repeatedly stated as such). The article and title simply sets out that the situation in the West Bank is most commonly referred to as Bantustans, which may have been a component of apartheid but cannot logically be extrapolated to make the wider claim; (2) I have not and would not make comparisons to Nazi policy, nor would I claim that the historical situations or policies were similar. The point made re ghettos and pogroms is about the use of foreign loanwords with negative connotations, and how we rightly allow them across the encyclopedia.

Regarding my point above that "the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions". Those accusations include (there are more at the discussions but I do not have time now to go through further):

20:08, 5 January 2021, Drsmoo diff: “P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing”
15:08, 2 January 2021, IP diff: "Shalom. You’ve been revealed as an antisemite. How does that feel?"
08:12, 12 December 2020, 11Fox11 diff: “I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate."
16:39, 3 December 2020, Adoring nanny diff: “is anti-semitic to boot”
21:14, 24 November 2020, Bearian diff: “non-racist, as to opposed the current name”
09:26, 15 November 2020, Île flottante diff: “purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias”
Plus two off-wiki instances of harassment which I would be happy to share privately.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: the comments by 11Fox11 and Drsmoo were about IHRA's reference to "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis", which was clearly not what has been going on here. These comments "invocation... disturbing" and juxtaposition of IHRA with "your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy" were very clear (and nonsense) accusations of antisemitism. Finally the other three comments above, "anti-semitic to boot", "...racist..." and "...anti-Israel..." were all directed at my choice of title. And the off-wiki ones were obviously even less veiled. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - @El C: please could I ask you to be careful with your representation of things, as this is clearly a very sensitive area. You wrote "Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany"; I have not at any point drawn parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: that is not "comparison of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". I am explicitly not commenting on or implying anything about policies or anything of the sort. It is about how non-neutral foreign loanwords are rightly used in key areas of Jewish (and South African) history. You can consistently see this from my other comments on this question: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]).

Since you have rightly taken an interest in whether the claims of antisemitic behavior have any merit, could you please do the same for the claims of anti-Palestinian behavior?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: I can assure you that linguistic and etymological comparisons are not what the IHRA definition is referring to; I wrote the article on the definition a few years ago, and have read all the work of the authors. The point of that line in IHRA is that nothing can compare in scope, scale and horrificness to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, and to imply as such is unacceptable. I did not and would not do that. There is and was no attempt to equate the policies - please could you kindly review the diffs and acknowledge this? I do not feel comfortable with leaving this point open.

To your question, the original post at the top of this thread includes a few moments where I have claimed certain statements to be anti-Palestinian. I propose not to repeat those, in order to save space. Here are a couple of good examples on the minimizing / denying the Palestine occupation and dispossession: When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute.[13] and What disappearing land? It was never under control of Palestinians. It was controlled by Jordan then by Israel. It was Israel who gave the Palestinians some of the land.[14]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C please could you help me understand your last comment? This AE was seemingly opened on the basis that I pointed out a few statements from other editors that I considered anti-Palestinian. How can the merits of this AE be considered without assessing whether my concerns were valid? Plus I believe you have just provided an assessment of whether concerns of antisemitism could be valid? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C the words "sign of racism" is no different to saying "IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes" (a direct quote from the original poster here). It is now commonplace to talk about signs of antisemitism per IHRA, so surely we can do the same about other forms of racism without censure? I don't consider either to be personal attacks, but if they are to be deemed as such we must be consistent.

Awilley would you mind taking the time to review the two-month discussion more broadly? As I point about above, much of those diffs were misrepresented and described out of context. There have been more than 1,000 edits made to the discussion pages, and I have worked extremely hard to find a consensus in difficult circumstances. I have been working in this area for a decade and I don't think you will find an editor more committed to actual collaboration; you can see my intentions in black and white from my having written the goals section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Working in what may be our encyclopedia's most difficult topic area is a real challenge, and I simply ask that you take your time before reaching judgement here. Please also bear in mind that the editor here has only notified those editors on one side of the discussion here, so taking what you are hearing with a pinch of salt is reasonable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for bearing with me here; I think I have a way to explain what I am getting at. See these two comments side by side:

Comment directed at me: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing This was clearly building on an earlier comment that I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
My response: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.

I consider them to be exactly the same, primarily because I literally wrote my comment as a rhetorical mirror - i.e. it was intended to match what Drsmoo had just said to me. It was not written to be a personal attack, which I hope you can see from the mirroring. Context is everything here, and I realize that I could have been clearer here so as not to be misinterpreted. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C (I am sparing you a ping), thanks for explaining. I agree that the mirroring was a "strong" response to a comment that I objected to, and I hope you now agree that my response was not a personal attack (in our terminology) as the point of my comment was not to suggest anything about the editor but to draw the editor's attention to the fact that I did not appreciate their comment and show that just rhetorical devices can work both ways. I could have and should have done it more elegantly.

On your response to Zero, it seems that you are saying that editors can freely make charges of antisemitism, because there exists a formal definition of what constitutes antisemitism, but cannot freely make charges of other forms of racism (because no other form of racism has a formal definition). I don't think most editors would consider that to be a reasonable position for us to take. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C ok, thank you for continuing to engage on this. I realize it is painful. Whatever the admins conclude here, I would like to learn from it. At the moment I am still confused as to where the line should be drawn on pointing out other editors' potentially racist statements. I believe you have suggested that in one comment where I have pointed this out it constituted a personal attack, but in all(?) the others where such claims were made against me, it did not. So I think I understand your conclusion but I do not understand your reasoning. It seems you are not saying that no-one should be able to say that another editor's statement could be racist; that it is ok in certain circumstances. Perhaps the missing piece of the puzzle is notsomuch your views on my comment to Drsmoo, which you have set out, but on why the comments by Drsmoo, 11Fox11 and the three editors who claimed that my choice of title was racist were all not personal attacks. If you have the time to comment on each of those it would help me understand your conclusion on my comment more clearly. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ([15], [16]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:

Of the diffs that have been brought, per my comment above at 18:50 6 January 2021 the majority of these are not relevant. I have set out my assessment of #1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 above; if you disagree I would be keen to understand more.
Of the remaining three exchanges, which I think form the nub of this AE, as I have explained above these were mutual exchanges which could have been worded better. There was no intent for these to be personal attacks, and I don't believe they were understood to be. I have explained the rhetorical mirroring points above re Drsmoo and 11Fox11 (we were effectively warning each other that certain comments could be interpreted in certain ways) and my similar but much longer tangent discussion with Reneem included a clear statement that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent", which I should probably have repeated elsewhere. On this question of rhetorical mirroring, surely we should either carefully judge the merits of both sets of claims, or neither. If the merits of my claims are assessed and deemed to be slim, then I would like to learn from it. Per my conversation with El C, I would really like to understand what is acceptable on both sides of this "anti-this and anti-that" question, if there is time to build consensus on it.
Most importantly though, there was no disruption here, and I have never been a disruptive editor. In 10+ years of editing this crazy topic area, I have a maintained a clean block log (except for an incorrect procedural block that was immediately rescinded). I made c.7,500 edits to our project in 2020, the majority in this same topic area. In these discussions at Talk:West Bank bantustans and the AfD, I have made a little over 200 talk page edits. Through real effort and tough but ultimately constructive discussion, we have reached what may be an emerging consensus. I can't bring you each of those 200 edits without drowning this discussion, but you will get a good sense of the nature of my contributions if you just search for three or four of my comments at random. Or I can bring you examples if you tell me the kind of thing you would like to see.

Onceinawhile (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note per [17][18] I have opened an SPI at [19], and have highlighted the connection to this thread (and ARBPIA AE reports in general). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: thanks for your reminder on 7 Jan re comment limits; since then I have refrained from adding to my statement. Since then a number of new claims have been made here since 7 Jan, all by editors who held a different perspective to me at the article discussion. I have shown that those claims are misleading in a couple of threads which have sprung up at User_talk:El_C#Advice and User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notification, although I would prefer this evidence to be here so it is clear for everyone. How would you like me to proceed? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

The matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP makes a valid argument, at least up to a point. I am not precisely clear whether the filing editor is filing for himself or has been appointed group lawyer in a class action but 7 of the 16 relevant diffs are (on behalf of?) editor Reenem, who has chosen not to testify. I still believe, absent a detailed autopsy, that there is more than enough blame to go around here and if a warning should be given, then it ought not be expanded into a laundry list such that it appears as if that editor was the only guilty party.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

It's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen any example provided of a post of mine that exhibited a double standard, or justified being directly accused of racism. Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely certain that there is no definition of racism that includes voicing displeasure at someone making Holocaust and Pogrom references. I'd also like to point out that the reason 11Fox11 brought this A/R/E (later supplemented by Levivich) was persistent and unceasing personal attacks and aggressive tendentious editing by Onceinawhile, rather than the single specific example being focused on. Drsmoo (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to selfstudier, yes you have also been "generating heat", as you too were directly warned to stop making offensive holocaust analogies. I continue to see aspersions cast on me, despite there continuing to be no justification provided for how any of my edits illustrated "double standards" or were racist. The argument appears to be that when they called me racist, they weren't ACTUALLY calling me racist, they were trying to make a "rhetorical point". That is frankly nonsense, they directly and baselessly accused me of double standards and racism as a form of personal attack. There was nothing "rhetorical" about it. This is also nothing new, I (and others) have received unprovoked personal attacks from this user for years and years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to follow up here as the discussion has extended to @El C:'s talk page, and inaccurate information was posted. The RFC was not started "thoughtfully and neutrally". As was pointed out by multiple editors, the RFC inhibited discussion by initially presenting a table of 36 possible names, (including the current title) under the false claim that the names had all been previously brought up in discussion. In fact, the majority of the list had never been discussed, and the names were simply invented by Onceinawhile right then and there. When called out, Onceinawhile responded that they "hereby suggest the other names", which begs the question of why they would lie in the first case?

