User talk:Lev Reitblat

Notification of arbitration sanctions
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk)
 * And as such, since ChrisO is not an administrator, this notice is not effective and I have removed it from the log. Breein1007 (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked the log (before your removing) and found out that ChrisO send this notification notice only to those editors who was against his opinion about Goldstone. Is it possible to punish him for such kind of illegal action?
 * I don't know. Maybe it's impersonating an admin or something. I'm not sure what you can do about it. Maybe try asking another uninvolved admin. It's certainly hard to work on editing articles with users who do things like that, though. Breein1007 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't make an ass of yourself. The notice is effective. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you an administrator (and not an ass) how can you explain that only part of the editors of Golstone talk got the notice? I hope you add all of them --LReit (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Lev. I am an administrator, and probably also something of an ass (you'll have to be the judge of that). You'll have to ask ChrisO why specific editors were provided the notice.
 * Part of the answer, I think, may be that other editors were notified in the past. You can see a list of editors and the dates they were notified here. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's correct. I checked the list, found that the three editors I notified were not listed, and notified them. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wrong! Check the list of editors notified by HJ Mitchell several hours after your notification and you see that most of them were not previously notified--LReit (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: General sanctions and 1RR restriction on Richard Goldstone
'''You are receiving this message because of your involvement at the Richard Goldstone article. Please don't consider it an assumption of bad faith''' As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.
 * In relation to the above, you are informed that the Richard Goldstone article is under a blanket 1RR restriction and violations of this restriction will result in escalating blocks and/or topic/page bans. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lev Reitblat, it is my recommendation that you follow not just 1RR, but actually 0RR on the article. Your account is a very new one, and seems to be overly focused on the Richard Goldstone article.  So trying to make any reverts on the article is not wise. Please instead follow the steps of Wikipedia dispute resolution and engage in discussions on the talkpage.  If other editors agree with your proposed changes, the article will be changed in that way. Note that my comment here is not an official 0RR restriction, and will not be logged at the arbitration case page.  I am simply asking you, for now, to voluntarily follow 0RR until things calm down.  Would you be willing to agree to this? This will help to lower the temperature on the article, and stabilize things, in order to help restore the collaborative editing process. Thanks, --Elonka 13:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really a new editor here. But I refuse to get a description as a one-purpose editor: my contribution to the disputeded article was done on May 14, several days before ChrisO started his wars by deleting big fragments from the text. I'm also an editor of the Russian version of WP. Please read my position on the disputed fragment on Goldstone's talkpage (under "An attempt of compromise").--LReit (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, to help with identification, perhaps you could add some information to User:Lev Reitblat, along with a link to your userpage on the Russian Wikipedia? Right now you have a blank userpage here, and showing up as a "redlink" tends to weaken your position, as it makes your account look either new, or like a sockpuppet. --Elonka 14:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Violation of Biographies of living persons policy
Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires that if content has been removed because of good-faith BLP objections, consensus must be obtained before it is restored. A majority of editors opposes the restoration of the material you just restored to Richard Goldstone. There is clearly no consensus for its inclusion. Please desist or you will be referred to arbitration enforcement for action. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you continue impersonating an admin I'll refer you to arbitration enforcement for action. The only restriction on editing Richard Goldstone is 1RR--LReit (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about Chris's message that constitutes impersonating an admin; any editor can refer someone to AE. He is correct on BLP policy; 1RR is not the only consideration at play here.  Ignore his message if you like, but you might take it as advice worth following to avoid ending up blocked.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You think, ChrisO is correct on BLP policy, I think he is not. The only notification I've got is about 1RR and I follow it--LReit (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to speak for Chris, but I am reasonably sure he was referencing the BLP exception to the rule against reverting an article more than three times in a 24 hour period located here. This restriction generally applies to all Wikipedia articles. There are some exceptions to the rule, however, including: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 14:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think he was referencing this part of the policies on editing biographies of living people, which states: To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. (emphasis mine) However the above is still good, pertinent information. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 15:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I've already read this rule. The only problem arising here that somebody has to define that we have a case of "good-faith BLP objections". If it can be done by an individual editor? by simple majority of editors? by qualified majority? by an admin? If I haven't missed smth in the ddiscussion about Goldstone, the only admin HJ Mitchell taking part in it doesn't agree that we have a case of BLP obligation. This was a reason, why 1RR rule was applied. You can correct me if I'm wrong--LReit (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was glad to try to help. Some of this is open to interpretation, but generally on Wikipedia something done in "good faith" means something that's not disruptive or vandalism.  Something an editor removed out of an honest concern for the appropriateness of the material I think would most likely be upheld by the community as having been done in good faith.  Of course people may then go on to disagree about whether or not that concern was well-founded, but that's a different question.  To the rest, I believe HJ agreed that the original source was a BLP violation, but seems somewhat open to including sources that reference the conflict that are otherwise reliable. Of course others disagree. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re this -- I think I understand what the problem is. BLP applies universally (to BLPs, that is) -- it's not as if it applies only when an editor gets a notification (as with AE). It sounds like you are saying that you didn't think the BLP provision applied because you hadn't received a formal notification of some sort. That would be a misconception. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppose you are right and deleted text is realy falls under WP:BLP. This means that deleted text can't be restore. If so, why restriction 1RR is applied which means that deleted text CAN BE restored (but only restricted number of times per 24 hours). I acted not only according to notifications but also according to a common logic--LReit (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1RR would apply to any other changes/reversions someone makes on the article. As for your first point, you are correct: BLP would require that deleted material (such as the four paragraphs in question) can't be restored unless/until there is a consensus to do so.  The BLP condition in question is more strict than 1RR.  The admin nonetheless took the view that 1RR was necessary to prevent disputes on other issues from getting out of hand.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no sense to apply 1RR to any other changes. I don't see any other hot disputes there--LReit (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, 1RR in this context was preventive with regard to anything else that might arise. It does not mean that BLP can be ignored.  I can understand that you might be suspicious of my attempts to make this clear given that we have opposing views on Goldstein (though I'm genuinely trying to be helpful here), so perhaps it would make sense for you to ask for clarification from a neutral party.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify what I mean here: 1RR is not to be read as an entitlement to revert -- particularly when another policy applies to restrict the addition of something. This is something that is made clear at WP:3RR.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration enforcement request
Please note that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning your repeated violations of multiple Wikipedia policies. You can read the request at WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Yediot
I would refer you to the prior discussion, which had quite a lot of disagreement about whether or not Yediot can be considered a reliable source for the purposes of the information under consideration at Richard Goldstone. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your refference and still don't understand the difference between NYT and YA. You don't have any numbers about an amount of false information in YA in comparisson with NYT. The only thing you can say that inspite the fact that YA is the biggest Israel newspaper it's small in comparisson with NYT and doesn't belong to a big corporation like News Group. I don't want to take a lot of your (and my time) for a long discussion. If you have an answer it has to be simple--LReit (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lev, what you fail to understand is that if user (and desysoped admin) ChrisO repeatedly states that Yediot is a tabloid and therefore unreliable, regardless of the fact that he is wrong, it must be true. Breein1007 (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is really a kind of simple and clear answer but I want to get the same sort of answer from editors positioning themselves as "uninvolved" --LReit (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually is fairly simple, when boiled down to the essence of policy. I personally have made no judgment about whether Yediot is reliable or not for the purposes of inserting this information, on its face.  It's not my area of expertise and I've never seen the publication much less read it.  However, that's largely immaterial if you understand the premise of our policies surrounding BLPs, which includes the notion that very contentious claims about a living person require extraordinarily reliable sources.  To that end, the fact that there was significant disagreement at WP:RSN about whether Yediot is a reliable source for the Goldstone claim says to me that Yediot cannot be considered "extraordinarily reliable," and therefore cannot be used to source these claims.  In that manner, it matters not what I think.  Does this make sense? &mdash; e. ripley\talk 19:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. I also use this approach of minimal negative references amount when looking for a hotel via the Internet :-). Also put your mind on the fact that in all discussions about YA reliability you can't find any example of false information published by YA. BTW, suppose for a moment that you got some incontenstable prove that information about Goldstone published in YA is true. Can it really change your opinion about the man?--LReit (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Goldstone article ban
Hello, this is to inform you that, as a result of WP:AE and in accordance with Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, you have been banned from editing and its associated talk page for 14 days starting from my timestamp. This restriction also applies to and  and you may request action against them on my talk page or at WP:AE if you believe they have violated this restriction. Your cooperation on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I haven't got an answer on my statement at Wikifan12345 et al, so, please, explain me  here: if it will be possible for me to restore deleted disputed text after the ban period expiration? In other words if only 1RR restriction is applied or the disputed text is also under BLP restriction. The question is not, in any case, a declaration of my future intends. Consider it as my approach for better understanding of WP rules--LReit (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The most important policy on Wikipedia, would be WP:BLP. This means that when there is a dispute about whether or not to include negative information about a living person, the preference is to keep the information out of the article, unless there is a consensus that it should be restored.  BLP is a stronger policy than revert limitations.  In fact, BLP can even be stronger than 3RR, meaning that if someone is edit-warring to remove negative information from a living person's biography, they may be allowed to revert more than three times per day (but this is rare).  BLP is also stronger than 1RR. Does that help?  --Elonka 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer, it's very clear. I now checked and found the following interesting fact. There is no "Criticism" or "Controversy" section in Barack Obama, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or even George W. Bush articles and there are such sections in Silvio Berlusconi, Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Sarkozy articles. A possible explanation is that for english speaking community it's much more simple to reach a consensus for negative information about foreign politicians than their own.  --LReit (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, after the 2 weeks are up, the exemption on BLP grounds applies only in blatantly obvious cases. Other cases should be brought to the attention of myself and/or other uninvolved admins because this whole mess started with a few people who couldn't agree on what was a BLP violation. You seem to have got caught in the crossfire, but don't take this as a punishment, just think of it as an opportunity for everyone to calm down and do something more rewarding than yell at each other. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)