Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive251

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roscelese

There is a clear consensus to decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved 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 Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report Administrator imposing the sanction Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [1] Statement by Roscelese Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein I recommend that the appeal is declined. I refer colleagues to the reasons for which I imposed the block in the thread above. Sandstein 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese Result of the appeal by Roscelese This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. (Copied from Rosceleses' user talk) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.) *The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [2] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction. *The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [3]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction. *The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [4]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction. The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [5]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction. Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) (I was pinged about this) I would uphold the block per Seraphimblade's reasoning, above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC) After looking this over, I concur with Seraphimblade's reasoning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC) I was also pinged and I also concur with Seraphimblade. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Not pinged. If the issue was purely related to the first two diffs (we use "anti-abortion", not "pro-life", and the second one's just promotional, even if it doesn't rise to vandalism) I might think a two-week block was a little harsh, but the second two diffs are fairly obvious. So, I concur. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC) I share Black Kite's assessment of the first two diffs. I also think that the fourth diff, viewed in its context, is quite defensible: it reverts a previously reverted deceptive IP addition using a bogus doi, and the IP restoring that edit just expanded that doi into a reference citing AGF. The only reasonable inference is that the second IP has neither actually looked at the linked reference nor even the previous IP's edit summary (which claims to rely on a 2017 review when that reference is from 2006). Even when viewed in the most charitable light, this is grossly irresponsible source misuse that would earn the user a topic ban from the area. I do agree with Seraphimblade's assessment of the third diff, though it was a week old at the time of the report. Taken together, I find the two-week block to be on the harsh side and would have preferred a lesser sanction. That said, I cannot say that the sanction actually imposed is outside admin discretion, and I therefore agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

Appeal declined. The requisite "clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn this discretionary sanction is not present. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Sanctions being appealed DiscussionLog Logged warning by Sandstein Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring Administrators imposing the sanctions Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of those administrators Sandstein Goldenring Statement by Dlthewave I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.) I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD. Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC) I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: "If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc" I've done all of those things, and you can read about it in the Signpost if you like. I've taken pains to focus on big-picture patterns instead of individual editor behavior, and no editors are named in the userspace page, however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost. –dlthewave ☎ 20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: I'm not sure where you got the idea that there were no actionable requests. A few examples: [6] [for_72bikers] [7]. You will note that this appeal is actually directly connected to the most recent AE request. More examples can be found in the AE log under Gun Control. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sandstein After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Springee I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Other than supporting lifting of sanctions for Dlthewave, I've largely stayed out of this discussion. However, I think Dlthewave is contradicting themselves. In reply to BU Rob 13 they said, "however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost". As one of the editors quoted in the article in question I asked that my comments be removed [[8]]. I specifically noted the link between the Signpost article and this user page. Dlthewave declined noting in part, "any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best." [[9]]. This contradicts the claims made in reply to BU Rob 13. Furthermore, it specifically accuses others of "whitewashing" vs simply making unsound arguments. I view it as something that either needs to be acted on or deleted. In a similar vein I take a dim view of the "firearms" reaction list on the "Hall of Fame" page [[10]]. Collecting material like this is needlessly antagonistic even though I don't think that is Dlthewave's intent. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Statement by GoldenRing I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC) @Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC) @Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC) I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by Simonm223 Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Dlthewave This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw. Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC). @Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC). Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC). What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC) I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC) GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC) And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC) This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC) I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC) I indeed closed it as overturn, and subsequently got strong objections from Goldenring concerning the restoration of the page (see their talk page), which I disagree with, but it is good to give another administrator a chance to deal with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Given the votes on the pending motion, we must proceed on the assumption that deletion of a page is allowed as a discretionary sanction. In my view, POLEMIC falls on the conduct side of the conduct/content divide: deciding whether a user page violates that guideline does not require one to make decisions regarding any encyclopedic content. Therefore, deleting a user page under POLEMIC does not fall into the category of deletions that may impermissibly settle a content dispute. Having considered the comments at the DRV to the extent they addressed POLEMIC (as opposed to the process issue), and after independently reviewing the page, I cannot say that GoldenRing's interpretation and application of that guideline is outside reasonable admin discretion, and that's all that is needed to sustain a discretionary sanction. Decline as to the deletion. As to the warning, the appeal is moot. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC) I would decline this. I think it is within administrator discretion to consider this a violation of WP:POLEMIC. In particular, I note that the editor who create the page has stated that they intend to use it as background for an opinion piece in the Signpost. The spirit behind POLEMIC rather clearly is intended to prevent editors from putting others "on blast" without making a formal report at a noticeboard. I believe compiling a long list of diffs on-wiki in order to write an opinion piece that attacks a particular editor or group of editors is plainly at odds with this spirit. If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc. Compiling a list of supposed wrongdoing and then litigating it in the court of public opinion at the Signpost is contrary to the spirit behind POLEMIC. All of this is without comment on whether the editor is correct in the pattern they're highlighting; it doesn't particularly matter whether they are correct when it comes to whether it violates POLEMIC. ~ Rob13Talk 03:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC) There’s definitely been no case request during my time on the Committee, unless it came during a period of inactivity for me. But ignoring that, if all venues have not found those diffs to be actionable, turning to the Signpost to make assertions about a behavioral issue - whether editors are named or not - goes against the spirit of POLEMIC. ~ Rob13Talk 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC) ... and if they were actioned on, then the issue is resolved, and the list of diffs shouldn't be stored forever in user space to further litigate the issue unless new behavior emerges. ~ Rob13Talk 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC) This appeal has been open for more than two months now and needs a resolution one way or the other. It takes a "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators to grant an appeal at AE, and I'm not seeing it. Barring objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close this as declined and re-delete the page. If arbcom wants to do something about deletion and DS, we can revisit this when they have actually done something. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

RevertBob

RevertBob is blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning RevertBob User who is submitting this request for enforcement Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested RevertBob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 - "Jeremy Corbyn is placed under 1RR indefinitely. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC). Note that page has a 1RR edit notice. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Revert1: 22:01, 2 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" from newly added content describing an antisemitic passage in a 1902 book. Note edit summary - "ce" - this is not a copy edit. (as noted by SWL36 who reverted) Revert2: 22:42, 2 May 2019 - removing "praised", again edit summary "ce" + (consecutive) 07:43, 3 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" again this time with "let the readers decide" - which is somewhat mind boggling in and of itself - the passage reads "Jews dominated journalism and the world of finance and hence government policy" - so per RevertBob's reasoning (contrary to all sources here) this is up to interpretation? (reverted by Absolutelypuremilk [11]) Revert3 - 22:28, 3 May 2019 - removing "praised" and "antisemitic", this time with the edit summary "more neutral, allow readers to decide and shorter". Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn. 12:00, 31 August 2018 - alerted BLP. 19:07, 14 August 2018 - alerted ARBPIA (may be relevant for other conduct described below). Additional comments by editor filing complaint (Some of this may or may not fall under ARBPIA broadly or reasonably construed (always a topic of debate) - however I feel it is relevant for context here is any event). RevertBob is essentially a WP:SPA that only edits topics revolving around the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party (ignoring a mass of rapid fire minor edits back in July 2017). He also does quite a bit of reverting. I would like to point out the following behavior: 19:56, 10 February 2019 - restoring content that multiple RfCs (see Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7 (RfC.8, RfC.6, RfC.4, RfC.2) determined should be removed. Asked to self revert - [12] - did not. See subsequent discussion in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 8#Edits against RfC consensus - Where RevertBob chooses not to respond. He does show up after a month (on 5 March) to challenge the RfC close. 20:48, 11 March 2019 - again - reinstating content rejected in RfC (Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk). 19:54, 12 March 2019 - requests to self-revert and informing them of the RfC result were left unanswered on their talk page and removed with "taking out the trash" 18:14, 30 April 2019 - blanket revert including of content removed - 09:44, 29 April 2019 - per this RfC. See Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party#RfC consensus, random op-eds - where this is discussed (RevertBob still absent). Communicating with RevertBob has been difficult - see 19:16, 27 March 2019 (3RR warning issued as a pre-requisite to a (not filed) EW report after he revert 3-5 times (depending how you count) in 24 hours on 26-27 March - removed with "usual unhelpful contributions". In summary - the 1RR violation above is a redline and clear violation. Misleading edit summaries are also clearly in BLP DS. Admins may also consider taking wider action in light of RevertBob's general editing practices and patterns. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested notified Discussion concerning RevertBob Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by RevertBob The diffs on the Jeremy Corbyn page are in relation to long-standing content dispute where editors are placing POV/opinion as facts. It's very difficult to engage with editors when the same arguments conflating RS with NPOV come up time and time again[13]. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Regarding additional comments by editor filing complaint: 1. This wasn't clear from the RfC close as they were closed as no consensus - no consensus for keeping or removing? 2. This was different text to the RfC as it had mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. After seeking advice on ANI as further RfC was started here. 3. Already answered on point 1. 4. This was in response to blanket removal of content by here - a bit difficult to see the good faith removal amongst the blanket removal when done at such a brisk pace. 5. Icewhiz has templated me numerous times and gets a bit weary after a while. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning RevertBob This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @TonyBallioni:, this is your sanction, want to take a look? Sandstein 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC) The 1RR violation is bright line and I agree with Icewhiz that the edit summaries make it worse. Blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Tagishsimon

No action taken. Sandstein 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Tagishsimon User who is submitting this request for enforcement Natureium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Tagishsimon (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [14] Here is the first time I've ever interacted with them that I can recall, where I bring up a concern at ANI and they respond to rudely dismiss me outright. [15] I'm not sure how to describe this insult. [16] Here they respond to me saying that I've been going though and improving some of the articles started by Jess Wade by pointing out faults with an article I just created, which turn out to be incorrect. [17] Here I asked Tagishsimon to stop harassing me. [18] Here they refused. [19] Here they allege that I'm in a club with two other people they've been harassing. example allegation here At this point, he was alerted about DS. [20] Here, among other things, they say that it's my fault that Wikipedia is being dragged through the gutter as a hang-out for misogynists [21] Here they say that their harassment is my fault [22] Here they respond to me by telling me that I should go away and think about that. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months [23]. Additional comments by editor filing complaint @Tagishsimon: I did not ask you to stop talking to me, I asked you to stop accusing me of things, which you have continued to do even here. Natureium (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) He seems to have stopped momentarily only because he hasn't been on Wikipedia. His last edit, after all this started, was more of the same. Natureium (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified. Is there no template for this? Discussion concerning Tagishsimon 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 Tagishsimon I think it's fairly clear that Natureium does not like receiving criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Oh dear. You're determined to have drama. Well, let's go for it. There was, as you're aware, an ANI thread in which Netoholic was taken to task for targetting Jess Wade's work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Netoholic's_response Natureium turned up to specify that, on the basis of nothing much, that all of Jess Wade's work should be subjected to close scrutiny. I objected to that, pointing out that Natureium had submitted no evidence to support their view, and asserting that exactly the logic they applied to Jess Wade could be applied to their own contributions. Natureium seems to have become upset about comments I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Canvassing_allegations_for_Sarah_Tuttle in which I lump together the three editors who have taken it upone themselves to police Jess Wade's work. Natureium then turned up on my talk page; it seems clear they're happy that they can criticise people, but I cannot. Oh wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#Simple_request And finally Natureium turned up ona thread I had started in WiR talk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Jess_Wade - and addressed themselves to me as the initial poster. None of this is me going out of my way to harrass Natureium. All of this is me reacting to Natureium's harrassment of Jess Wade. I don't accept Natureium's bogus framing, and neither should you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC) You need to be very clear, TonyBallioni, that I have not been targetting anyone. I responded to Natureium's ANI contribution; pointed out eslewhere that Natureium was one of three editors targetting Jess Wade; and responded to Natureium on my talk page and to their insertion in a thread I started, and more specifically responding to a post they made to me as thread starter. and what exactly are these "horrible things personally"? I pointed out in the ANi thread that Natureium had provided no evidence; I provided some stats on Jess Wade's work, and I pointed out that an analysis of Natureium's work might yield the same conclusion about their work as they had reached about Jess Wade's work. @TonyBallioni: May I insist, since you have raised it, that you produce diffs for the alleged "horrible things personally". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I have contempt for Natureium's framing of the issue. I have only sympathy for anyone who has to wade through this. It appears that Natureium feels it is fine to wander around denigrating Jess Wade's work & calling her a liar, but wants an admini-drama when on the receiving end of rebuttal criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC) If you do not think accusing Jess Wade of lying is deplorable, then your milage varies from mine. [24] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC) That's weak on both counts, TonyBallioni. Please supply a diff for the alleged "horrible things personally", or withdraw the allegation. And, as I say, I have contempt for Natureium's framing of this matter. I don't find this a good faith report of harrassment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC) And with the best will in the world, one cannot accept a person saying "please stop" on page A [25] 18:51, and then addressing comments to me on page B [26] 18:56 "Did you not notice that that's untrue before reposting it here?". This is what I mean by having contempt for the framing. Natureium feign's a wish to stop the discussion, five minutes before wandering along to accuse Jess of lying, and me of being credulous for reporting on Jess's lie. And you can see none of this? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by TonyBallioni El C, I think the issue is that Tagishsimon has been specifically targeting Natureium with personal attack based on their involvement in a gender related controversy where there are very strong opinions on both sides. The ANI isn't directly related to that, but was originally about Netoholic and Jess Wade. Natureium reviewed that thread and had some concerns, and when they expressed the concerns, Tagishsimon lumped them together with two other editors and started accusing them of horrible things personally. This kind of behaviour creates a chilling effect: it makes it seem so that any editor in a topic area who interacts with a high profile editor who has been covered by the media cannot review their content work. That is unacceptable. On the broader ANI question, the failure of the original ANI thread (about a different, but related issue) in my view actually shows why AE is a better venue: this is a politically fraught topic area with editors having strong opinions on both sides, and all parties having allies. It is the type of situation that ANI is not designed to handle, but AE is. I would also add that if the original ANI thread were made here instead of at ANI, we likely could have avoided some of the drama of the last few days. I'd urge other admins to take this complaint seriously: a good faith editor who is questioning content of a high profile editor in a politically charged topic area is being subjected to personal attacks on multiple pages, and when they ask the person to stop, all they get are more personal attacks. This should not be tolerated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Since I’ve been asked, I find this statement to be particularly inappropriate, but I agree with Natureium’s analysis of all the diffs they have presented and find your response to El C in the results section really disturbing. You’re personalizing a content dispute and admit to having contempt for the fact that Natureium even bothered to request someone look at this as harassment particularly disturbing. Good faith allegations of harassment should be taken seriously, not treated with contempt. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I believe all of the diffs presented by Natureium speak for themselves and my comment was my analysis of them, which I believe to be fair. I will not be striking my statement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Sandstein, the policy is WP:HARASSMENT. Specifically [...]repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. They were asked to stop making aspersions and accusations, they said they wouldn’t, they were given a DS alert after this, and they continued and continue to paint one person as the reason for Wikipedia being perceived as misogynistic and as creating a toxic culture, and even accusing them of making this report in bad faith. AC/DS gives admins the clear authorization to issue interaction bans, and that is at a minimum what is called for here. Natureium should not have to tolerate this simply because they did not cite a policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Jayron32, (I cut this for size and because there is a clearer explanation) ArbCom has clarified that the GamerGate sanctions these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one. Saying that other editors contribute to the perception that Wikipedia is a misogynists paradise pretty squarely falls within the recent clarification in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Jayron32, since this has died down and there doesn’t appear to be opposition to your warning, I think now would be a good time to close it as a warning logged at WP:AELOG/2019 so there’s a record of it if the issues go on (which hopefully they want afterwards). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Lepricavark It might also be useful to note this comment, in which Tagishsimon claims to be extending good faith to Netoholic while simultaneously arguing that his behavior is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling. It seems to be a way of making a personal attack while also trying to maintain plausible deniability that no such attack was made. With no further context, this comment might simply be dismissed as poorly-phrased yet well-intended. But Tagishsimon's aggressive battleground responses to Natureium make it much harder to see it that way. I will also add that I found the attacks on Natureium to be unwarranted and frankly bizarre. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by DoubleCross I came across this because I browse AE from time to time - I figure I should clarify that I have no idea who Natureium and Tagishsimon are, and (as far as I know) have never interacted with either. From what I've read in the provided diffs, and per Lepricavark, this is a good-faith request from Natureium, and Tagishsimon's posts toward Natureim are extremely aggressive and personal attacks. Referencing WP:AGF and WP:NPA while simultaneously saying Natureium's "creating a toxic environment" and calling his edits "indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling" and "toxicity" - farcical beyond words. DoubleCross (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by slatersteven And it continues here [[27]], they clearly do not get it (whilst accusing others of doing it). Yes this is creating a very toxic environment, but not in the way they mean.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Sitush Something has gone wrong with Natureium's diffs. #7, which says it refers to WP being dragged through the gutter, is actually this diff. I've not checked all of the others but have been involved in this farrago and there is little doubt in my mind that the words of Tagishsimon (and at least one other person) have a chilling effect on discussion. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Clayoquot I share TonyBallioni's concerns about a chilling effect. Cross-checking by peers is fundamental to Wikipedia, especially after serious factual errors were found in an editor's past contributions as is the case here. The key is that cross-checking needs to be done with competence and sensitivity, and I haven't seen any evidence that Natureium's actions have been lacking in these respects. In the past week, social media has come up with some interesting rumors about what's happening at Wikipedia, e.g. I heard someone say on Facebook that someone had nominated for deletion recently-created articles on "every woman scientist". My reading of some recent on-wiki discussions is that outrage fomented at Twitter, based on inaccurate and misleading stories, has surged back over here and is creating an environment in which Wikipedia is not a safe space to work. I would hope that something is done about that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Masem (involved obv. due to GG case). I have to agree with the point made by Clayoquot. There was a series of AFDs that were all female academics by one user (Netoholic) but all those were created by a different user in a type of "Women in Red" approach. From what has happened since with Netoholic, its pretty clear Netoholic did not target those article due to any type of misogyny, but a lot of editors jumped on this to cry out about gender-related AFD issues. (Which is a valid concern... just not in this case, or at least specificly to Netoholic). Statements like those highlighted by Tagishsimon do not help this situation, and because off-wiki observers do not recognize all the steps we use for such discussions, the cry of "WP hates women academics" is being amplified. (We already saw this with the GG case itself eg [28]). Editors have to be aware of the type of claims they are making and how that reflects on WP as a whole particularly when the case has grabbed attention in news and social media. I definitely feel Tagishsimon's statements "assume the worse" in terms of how WP was handling the situation, which is simply not helpful and leads to slippery slopes and increased battleground behavior. --Masem (t) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Result concerning Tagishsimon This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I thought this was being discussed at AN/I. Do we need to have it addressed at two admin noticeboards at the same time? (Not to mention the Rama RfAR.) El_C 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Tagishsimon, WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS still apply to criticism. El_C 23:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Tony, I can appreciate that, on pragmatic grounds alone, AE may be more suited to this than the current AN/I. I suppose I was just concerned with discussions being superfluously duplicated. On closer examination, sanctions may, indeed, be due in this case. I confess to not being too impressed with Tagishsimon extremely terse reply. It seems to be deflective and exhibits contempt for the process. El_C 23:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Tagishsimon, melodrama is exactly what we're trying to avoid here at AE. I, for one, do not think calling someone's behaviour "deplorable" is especially civil. If that's characteristic of your manner of discourse with Natureium, then we have a problem. El_C 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Tagishsimon, I'm not seeing Natureium accusing her of lying—always an act of bad faith. A claim can be invented accidentally, in good faith. El_C 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I don't think you can reasonably cite NPA and at the same breath say that someone's behaviour is "indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling" — that doesn't work for me. I, however, suppose I could support a warning, but only if lessons are shown to have been drawn here. El_C 23:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Jayron32, because the GG/DS pertains to "any gender-related dispute or controversy," which this is. So either venue seem applicable. El_C 23:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC) The subject is claiming "that Natureium was one of three editors targetting Jess Wade" — and that whole saga has GG all over it. I have also raised concerns with it being brought here (see my first comment), but I've since come to see that this venue is fine, too. El_C 00:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC) I would take no action because the complaint does not make clear which conduct policies, if any, the diffs at issue are supposed to violate. And it's not readily apparent, at least in the post-notification diffs, what the grounds for action might be. Sandstein 17:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC) @Sandstein: WP:HARASSMENT ? Nick (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I agree that these comments are impolite and that Tagishsimon should attempt to personalize disputes less. I wouldn't oppose a warning for that, but I don't think this reaches the point where sanctions are required. Three edits (after the AE notification) in the course of one discussion thread do not amount to "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior", as we describe harassment. Sandstein 20:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC) I have some questions about the venue for this sanction request: Why is this at AE rather than ANI? This looks like garden variety WP:CIV and WP:NPA type complaints, not obviously specific to WP:ARBGG editing. I'm not saying one way or the other whether or not the behavior is sanctionable or not, but I do have questions about why this venue is being used to request sanctions rather than the normal, wider, community-based methods such as an open ANI discussion? --Jayron32 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) El_C: How so? I don't see any tendentious editing or the like at articles or talk pages regarding gender-related controversies. I see some garden-variety rudeness and insult and assumptions of bad faith, but these don't appear (at my looking at the diffs) to be related to articles around gender-related controversies. Can you clarify for me how this is related to that? Again, I'm not excusing behavior here, but I am questioning why we're using a process for dealing with dispute-related behavior when this just appears to be garden-variety NPA type stuff. --Jayron32 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Fair enough. I was unable to read the background from what I was seeing, and thanks to everyone who explained their position. My only concern is that we don't over apply the "gender-related dispute" thing to mean that every dispute between people different genders