Eight hours later, after 3 votes had come in, all for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile added "I know how people love to "vote". The idea is that we listen to each other first, then we can vote in a subsequent discussion." In other words, now that a consensus was emerging for Palestinian Enclaves, Onceinawhile declared that these votes would be meaningless, and that there would be another vote a month later. When a month had passed, and despite a clear consensus and a preponderance of votes for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile unilaterally closed the RFC and started an RM, falsely claiming that "When the RfC was opened, it was explicitly explained that the idea was that we would listen to everyone's open views, not vote". However this is blatantly false, Onceinawhile only added that disclaimer 8 hours after starting the RFC, after votes had come in and a consensus was emerging. It also makes no sense, if the point was to whittle down names to start a RM later, why include the current title in the list, and why add dozens of undiscussed names as well? The scope of the RFC included the current name, so it could not possibly have been intended as a means of determining an alternative to the current name.

This is part of a pattern of WP:Game and WP:OWN behavior from this editor, in addition to the constant personal attacks, and it represents an incredibly cynical view of Wikipedia. And I reiterate that I still have not seen any explanation for how my posts exhibited "double standards" or were racist. Other than claiming it was a "rhetorical device". I sincerely hope it's not acceptable to baselessly accuse someone of racism, only to then essentially say you "didn't mean it".

One last thing, I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for a topic ban or anything like that. Though I believe Onceinawhile has some bad editing tendencies, I think these are exacerbated by the climate in this topic space on Wikipedia, which stokes feelings of defensiveness. I think their (and everyone else's) passion for the topic could be channeled into much more constructive editing if hard guidelines were put down across the board, regarding civility in talk pages in the ARBPIA area. As it is, these talk spaces often degenerate into hostility, which causes defensive stances, and certainly repels editors who might normally have been inclined to contribute. A page can't be "WP:OWNed" if the guidelines literally prevent it. Something like a single talk page post a day per user on a particular article might be helpful, and I think something like that could bring out the best in all editors. Drsmoo (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Additional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:

11:49, 15 Nov: Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick. [20]
21:28, 24 Nov: Shrike, stop with the bullshit propaganda please ... Have some empathy and humanity. [21]
12:02, 1 Dec: Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. [22]
12:41, 1 Dec: Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem. [23]
12:46, 1 Dec: By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. [24]
00:51, 2 Dec: I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others ... [25]
17:49, 10 Dec: Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. [26]
07:43, 12 Dec: It shows that you do not understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. [27]
14:57, 12 Dec: Wikipedia does not use whitewashed titles for such situations - we use the common name. Do all those editors proposing simply "enclave" believe that the Palestinians should be treated differently from other groups who have lived in subjugated/oppressed enclaves, such that the title of the article describing their living arrangements should not reference this subjugation/oppression at all? Do those editors really think it is right to single out the Palestinian people in this way? [28]
16:30, 14 Dec: Plus, some editors have track records of voting without contributing to the discussion. In this thread, Drsmoo and Shrike have both made comments about neutrality which fail to address the policy of WP:POVNAME, which has been mentioned frequently above. Since they have are unwilling to explain their positions, in light of pre-existing information which undermines it, their votes are meaningless and can be ignored. [29] Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests I've made to Onceinawhile (among others) at Talk:West Bank bantustans for the bludgeoning/attacks to stop: Nov 30, Dec 10, Dec 18, and Dec 22. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ImTheIP: Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior... I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it). See the four links just above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see Onceinawhile's commitment to focus on edits not editors. Another aspect of this report that hasn't been addressed yet is WP:BLUDGEON. 53 editors have edited Talk:West Bank bantustans; here's the pie chart: [30]. Once has made 178 edits, about 23% of edits and text. That's more than the bottom 50 editors combined. (Once and two other editors have made ~60% of the edits/text on the talk page.) It was the same pattern at the AFD. Once cites this in their statement here, noting they've made over 200 edits to those two pages combined.

@El C and Awilley: I have concerns about this comment Once made on their talk page a couple days ago: The drama of the last two months on this one article has been to an extreme I have never seen above, obviously off-wiki (two attack pages and one newspaper article with an attacking contributor) but also on-wiki (an AFD, an RFC, two RMs and an AE). Onceinawhile started the RFC and one of the RMs. I have a hard time reconciling the feeling that "the drama" at the article is "to an extreme I have never seen" because of the AFD, RFC, RMs, and AE, with the fact that Onceinawhile started the RFC, started one of the RMs, and is the subject of this AE after many requests/warnings from their colleagues. I agree the disruption at the article is extreme, but in my view, it's Onceinawhile who is causing it.

The discussion about the article title has been very difficult because, for example, Onceinawhile started the poorly-framed RFC (with ~40 choices), which nevertheless had a clear result ("Palestinian enclaves"), and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result, and have been posting 200+ comments. When those problems were raised by other editors, Onceinawhile ignored them. When they were raised here at AE, Onceinawhile cites the AE, and their own RM and RFC, and their 200 comments, as mitigating factors.

Another example is Talk:West Bank bantustans#NPOV concerns, where I raised particular concerns in connection with an NPOV tag, and Onceinawhile replied by saying some of my concerns weren't concerns and marking them {{done}}, which is just a bit presumptuous, and WP:OWNery. It's hard to discuss NPOV concerns with the other 52 editors when Onceinawhile is taking it upon themselves to mark them "done" based on whether they agree or disagree. (To their credit, Once did address some of the other concerns they marked done, so it's not all bad, it's a mix of collaborative and uncollaborative behavior.) It's hard to have a discussion about anything when Once is posting 200 times, and deciding when RFCs and RMs get launched and closed, all unilaterally.

If this ends with a logged warning, I'd ask that the warning address not just civility and WP:FORUMing, but also bludgeoning and WP:OWNership, behavior. (I'm probably over 500 and requesting extension for this post.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlmostFrancis

My dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ohh boy, now more untruths. Onceandawhile is now saying that I was making claims that only an ultranationist would support. Too be clear I made three claims. One, that the source was a general interest magazine for which I had already cited the about page of the journal and the authors CV. Second that she only traced lines and was not a designer which was sourced to the authors own statement in the source. Third that the author was a secretery and not a high ranking insider which was sourced to both the authors own statments and a plaestinian artist collective. Not an Israeli ultra-nationalist source in the bunch.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, here you directly tied renaming "West Bank bantustans" article to renaming Nazi ghettos. That had nothing to do with loan words. Here is another comparison this time "West Bank bantustans" to the Warsaw ghetto. Making the argument that you were just desperate to use load words so you needed to make Nazi analogies (repeatedly), while never even using the term "loan word", takes a lot of chutzpah.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, since you seemingly wish to close this without any real remedial action can I at least ask if you have bothered to read the evidence I have presented. Onceinawhile has blatantly lied about me making ultranationalist arguments and also lied about my actions. Not once but twice, both in the discussion I diffed and in this and his own statement he claimed I made arguments only an ultranationlist would support. That not even getting into the fact that it is preposterous to believe he compared Nazis to Jews because he couldn't think of a loan word, while never mentioning loan words until he was caught. If calling multiple users racists and lying multiple times isn't sanction worthy then what is?AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone believes that the disingenuous comments just involve me, or are new, I ask to you look at Onceinawhie's quote above where he claims he is against the apartheid analogy "and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is". Yet here they are specifically calling for Israel to be directly compared to South Africa, and anti-aparthied content to be added to the lead, and using the apartheid analogy for support. No one else had mentioned apartheid in that RFC so it wans't like they were just following someone else. Does anyone really believe they have changed their mind since August and just happened to use an article name that once again use the apartheid analogy.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zero^talk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that Onceinawhile is one of the most conscientious editors that work in the I/P area. I don't need all the fingers of one hand to list those who work so hard to bring the best possible sources and get the facts right. Of course s/he has a POV, but so does every single one of those who have written against him/her here (not including the admin section). Usually Onceinawhile is exceptional for his/her politeness and many times I've seen him/her respond seriously to argument that I didn't think deserved it. In the case of this messy talk page (which I was not involved in), Onceinawhile became emotionally involved and wrote in a manner that is not in character. I know that s/he understands this and will be more careful in the future. Zero^talk 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jr8825

I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" (diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" (diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor".

Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, such as diff #17. This happened one or two other times at most.

I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content. Looking through past discussions, I can see they have always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area are valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area.

I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted)

Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me.

Huldra (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:

Statement by Chipmunkdavis

All of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

@Awilley: The problem is not only that article but his attitude is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it evidence by his statement two years ago [31] "I am just a foot soldier fighting for our encyclopaedia on the front lines of one of our two most contested battleground" and nothing has really changed the "bantustan" article its not the first one-sided article that he want to promote to DYK without giving a proper space to all WP:DUE POVs Here is a few examples:

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Old_City_of_Hebron-This user wrote one sided article [32] and run to promote it to DYK but as explained by uninvolved editor [33] in the end the DYK nomination has failed as the user didn't want to fix the underlying problem in the article.
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Enclave_law-After large work it did go to main page but the name was changed and many WP:NPOV changes were made
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hebraization_of_Palestinian_place_names - Look at the first version of the article [34] and compare it to the current version.

So the last article is just part of the trend. I don't think that other editors should check his edits to see if the article that he want to promote to main page is to complaint to WP:NPOV policy. In my view this editor is not suitable to edit in the area to the very least he should not propose articles to the main page in area of the conflict. --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Its ok to have POV I have it too the problem is not with POV but how your edit if you write one sided article and cherry pick the sources to present only POV your like and then run to put it to to the WP:MAINPAGE that an example of WP:TE. --Shrike (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ImTheIP

I poured over 11Fox11 edit history. Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior. Certainly not about the diffs listed by 11Fox11. It seems to me that collegial editing obliges one to give the other party a chance to make amends before taking it to trial. I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it).

11Fox11 filed a charge against me at AN/I last December. I was warned, which may have been deserved, but the process was similar in that 11Fox11 didn't explain what their grievance was before filing the charge. I'm sure that if someone would have told Onceinawhile that they felt that their edits were disrespectful, they would have changed their tone. ImTheIP (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Onceinawhile

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

Sanctions are probably warranted here. While the evidence by the complainant is rather overwhelming, the response by Onceinawhile is almost entirely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud. One example listed by this complaint, from yesterday (Jan 5), which I found especially egregious (diff), reads in part: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing. The fact that Onceinawhile thinks that it's somehow okay to speak to another person in such a way is outright astonishing to me. I cannot stress enough how unacceptable this is. As for Onceinawhile's own assertion above about implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic — there needs to be actual evidence to corroborate this claim, which again, their response fails to provide. El_C 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I'm just not seeing where you've been accused of racism or anti-Semitism. Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany, like by noting (in a direct quote, no less) how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, for example, views the matter. The only actual violation I was able to identify in your recently-compiled evidence is from that IP, which I would block, if it wasn't for them being inactive. Otherwise, again, I simply fail to see how anyone has spoken as to your motivation or anything else that might be construed as a personal remark about you. El_C 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I don't see an issue with my representation, considering you make statements such as: "Bantu autonomy" (for South African Bantustans) or "Jewish autonomy" for (Warsaw Ghetto) would be whitewashing. Why do you wish to whitewash here? It is anti-Palestinian double standards; double standards being a key element of identifying racism (diff). El_C 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, that is not coming across as a meaningful distinction to me, since those words highlight Nazi German, Apartheid South African and Israeli policies, respectively. As for your request, I don't really understand what you're expecting me to examine, specifically. If there's something you consider to be especially egregious, I'm happy to take a look. El_C 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I acknowledge that it serves as a meaningful distinction to you, but I'm still letting you know how it is otherwise coming across. As for your objection to having editors minimize the impact of Palestinian occupation and dispossession and oppression by Israel, I'm not sure that is something which is in the purview of admins to mitigate. El_C 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Onceinawhile, when I excerpted your "sign of racism" comment, for example, I deem that to have been an ARBPIA-derived personal attack. What I'm not seeing is where you have been similarly attacked (again, save for that IP). Possibly another admin would interpret it otherwise...? Added after edit conflict: I see that Awilley has now opined below. His assessment generally mirrors my own. El_C 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I did not refer to "sign of racism" words, as you put it, but as clearly stated: your "sign of racism" comment (in its entirety), which was a personal attack. El_C 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I did not need further context. I already understood that you felt Drsmoo's comment crossed a line, which I'm not sure it did — it can instead be read as asking you to be wary of drawing these parallels. But I do find your "rhetorical mirror" to have been unduly acerbic, so I do deem it as an attack, whether you intended it as such or not. Anyway, that's my evaluation, which I'm not really inclined to debate further. Again, perhaps another admin will view it different, who knows. El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, I do not see it as the same thing at all, and I am quite surprised that you do. My view is that, within reason, an editor is entitled to advance the position that an argument possess anti-Semitic features according to this or that definition of whatever reputable body is being cited. But an editor is not allowed to respond to that challenge by intimating "racism" on the part of the original editor by virtue of a vague notion of "double standards." Anyway, I'd really would like to go do something else for a while rather than have to respond to these seemingly endless pings. There are other admins who patrol the AE board, why not let them have their say? El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, sorry, but I still think it was a personal attack on your part. Nor am I saying anything of the sort about the definition of antisemitism versus that of racism (per se.). Now, is there anything else you wish to query me about? May as well get it out of the way. Also, if you are speaking to me here at the AE board, it is actually better that you ping me — though, again, I do think I've already responded to this AE report in considerable detail. El_C 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I'll do you one better than continuing to go on about what does or does not equate this or that. I'll preface this by noting that I am listening to a live feed of the reconvened Congress as I am writing this (Rubio just yielded the floor), so hopefully I'm able to communicate the following effectively. Look, I've known you to be a long time regular in good standing in the ARBPIA topic area for years and years, mostly engaging it without major incident (I'm not sure whether without blemish, but confident enough of it being at least okayish overall). Which is why I'm more than a bit puzzled to see you stumble like this over this particular article. Honestly, it's rather unexpected. So, while I'm willing to take your long-term ARBPIA tenure into account when considering sanctions, I'd still like to be able to get a sense of what's happening here. Because something has happened, I'm just not sure what it is. El_C 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After my comment directly above, both myself and Onceinawhile went on to discuss the matter on my talk page (here and here), which went pretty well, I thought. I am now satisfied that a logged warning would be enough to conclude this complaint. Thoughts, anyone? El_C 17:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, makes sense. An admonishment against skirting the line of WP:OWN, as well as WP:BLUDGEON and otherwise novel ("presumptuous") talk page usage ought to also be recorded in the log entry. El_C 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed diffs 2-17 and found a majority of them were objectionable/disruptive/uncollaborative. It looks like most of the dispute is centered around West Bank bantustans. Would a narrow topic ban or partial block be enough to resolve this? ~Awilley (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this I am content to close this with a reminder for Onceinawhile to focus on content and not contributors.
@Shrike, I would hesitate to block/ban someone based on their POV alone. I'm personally not that familiar with the topic area, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the editors there had strong points of view. In that case I would want to retain those editors with good knowledge of the sources who are able to collaborate with others in the topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a mention, Onceinawhile, that the instructions regarding statements say They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs and you have gone way over that. Unless asked a specific question, do not add any more to your statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss

Warnings logged for both Mandruss and Objective3000, but with mitigating circumstances and objections noted (see log entry at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#American_politics_2). Though I am making it a point to acknowledge the especially high-quality work at the AP2 topic area on the part of both editors, and though this closure and log entry isn't intended to serve as a blemish on their respective records, I still strongly feel that the violation itself needs to be formally recorded. El_C 22:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Awilley has challenged my close at ARCA. The discussion is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Warning_of_Objective3000.

Update 2: Per Awilley's suggestion, I am noting that this close constituted a unilateral action on my part. It did not represent a consensus of views among the other uninvolved admins who participated. Views which, it should also be noted, were mixed. El_C 23:50, 12 January 2021 (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 Mandruss

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :

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

01:44 8 January Mandruss removes part of the lead of the article (I see no problem in that edit as such)
01:54 8 January Violating the required 24 hours, Mandruss reverts both me and others to their own edit only ten minutes later.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20 October 2015 Only one distant block

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

I informed Mandruss about the policy and encouraged them to self-revert [35]; Mandruss refused [36]. User Tataral likewise informed Mandruss and urged them to self-revert [37]; Mandruss again refused and even told Tataral to take it to WP:AE, showing they are well aware of the situation [38].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mandruss's conduct at Donald Trump has been combative and disruptive recently. In response to User SPECIFICO hatting an irrelevant comment by Mandruss, Mandruss (by their own admission) hatted the comment of a third user just to show that "two can play your little game" [39]