automatically becomes an AE-level sanction, or that any time a gender-related personal attack is leveled, it comes here first. Most of that stuff should still be handled at ANI, and we really should be saving AE for disputes where gender issues are part of the content dispute rather than simply part of basic civility issues. I understand though how this specific one is related. In the future, it would help if the initial complaint laid that out rather than just asserting it to be so. These things are not always self-evident, and uninvolved admins such as myself who don't know the background find it hard to assess a dispute when there is no context provided. Again, thanks to everyone who helped explain it to me. I'll have to take some time to think on this. --Jayron32 03:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC) This seems to have died down; reviewing the diffs and contributions from both editors, and based in part on the comments of most admins here, it seems there is a rough consensus for formal warnings. Would anyone object to closing this as follows: "a formal warning is issued to both parties Tagishsimon to avoid casting aspersions, to remain civil, and to avoid personal attacks in heated discussions" --Jayron32 12:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Yes. Natureium has not engaged in personal attacks or incivility. Tagishsimon has, and is the only participant who needs reminded/sanctioned. Nick (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC) So corrected. Please reasses my proposal now that I have corrected my mistake. --Jayron32 15:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, now ideal. I was notified yesterday [29] of further issues with Jess Wade's work which reinforces my belief that Natureium was engaged in nothing more than the discussion of legitimate concerns surrounding BLPs. Nick (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC) The battleground behaviour on display in this discussion definitely needs to stop, but I'm unsure what the best remedy is. An IBAN between Tagishsimon and Natureium would address some of it, but I'm concerned that the disruption is wider than that; nonetheless, I think this would be a good first step. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) I am closing this without action because no admin seems to want to take action. Sandstein 16:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Sir Joseph

Sir Joseph is banned from all pages and edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months. El_C 08:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Sir Joseph User who is submitting this request for enforcement Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles : #Editors reminded #Editors counseled #Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 22:10, May 9, 2019 A shocking display of ignorance toward Palestinian people. 20:30, May 9, 2019 The above is apparently in response to a question about this edit. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 23 February 2019 Most recent AE action Block log If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am not involved in this dispute – I'm just raising these comments here for review. Saying that Palestinians would "rather continue killing people" is at best an ignorant oversimplification, and at worst blatant racism. Just to be clear, I did not report the edit warring on the talk page as there is no page-level restriction on the talk page. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors covers the kind of behaviour I reported above, which still warrants a response. – bradv🍁 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Sir Joseph Discussion concerning Sir Joseph 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 Sir Joseph Not sure why someone not involved is coming in and starting something that is already resolved, and in the case of the second diff, already hatted and commented on as a miscommunication. I obviously didn't mean that O300 is funding terror, but rather BDS. On my talk page, I clearly respond to O300 and clarify that to him and the filer should have seen that before filing this report so the fact that he is trying to obfuscate this from the admins or trying to pass it off as something else is wrong and should be boomeranged. diff As to the first diff, yes, I believe that the Palestinians, as in the government, the PA, Hamas, the WB, Gaza, as a whole, not individually and not as a race, so not sure where racism comes into it, is not interested in peace, they had many opportunities for peace but choose instead to launch rockets, take US, EU and UN funds and build tunnels. I will not apologize for that, as Golda Meir famously said, "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." I find this AE action vexatious and just trying to stir things up. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) And since Nableezy mentioned BLP, there is no BLP violation, I brought sources to my edits. I added them to the hatted section as well. You can take a look where Barghouti is quoted as saying it is OK to kill Israeli settlers. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @El C:I don't want to wikilawyer, but I am a little confused. The notice on the talk page, says article. And I always assumed talk pages are different. Also, the arbitration ruling says page, but says can only be enforced with an edit notice, which the talk page doesn't have. In any event, I did not know a talk page doesn't have 1RR, and it should be clarified since the ARBPIA notice on the talk page is not clear. (I also did not know who the IP was, I just knew he was an IP that was reverted, as is usual in the IP conflict area.) Also with regards to the BLP, regardless of what you think of Canary Mission, they link to their sources, and there is the Algemeiner Journal, and the Forward, and again Barghouti's forward of a book and his own statement that it's ok to kill settlers. To me that's a lot of leeway in saying he supports terrorism, especially on a talk page. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @El C:I'd say no, because the editnotice has to be visible when you edit the page, incidentally, the whole area is a fustercluck as my local rep would say, almost 90% of the pages in the area don't have the required editnotice on the article page. And bringing this to Arbcom would most likely screw it up even more since that is what usually happens. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Drmies:as I told El_C, I didn't know that. And also, the filer didn't mention 1RR, so I also think this is out of scope. In addition, yes, even if I knew 100% that 1RR did apply to the talk page, then it's not actionable because it clearly says that it requires an edit notice on each page. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Drmies:I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't know why every interaction with you seems to be negative and that you have it in for me. There is no technicality, I'm just mentioning other reasons why there is no actionable event on this AE action. You can pick from several if you want. That is on top of the obvious that I did nothing wrong. Some people like technicalities and some people like real reasons. It's your call. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @El C: I never said he's involved or insinuated it, just that whenever we communicate, and it's usually on an admin board it's always negative. In this case, I mentioned it because of his, "dot dot dot". Sir Joseph (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: just to clarify, my talk page is not under discretionary sanctions. Further, talk page is not the same as mainspace editing and I don't think anyone here will say they are not biased in one way.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: I keep finding issues with arbcom rulings. Firstly, I'm not sure how my page is broadly construed as being part of the conflict. Also, as per DS, I was never warned, so you can't issue discretionary sanctions without an initial warning. Regardless, as was pointed out, I was responding to Huldra. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Please let me know how my talk page is under DS and also please show me where I was warned for the supposed DS violation. In addition, please tell me how to respond to someone who just said it's ok to kill civilians. Sir Joseph (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy More concerning than the soapboxing is the edit-warring to restore a BLP violation made by an IP sock of a blocked editor. 1st revert, 2nd revert, and 3rd revert. If I am not mistaken, that is a violation of the 1RR for ARBPIA and a violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. nableezy - 02:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC) As far as "sources", Sir Joseph brought this Israeli government publication that does not anywhere say Barghouti supports terrorism. Following that he posted this link which I cant see where it says anything about Barghouti supporting terrorism, and then this YouTube link that fails to load and then Canary Mission, a website that has been described as a McCarthyite blacklist that engages in slander. Sir Joseph edit warred to maintain a BLP violation, violating both WP:BLP and the 1 revert rule. nableezy - 02:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: remember this? Case in point. Do we need to get the edit-notice added to talk pages of articles that already have an edit-notice too? nableezy - 02:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Well I personally disagree with the thinking that having a belief, any belief really, makes one incompatible with editing in the topic area. I hold plenty of beliefs that many people may find objectionable. What matters here though is do my edits betray such beliefs, do they push POVs at odds with the balance of reliable sources. Sir Joseph can believe the Palestinians are whatever he thinks they are. He shouldnt make those feelings known on talk pages obviously. I still think the most serious thing here is edit-warring to maintain a BLP violation. And given the previous blocks for gaming on this board (example) I think the game playing about its not enforceable because it doesnt have an edit-notice, for an editor obviously aware, is evidence of why the new requirement was, while well intended, misguided. Whats important is that people know about the 1RR and that it is in place for a given article. This talk page has an ARBPIA template. Are we really pretending that people dont think Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is covered by ARBPIA? Do we really think that calling Omar Barghouti a supporter of terrorism is not a BLP violation? Or that it is not covered by ARBPIA? Extended-confirmed protection and the 1RR have done wonders for this topic area. Yes, I realize given its current state that this is not saying much, but lest we forget there was an arbitration case in this topic area that had 2 socks of one banned editor in it (ARBPIA2 and NoCal100 with Canadian Monkey, socks of Isarig). The new requirement is allowing editors who know what is covered to play these games. That he edit-warred to restore a BLP violation for an edit he knew was covered by the sanctions and is arguing that because the frickin talk page doesnt have the edit-notice that it cant be enforced is the problem here. That he said something that I personally find disgusting makes it just another day on the internet really. nableezy - 05:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC) You all are taking this too far. Huldra said armed settlers, and yes she should not have said that just based of the soapboxing rules, and yes when they are not actively engaged in military action they are civilians and yes under the laws of war they may not be attacked and they are not valid targets, lets get all that out of the way. That entire discussion from start to end had things that violate WP:SOAPBOXING. But you ban her for stating an opinion, even if you disagree with it, or Sir Joseph for doing the same, you are going to hurt the encyclopedia. Yall ignore the only thing that really merits anything besides a stern warning to avoid stating personal opinions on Wikipedia in any context and jump on views on either side that you dont like. You are going to hurt the encyclopedia. nableezy - 08:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by Icewhiz Sir Joseph was asked a political question on his own talk page (the context being diff (in the question) - whether Israeli civilians in the West Bank are a "legitimate target" per Huldra). I'l also note that Huldra - diff - !voted "Oppose, resisting occupation is legitimate" recently (in the context of whether attacks on Israelis in the West Bank should be included in the article). Use of the "the Palestinians" as a contraction for a long list of Palestinian political and militant organizations (e.g. Category:Palestinian militant groups (which is not up to date on all the small factions in current Gaza): Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Abu Ali, Mustapha Brigades, Abu Nidal Organization, Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades, Alliance of Palestinian Forces, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Arab Liberation Front, Army of Islam (Gaza Strip), As-Sa'iqa, Black September Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah, Fatah al-Intifada ,Fatah al-Islam, Fatah Hawks, Force 14, Free Palestine Movement, Hamas, Holy Jihad Brigades, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Jaljalat, Jund Ansar Allah, Liwa al-Quds, Mujahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem, Al-Najjada, Palestine Liberation Army, Palestinian Freedom Movement, Palestinian Liberation Front, Palestinian Liberation Front (Abu Nidal Ashqar wing), Palestinian National and Islamic Forces, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (1991), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, Popular Resistance Committees, Al-Quds Brigades, Galilee Forces, Sabireen Movement, Swords of Truth, Tanzim, Tawhid al-Jihad (Gaza Strip)) is common in everyday speech. Sir Joseph is far from making a novel claim on his talk page - e.g. this recent op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: ". The peace process has been frozen for years and the Israeli public soured on it after Palestinian terrorist attacks in the 2000s and the Hamas takeover of Gaza."[30] Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Sir Joseph This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Sir Joseph, ARBPIA says: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict — that means also talk pages. Which is to say, it's not by accident that the Committee didn't write articles instead of page. And it doesn't help that in that instance you're reverting the edits of a user who states I warned you admins that I will edit as I see fit when I was blocked against the rules. El_C 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Sir Joseph, you could be right. Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice/doc does say: the visibility of this template is a prerequisite to sanctioning an editor for violation of the 1RR restriction. But if there is an editnotice on the article, does that not mean that 1RR on its talk page automatically becomes applicable? I suspect that yes, but I'm not sure. Perhaps that is something the Committee could clear up. (Or has already cleared up and I just missed it.) El_C 02:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Sir Joseph, I'm sure Drmies would have recused himself from the uninvolved admin section if he wasn't uninvolved. El_C 03:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Sir Joseph, to me, saying that he has it in for you sort of intimates it, but I may have misread. El_C 03:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Yet it's hard to argue that Sir Joseph would somehow not be aware of these restrictions... Drmies (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, Sir Joseph, that's the kind of technicality that makes all this so tedious. You may well get off on a technicality, but that comes at a cost. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I don't know why anyone is focusing on 1RR and talking about getting off on technicalities here. An editor has said one side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is interested only in killing the other side. Whatever their motivations for saying that, this is incompatible with editing in this topic area. At best, it is exactly the type of thing that will prompt disruption and make consensus-building regarding article content harder. At worst, it reveals a severe bias against one side of the issue that makes it impossible for the editor to edit neutrally in this area. Either way, allowing the editor to continue editing this topic area at this time is a net negative. This is a topic area under discretionary sanctions, and so any administrator can implement a topic ban if they feel one is warranted. I do feel one is warranted, so I support a three-month topic ban. ~ Rob13Talk 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: It is, actually, broadly construed, if you are editing about the topic area on that page. ~ Rob13Talk 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @BU Rob13: I'd support a three month TBAN for Sir Joseph. However, in the same discussion we have Huldra advocating violence against civilians (diff, diff). IMO this merits an indef ban from ARBPIA; I'm frankly considering taking it to AN to argue for a site ban. GoldenRing (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Yes, let's action this under regular DS. I'm not in favor of time-limited topic bans, however, and would prefer an indef ban with appeal allowed after 3 months. Since Huldra isn't a participant here, I think that matter should be dealt with outside this thread, after they are notified and given an opportunity to respond. T. Canens (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I agree we need a topic ban with a possibility of appeal after 3 months, and we also need to open a new AE request against Huldra.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC) This has changed significantly in my time at AE; several years ago, short topic bans were a commonplace way to give editors a break from a topic for a bit. Their use is disappearing. Why? GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC) I concur with the proposed topic ban and the examination of Huldra's conduct in a separate request. Sandstein 10:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: Your edits are clearly within the ARBPIA topic. You can try to wikilawyer this if you like, and it will end just as badly as it did last time. Since you yourself have brought a request here under ARBPIA DS and also had a DS notification in July last year, you clearly meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. Accordingly, I am imposing a three month topic ban from ARBPIA topics. I recognise some are arguing for an indefinite ban appealable after three months and that I am going against that opinion; I am doing so because (a) some of the opposition is to time-limited bans in general, but they are clearly a sanction open to us; (b) although it doesn't excuse the conduct, they were clearly responding to fairly egregious behaviour themselves; and (c) in cases where intend an editor take a relatively short break from a topic, I think it's better for the ban to expire automatically than to require an appeal, as an appeal only means that their re-entrance to the topic is immediately preceded by controversy and bad blood. I will open a separate request regarding Huldra shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC) Given the total mess I made of this situation last week, I'm rescinding my topic ban and leaving this for another admin to deal with. GoldenRing (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)