Below, Mandruss claims it somehow show 'lack of objectivity' that I mention the previous block against him. I want to be clear I consider the previous block irrelevant to the discussion. My inclusion of it was based on the belief previous blocks should be mentioned, not in itself based on any lack of objectivity. Like Mandruss, I believe it can be disregarded. The issue here is the current direct violation of discretionary sanctions, nothing else. Jeppiz (talk) 02:00, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Furthermore, Mandruss also claims their two edits were different "by 2,219 bytes" and alleges it is bad faith of me not to mention this. I consider it irrelevant; the only reason they differ in bytes is that edits in between had both added and removed content. Mandruss's revert was 100% a revert to their previous edit 10 minutes earlier, even as the discretionary sanctions forbid reverts to one's own edit within 24 hours. Jeppiz (talk) 02:08, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Update In 12 years, I've never seen users abuse an AE report to game the system as Mandruss and O3000 have done here. Below, O3000 tells Mandruss "self-revert and I'll revert" and they then proceed to do exactly that 03:09 03:11. This is not a good faith effort to address the situation, but instead about two users using an AE report to game the discretionary sanctions in place. Jeppiz (talk) 02:55, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Could I kindly encourage O3000 to take the time to read the request, as they have now misrepresented several facts. O3000 claims it would have been proper to ask Mandruss to self-revert instead of filing this request. Had O300 read the request, they would have seen that that is exactly what I also did. I first asked Mandruss to self-revert [40]; Mandruss answered by refusing [41]. Next Tataral asked Mandruss to self-revert [42]. Again Mandruss made it very clear they refused [43]. Only after these repeated efforts to de-escalate was this report filed. Against this background, it is baffling that O300 now claims it was wrong to file this AE instead of asking Mandruss to self-revert. The only thing that made Mandruss 'self-revert', after repeatedly refusing, was O3000's explicit promise to restore Mandruss's version [44]. Only then did Mandruss "self-revert" [45]] (explicitly referring to O300's gaming proposal in the edit summary) and then immediately inform O300 [46] so that Mandruss preferred version could be restored [47]. Like El_C, I'm a bit surprised this even needs to be explained at AE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I'm at a loss to understand your comment about me. I've edited Donald Trump twice in a year, once yesterday and once in November (completely different edits). My edit yesterday partly agreed with Mandruss's removal but brought back a couple of sentences I felt were relevant. Anyone is free to disagree with my edit, of course, but it did not constitue any policy violation. I'm surprised you seem to treat this as a content dispute as it is not; it's about conduct. I really should not need to point this out, but being right about content is not a reason to violate policy; and even if you disagree with my edit, being wrong (in good faith) about content is not a policy violation. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification [48]

Discussion concerning Mandruss

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 Mandruss

Preliminary response: The 24-hour 3RR block in 2015 was not in the AP2 area (or any DS area for that matter), therefore doesn't belong in "previous relevant sanctions", and its inclusion there says something about the filer's objectivity in my opinion. The spin in the filer's comments is I suppose par for the course in this venue. The diffs presented largely speak for themselves, but I will respond within 12 hours to any questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the filer has presented the same diff as two successive reverts, making it appear like they were identical. They were not; in fact they differed by 2,219 bytes while intersecting. No doubt this was an honest mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Done.[49] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: On your first point, if one of the most experienced, most level-headed, most law-abiding editors in the project (O3000) can get that so egregiously wrong, I'd say the error is far less outrageous than you claim. On your second: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Mandruss violated 1RR. For the record, I apparently edit-warred, but not by violating 1RR, which is currently suspended at that article.

I'm trying very hard not to think about all the times I've witnessed editors re-revert identical edits at that article, causing far more disruption than I did, and get off scot-free, apparently because nobody had the time, energy, knowledge, and capacity-for-stress to file an AE complaint with no guarantee that it will have any beneficial effect. In my experience, the discretion conferred on admins by DS means very little in the practice of enforcing its rules.

That was worth bringing up in an ArbCom venue, but I want to be clear that it is not meant to excuse my mistake. I don't blame my failures on the failures of others, and in fact my greatest peeve is that that is routinely tolerated and even encouraged by the community. My parents taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, and the destructive results of a system where they do are quite clear to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I can't believe you just cited an essay as proof that O3000's action was "outrageous". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: So what? You propose a logged warning based on an essay? I think that's outrageous. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." To borrow your words, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. If that's wikilawyering, check please! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'm surprised and disappointed to see such a dismissive response from you. No, I'm not going to follow you down that path. You win as far as I'm concerned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Well it's clear that good faith ignorance is not an excuse for you or me. We are expected to be cognizant of everything relevant or we get a logged warning or worse. I failed to have mastered all of the rules after seven years. Neither Jeppiz nor Tataral managed to cite the passage from WP:EW that made it clear I was in the wrong in this uncommon and complicated situation, so I wasn't aware of it until this was filed and El_C commented. I'd be surprised if there aren't still a rule or three that I've yet to learn. And you weren't aware of what went on at my UTP. Shame on both of us, and we deserve black marks on our records for being less than perfect. That's ok with me, since such black marks apparently merely flag an editor as being both imperfect and unlucky. I don't expect one such black mark, or two or three, will ultimately affect my ability to edit Wikipedia, and my eventual departure will be on my terms. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

@Mandruss: Self-rvt and I’ll rvt (or someone else if I’m asleep). @Jeppiz: Yes, something belongs. But, take to the talk page, have patience, and avoid running to drama boards. Let us not mimic the politics we document. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In no way was I attempting to "game the system". If that was my intent, I certainly would not have done so openly at AE. Using email would be gaming. 1RR causes serious gotcha problems as it is easy to accidentally violate. Mandruss violated 1RR. If I see this happen, I warn the editor on their UTP and suggest self-rvt, as opposed to filing at AE or AN3. I believe that's what most editors do, even when on opposite sides of an issue. If I run into a situation where a rvt is needed, but I am up against 1RR myself, I ask someone else to rvt on the ATP. I've been doing this for years and several times an admin has reverted for me. The entire point is to bring discussion to the talk page without drama and time-wasting complaints like this one. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt was to continue the removal of challenged text from the lead, relating to news currently on the front page of nearly every major newspaper in the world, in an extremely highly viewed article, to bring discussion to the ATP where it belongs. My philosophy of DS editing is collaboration to improve the project over drama. Editing AP2 articles is like dancing a tango in a minefield. As for Mandruss refusing to rvt, I had not seen the user talk page discussion until now. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I would claim WP:IAR; but I seriously do not know what rule I violated. I made a good faith effort to quickly bring discussion back to the ATP where it belongs in an extremely delicate area, immediately after what RS call an insurrection not seen since the War of 1812. I only made one edit, which was aimed at improving the project. I did not (and have never) secretly collude with another editor. There appears to be general agreement here that the edit should have been reverted. I merely suggested a quick path to doing so that fit within the rules. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That article states: Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. In no way was I attempting to “circumvent the normal process of consensus”. The one edit I made was to revert an edit for which there was no consensus. I was trying to guide the subject back to the ATP so a consensus could be constructed. We should not be constructing a consensus on the article page at such a critical time on such a controversial article. That's what an ATP is for. I was doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Again, I was not aware of any refusal to self-rvt. My error for not looking at their UTP. As I indicated, I was going to bed. I felt it was important to have any possible violation reverted in a way that the status quo was quickly restored in a highly visible article at a historic moment. And for the life of me, I can't see how one reversion is tag-teaming. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The lead of Donald Trump is far too long. Those who wish to trim it down are following our guidelines. Those who wish to keep it excessively long are violating our guidelines. They should instead work on getting consensus for changing the guideline.

This is not to say that dodgy behavior while enforcing a guideline is OK, but the issue would have never come up if not for certain editors thinking that WP:MOSLEAD doesn't apply to them.

(I will be without Internet access soon, possibly for weeks, so may not be able to respond.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

Mandruss has apologized: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. Given that, and their ability to work productively on highly contentious topics over many years — and with editors holding very different views — no action should be taken against them. There's just no indication of a continuing pattern of disruption that needs to be stopped in order to protect the community or encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the extraordinary political events of the past few days are bound to cause a little turbulence at one of the most closely watched pages on Wikipedia. It was a single apparent infraction, Mandruss has apologized, and we should move on. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Awilley, I believe the concern was that Mandruss had violated your 24-hour BRD restriction and then declined to self revert when approached about it on his talk page. Perhaps it's time to remove that page restriction? SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mandruss

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

I'm not very interested in bureaucratic procedure. Instead, I would suggest to Jeppiz and others wanting to tell the world about yesterday that it is not reasonable to pack all that into the lead of a long article. To paraphrase from the edit summary by Mandruss, it's grossly excessive and violates MOS:LEAD (for example, there's nothing in the article about a coup d'état), and (according to Mandruss) this article does not use citations in the lead. Why would you want to do that? Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, unless something like WP:BLP is invoked (which I don't believe it has been), this whole Self-rvt and I’ll rvt in turn plan and subsequent execution thereof is just outrageous. Editors are not allowed to coordinate for the purpose of circumventing an existing revert restriction. It's bizarre to me that this even needs explaining. A sign of the times? Just because Mandruss may have been correct on the edit (which, in fairness, when it comes to the Trump page, he usually is), doesn't mean that this was even remotely acceptable. El_C 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mandruss, reverts need not be "identical" to count as such. WP:EW is quite clear on this: in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period (bold is my emphasis). El_C 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, while I can appreciate the impulse to defend your long-time colleague, I do not subscribe to that logic. El_C 03:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, I do not accept that. Mandruss was already given the opportunity to self-revert, but they declined. They accepted your suggestion that they self-revert because you offered to mitigate the edit war in their favour, which is not acceptable. You are not allowed to do this, anywhere on the project. Again, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. El_C 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, logged warnings to both Mandruss and Objective3000 works for me. But for the record, any further circumvention of revert restrictions (anywhere, whatsoever) will be viewed harshly and is almost certain to result in immediate sanctions. El_C 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, it was clearly an instance of Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics (bullet point 1). And, no, IAR is not a magic exemption. El_C 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, they blatantly circumvented the edit restriction. Anyway, I intend to log a warning for them, too. If either yourself or Objective3000 (or anyone else) objects to this, you are welcome to seek clarification from the Committee on the matter. Mandruss, yes, I cited an essay. So what? El_C 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, if that is the basis for your objection to my application of the discretionary sanctions, again, you are free to contact the Committee directly for further input. Obviously, I feel that to be a weak argument. But as always, I defer to Committee guidance in all matters AE. El_C 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, okay...? Anyway, I would still stress that the right of appeal is sacred on Wikipedia and, in this instance, it is represented by Committee oversight. Objective3000, Mandruss refused to self-revert (explicitly) until you made the Self-rvt and I’ll rvt offer to him. That is not okay. I'm not sure I'm able to explain this any more clearly. El_C 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, in applying the discretionary sanctions, it is my interpretation that this is not allowed. In answer to your question: if Jeppiz was contacted for the purpose of and acted upon circumventing the revert restriction, too, they should also face similar admonishment. El_C 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think this was a violation of the AE restriction. FWIW I pretty strongly agree with Mandruss, O3000, and Johnuniq on the "that's way too much detail for the lead" issue. I agree with Johnuniq on his general disinterest in bureaucratic procedures. I don't even think the following point is the most important point, and Jeppiz should take on board Johnuniq's comments. But if I imagine for the sake of argument that I could stomach editing political articles (or could stomach editing articles on any area subject to AE), and I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't. That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever we talk about reverts and reinstatements, there's always an assumption of "whether in whole or in part". Mandruss's second revert was a clear violation of the editing restriction "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours..." (Note the restriction even words it as a "change", instead of an "edit" or "revert".) That said, from my observations, Mandruss has consistently been on the side of Wikipedia policy and community norms. From what I've observed, on the Donald Trump article he's been the strongest enforcer of community consensus, enforcing even the community resolutions that he opposed, and pushing back against the recent-news-induced editing frenzy many editors often get caught up in. For this reason, I would oppose anything more than a warning or reminder in response to this incident, especially now that the edit has been (belatedly) self-reverted. Newcomers and drive-by editors, even the problematic ones, often get a free pass the first couple of times they run afoul of the editing restrictions. I don't think it hurts to extend the same courtesy to the veteran editor on the front lines of trying to maintain decorum. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I personally don't think Objective3000 did anything wrong. They talked Mandruss down off a ledge and got the article back to the status quo. That kind of thing happens all the time when someone accidentally violates 1RR, often with some amount of eye rolling by the person who has to self-revert an obviously good edit for procedural reasons so that someone else can immediately revert the self-revert. The difference here is that the exchange happened here at AE instead of a user talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I'm not seeing what edit restriction was circumvented. There is no restriction against tag-teaming. Boiling this down a bit, HappyWanderer15 added new coup d'état material to the Lead and Mandruss removed it with a reasonable and detailed edit summary. Jeppiz reinstated much of the material without responding to any of Mandruss's objections, and after a revert and self-revert from Mandruss, Objective3000 ultimately removed the material again. Meanwhile at Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt there's not yet a consensus on whether to mention "coup" in the body of the article, let alone the Lead. Should we also log a tag-team warning for Jeppiz? ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedub88

Ceedub88 is indefinitely partially blocked from editing the Donald Trump article. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 11 January 2021 (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 Ceedub88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alsee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ceedub88 (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

Discretionary sanctions American Politics2 WP:ARBAP2; and/or Biographies of Living Persons WP:ARBBLP

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

Donald Trump article history search for edits by Ceedub88 currently returns 7 results. The edits are identical, they apply a category, that category explicitly states This category is for people who have been clinically diagnosed, and constitutes a clear BLP violation unless unless Ceedub88 provides sufficient Reliable Sourcing of clinical diagnosis.

01:36, 09 January 2021 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
00:50, 23 December 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
18:36, 18 August 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
01:57, 19 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
09:24, 18 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
23:20, 08 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
19:21, 05 January 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)

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

AP & BLP alerts issued by Mandruss 03:38, 19 July 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I recall no interaction with Ceedub88, other than being (un)lucky enough to spot and revert their latest Trump edit. I was going to generously Twinkle a level 4 BLP FINAL WARNING on their talk page and move on, but decided action was mandatory when I discovered how persistent this problem was.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification (and insignificant cleanup edit to fix the accidental double section heading).

Discussion concerning Ceedub88

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 Ceedub88

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Other than the BLP issues, this is an obvious case of slow edit warring against consensus. These edits were reverted by at least four different editors. I fail to see any attempt to discuss it at the article's talk page. I see few warnings but there was a clear one on 19 July 2020. —Paleo Neonate – 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ceedub88

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

I suppose it's possible to argue that a more detailed warning, beyond the BLP and AP2 alerts that were issued back in July, would have better driven the point home. But the fact that Ceedub88's talk page is littered by (otherwise unrelated) warnings, and the fact that the only edits they ever seem to have made to their talk page were just to remove comments — all of that does not inspire confidence. Sanctions are probably needed here. El_C 05:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's the sneaky persistent slow edit war of a BLP violation into a high profile article for me. If this were something that I stubbled upon in my watchlist I would probably indef block the user with a partial block from the Donald Trump article. ~Awilley (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that an indefinite partial block from the Donald Trump article is the most appropriate sanction to issue, as it precisely targets the reported problem. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warlightyahoo

Warlightyahoo has been partially blocked from editing 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol for 1 week by Bishonen, as a standard administrative action. — Newslinger talk 01:07, 11 January 2021 (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 Warlightyahoo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

10 January 2021 NOTFORUM trolling.
9 January 2021 NOTFORUM trolling.
10 January 2021 Crypto-vandalism?

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

Editor is aware of the AP2 DS [50] by template.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Many of these article edits look okay, but there's probably some kind of subtle disruption in there that isn't obvious; the NOTFORUM talk page posts about time travel and flip phones look like a bad faith editor here to annoy us or to prove some other point.

If this is an otherwise good faith editor with a discipline problem on AP2 talkpages, then this is the correct forum.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

Discussion concerning Warlightyahoo

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 Warlightyahoo

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Although this appears to be a clear WP:NOTHERE case, I don't think this complaint has the gravitas for AE, it's a better candidate for WP:DENY (delete and ignore), or for reporting at WP:AIV if it continues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the editor doesn't seem to be entirely a troll, there are some edits of worth in their contributions, along with the dross. Still, a trout for the OP for bringing this here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{u|Bishonen}} Ouch! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Warlightyahoo

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

I don't necessarily believe in the "crypto-vandalism" here. Warlightyahoo added a reasoned and sourced paragraph (though I'm not sure it's in the right section). The "crypto" addition of "5" in a different paragraph could easily have been an accident. But there's certainly trolling at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, actually more so than Geogene's diffs show. The "field trip" post was added twice, in two separate edits[52][53], so as to appear twice on the page (just look at how that came out), and then re-added, also twice and appearing twice on the page, after it had been reverted[54][55] and after W had been warned about it. I find it hard to see all, or any, of that as an accident. I suppose it doesn't indeed have AE gravitas, per BMK, but it's a big ask to expect editors to simply revert and ignore that amount of messing about. I have blocked Warlightyahoo from 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and its talkpage for a week as a normal admin action. And no trout for Geogene, as I don't blame them for being irritated. A walloping with a rack of dried stockfish for BMK for suggesting it. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Calton

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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: Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SQL ^{Query me!} 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Blocked as a result of violating topic ban with this edit on the page Andy Ngo. Topic ban can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#American_politics_2.

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

Notification of that administrator: [56]

Statement by Calton

Requested on talkpage SQL ^{Query me!} 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it

Statement by Guerillero

The obvious vandalism carve out is for things such as "foo is gay" or "bar has a small penis" and not edits that are, at their core, editorial decisions such as removing scare quotes. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Calton has been blocked 10 times since 2006 for aggressive edit summaries or comments. Their last AE-related block was 72 hours long (for edit warring on Julian Assange) so I escalated. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I disagree that the edit was fixing an BLP violation and strongly disagree that if it was a BLP violation it reached the level of an obvious violation as required by WP:BANEX --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Calton

I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it. in the unblock request does the precise opposite of giving confidence that the block has had the effect of preventing future disruption. If this were a normal block appeal instead of an AE I would have declined it on that grounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Calton

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

WP:BANEX describes the exception as: "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is 'obvious' – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree." Although the edit in question (Special:Diff/999244769) improved the article by bringing it in line with the MOS:QUOTEPOV style guideline, it does not quite meet the threshold of "reverting obvious vandalism" needed to qualify for a ban exception. Based on this, the sanction is justified. However, this is Calton's first violation of the topic ban, and it is common for editors to receive a warning or a shorter block for a first violation.
Calton, looking through your recent contribution history, I see that your edit summaries are on the aggressive side, e.g. "...'pulled straight from your ass' doesn't count'" and "...make a NEW REQUEST". If you are willing to commit to reducing the aggressiveness of your edit summaries by toning down the level of snark and by avoiding all caps when not needed, I would support a reduction of the block duration from one week to 72 hours. Please feel free to respond to this offer on your talk page. (To be clear, there would need to be consensus here for the reduction to be implemented.) — Newslinger talk 07:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I think your block is completely correct. I am interested to see whether Calton is willing to commit in writing to using less aggressive edit summaries. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit in question was not blatant vandalism. It was misguided and should have been reverted, but the IP who made it was trying to improve the article and not vandalising. WP:BANEX only exempts "obvious vandalism" where "no reasonable person could disagree", this definitely isn't that. We should decline the appeal. Given the block log the length is reasonable, and if you do want to get a perfectly legitimate block overturned you shouldn't describe it a "ludicrous over-reaction".[57] Hut 8.5 08:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the edit in question. The IP's edit summary was "punctuation", strictly speaking correct but not really; it's a clear BLP violation. Hut 8.5, I disagree that the IP intended to improve the article; it looks to me like deliberate snark. In my view, Calton shouldn't have been blocked for this at all, never mind for a week. I support an unblock or at least a block reduction. Calton, looking forward, I'd advise you to take pages from which you're topic-banned off your watchlist. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Guerillero, there is video of people throwing things at Andy Ngo. CNN called it an attack. If someone did this to you, you would regard it as an attack. Adding scare quotes around "attacked" and "attack", especially back-to-back as the anon did, is a BLP violation and in my view an obvious one, per WP:BANEX. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Sarah. I would also deem the IP's edit in question, which Calton reverted, to be exempt by virtue of it being an obvious BLP violation (if not an outright provocation on the IP's part). If anything, Calton should be commended for their courage in taking action that brought with it a risk of a faulty BANEX interpretation, which unfortunately ended up being exactly what happened. I note that, although Calton is lacking a sense of decorum right now (and, to be honest, a lot of the time), they were perfectly polite and straight-forward, writing: If you have doubts, express those doubts explicitly: Wikipedia doesn't do scare quotes (diff). Perfectly said, pretty much. Calton, for future reference, it would have served you to have also added 'I am invoking the BLP exemption.' Then the patrolling admin in question would probably be more likely to proceed with greater caution (further review, and so on), block-wise. I realize there are concerns about the manner in which Calton conducts themselves, overall, but that isn't what this appeal is actually about. In short, I support granting this appeal with these notes attached. El_C 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Argh, upon further examination, the fact that IPs were even allowed to edit the article for the last year is on me (log entry). Well, better late than later, I suppose.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mea culpa. El_C 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: Can you please confirm that you have removed Andy Ngo from your watchlist? ~Awilley (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bigbaby23

Several participants have argued for an indefinite block as a normal admin action. After some deliberation, I have now done so. As I noted to Bigbaby23, if they manage to successfully appeal this block, an AE topic ban from anything WP:FRINGE or WP:ARBPS will immediately come into effect. El_C 02:53, 12 January 2021 (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 Bigbaby23

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bigbaby23 (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/Pseudoscience :

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

10:22, 10 January 2021 4RR on Pentagon UFO
12:37, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
12:35, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
10:22, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
09:36, 10 January 2021 Ibid.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

05:12, 4 January 2021 Blocked for edit warring

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 12:39, 4 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been complaining about the way Wikipedia handles subjects relating to UFOs and was WP:BOOMERANGed on WP:ANI. While I could have appealed to WP:ANEW, I fear that a simple block which was already enacted is not enough. User was warned about discretionary sanctions already so stronger measures may be useful. jps (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58]

Discussion concerning Bigbaby23

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 Bigbaby23

I have made an unintended error not realizing I have already reached a 3rd revert. I admit to this and apologies. That being said, my meticulously researched properly cited additions, done in the spirit of accomplishment WP:LOSE2WIN (What motivates contribution?) have been reverted few times with complete disregard to WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:NPOVFAQ (Common questions/Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete) and so many times by way of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing ("Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources").

I have a past of even headed editing in controversial articles such as Ching Hai (added all the scholarly refs) and in Water fluoridation (added the EU position and the notable oppisition view) despite very strong POV pushing editorial opposition. Also in Influenza vaccine (added EU position), where there was quite a robust POV discussion. Was even commended by one of my discussion opponents, an Administrator Special:MobileDiff/782699643

My turn to ANI was due to my past experience with this kind of behaviour, and in this case specifically, blatant WP:NPOV violating editors, and trying to avoid this: "In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable."(Criticism of Wikipedia Criticism of process#Consensus and the hive mind). My first encounter with this article presented me with an obvious and quite shocking WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy violation, on the very first citation. Reverting editors ignoring this, got me dismased and quite upset. My basic question to ANI was what do you do when WP:FACTION is so evident in violating the above through Concensus if not let ANI deal with it? Does Concensus overide WP policy? according to WP:CONLIMITED the answer is no.

ANI didn't come to a conclusion regarding this, but did give me a 48 hour ban for edit waring.

My next option (recommended by commenters on ANI) was an RfC that I started (proccess I'm not so familiar with technically) in order to get other editors input other than from the small group that exhibited classic WP:OWNERSHIP of the article applying constant WP:GAMING (which I consider this WP:AE attempt as one) and WP:LAWYERING. Editors commenting on the RfC explained my formative errors in the RfC request and recommended I start a new one.

And so I did, today. All I ask of this inquiry panel(?) Is to just look at this RfC which has an easy to see comparison of current article and my additions, and decide if I'm some kind of pseudoscience pusher with disregard to Wikipedia's Policies & guidelines. Or not. Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#RfC_regarding_an_edit_to_the_article_and_it's_compliance_with_WP_Policies

I think you will find that I'm doing my very best in the spirit of WP:PURPOSE.Thank youBigbaby23 (talk)

Statement by JoJo Anthrax

Along with the edit warring presented above and insistence upon using unreliable sources (for example, here), User:Bigbaby23 has in this topic area cast aspersions and assumed bad faith against editors in good standing here, here (see the subject line), here, here, and here. This editor has also explicitly rejected seeking consensus for their edits (see the edit summary here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It's that fact-based reality-biased cabal again, causing trouble for Bigbaby23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C Yes, that diff was reported during the ANI discussion and did not receive much attention, so it did indeed "fall through the cracks". Levivich is correct that an indef would appear to be called for, but I would levy the topic ban as well, in case he appeals and is allowed to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

This diff is emblematic of the battleground attitude BigBaby23 brings to this topic: [59]. Please topic ban. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Bigbaby)

Forget the TBAN. Indef as a normal admin action for the diff MrOllie shared. Let them make an unblock request and they can negotiate the terms of a TBAN as an unblock condition. Over-the-top comments like that, plus the other disruption == editing privileges revoked, IMO. They should not be able to edit at all, and should have to earn their way back to a TBAN, based on their recent conduct. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

El C: The editor was new to me, it was the first such offense I was aware of, so I only replied not thinking it was worth reporting. Before the ufology campaign, Bigbaby23 was active in other areas, like martial-arts related BLPs, so I'm not sure it's a definite NOTHERE case. —Paleo Neonate – 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

There's some indication the latest disruptions at Pentagon UFO videos and Haim Eshed are part of a long term pattern of opposing consensus regarding pseudoscience and fringe science content (with resultant edit warring).

On Rupert Sheldrake - [60]
On Water fluoridation controversy : [61]
On Influenza vaccine - [62]

So a TBAN might be the most effective remedy here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bigbaby23

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

I recommend a wide-ranging topic ban from anything WP:FRINGE or WP:ARBPS, whatsoever (as in broadly construed). Also, violating WP:3RR mere days after a block for violating 3RR is a bit unbelievable to me. Finally, what is up with the RfC they authored? That must be the longest RfC I've ever seen. It is basically incomprehensible due to its sheer length. Enough is enough. El_C 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the diff presented by MrOllie, which is obviously beyond unacceptable. How has this even been allowed to stand without a strong and unequivocal remedy? Maybe it fell through the cracks, somehow...? El_C 17:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JazzClam

Swarm has recorded the sanction as a standard community-imposed topic ban (AP2, broadly construed) at WP:RESTRICT. To be perfectly clear, that includes any AP2-related page (talk pages, AfDs, drafts, anything whatsoever). JazzClam is also warned that any further violations of the revised topic ban are almost certain to be met with severity. El_C 00:12, 12 January 2021 (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 JazzClam

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

The following edits are all topic ban violations (emphasis added):

16:43, 10 January 2021: Changed Similar baseless accusations of antifa false flag operations to Similar false accusations of antifa false flag operations in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
16:37, 10 January 2021: Addition of 1,003-character comment on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, including the section heading "‎Essentially Domestic Terrorists"
11:50, 8 January 2021: Addition of 515-character comment on Talk:QAnon
01:09, 8 January 2021: Addition of 1,046-character comment on Talk:QAnon

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:52, 25 November 2020: Indefinite topic ban from editing post-1932 American politics articles

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 25 November 2020 by SebastianHelm (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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 3 December 2020, SebastianHelm warned JazzClam about previous violations of this topic ban. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/999599042

Discussion concerning JazzClam

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 JazzClam

Newslinger I was not under the impression that commenting on the QAnon articles and the 2021 storming of the capitol was against my sanction. Also, I did make, admittedly make under full knowledge of my sanction on the 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol article, an edit. The edit regarded changing baseless to false. There was a conversation where consensus was reached to change baseless to false. I believed that since that edit was relatively uncontroversial and popular amongst editors in the consensus discussion, I made it. I personally believe that trying to penalize me for comments and a simple, uncontroversial, non-major, and popular edit in an article is absolutely draconian and bogus.

I believe that these edits were constructive, and the concept of these sanctions is quite superfluous. I will continue to comment on talk pages and make my opinions heard. JazzClam (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm It's in archive 7 of the talk page on that article, under "Baseless => False", the editors in that discussion agreed that False is better than Baseless. JazzClam (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Of course, thank you for your understanding. I'm going to be appealing my block soon anyway, the reason why I edited it then and there is because it was small, uncontroversial, and effected the neutrality greatlyJazzClam (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SebastianHelm

To be fair, it needs to be said that the template I posted only spoke of articles, not of talk pages. (Although the linked WP:TBAN does explicitly say “all pages (not only articles)”.) I would therefore recommend for the discussion to focus on the one edit in article space. In this context, I would like to know what JazzClam referred to by "This conversation" in the edit summary. ◅ Sebastian 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, and so that others don't have to search for it, here's the link: Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_7#Baseless_=>_False. That was not a unanimous decision; there were at least three different opinions. I'm sorry, I have to say that because I now read (below) that you're planning on appealing your block “because [your edit] was ... uncontroversial”. ◅ Sebastian 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Swarm: Yes, I made a couple of mistakes, and I'm sorry about that. However, the situation is not as dire as you are depicting it: JazzClam has in user talk:JazzClam#December 2020 been clearly made aware that even small edits to articles on post-1932 American politics “are violations of the ban, even if ... they are uncontroversial [and that they] could get blocked” for them. So, maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how, as you say, “this user technically isn't in the wrong”. ◅ Sebastian 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Thank you for asking my opinion. I will be OK with whatever you and El_C decide. Since I am involved, I am only contributing here with mere statements.

For the record, I think a block would technically be justified, since JazzClam acted against the warning. But the question is: How much damage would it prevent? On one hand, one might say that the edit in question did not do much damage; at first glance it doesn't look like the editors who disagreed with the wording, Builder018 and Rich Farmbrough, took umbrage with the edit. On the other hand, it is of concern that JazzClam characterized the edit as “uncontroversial” despite the obvious diversity of opinions. Then again, I regard it as a sign of good judgment and tact that JazzClam did not use my mistake for their defense, which gave me the chance to point it out myself.

One clarification is missing, though: Are talk page edits OK from now on? I now see that the original intention of the community included a ban from talk pages, but El_C – ostensibly to accommodate my mistake – struck that requirement. The three diffs brought up as evidence above contain nothing disruptive (they show a collaborative spirit, and at ~1000 characters they take ~1 minute to read each, which is not overly rambling) so I see no reason to ban JazzClam from talk pages, at least not now anymore. (Maybe JazzClam improved in this regard.) ◅ Sebastian 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, El_C. It was actually my first mistake in this matter that I regarded myself as not involved after having !voted, which was pointed out by another sysop at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure back in November. But we're fortunate to have Swarm here, who has much more experience in such matters, so I would entirely trust their leadership here.

That you meant striking the comment just with regard to its retroactive import is understood. ◅ Sebastian 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question about talk pages is probably moot: Swarm has entered a regular topic ban for JazzClam at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community, so it would be extra work to remove that. That means, that henceforth talk page contributions are forbidden, too. All that remains is to announce that formally clear to JazzClam. I feel a bit sad for JazzClam that, despite my positive impression of their talk page contributions, those will not be allowed anymore, but then again, I hope they can understand that increased severity as a natural consequence of their continued editing while feigning ignorance and “consensus”. ◅ Sebastian 23:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JazzClam

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

Not only did JazzClam knowingly violate their topic ban, but above, they even express their intent to continue doing so(!). A sanction in the form of a block (of a yet to be determined duration) is probably warranted for this blatant violation as well as for the sheer contempt shown toward the terms of the restriction. A restriction that they are absolutely required to comply with. If they wish to see that restriction lifted, they may only do so through the avenue of a proper appeal. Them deciding to circumvent these rules due to... reasons (or whatever) is a major problem. El_C 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JazzClam, you are right. Indeed, those are not within the scope of your ban (which specifically says "articles" rather than "pages"). Sorry for my inattention. Stricken with apologies. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol editing, however, was a clear violation, and there were similar problems a month ago, as well. A logged warning would work for me, so long as it is understood to be a last chance saloon before blocks become imminent. El_C 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JazzClam, please comment in your own section only. When you say "appeal the block," I presume you mean the topic ban, as you are not currently blocked. Anyway, of course, you're free to do at your discretion (don't know enough to comment further on the appeal's viability, and so on, though). But until such an appeal succeeds, even minor changes to pages covered by the ban are strictly prohibited. Also, I struggle to understand how you're able to assert in the same breath that the edit in question could be both small, uncontroversial, and [yet still having] effected the neutrality greatly. Anyway, good luck! El_C 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, once again, thank you for the clarity. I'm admittedly a bit scattered today, so it is greatly appreciated. I have no objection to you closing this complaint by overlapping (or supplanting outright) the community sanction recorded at WP:RESTRICT with a full AP2 AE topic ban to be recorded at WP:AEL. El_C 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm, I've struck my comment not as a future requirement, but only to emphasize that it cannot be retroactively used against JazzClam. Also, I don't know why you think you are WP:INVOLVED. If all of your interactions with JazzClam have been of an administrative nature, then you're not. You're probably a better judge of whether talk pages (or all pages, including AfD, etc.) ought to be included. My immediate impression is that they should and that the ban should probably err on the wider side of AP2 (in every sense). In any case, happy to follow your (and Swarm's) lead. El_C 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm, ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. For sure, Swarm seems to be up to speed with the overall background to the dispute (which I am not), so I, too, am happy to follow their lead here. El_C 23:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, as Sebastian notes above, Swarm has already updated WP:RESTRICT accordingly, reading: JazzClam is indefinitely blocked from the subject area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. As Sebastian also points out, all that's left is registering that change on JazzClam's talk page. I will do so momentarily and am otherwise closing the request with these notes. El_C 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, we're here because of clerical errors. A general AP2 topic ban was unambiguously imposed by a unanimous community consensus here. This community consensus was essentially ignored, never documented at WP:EDRC like it should have been, and closed in favor of an AE sanction instead. With no offense intended, Sebastian's imposition of this sanction was sloppy at best, he didn't specify what the sanction was at all at WP:ACDSLOG, and the way he worded it changed the community's intended standard topic ban to a much more restrictive ban that only applied to articles. This user was literally deemed by the community to be a POV-pusher in this topic area and they were unanimously banned from it back in November, and because the closure was botched so badly we're now here having to grapple with the procedural technicality that this user technically isn't in the wrong for continuing to edit in the topic area, as a general TBAN was never formally imposed. It's ridiculous. Not intending to be personally harsh towards Sebastian, but that's literally the situation we're in. I'm logging the standard community ban at EDRC as it should have been from the beginning and I will clarify this with the user. If we want to maintain the AE ban on top of it that's fine, but it should to be amended to be a plain TBAN. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: The situation isn't dire, this is no big deal, just a minor, unintended loophole that needs to be closed. I acknowledge that you did already warn the user in December and there is a proper article space violation that can be sanctioned, my issue was with this user editing talk pages which they never should have been allowed to do. I'm really not trying to play a blame game here, I'm just trying to document the problem and a solution for the record. Anyway, El C and I are both fine with simply giving a final warning/clarification here, are you okay with that or do you intend to sanction the editor for the article space violation? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm and El C: Lets convert this into a standard topic ban with the knowledge that a future breach will result in a long block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar 2

Belteshazzar has been blocked for a month by Ymblanter --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 01:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC): Topic ban.[63]
20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC): Appeal.[64]
00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC): Appeal declined. [65]

Claims that they have dropped the stick: [66][67][68][69][70]

Topic ban violations:[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]

Threads where Belteshazzar was repeatedly warned to stop violating the topic ban:

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "topic ban violations" were either on my own talk page or outside the scope of the ban, unless simply mentioning what previously occurred at Bates method is a violation. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about the Bates Method on your talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia is a violation of your topic ban.

Writing about vaguely bates-like alternatives to corrective lenses on Accommodative excess or Presbyopia is a violation of your topic ban.

Citing [82] or any other article about training yourself so that you don't need corrective lenses is a violation of your topic ban.

You aren't fooling anyone by standing with your toes over the line that you are not allowed to cross. You need to stay completely away from the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon Belteshazzar's recent behavior on their talk page, I suggest that we clarify and expand the topic ban to include the topic of human and animal vision, broadly construed, and to make it crystal clear that topic bans apply to all of Wikipedia, including your own talk page. Otherwise we will see continued "but THIS pseudoscience is really science!" violations pushing the fringe view that eye exercises can correct vision issues requiring corrective lenses. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and perhaps a gentle reminder that "fringe" and "pseudoscience" are not exactly the same category. Even if an idea has scientific merit, it can still covered by a fringe topic-ban if it is not yet accepted by the scientific community. (They laughed at Galileo, etc.) ApLundell (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden History

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 Forbidden History

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :

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

January 9th Second edit to article showcasing POV stance on topic in edit summary
January 11th First Reversion to re-add census material to claim article is false
January 11th Second Reversion
January 11th Third Reversion
January 11th Fourth Reversion
January 11th Fifth Reversion

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Editor was alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on June 18th, 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally started an AN/I incident report regarding the editor's POV editing actions. It was suggested that, since this is a sanctioned topic area and the user has reverted a number of times (and has similar incidents on a number of other articles), that a report be filed here instead.

I am requesting a topic ban for the user in the area of interest, as it appears they come into conflict with other editors in these articles on a frequent basis, ever since they first created their account. Silver seren^C 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Editor notified.

Discussion concerning Forbidden History

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 (username)

Statement by (SeriousCherno)

ForbiddenHistory is not an editor that likes to discuss his edits instead he results to edit warring even after he has been requested and warned to stop. It is a particularly big problem since the user adds information with sources that do not support the information added.

This is also not helped by the fact that he acts in a very rude and aggressive way despite the majority of the editors that interact with him being respectful and cordial towards him. --SeriousCherno (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jingiby

This user does not listen to other editors. He does not use reliable sources. His edits are biased and lack neutrality. He behaves defiantly and impolitely. In the field in which he is active, namely the Macedonian question, his edits are often destructive and as a whole they do not lead to an improvement of the articles. Topic-ban will be a reasonable step. Jingiby (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Veni Markovski

Agree with statements above by SeriousCherno and Jingiby, as they are similar to my own experience, which I gained when interacting with Forbidden History in the span of two days on the main article and the talk page of Bitola inscription. The user seem to confuse opinions with facts, and would get into attempts for off-topic discussions, instead of staying closer to the subject. If needed, I could add more details, but the talk page of the above quoted article provides enough information to any objective reader. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Forbidden History

Since, I have replied about this situation here, please read before making your final decision. My interest is history and archaeology of the Balkan region and those are the articles in which I see myself working. My edits were provoked of the editors above and are explained in the link above. I will respect your decision for the things you may find me guilty of. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Forbidden History

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

Topic ban seems like the next logical step here. Not sure yet if it should be narrow or broad in scope, though. El_C 03:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ed. That works for me. El_C 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Forbidden History is interested in topics which affect North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. In other words everything in the southern Balkans. So I'd recommend a ban from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - broadly construed of course to include all pages except an appeal. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

Debresser blocked for 2 weeks for violating WP:GAME, also noting that without some pretty strong assurances that he'd be able to exercise better judgment in the future, a broadly construed topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area is likely. Supreme Deliciousness is also warned (logged) to watch for WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in this as well as other sensitive topic areas. Finally, Debresser has appealed my sanction (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser), an appeal which at the moment remains pending. El_C 18:36, 16 January 2021 (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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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: One Revert Restriction (1RR) :

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

~~Violates the 1rr at Maqluba - First revert: 07:55, 14 January Second revert: 08:32, 14 January 2021 - Repeatedly replaces Palestine with Levant~~

Violates the 1rr at Birthright Israel - First revert: 07:52, 14 January Second revert: 23:20, 14 January 2021 - Repeatedly removes Jerusalem and Golan Heights

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked many times for edit warring: [83]
16:55 30 September 2015 has been blocked for 1rr before.

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

Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [84] [85][86][87][88]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights:[89] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit:[90]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring:[91] [92][93][94][95] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?

El_C, was the 2012 diff the only one I brought? Or did I also bring diffs from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018? The point was to show a long term pattern of refusal from Debrasser to abide by the 1rr despite several warnings over the years. To show that he has exhausted AGF, so why would I AGF again after his long history and give him another warning? Thats why I opened this 1rr enforcement request. If it is important for you that I ask people to self revert first, then I will keep that in mind going forward and ask people to self revert if they violate 1rr, even if they have a long history of not following it like in this case. As I said before I did 1 single revert and I discussed it in my edit summary, so at that point of time there was no reason to open a talkpage discussion. After that, there was reason to discuss at the talkpage and I did and that was my plan to discuss at the talkpage if my comment in the edit summary was not accepted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

No problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that 28 hours have passed since my first revert (not counting the mistaken revert and the self-revert), can I now safely undo that edit? Especially since the talkpage discussion shows no consensus for it. I am asking about 1RR or other WP:AE-based objections, not content-related objections, obviously. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, after another 4 hours, before the beginning of the Jewish Shabbath, with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of the lack of objections here. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

This is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

Two things, ~~from what I can tell they do not meet the WP:AWARE criterial.~~ Also at Maqluba they were reverting someone that was that was below the 500/30 threshold which is exempt from 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed the past stuff, my mistake on aware. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Bright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this clarification request on awareness requirements. nableezy - 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile

Whilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Debresser

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

I'm pretty much beyond sick of the over-bureaucratization of ARBPIA. So, it's good that Nableezy's aforementioned ARCA shows the Committee cementing that sentiment. Therefore, nitpicking WP:AWARE when it comes to veterans of the topic area, especially, has now become a thing of the past. I suppose it's debatable whether the practice of a courtesy self-revert request prior to reporting (which I do not believe is codified anywhere) counts as that, too. I lean toward retaining it, myself, because sometime people lose track of time, so it can often reduce a lot of needless friction. Now, Debresser has a lengthy record of AE/EW blocks for violations concerning ARBPIA (and near-ARBPIA) pages and edits, often accompanied by unblocks (my own included). Which gives the impression that, at the very least, he is skirting the line a lot more than he should. And that he has been doing that for a long time. None of that, though, explains why Supreme Deliciousness failed to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, including why they haven't edited the article talk page even once. Nor, to boot, why they seemingly jumped to weaponize the AE noticeboard, absent the customary self-revert request. Methinks a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order... As for imposing sanctions on Debresser, I'm on the fence about that, too. On the one hand, no self-revert request could mean they may have simply lost track of time after a sleep cycle or whatever. But seeing as it is only 15ish hours, I'm struggling to conceive how he might explain carelessness to such an extent. My immediate impulse, then, is to sanction both editors, but will keep an open mind. El_C 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness, a complainant telling me to relax and be calm..., I admit that this is a first for me here at AE. Anyway, if you think bringing up diffs all the way back from 2012 bolsters your case, well, that just surprises to me. The point is that you did not bother discussing the dispute even before Debresser violated 1RR (after Sir Joseph reverted, for example), or seemingly at any time after. That's besides the point. I'm not viewing your conduct here in isolation from your editing elsewhere. To that: the impression I've been getting for a while now is that you act too aggressively in highly sensitive topics. To me, that is a problem for which discretionary sanctions may serve to remedy. El_C 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, did you really just post (at 12:00 UTC) about how you've now self-reverted, only to then a mere 2 minutes later (at 12:02 UTC) go on to post again, asking if enough time has passed now for you to immediately undo that same self-revert? Because that probably would count as the most astounding thing I've ever heard in the history of ARBPIA editing! What sort of game do you take this for? El_C 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Debresser for 2 weeks for this blatant WP:GAME violation (diff). I am now inclined to close this complaint, also with a warning to Supreme Deliciousness (haven't decided whether it will be a logged warning or not yet, though). Will keep this report open for a while longer before doing so, however. El_C 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Negative, Onceinawhile. If anything, quite lenient. In fact, I am likely to impose a broadly construed ARBPIA topic ban on Debresser unless I get some pretty strong assurances they are able to exercise better judgment. I have already warned him about gaming the system and wikilawyering multiple times over the years, but this crosses a line for me. El_C 18:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhearted

As mentioned, I'm ~~confident~~ hopeful User_talk:Reinhearted#Notice_about_prohibited_WP:ARBPIA_editing will do the trick. El_C 00:41, 16 January 2021 (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 Reinhearted

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Spudlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Reinhearted (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/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :

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

15 january 2021 3rd revert
15 january 2021 2nd revert
15 january 2021 1st 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 27 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have never done this before so do be gentle if I've made mistakes in the filing.

@Reinhearted: first caught my eye with edit summaries that raised flags non-neutral editing on falafel. I reminded them of the article's 1RR restriction [96] but they continued to revert the same content.

Does this edit falls within Arab-Israeli conflict? [97][98][99][100] and these edits come after this [101]

I hope the editor is here to contribute productively but they have only 145 edits and there has been a lot of edit warring on falafel recently even with open and unresolved discussions still open about these changes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning Reinhearted

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 Reinhearted

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Reinhearted

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

Well, hopefully, User_talk:Reinhearted#Notice_about_prohibited_WP:ARBPIA_editing will do the trick here, that way we could just close this AE complaint as resolved, and that would be that. El_C 21:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" 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: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 2-week block for WP:GAME violations at the WP:ARBPIA topic area. El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notification of that administrator: I am the one who copied this appeal from Debresser's talk page, so all good on that front. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

There was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage[103] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE,[104] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved,[105] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser

As mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser

Result of the appeal by Debresser

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards