Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151

Request concerning AmirSurfLera

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction


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


 * 1) June 7 2014 1st revert
 * 2) June 7 2014 Second revert violating 1RR ruling


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Edit summary "Sorry, I didn't want to remove the second paragraph. I'm restoring the long-standing sourced version in the first paragraph because sources from JVL don't reflect what the text says." shows they viewed the article history where they would have found that the Bethlehem section was under discussion in the talk page where the 1RR notice is posted. Also is very active on israel-palestinian articles
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

Not applicable


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera
''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 AmirSurfLera
Actually I didn't realize I violated 1RR. I just wanted to change the paragraph, but then – after Sean.hoyland reverted me – I noticed that I removed the second paragraph unintentionally, so I corrected myself by changing the first paragraph but leaving the next one intact (I didn't know this was a violation of 1RR, since this is not a revert). Then Sean improved it a little bit, and I thanked him for it. We weren't engaged in edit warring, but if it seemed that way, I apologize to everyone. Regarding the last question by Sean.hoyland, I want to clarify that I've never been blocked, and it would be a shame if I were punished for a minor technical issue. Again, I'm sorry and I will be more careful next time.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
I saw that pair of edits and reverted AmirSurfLera's first revert because of the unexplained removal of content. I quickly noticed that a small part of the content I restored was wrong (probably for years) and fixed it in a deliberate and conscious technical 1RR violation on my part to correct a factual error. Why did I deliberately violate 1RR ? Because I didn't get the impression that I was in an edit war with an edit warrior. AmirSurfLera's explanation for their second revert was "Sorry, I didn't want to remove the second paragraph. I'm restoring the long-standing sourced version in the first paragraph because sources from JVL don't reflect what the text says." Their actions didn't look like edit warring to me. More like someone editing collaboratively. Their second revert was only necessary because my first revert reversed their changes to the first paragraph. In fact, I was only interested in restoring the material that had been removed, the second paragraph. I didn't even look at the changes to the first paragraph. Reversing their changes to the first paragraph was a unintended side effect of my using undo instead of more carefully examining the changes and only restoring the second paragraph. Of course they couldn't know that, but even so, 1RR violation or not, they weren't edit warring, not with me anyway assuming it takes two. Even if they were edit warring they fixed the consequences of my somewhat sledgehammer-like revert of their revert.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I would hate to give the mistaken impression that I'm a nice guy, so I shall add something. Regardless of the quality of AmirSurfLera's editing which I haven't really looked at in detail, I would be very surprised indeed if they were not an editor with an undisclosed editing history who has returned to WP:ARBPIA. I thought they were an AndresHerutJaim sock, but apparently I was wrong about that (see User_talk:Elockid). Perhaps now is the time to ask AmirSurfLera about their editing history before this account because apparently, according to checkuser Elockid, they have one.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * It appears that User:AmirSurfLera violated the 1RR restriction on June 7 at Operation Defensive Shield. I hope that he will respond and explain why he shouldn't be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no block per the above explanations. AmirSurfLera is now notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. He is advised that if he has neutrality concerns about Operation Defensive Shield he is expected to participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning SAS81

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience :


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


 * 1) 21:02, 9 June 2014‎ Blatantly non-neutral, begging the question RFC.
 * 2) 19:58, 9 June 2014 Incivility ("Fringe Warrior")
 * 3) 04:30, 29 May 2014 Incivility ("Fringe Warrior")
 * 4) 03:56, 9 June 2014 Incivility ("Fringe Warrior")


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Self declared -

SAS81 has stated that he is a paid advocate for Deepak Chopra, who has wasted countless hours of time pushing fruitlessly to remove any mention that Chopra is widely considered a "Guru," and attempted countless times to have Chopra's praise from Bill Clinton, his description as a "thought leader," and a host of other rejected proposals added to the article. He has constantly enforced a battleground attitude (examine, for instance, his statement that I "raise the FRINGE banner extensively and proudly even and seem to focus very heavily on editors who they believe view the subject matter differently" in light of my extremely limited participation on the Chopra talk page, and exactly one substantive edit to the article itself). I request that SAS81 be rate-limited to 3 posts to the Chopra article talk page per day, consisting of no more than 600 words of added text (excluding citations and other text - 600 of his own words), to level the playing field between editors who are paid to advocate and filibuster and the rest of us.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Askahrc writes "I myself suggested that we needed a different iteration of an RfC than Hipocrite's." What RFC is Askahrc giving me ownership of, exactly? Why is that RFC mine? Is this further evidence of battleground behavior? Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning SAS81
''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 SAS81

 * I am not here to edit, I am here however as a direct representative of Dr. Chopra, per his own issues with his article on Wikipedia per BLP and my role specifically is to provide sources and perspectives to facilitate a fair, neutral portrayal of Dr. Chopra. That’s it.


 * I’m not paid to be an advocate and neither promoting nor advertising has anything to do with the scope of my work. There are lots of suspicious editors around this subject matter and I know they are invested in this idea of me being a paid shill similar to what you find from an oil company. I’m a researcher and representative to an archive and repository. We don’t advocate or promote what’s on or will be in the archive any more than The Los Angeles County Museum of Art is an advocate for Magritte’s ‘The Treachery of images’ or Wikipedia is an advocate for any article they feature. There have been no links to advertising, no promotional materials pushed as sources and no edits proposed to try to encourage visitors to the Chopra Center. We are responsible for representing what’s in the archive when it’s being misrepresented. Once it’s been presented to you on Wikipedia I try to ensure it’s portrayed fairly, but that’s the extent of my work.


 * I’ve had heaps of pushback since I arrived, often times putting me in somewhat of an unhealthy relationship with editors who are upset with the subject of this biography. I don’t take that personally, but it does take its toll. FreeRangeFrog, suspicious of Chopra himself, even pointed out that i am not the problem, that I have valid intentions and was up against a ‘small army of vociferous skeptics and wiki warriors’, even stating that such a reception makes the Wikipedia community look bad.


 * In spite of the huge pushback my presence has instigated by a number of these suspicious editors, I’ve have a number of very successful and productive conversations with many esteemed editors and admins. At am a  has accepted me to the page and has acknowledged I have faithfully observed the COI rules, that my participation is helpful (albeit somewhat unconventional), and that the process we have been engaging is has been constructive.


 * SlimVirgin, whom I am unabashedly in awe of in terms of encyclopedia writing, has not only asked me for help with media or sources, but has addressed the same exact issues that I have.


 * JPS, an editor who argues a hard science position on fringe articles, complimented me that I was rare in that I was willing to listen and we to found a consensus on some issues.


 * A prominent editor on Wiki project skepticism, D kriegls, and I had a wonderfully productive conversation regarding the over all problems with contentious subject matters such as this.


 * Askahrc has been an incredibly helpful facilitator, and requested some outside commentary which instigated the RfC that filed


 * Littleolive_oil left me my first barnstar :)


 * I'm here to help Sandstein - I've been trying to keep my responses as sparse as possible, but I'm also responding to queries from editors who don't mind working with me. I'm here to be productive inside of Wikipedia and help a contentious issue diffuse. I've convinced Dr. Chopra that working within Wikipedia's guideline is the way to work these problems out. Boy am I going to feel like a chump if I get blocked from his article he requested my help directly on. Please reconsider.


 * I’ve removed the RFC. I apologize if this caused disruption - I placed that RfC because there were BLP issues and the previous RfC did not include biography. I assumed it would have been apart of the same RfC process and did not mean to duplicate.

SAS81 (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused NW- I'm hoping you can help clear this up. I'm acting as a representative for BLP, specifically per WP:BIOSELF and that such participation is one of the courtesies extended to living persons who raise NPOV issues on their articles. How does WP:BIOSELF get turned into an SPA? I've also have been vetted by two admins in my COIN - both whom welcomed me and reviewed my activity. Additionally I have been working with the editors on the actual article, supplying them with sources and images that they would not have had access. If I was over extending, I would have assumed At am a  would have brought something to my attention. Is this ruling meant to inform Dr. Chopra that WP:BIOSELF is not longer extended to him? If this is the case, it would be good to know what the offending behaviors are, I've made it a point to work within WP and so has he. SAS81 (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I also have no problems with accepting the restrictions suggested by Hippocrite, they seem reasonable to me given the circumstances. SAS81 (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I would like to thank all of the Wikipedia editors and admins, especially Slim, Capn and Atama, who have taken the time to address the issue and offer support to the position I have been addressing. This is a time sink for all of you and  it really speaks well to see very diligent and committed editors offering quite lucid commentary. I also Hipocrite, who on his own came to my talk  page and offer a olive branch resolution, which I accept. I am going to make a strong effort to keep it as sparse as possible.  SAS81 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Askahrc
I understand your concerns about a COI, Sandstein, but I feel SAS81 has provided more utility than they've taken up time, making them a net positive for WP. They've provided very large numbers of sources upon request, posted materials to WikiCommons when asked and has provided direct feedback from Chopra when we've had stalemates with how to proceed with sources. They've been present on the Talk Page, but that's in large part because users like myself, Littleolive oil, Slimvirgin and others have asked them for information, sources and input that are difficult to obtain from the outside. The RfC that Hipocrite listed as disruptive concerned a longstanding matter that has been brought up as something needing an RfC numerous times (1, 2), and I myself suggested that we needed a different iteration of an RfC than Hipocrite's. As far as I know SAS81's never edited the article itself, has not derailed forming consensus and has been pretty civil and reasonable. The Chopra article is not contentious because of SAS81, but because there are significant content issues being (sometimes heatedly) debated.

As for Hipocrite, I've encountered this editor before when they posted a fake AE about "edit warring" on my personal Talk Page after I posted a single revert. My experiences with Hipocrite have suggested they are prone to overreacting and hostility. This AE seems to be more of the same. It'd be a shame to dispense a punishment even harsher than Hipocrite proposed when the initial claim was unwarranted. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Hipocrite, Sorry for the confusion, you're is not directly associated with the RfC, though even if they were I'm not sure how that's a battleground statement. It's a perfectly legit RfC, I never argued otherwise.
 * I understand the procedural reason why Sandstein reopened the AE after Hipocrite closed it, but I'd hope the fact that all parties have come to an agreement and are satisfied would be enough to close this AE the proper way. I never like to see AE's used against editors that aren't being clearly and deliberately disruptive, though it seems to with unfortunate frequency.  In terms of weighing that AE, I agree with many of Atama's points, though I would definitely point out that since that point SAS81 has worked to decrease disruptions on the page, not increase them (1, 2, 3).
 * Also, SAS81 has not been a disproportionately active editor on this page, but rather contributed to a similar degree as the other active editors on Deepak Chopra Talk.

The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Atama, Of course. I've updated the chart, though it's important to remember that the citations SAS81 has provided upon request have been large but solicited additions. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Gaba_p, why in the world are you posting in the Uninvolved Administrator's section? You are a heavily involved non-admin.  Bad form.  Also, SAS81 has been clear about being a paid representative all along, they've just disagreed about being a paid PR advocate and have argued they're here to assist with accuracy.  There's a difference there. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure where to cmmt (which is why I specified it was a non-admin cmmt), sorry. I'll move my comment to its own section in a bit. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Atama
I gave SAS81 some advice similar to the sanctions that Hipocrite is asking for above. It was on the article talk page, and I'd suggested to slow down, pick one point at a time to go over, and try to resolve each point until some kind of consensus is reached. That is how I used to approach mediation when I was actively involved in it and I found it helpful. That kind of focus keeps people from getting distracted by one little dispute after another, and helps prevent editors from feeling overwhelmed and frustrated. I don't feel that SAS81 followed my advice at all, and I'm not so arrogant as to feel that we've reached this point because of that, but I do think that maybe things might have been better if the advice had been followed.

I've been giving SAS81 some tips here and there to help them try to avoid conflict, because I think that input from Chopra's representative can be a useful tool for developing the article. (When trying to give advice to SAS81 about other articles to use as examples to improve the Chopra article, I pointed out that I couldn't find a biography of an advocate for alternative medicine or unorthodox science that rated above a "C" in quality; it would be great to see this article reach GA or even FA someday.) So I support Hipocrite's suggestion, to limit SAS81's participation at the article talk page, but not to eliminate it altogether. I think it will reduce the strain that some editors feel in having to handle so much thrown their way, and perhaps it will help SAS81 take a more methodical approach to the talk page that has a better chance of bringing a resolution to various disputes there.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that I've intentionally tried to limit my involvement at the article, so that I could act either as mediator at some point, or to exercise my admin tools if necessary. I haven't made a single edit to the main article space (ever), and I've tried to stay neutral in any of the content disputes at that page. I've only given out advice of one kind or another, did a bit of footwork trying to vet sources that people suggested, and made some general points about our policies and guidelines to keep discussions on track. I haven't kept a thorough eye on the article talk page, partially because as Hipocrite suggests above there is so much discussion going on, driven (in part, but not totally) by the volume of commentary from SAS81. So I'm quite certain that I've missed something here and there at the talk page (and especially the article space) and if any of my comments or suggestions here seem to be in ignorance of some occurrence there, it could be because I am in ignorance. So feel free to correct me. :) --  At am a  頭 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of fairness, could you also include size (in bytes) to your chart? I think that's where a large part of the complaint is. Not how often SAS81 edits, but how large the contributions are. I imagine that is why the request from Hipocrite includes not just a limitation on posts per day, but words per post (and it generously excludes citations from the restriction). --  At am a  頭 20:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You suggested that uninvolved admins "enforce a strict NPA zone on the talk page and make sure that the content policies are being enforced and not misrepresented." I endorse that, but halfway. I already disclosed that I don't watch every single thing on the talk page because it can get overwhelming but I do support taking a broader definition of NPA and treating marginal NPAs as seriously as blatant NPAs in an environment like this. I believe that is in the spirit of discretionary sanctions. I'm not as sure about "enforcing content policies"; as you know well, admins don't enforce content, we enforce behavior. As soon as we start making declarations of what content is appropriate, we're considered involved. When I see policies that I feel are being misrepresented, I try to correct people, that's why I made this comment, because I had the same concern that you did about the exclusion of primary sources. But there's only so much "enforcement" we can do in that regard. --  At am a  頭 21:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. I'm totally on board with that. --  At am a  頭 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by SlimVirgin
SAS81 is not the problem here. He is representing the BLP subject on the talk page. The BLP policy allows this (see WP:BLPKIND and WP:BLPSELF), and the Foundation has asked that "anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect." There would have to be significant disruption before a subject or his representative were removed, and nothing like that has happened here.

Deepak Chopra feels he needs representation because, as he wrote recently, he believes the article is controlled by "skeptic activists" that aim only to discredit him. It's hard to disagree that there's a problem when you look through the article and talk page. This is the article as I found it. I'll draw attention to one issue only, Chopra's view of AIDS. The article said only this of it:

This is a BLP violation. Chopra is a physician who specialized in endocrinology. He has a standard view of AIDS and recommends conventional medical treatment. In addition to medical care he recommends mantra meditation and has described a version of Ayurvedic medicine (traditional Hindu medicine) that talks about the virus responding to certain vibrations. But this philosophical view is offered as one perspective within a particular theory of consciousness, and it is offered in addition to conventional medical views and treatment, not as a replacement. When an effort was made to explain this in the article, the previous text was restored four times before a slight correction was allowed. (Even that modest correction has since been watered down, with the result that the current text makes little sense.)

The people involved on the skepticism side aim to make sure that the article doesn't become a platform for unorthodox ideas. I understand and respect that, but extra care is needed for BLPs. Several issues stand out:


 * 1) The talk-page atmosphere is extremely aggressive, with regular personal attacks and sarcasm. This means that few editors would choose to become involved, and this implicit exclusion serves to isolate Chopra from the usual assistance available to BLP subjects.
 * 2) Several of the accounts on the skepticism side are misrepresenting the content policies. For example, several insist that no primary sources are allowed, even to ensure accuracy and avoid BLP violations. But WP:PSTS, which as part of NOR is policy, does allow the careful use of primary sources.
 * 3) There has been an attempt to prioritize WP:FRINGE, a guideline, over the content policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.
 * 4) Inappropriate sources are being used simply because they are hostile to Chopra. But the standard for inclusion for sources not hostile to him is significantly higher – so high in some cases that perfectly appropriate sources have been excluded.

My suggestion to SAS81 is to consider reducing the number and length of his talk-page posts, and refrain from responding to every point that others raise. Sometimes it's better just to let things go. SAS, if you want to post sources and other media (which I found very useful when I was briefly involved in the article), perhaps you could do that on a subpage and post a link to it.

It would be very helpful if uninvolved admins would do two things: enforce a strict NPA zone on the talk page and make sure that the content policies are being enforced and not misrepresented. I think those two changes would make a big difference to the quality of interaction and editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree about taking a broad view of NPA. By enforcing the content policies, I meant mainly two things: first, enforcing BLP (particularly the requirement to get things right), which is being almost ignored in favour of FRINGE, and second, stepping in when users misrepresent the policies by saying, for example, that no primary sources are allowed. This is false, but less-experienced users – include the BLP subject's representative – may not know that. This is where an admin can step in and cite the policy. It's then for editors to decide how to apply it, but at least there would be an uninvolved authoritative voice making clear what the policies say. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a procedural request that this be placed under discretionary sanctions because it's a BLP, rather than because someone has referred to the subject's work as pseudoscience. The Arbitration Committee recently merged its special BLP enforcement provisions into its general discretionary sanctions. See Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions: "Articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles (Footnoted quotes)." SlimVirgin (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. I asked that the discretionary sanctions be applied because it's a BLP for two reasons. (1) Consigning the biography to the pseudoscience sanctions is arguably a BLP violation in that it places a certain view of Chopra in Wikipedia's voice. It's worth noting that the article was removed from the pseudoscientists category for the same reason. And (2) one of the problems on the page has been the attempt to prioritize FRINGE over BLP; placing the page under restrictions for reasons of pseudoscience, rather than because it's a problematic BLP, may serve to reinforce that view. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
I will second SlimVirgin's concerns about the talk page atmosphere at the Chopra article and other pseudoscience articles. There are a number of editors who appear to be in attack mode over Chopra and other pseudoscience articles. They often give an appearance of being condescending, rude, and brusque with other editors, and the Chopra article is a good example. An editor who is here due to BLP concerns, as SAS81 is, should not be being treated this way. It reflects poorly on the editors who are doing it and it reflects poorly on WP's administration that is not doing enough to stop it. Please do what the community has charged you with and correct the behavior in question. That includes you too, NuclearWarfare. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare, in light of Sandstein's recent comments, do you have anything to add? Cla68 (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Olive
A few thoughts:

(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC))
 * I agree that the suggestion to slow down is a good one. However, for a newer editor there is an impulse to answer all comments directed at him. The editors SAS81 faces on the Deepak Chopra talk page far outnumber him as do the comments he may believe require a reply. Its worth noting editors can be criticised for not answering questions or for answering in a way the questioner doesn't approve of. I also agree that it would help SAS to limit his posts somewhat. I don't see the need to structure limits on his editing; he consistently shows himself ready to comply with best practices. SAS81 has to know he doesn't have to answer all commemts, that he has "permission" to walk away if he has to with out being crticized for it. I suspect that because almost everything SAS81 says is criticized, there may be  tendency to explain more fully than other editors would.
 * The talk page atmosphere is unpleasant. In my experience that unpleasantness isn't coming form SAS81. For example, comments have bordered on the vicious towards both SAS and Chopra. Such attacks on Chopra, describing him for example, as a snake oil salesman, unless related directly to content being discussed is a talk-page, BLP violation.
 * Despite the attacks against him. SAS81 remains consistently and remarkably calm, dispassionate, and friendly through most discussions. I give SAS81 full credit for de escalating potentially unpleasant situations, multiple times, and this behaviour often alleviated potential disruption.
 * I concur with Slim Virgin that on this article the use of primary sources has been a contentious subject area. I believe the use of primary sources has been misunderstood and used to delete without prior discussion large amounts of content. SAS81's  position on primary sources coincides with both Blueboar's and Slim Virgin's both respected for their  extensive knowledge of policy.
 * I'd add that I understand and support the need for content that is health related to be WP:MEDRS compliant as is some of the content on Deepak Chopra. That standard must be applied to all content that is health related not just content that shows Chopra in a negative light.

Statement by Gaba_p
Even though SAS81's behaviour in the TP is not problematic to the point of warranting a ban (he is a bit disruptive bringing up issues over and over again and derailing talk page threads) I too believe his is a WP:SPA with deep WP:COI issues. He admitted that the only reason he is here is because he's getting paid: "@TPROD, I get paid to do this because no volunteer would put up with this much abuse as a hobby and volunteers tend to get harassed away from the article." Although he later backtracked on his own word and claimed he wasn't being paid, the first quote is reason enough IMHO to issue a topic-ban. Regards Gaba  (talk)  17:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by vzaak
If SlimVirgin is referring to my comments, then they have been grossly misconstrued. I have been saying that both WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE should be upheld. To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that FRINGE be "prioritized".

An independent source (WP:FRIND) provides the mainstream response to a fringe claim, and only with such a source can we confidently place the fringe view in proper context per WP:NPOV, in particular WP:PSCI, a policy. I consider this to be the main reason for WP:FRIND.

I gave additional reasons for WP:FRIND but they were all ignored, along with my question, "Is it really true that independent sources cannot provide what we need?". Instead, they were construed as a "ban" on primary sources. No, there is no "ban", but per WP:FRIND the best sources are independent ones. An independent source may be supplemented by a primary source as long as there are no WP:ORish moves involved. Without an independent source, inserting willy-nilly primary-source material about a fringe claim is likely to be a violation of WP:PSCI (a policy), and is likely to be promotional as well.

Note that I have never edited the Deepak Chopra article.

I had been pulled into the Chopra talk page after SAS81 pinged me. Upon looking there, to my surprise I had noticed Askahrc defaming me with false information right there on the talk page, where I briefly responded. Having read other comments on the page, I contributed a few points to the discussion.

You said, "if there is misconduct by others on that talk page, such as personal attacks, it can be reported to this noticeboard", but you did nothing when I reported the aforementioned attack and others here. I subsequently asked Callanecc about how to stop these attacks from Askahrc, who has already been sanctioned for harassment. Since then, Askahrc has continued to make disruptive comments, for example falsely suggesting that I was trying to "police other editors' thoughts". I ask you what I asked Callanecc: What can I do to stop this? Askahrc's first attack on the Chopra page happened before I ever commented there, so removing myself from the page is no guarantee. See my comments to Callanecc for more background and information. vzaak 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Ronz
As an archivist, SAS81 has been able to provide images and point us to primary sources that we would otherwise not have or would have overlooked. I hope SAS81 will continue with such contributions.

While the editing environment for the article is indeed confrontational, SAS81 is making it much worse. As others note, Chopra has perspectives on what biases are at play, and SAS81 is working to battle those perceived biases.

SAS81 should simply follow WP:COI much closer, as detailed in WP:PSCOI and WP:BPCA.

Others should try to collaborate more, while focusing on content and relevant policies/guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Balaenoptera musculus
SAS81's assertion (above) that they are not a paid advocate for Chopra is false. They said, "I am an employee of Dr. Deepak Chopra and represent his direct interests on Wikipedia and elsewhere."

Their more recent attempts to obfuscate this financial relationship does not reflect to their credit; neither does User:SlimVirgin's new round of off-wiki canvassing: "SlimVirgin described the problem as a clear 'BLP violation' and said, "several of the accounts on the skepticism side are misrepresenting the content policies." BLP means 'Biography of a Living Person' and used an example of how Deepak's views on AIDS were intentionally misframed to discredit him.

SAS81's verbose and repetitive assertions of Chopra's merit on the Talk page are in violation of policy:

WP:PAY

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning SAS81
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

In and of themselves, the reported diffs do not appear problematic to a degree that they would require sanctions. But looking at SAS81's user page and contributions, it appears that they are in a WP:COI situation with respect to Deepak Chopra, in that they are an employee of an organization that is, according to SAS81, funded and in part controlled by Chopra. SAS81 has never edited an article, and is almost solely dedicated to writing very lengthy talk page contributions in support of Deepak Chopra's views. Because Wikipedia is not a forum for advocacy, and in view of WP:ARBAB and WP:COI, this makes SAS81's contributions appear to be a net negative for our project. Deepak Chopra's article mentions that his work has been described as pseudoscience, therefore the article is within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and SAS81 has been duly notified. I recommend that SAS81 is banned from the topic of Deepak Chopra.  Sandstein  21:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at this a week ago and was surprised that no one had brought the matter here yet. I concur. NW ( Talk ) 11:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What SlimVirgin writes is persuasive, and has made me change my views in this matter. Considering that SAS81 has agreed to moderate their talk page interactions, I would close this request without action at this time. Also in response to SlimVirgin, it seems to me that it does not matter which set of discretionary sanctions this is subject to (except as concerns notification), but generally I look to the more specific before the more broadly scoped remedies. Also, if there is misconduct by others on that talk page, such as personal attacks, it can be reported to this noticeboard for sanctions.  Sandstein   17:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing with no action. It does not appear that a sanction for SAS81 is needed at this time, though my guess is that future problems may lead to a quick reevaluation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning Steeletrap

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics : "from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased."


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


 * 1) 20:57 9 May 2014 – Removes the names of various notable (Nobel Prize winning) economists from the Cato Institute page, one of whom is F. A. Hayek, an Austrian School economist.
 * 2) 03:53 12 May 2014 – The first of three comments at User talk:Collect, specifically about the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The thread is collapsed by Beeblebox "in the interest of helping Steeltrap avoid violating his topic ban any further".
 * 3) 02:39 9 June 2014 – Modifies article text which is supported by 3 sources (RS) from two Ludwig von Mises Institute people – Walter Block (x2) and Stephan Kinsella (x1)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

On each of these occasions, discussion has been raised with Steeletrap. In each of these discussions Steeletrap has evaded the issue and failed to accept responsibility for the TBAN violations. These discussions are listed here and the numbers correspond to the violations listed above:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 1) At User talk:Steeletrap, the violation of the topic ban is raised and discussed. (No request for formal action ensues.)
 * 2) At User talk:Steeletrap, there was notification and considerable discussion about the fact that Steeletrap's edits to another user talk page were not compliant with the topic ban. Steeletrap took exception to this, even though a WP Oversighter advised otherwise. No sanctions were applied.
 * 3) User talk:Steeletrap, latest discussion regarding the TBAN violation.

User talk:Steeletrap
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Steeletrap
''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 Steeletrap
This request is disingenuous. The first two diffs were arguably T-Ban violations but I posted them before getting a clarification on the scope of the T-Ban. I disagree with the Arb's broad interpretation of the language of the T-Ban -- according to which one cannot post about AE pages on unassociated talk pages (an incoherent interpretation that implies that I have violated the T-ban here, by virtue of mentioning AE in the context of responding to these charges). But I have abided by it since the Arbs first expressed it to me.

The last diff is not, even under the Arb's interpretation, a T-Ban violation. I was providing a NPOV rephrasing of a passage on child-rearing by a non-economist unassociated with the Mises Institute. I am told that secondary sources in the article reference Mises Institute scholars. My edit had nothing to do with those scholars -- who, in any case, were not talking about econ. It was a rephrasing of article text on the ethics of child rearing. Steeletrap (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently occupied with RL. But to answe Ed's question: I certainly don't think I'm permitted to do that, no. Steeletrap (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing the matter more carefully, I have to concede that even under my interpretation of the TB, this is a technical violation. My violation was inadvertent and immaterial to the article, but abiding by the spirit of the TB isn't sufficient; I have to abide by its letter. A block would be a disproportionate and a punitive response; thus it would be inappropriate given that WP sanctions are expressly aimed at preventing future misconduct rather than punishing editors for past misconduct. I have voluntarily stopped editing the SM article; and it has been made clear to me that I will be blocked if I violate the TB in the future. Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by S. Rich (OP)
The third reference (in the Molyneux edit), which Steeletrap did not read when "rephrasing" article text, has the following introductory sentence in its' abstract "What does libertarian theory, Murray Rothbard’s theory in particular, tell us about the rights of children?" Steeletrap's statement about Molyneux being a non-economist and being unassociated with Mises.org is correct. But the sources which supplied information about Molyneux's views are clearly within her TBAN. Steeletrap cannot evade responsibility by saying she did not look at the sources or even at the names of those who wrote the sources. – S. Rich (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Various editors have tried talking nice, but the story about Gettin' the Mule's Attention may be instructive. – S. Rich (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

– Minor point, the edit did not involve Mises Institute data. Rather, the sources are Mises Institute related persons. – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I will note that Steeletrap's edit text (diff #3) said (in part) "...he [Molyneux] includes in this category not only...". This indicates that Steeletrap was reading what Molyneux had written because she is specifically referring to what Molyneux said. But this edit went beyond a simple NPOV re-write of the text. Steeletrap was re-writing/re-paraphrasing what Molyneux had supposedly written. The only source from which Steeletrap could have gotten the material was from the two Mises Institute-related authors (Block and Kinsella). So, either she looked at the RS and disregarded her TBAN or she injected her own spin into what she thought Molyneux should have written. – S. Rich (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to TDA, the problem with Steeletrap's edit involved her direct use of the Mises.org- related people. Now if she pulled Molyneux material from LR.com, that would be skirting the edges of her TBAN. But that is not the case here. She edited material based on what Mises.org people had written about Molyneux. – S. Rich (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As Steeletrap has accepted some responsibility for this violation, I am somewhat satisfied. I think the next step is for Steeletrap to strike the comments she made about this request as being "disingenuous" etc. And she should strike the attempt to minimize the violation. A clear statement of responsibility, without excuses, would set the matter straight. Also, I have no objections per se if Steeletrap edits on the Molyneux article. I simply want her to stay away from those topics (people, institutions, and Austrian Economics) which are prohibited. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
One should note that Stefan Molyneux has written a number of articles for LewRockwell.com, which was started by two of the three founders of the Mises Institute, one of them the site's namesake.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by weakly-involved Gaijin42
Given the zeal with which other's infractions have been dealt with here, I am somewhat confused as to why this is taking so long. Its time to resolve this. The infraction seems quite obvious (but relatively minor) to me, but since multiple days have gone by with no action, we are running into the punitive vs preventative issue here. However since it occurred on the same article as SPECIFICOs infraction above which, and the two editors have a great deal of overlap and collaboration, I am somewhat reluctant to dismiss this as an entirely coincidental accident. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Steeletrap
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Diff #3 of Srich's complaint shows Steeletrap modifying a paragraph whose material is cited to work by Walter Block, a staff member of the Mises Institute. It looks to me that this violates Steeletrap's topic ban from the Mises Institute. I hope that Steeletrap will agree to refrain from editing *any* material that is cited to Mises people and make it unnecessary to issue a block. As a temporary measure it would be wise for her to voluntarily stay away from the Stefan Molyneux article though the terms of her current ban may allow some editing there. If she is planning to make further edits according to the very broad entitlement she stakes out for herself at User talk:Steeletrap the AE admins may need to advise her to the contrary. Per the language of WP:AC/DS her ban can be widened here if it is perceived to have any ambiguity. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @Steeletrap: You were editing a three-sentence paragraph, the first one in the section at Stefan Molyneux. That paragraph that has three reference links to Mises scholars at the end (refs 27, 34 and 76). Do you consider yourself free to reword material that is based on Mises Institute data? This is implausible. You might as well not have a topic ban at all. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing. Steeletrap has now addressed the issue in her 23:03 comment of 12 June. I'm closing this with no action, but with a note that we are expecting her to be careful to avoid future problems on the borderline topics. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nado158
''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 Nado158

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Macedonia :


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


 * 1) June 9, 2014 User moved article from common name of Albanian origin to uncommon name of Serbian origin
 * 2) June 9 to 13, 2014 Drastically rewrote article on Kosovar football club based on non-English sources, edit warred over content when challenged due to behavior on stadium article
 * 3) edit warring on article after being challenged
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) June 9 to 13, 2014 Same as above, different club
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) February 22, 2013 Nado158 is banned for 1 year from "from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed"


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


 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I came across this when I saw the thread WP:ANI and noted behavior of Nado158 across the project in regards to these football clubs of apparent intertwined history. I reverted edits yesterday, and again, today, and requested that he find consensus, until I discovered that he had previously been banned from the topic area. Based on his behavior in acting without a consensus, I believe he has just become more problematic. In his arguments towards me, he brought up where I (used to) live as a reason to discount my opinion, and as a response to the notification that I would come here he brings up other nationalities (although I will admit I referred to his actions as having a Serbian nationalist slant). He also accuses Albanian and Croatian users as being those responsible for his previous account sanctions.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 15:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Another bit of explanation of his point, claiming that the fact that a stadium in Kosovo had been renamed after a Kosovar militant leader from its old Yugoslavian name is the same as hypothetically renaming a stadium in Yorkshire after Osama Bin Laden, as well as more ad hominem jabs based on the residence of the other person in the dispute.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not knowledgable on the history of soccer in Kosovo, or languages of the Balkans, to make any sort of judgement. All I am aware is that he is trying his damnedest to change the name and team colors of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica to FK Trepča despite the fact that FK Trepča (not to be confused with KF Trepça or KF Trepça'89) apparently no longer exists as an independent entity. His disruption right now is mostly centered on Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari (moved without consensus to Trepča Stadium).— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not evidently clear what's going on with the two FCs, or 3 of them, or why Nado158 felt the need to completely disregard the current official name of FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica in favor of FK Trepča.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Added more diffs to support edit warring, which was prior to my knowledge of his ban.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 01:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 

Discussion concerning Nado158
''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 Brianyoumans
Is anyone actually claiming that what Nado158 added to the articles is incorrect? I've read most of the text and it seems quite straightforward. I can't vouch for how it matches the sources because I don't know the langauges, but I haven't seen any objections to the content, just to his reaction when reverted. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like, with the FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica article, the main problem is that Nado158 has failed to include much on the original FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica team, perhaps because they were a much smaller team, and when the two teams merged (I speculate because FK Trepca needed a stadium to use, since their stadium was now on the Albanian side of town), Trepca basically took over, changed the jersey colors, etc. They do seem to be referred to, at least in the Serbian leagues they play in, as "FK Trepca" - see here, for instance. The article as is should simply be moved to the FK Trepca name, and if there isn't enough material on the former FK Partizan to merit an article, it should be a redirect. As to the stadium name, I don't agree with his moving the article to the Trepca name, but at least he is discussing the matter on the talk page, and will hopefully accept the consensus there, which appears to be against him.Brianyoumans (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One might also ask why you twice chose to revert large numbers of edits by Nado158 on the FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica article, calling them "nationalistic" and "questionable", when you had no evidence that anything in them was incorrect, and the material in the edits was, as far as I can see, relatively innocuous? (Disclosure: I have some history with Nado158, both pro and con, on other articles in the Balkans. I am located in the United States and I don't have any real connection to the Balkans.) Brianyoumans (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be fair, on reading the Trepča Stadium talk page carefully, I think Nado158 is making very poor arguments indeed for his move; that the new name of the stadium is offensive to Serbs, or perhaps even intentionally offensive to Serbs, is interesting material for the article, but it doesn't change the fact that the name of the stadium has been officially changed.Brianyoumans (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nado158
This side must be called FK Trepca not FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica (PKM). The PKM merged in th FK Trepca and was integrated in the club, which was foudned in 1932. This was in 2010. The FK Trepca continue to exist of course with the whole tradition ect. The old version was not right in both cases, as a PKM version and in the version as FK Trepca article with the wrong name, the FK PKM. So i tried to improve. The guy who create this article make a big mistake i think. WHat I want to say is that the original article, supposedly about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, was full of mistaken information, not accurate about FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica. I thought before, the PKM is a small club, much too small, I thought the relevance for WP is not enough (an article only for PKM i cant create I think, because of the "weak" history of the club and infos and sources, I am not sure).

Because of this I wanted before to improve the half FK Trepca/FKPKM article and move the article to FK Trepca, because this club was in the Yugoslav First League, have more relevance ect. and to create also a link about FK Partizan KM to FK Trepca. Thats all. Becaue of this, I added also many sources and use also the diskussion side, but the guy came an blame me because of the same users who blame me 1 year ago, but he dont knwo the background of the story than, also the background of the users, their plans, type of working, and the trap they set for me, thus he blame me so fast and revert and revert and revert for totaly another things, and i told him please see the sources, look on the dres, the kits, i explained, but he always blame me for the same stuf and wrong accusations. He sitting in Miami and will explain me the rigth. So i lost my nervs, because is ever the same think. If i realy want to fake something, did i contact and admmin before?

The other think is, if you think i am bad or i am nationalistic POV pusher, you can block me (I hope not, but i know i am right and I am not nationalistic or do anything in my life wrong, so nobody can change this, not the users here also not the admins and also not WP, infront of the great God i am clean), but trust me, i am in conflicts here and was banned becaue of other strong nationalistic Users who have here more power and are better organizied and have also support and are much more, and I am allone. I am than the "stuppied". But I tell you, the truth have nothing to do with the number of people who are convinced of it. If i revert or remove the nationalistic or fashistic edits of an another user, or the POV, i am the nationalistic user, the bad ect. Least year becaues of croatian User Joy I was banned mostly. Now, he is Admin, and in Vukovar for example he have support of many Croatians users and I was allone, because I want the same rights for all. The rules for Vukovar are not the same like for city of Novi Sad. Becaue I want to remove double moral and double standards. But no changes, I am again the idiot ect. and the onother side enjoys their support, buuuut I am nationalisitc, yes of course. Because of this I have my Edit-History, so i will be ban again for nothing, and the other continue and grow. So again the same like everytime. Double moral continues on WP and this side (WP) lost every day more and more of his vision and faith. So thats all from me brothers. So, your hands are free.

Again, Currently there are two football clubs with the same name Trepca. First is Serbian FK Trepca founded in 1932 which was merged with the local Serbian club FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica in 2010. Upon merging FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, the FK Trepca stay the same club like before, the FKPKM stopp to exist and was integrated in FK Trepca, which was founded in 1932. This club is playig nowdays in Morava Zone League, the 4th league in the Serbian football system. Trepca's home stadium is the local stadium in Zitkovac, Zvecan municipality in Northern Kosovska Mitrovica. Northern part of Kos. Mitrovica is mostly populated by Serbs. The another club with the same name "Trepca", is Kosovar KF Trepça founded by Kosovar Albanians in 1999, which play in the Football Superleague of Kosovo and its home stadium is Trepča Stadium. Both clubs share only the name and colors but year of foundation, stadium, league, club president etc. are different. Trepca Stadium was the home stadium of Serbian FK Trepca but because of politics this club must moved to the local stadium in Zvecan municipality. They tried to play in their home stadium, but its not allowed or possible for many things for them to play there. I added sources, i tried to explain ect. ect. but nothing, now I am the bad guy again. I tried to improved, i used sources, nothing, the guy have no sources, no knowledge about this, but what he can is only to revert and TF here TF there.--Nado158 (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

About the Stadium: The FIFA and UEFA dont recognize the Kosovar Football Association, the league system, and thus the clubs and football team not also, so It can not be official Adem Jashari Stadium. This was a one side decision. Also, the Albanian club KF Trepca which was founded in 1999 annex the stadium from FK Trepca who was established in 1932, take the club history, the club property of an the club which was founded un 1932, and represent it as his own. I want only to explain it. So I wanted a neutral name, neither Serbian nor Albanian one, like the name Trepca-Stadium, because both clubs bear the name Trepca, thats all. So if I dont have support for this, for the true historical expiration i can change it, but my POV isnt.

So many Serbian and non-albanian clubs from Kosovo and also their stadiums and club logos was renamed and annexed without permission of the UEFA or FIFA or the club owners. If someone expell the English players and poplation from Manchester and changed Manchester United over night in KF Manchester Bin Ahmeti Club and the Wembley Stadium also, for example in Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium in one side decison, unofficial and also forbids the English population there to play football, I find this is not right and should be explained. WP should not take over injustice and wrong things and reflect it as the truth or this happen in line of control without problems and support the un-neutral Osama Bin Laden Pakistani Stadium ect. So happen with the Trepca Stadium for example. I wanten only an neutal name like Trepca, this is not pro Serbian, because the albanian clubs bear the name also, but the name after Adem Jashari is uneutral. That was my idea. So, becasue of this I am NPOV??? Never.Nado158 (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For the Pristina International Airport, we found also a neutral solution, and why not also for the Trepca Stadium, because both clubs bear also the name Trepca, i thin it was fair. So this is really neutral and not POV ord nationalistic POV. We dont need postfix Adem Jashari to recognize the Trepca Stadium in this special and poor situation.Nado158 (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston:See my comments above. Which nationalistic POV or POV??? Please read my comments first and see also the sources, nothing is my POV.--Nado158 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahhh come one, you make from a flee an elephant. For what? You report here only the "bad things". Come on, stay true, i am her only because fo FK Trepca and KF Trepca as wel as Trepca Stadium, so nothing was wrong what I edited, but you dont want to see this, and want ban me so hard for this? for truth. Do you read my comments above? Of course not, you ignnore all. One year for this? I did edit 99% non albanian ect. articles in the last months. What I edit was about FK Jagodina and FK Cukaricki. Why you want again represented me as the evil, by enabling individual edits I have not repeated here anything about Mitrovica ect. You want to ban me because I have improved the FK Trepca side... ridiculous. You are so unfair but to others do what they want but I punished her becuae i edit, improved and add sources also. Sure, just because I write in your eyes per Serb...ridiculous. The case is, FK Trepca exists and all was right, where is problem? I will ban for truth anf facts. Incredible. Well--Nado158 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I dont derseve not 1 week ban ( and you speak for one year), also not ban for Serbia sport, or nature or tourism ect. You are so unfair. Nobod of you looked and checkd my edits on FK Trepca really, but you are so fast with the ban...sorry, but its ridiculous. We (I) dont have rights here like the others, i know, but you exaggerating totaly, but totaly.Nado158 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Come one, show me what i edit wrong at FK Trepca, come on show me, and tell me what was nationalistic or POV???--Nado158 (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

So, this edits are the same like at FK Trepca, here for the club FK Mokra Gora, so if this is in your opinion POV or nationalsitic, than i dont know realy....
 * @Brianyoumans: Yes, the stadium has been changed, thats true, so I think we coud explain the situation in the article, thats all. I dont have problem with this. Nado158 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Nado158
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

This can't be acted on based on the evidence as submitted. The first diff appears to reflect a content dispute, and it is not explained how this might constitute a conduct problem. The second and third diffs each allege edit-warring, but single diffs can't be evidence for edit-warring.  Sandstein  18:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a dispute about the article at FK Partizan Kosovska Mitrovica, which appears to be a Serbian football club. Can anyone explain what is wrong with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FK_Partizan_Kosovska_Mitrovica&diff=612774531&oldid=612774005 this edit by Nado158]? There is a long sequence of events. There were football clubs on both sides of the Serbian/Kosovan divide in the city of Mitrovica, Kosovo, previously known as Kosovska Mitrovica. Two Serbian clubs merged. The only usable stadium was on the Albanian side, so that is where the combined Serbian club plays now. The club which is now Serbian used to have Kosovan players, but it doesn't any more. The sources provided are mostly Serbian, which seems OK since this is a Serbian club. What are we missing? EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Nado158 is not doing himself any favors by the nationalist tone of his remarks at Talk:Trepča Stadium. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As amended, the request includes a link to a previous topic ban and evidence of edit-warring by Nado158. Their comments in the move discussion linked to above indicate that their edits are motivated by a desire to promote their own point of view rather than to write a neutral, factual encyclopedia. This is disruptive conduct. In view of this, I'd reinstate the recently expired topic ban with indefinite duration.  Sandstein   06:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We are here at AE because Ryulong noticed Nado158 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trep%C4%8Da_Stadium&diff=612238279&oldid=611593683 making an inappropriate move of the article on a football stadium] in Mitrovica, Kosovo. I myself came across Nado158 in April since he [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitrovica,_Kosovo&diff=604741255&oldid=603573178 inappropriately moved] Mitrovica, Kosovo back to Kosovska Mitrovica about a week after a closure of an official move discussion that found consensus for the other title. (You'd expect a previously banned person to exercise at least minimum caution on ethnically-sensitive topics). This led to me to impose move protection on the city's article. We don't usually block for inappropriate moves but this looks to be an ongoing problem with Nado158's edits. Now that I have reread the previous AE from February 2013 that led to a one-year ban I agree with Sandstein. We should reinstate [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=539764527&oldid=539745768 the previous topic ban (22 February, 2013)] from Kosovo Serbia and Albania but this time with indefinite duration. The wording would be "Nado158 is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania, broadly construed." EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I'm using a more standardized wording: Nado158 is topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to Serbia, Kosovo, and Albania. So closed.  Sandstein   08:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning AmirSurfLera 2

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 1:02 June 14 Revert 1
 * 2) 19:46 June 14 Revert 2
 * 3) 20:17 June 14 Revert 3 - After he was made aware of 1RR violation he double down.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) June 11 He was warned about ARBPIA after edit warring; the case is has yet to be archived from this page.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The account is obvious a returned banned user, the problem is there are a dozen banned editors like him. See User_talk:Elockid. With such poor editing from this new account it is clear this returning user has not changed their ways and should be banned again.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera 2
''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 AmirSurfLera 2
Why is he accusing me of being a "banned user"? This extremely POV-editor is the only one who should be banned based on his aggressive behavior (check his edit summaries). Regarding the 1RR, Dlv999 is right. I'll discuss on the talk page of the article. I didn't notice this was a revert. I apologize for that, but there's no edit-warring here, just mutual contributions by Nishidani and me as you can see.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Sepsis. Your diffs are not actionable, for the simple reason that 'Explanation' in the first two explains nothing. On the otherhand, the 1R rule appears to have been violated at least once (I suspect more than once, but I'm plumbdumb on this aspect of the rules) among the baker's dozen SurfLera made today. Revert theory is not something I understand however, and in any case, I've not the time to examine them, given the imminence of the Italy/England world cup soccer match.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera 2
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The diffs provided above show three reverts on June 14 at 2013–14 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Even two reverts are enough to violate the WP:1RR, so I think a sanction is needed. Whether or not the Ma'an News is a good source for this article, there is no exemption from 1RR that allows anyone to remove citations to it from I/P articles with impunity. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable that AmirSurfLera was both aware of discretionary sanctions and 1RR, so have imposed a block for 48 hours. I think this is an appropriate first sanction however I'm open to further sanctions if others believe it necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske
''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 Lvivske

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:East European restrictions Lvivske (talk · contribs) placed under revert limitation: max 1rv/48hrs per article, with additional slow-down rule: must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Lvivske unsuccessfully tried to appeal this sanction on April 2014:


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


 * T-64 article
 * 1) Revision as of 18:29 First revert
 * 2) Revision as of 18:32, 14 June 2014 Lvivske(Reverted to revision 612918862 by Lvivske (talk): Blah blah bah Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.
 * 3) Revision as of 18:54 Third revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

Odessa Clashes
 * 1) Revision as of 06:41, 12 June 2014First revert
 * 2) Revision as of 14:32, 12 June 2014 by Lvivske (talk): Huge POV pushing going on Second revert.Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

Donetsk Republic
 * 1) Revision as of 04:12, 30 May 2014 First revert
 * 2) Revision as of 04:17, 30 May 2014 Second revert-violating restriction on reverting only once per 48 hours.

All above reverts in these articles violated the sanction as Lvivske carried them out without 48 hour waiting period.

Above reverts violated another part of the sanction must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. There are many more of those in Lvivske's edit log, I am using these ones as examples.
 * 1) Reverted to revision 612105104 by SkoraPobeda (talk): Category exists for a reason, terrorists took control of an airport and did terroristy things Revert done without discussing it prior on discussion page as per sanction.
 * 2) Reverted to revision 612662697 by Lvivske (talk): Everybody poops Another revert without discussing it first on discussion page.
 * 3) Reverted to revision 612101682 by Lvivske (talk): IP apparently can't read Third revert without prior discussion on discussion page,combined with personal attack.
 * 4) Reverted to revision 612302193 by Lvivske (talk): STAHP! Fourth example, not sure what STAHP! does mean.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) East European restrictions Lvivske (talk · contribs) placed under revert limitation: max 1rv/48hrs per article, with additional slow-down rule: must precede every revert by explanation on talk plus min.6hrs waiting period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 2014.

Looking at the edit log, it seems that there are other violations of the revert sanctions, but these is the one most obvious and used as examples.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Lvivske
''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 Lvivske

 * I was reverting IP vandalism (content blanking of properly sourced content). I got into it, stopped when a legit user threw me a warning. Have nothing else to say or explain. The filing user wasn't involved in the dispute and does appear to have a vendetta to push...oh well --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 19:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since every edit I've ever made is being listed here, it would be difficult to go over the rationale for every revert (I don't see myself 3rr'ing or anything) but I see one for Tocino where I say 'stahp!", that was because that was previously talked on the talk page and he kept returning unsourced info against consensus, so I was a bit frustrated. Whatever, this whole thing is silly... --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 02:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Toddy1
The wording of the sanctions was that Lvivske and two other editors were "placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion."

At least some of the edits being complained about look like reverting obvious vandalism to me. Reverting "obvious vandalism" was permitted under the sanctions.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvivske
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The edits to 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes on 12 June is the main one I find actionable as Lvivske clearly breached the 1 revert/48 hours restriction especially without a clear consensus. The edits to T-64 on which Lvivske made three reverts (linked above) I also find actionable as the edit is not clear vandalism especially when considering that the source says that it's "highly likely" many tanks are still operational not that they are. However I'm mostly convinced that these edits are related to the Ukraine, that's what the source was written about and the edit was controversial primarily due to the conflict in the Ukraine. Given that WP:BANEX emphasises that vandalism must be obvious and the example given is blatant, I don't find the excuse of reverting vandalism to be entirely believable or acceptable as many of the reverts were of content which is questionably vandalism. Regarding the second part of Lvivske's sanction this revert is a breach as it is a 'content revert', which isn't vandalism, so per the sanction needed to be suggested on the article's talk page first. In this case I believe a minimum one week block or short term (no more than a month) topic ban is needed as Lvivske suggests to me ("Whatever, this whole thing is silly") that they don't intend to edit in accordance with the sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Lvivske has done good content work but he gets into disputes periodically. I don't especially like these complex restrictions but he does seem to have violated it, and we can't ignore that. For instance, he obviously made two reverts in 48 hours at T-64, at 18:29 and 18:32 on 14 June, and he was not reverting vandalism. As recommended by User:Callanecc a block of up to one week would be appropriate. In my opinion short topic bans (less than three months) aren't the best idea. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like one week is the middle ground, I'll impose the block in a minute. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Khabboos
''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 : – Khabboos (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

[]
 * Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, imposed at


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notified here: []

Statement by Khabboos
It has been two and a half months since I was topic banned (please see the link provided above). I have not indulged in any OR or wrong citation since then - in fact I have edited more than a thousand articles on wikipedia, citing proper references for my sentences (unless I was making a simple grammar and syntax correction). I have even avoided similar articles after User:Sandstein implied so on his/her Talk Page. I therefore request you admins to lift my Topic Ban - I promise not to indulge in any OR again and cite proper references for my sentences.
 * Bangladesh is a different country (please read the 2nd paragraph of the Lead of the wikipedia article on Bangladesh) - it is not a part of India, Pakistan or Afghanistan, so I believe I haven't violated my Topic Ban with this edit (which was an edit to the Bangladesh section of the wikipedia article on Anti-Hinduism)!—Khabboos (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have now edited the wikipedia article on Bangladesh also now - just a grammar and syntax correction - to draw your (administrators) attention to the fact that it is a separate country!—Khabboos (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh used to be called East Pakistan before independence (in 1971) from present day Pakistan and Bengal (along with India's West Bengal) when it was a part of (British) India, but Bhutan, Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka were also a part of (British) India; so if I make an edit to the articles connected to Bhutan, Burma, Nepal and Sri Lanka also, are you admins going to object/sanction me?—Khabboos (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please also tell me when, how, where and to who I should appeal my TBan next. —Khabboos (talk) 05:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The TBan was imposed because I cited references that did not say the same thing as the sentence I inserted (because I couldn't find proper references online) and then when I complained about a user (Darkness Shines) removing a sentence that I had cited a proper reference for, you topic banned me for calling him a 'crook (you said it was a personal attack)'. However, I have always cited proper references for sentences I inserted in wikipedia articles since then. Like you said, this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else, but since this is also a valid forum, I don't think it's necessary for me to move it back where I posted it (thanks for the offer anyway)!—Khabboos (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
Because the appeal does not address the reasons for which the topic ban was imposed, let alone explain how and why the conduct for which it was imposed will not reoccur, I recommend against lifting the ban at this time. I note that this appeal was originally submitted to WP:AN but was then moved to WP:AE by somebody else. Because AN is a valid forum for an appeal of discretionary sanctions, the appeal discussion should be moved back if Khabboos desires this.  Sandstein  21:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by AcidSnow
You have not come close to making a thousand edits, let alone 200 since your block and topic ban. As Sandstein said before, you still have not provided anything that "is assurance that the conduct for which you were sanctioned will not reoccur". Making promises means nothing as you have done that several times and have broken them right after. In fact, this edit seems to break your topic ban just as Sandstein had first indicated. I don't believe your ready to edit these articles whatsoever. AcidSnow (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Should something be done about his topic ban violation? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Khabboos

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


 * He appears to have literally just broken his topic ban, which is a complete show-stopper, and resets the stopwatch. Nevertheless, hasn't come anywhere to showing the quantity and quality of edits elsewhere in the project that would be required to lift anything.  the panda ₯’  18:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Khabboos's March 29 ban says '[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Khabboos&oldid=601827391#Arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban:_India.2C_Pakistan_and_Afghanistan You are topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from the topic of religion or ethnic conflicts in India, Pakistan or Afghanistan]'. Since this edit of May 27 is a violation of Khabboos's ban, I don't see any reason for optimism that might justify lifting the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos has argued that his recent edit was about Bangla Desh which is outside the scope of his ban. As written his ban applies to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. This puts the violation in a gray area, since Bangla Desh used to be part of Pakistan. Even so, noticing that he continues to make that kind of edit doesn't give us much reason to lift the ban, so I propose declining this appeal. The original AE complaint which led up to the ban was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=601308223#Khabboos this one from March, 2014]. At that time the complaint was that Khabboos was adding incorrect information to articles while citing sources that he had never read and didn't have access to. If he had read the sources he would have seen they contradicted the statements he was trying to add at Forced conversion and other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Decline appeal due to the recent breach of the TBAN and that Khabboos's statement doesn't address the reasons for the appeal. If this is the breach being referred to I don't think it's recent enough for us to block for breaching it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't find the diff in my comment above to be a breach of the topic ban (see Khabboos's statement). However I still don't feel that we should lift the topic ban just yet. I think Khabboos's has learnt from this request exactly what they should put in their appeal statement next time and suggest that if worded and explained appropriately (that is, addressing the reasons for both topic bans and explaining why they will no longer be needed, use WP:GAB as a guide) an appeal in one to two months has a much higher chance of being accepted. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning Brewcrewer

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) June 15 2:51 Revert 1
 * 2) June 15 3:14 Revert 2

Notified by PhilKnight
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

In the reverts he adds an empty praise section, deletes criticism of the article's subject as well as removing have a dozen sources including some written by M.J. Rosenberg, Max Blumenthal, and Conor Friedersdorf.
 * I see any section of any article which has to due with calls for the genocide of the Palestinians as being covered by ARBPIA. Sepsis II (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Brewcrewer
''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 Brewcrewer
My understanding is that this article does not fall under under WP:ARBPIA. I'll be glad to revert if told otherwise. In full disclosure, the subject does write sometimes about the Middle East conflict and part of the content at dispute is related to Israel.

Please be also aware that the content disputed herein concerns a BLP. My position is that the blogs and opeds at dispute, which do nothing but besmirch the subject, do not satisfy our strict BLP policy requiring "a high degree of sensitivity" and the use of "high quality sources." I reverted twice due to our serious BLP policy and the ongoing discussion at the talk page. I have already brought this to the attention of the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If an uninvolved administrator wants me to respond to the (predictable) additional commenters please let me know. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 13:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
I just want to comment on Sandstein's statement, without commenting specifically on the merits of this report. An extremely large number of articles on living people include attributed criticism by other people. I would guess that most articles about journalists who take strong stands on the I-P conflict have such material. Obviously there are limits involving weight, significance, balance, and reliability of publication, but merely being an opinion piece is by no means grounds for exclusion. Zerotalk 08:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
One of the opinions removed was Max Blumenthal's. At the article on Blumenthal himself, Brewcrewer was rather insistent about re-adding material from a negative review of a book taken from the Forums section (and therefore likely an opinion piece) of the Jewish Daily Forward (at the same time as removing, admittedly rather poorly sourced, complimentary material). Perhaps that betrays a rather uneven approach to what could be see as BLP policy issues, if, in fact, the BLP policies actually are the point at issue.    ←   ZScarpia  12:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to the breaching of the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles, yesterday, the 15th, Brewcrewer created and then heavily edited, during which he reverted other editors, the 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens article. As other editors made intervening edits between his reverts, at my count, under the way reverts are counted under the rules, he made three separate reverts: Jalapenos Do Exist was blocked yesterday for breaching the 1RR restriction on the same article. ←  ZScarpia  00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC) (expanded: 12:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC))
 * 1. Between 12:35pm and 12:59pm: Condensation, removing material about international reactions. The material condensed appears to have been added by Jalapenos Do Exist here.
 * 2. Between 14:09 and 14:12: removed categories (which had been previously added by Jalapenos Do Exist I think).
 * 3. Between 15:57 and 16:30: modified the sentence, "Many Palestinians, and militants, support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and civilians as a "bargaining chip of justice" to gain concessions from the Israeli government," removing the clause about militants and making a substitution for the final phrase about gaining concessions, also, further down, replacing "In 2011, Israel released hundreds of Palestinian prisoners" with "In 2011, Israel released more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners." (I'm not sure which editor originally added the text.)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Opinion pieces are not immediately disallowed as sources in BLPs, so long as the claims are attributed in-text to the author as in this case. In the case of the Blumenthal and Josh Nathan-Kazis sources, both are professional writers for professional outlets and thus their writings are subject to full editorial control. Rosenberg is the only one that is shaky, given that his piece was actually taken from a Media Matters site, which is a partisan watchdog organization. Generally, it has been viewed as a reliable, albeit biased, source and thus something that should typically be used with some form of attribution. The sources are not, in my opinion, BLP issues on their own. Even if one argues that there is some BLP issue with the tone or weight, this does not seem to be sufficiently severe to be the kind of non-contentious BLP issue subject to revert exemptions.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Brewcrewer
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

This is a bit of a borderline case. The article, Jennifer Rubin (journalist), is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict for the purpose of this report, which concerns edit-warring over, among other things, a paragraph reporting that Rubin has been criticized for allegedly calling for a genocide of the Palestinian people. However, I think that Brewcrewer acted in a defensible manner by removing this paragraph, which is what is at issue here, on the grounds that it constituted a violation of the WP:BLP policy. The paragraph relied on two sources, and, which appear to be opinion pieces and therefore are not suited to support, at least on their own, negative statements about living people. For this reason, I would forego action in this case.  Sandstein  08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Per User:The Devil's Advocate it is not evident to me that Brewcrewer's reverts are justified under BLP. (BLP reverts, per WP:3RRNO, are an emergency measure where the evidence is overwhelming, which it is not in this case). Wikipedia editors do make use of editorial opinion, not just factual coverage, in biographical articles where it makes sense. The factual point that Jennifer Rubin retweeted a harsh comment by Rachel Abrams about the captors of Gilad Shalit does not appear to be contested. (The comment can be seen in this version of the article). Rather than go to the bottom of that issue it may be better to note that (above) Brewcrewer has agreed to revert if he is told that ARBPIA applies to this article. It clearly does. Jennifer Rubin is a political columnist who stakes out bold positions and must be no stranger to controversy. The claim that she advocates genocide of the Palestinians looks to be a rhetorical excess by some people who wouldn't be expected to be her allies in any case. It may reveal more about them than about her. We are used to putting up with some over-the-top rhetoric by opponents in I/P articles, as for example in The Invention of the Jewish People, when the criticism appears notable. We can close this AE with advice to Brewcrewer not to revert again, but leave it to someone else. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User:ZScarpia has added a new complaint about reverts by Brewcrewer at 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens. The article is about a current event, since these teenagers disappeard on June 12. The reported edits were on June 15 and Brewcrewer does not seem to have edited since. Some of Brewcrewer's changes appear to be copy edits. Since this does not seem clear enough to constitute a 1RR violation I would close the whole AE with no action. I would still advise Brewcrewer not to revert again at Jennifer Rubin (journalist), the article which led to this AE being filed. Unless there is objection I will close this soon. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

AmirSurfLera 3
''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 AmirSurfLera 3

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 7:43 Revert 1
 * 2) 7:48 Revert 2


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) June 15 Blocked for two days


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Again, obvious returning banned user, third time this week they have broken 1RR and have been brought here, would have saved a lot of trouble just indef blocking them a week ago per WP:DUCK, please indef block them.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning AmirSurfLera 3
''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 AmirSurfLera 3
I reverted myself. But how come that 1RR applies to an edit from March? I think this extreme POV user Sepsis II should be topic banned. For example, he reverts whole sourced paragraphs without even discussing with me on the talk page. He also fails basic WP:Civility and respect to other editors who doesn't think like him. Besides I'm tired of his ridiculous unproven accusations.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Amnesty International was part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Anyway, a tag has been added, so I'll obey 1RR there.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? How can you call this an edit warring? I didn't break 1RR here (this is not a revert, I was changing an edit from two months ago, and I even reverted myself later), and neither did I here since this article wasn't tagged as part of the Arab Israeli conflict before my edits. Did you even bother to examine the evidence and see who is Sepsis II? Two cents of impartiality please.

Statement by RolandR
This editor is now edit-warring on Israel-Palestine topics on another page, Criticism of Amnesty International: dif 1," dif 2. The editor claims that "this article is not subject to 1RR (no Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement notice on talk page". The sanction states "All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." If an editor is able to add such text to an otherwise unrelated article on Wikipedia, and claim that it is still unrelated, then this could make a mockery of the 1rr restriction. RolandR (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Blatant 1RR violation on both articles. Not to mention blatant POV-pushing. Obviously won't stop until made to stop. Zerotalk 12:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

AmirSurfLera added material explicitly about the Israel-Palestine conflict and now claims he didn't know the article was about that conflict. Can anyone take this seriously? Zerotalk 00:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by 204.101.237.139
AmirSurfLera, changing an edit is considered a revert, even if the original edit happened months in the past. Even though you did not literaly bring the article back to a previous revision (the strict definition of the word revert) you still performed a revert in the wiki sense.

As for the article not being tagged as part of I-P, that is also not relevant. First, articles being tagged is more like a courtesy alert than a hard barrier. It would be impractically time consuming to go through every article to tag any that would concievably be part of that topic. That is why, secondly, it is not articles that are subject to DS, it is the topic. While the article itself is not part of I-P, your edit clearly was. Warring over an I-P topic on an article not directly labelled as part of the topic is called "exporting the dispute" and is equally as prohibited. This is the primary reason for the "broadly construed" language in the DS.

That you self reverted can mitigate your error, but does not act as a catch-all get out of sanctions free card. In light of the very recent block you incurred, the admins are likely to have run out of good faith about what you claim to be an innocent mistake. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by TeeTylerToe
For the record AmirSurfLera broke 1RR in ARBPIA back on June 7th too, which is separate from this time and the time Amir was blocked for 2 days. Check Amir's talk page. He's even gone back and reverted the page that was in contention then after it was brought to arbitration enforcement and he was told to stop reverting. At the very least a fairly long topic ban seems like it would be appropriate.TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning AmirSurfLera 3
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Clear edit warring on these articles and a 1RR violation. Since this is the second time, I think a week block may be appropriate. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis II
''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 Sepsis II

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA


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


 * 1) 21:47 Revert 1
 * 2) 22:04 Revert 2
 * 3) 22:33 Revert 3

Hypocrisy? User clearly broke 1RR in an Arab-Israeli conflict article and he knows very well what is this because he reported me several times for much less.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Sean.hoyland: First of all, sockpuppetry is a serious accusation and if you don't have proofs to make this claim against me, I suggest you to retract yourself. Second, for much less than this I was blocked (I was "reverting" an edit from three months ago and I even reverted myself almost immediately). I already paid my punishment for violating 1RR. Now it's time for Sepsis II to pay the price for violating Wikipedia's policy over and over again with complete impunity. Third, you should stop defending a clear POV user who constantly deletes sourced information who doesn't like, replacing it with POV content supported by sources failing WP:RS, and always responds with personal attacks against other editors on edit summaries and talk pages. Do you need examples? I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. Unfortunately your statement only shows your blatant bias. Good day.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sean.hoyland: Funny that you mention that I broke 1RR in 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, because so far I haven't reverted any edit there. Can you show me a link to prove me wrong? Of course you can't! I'm getting tired of your false accusations and lies. If you knew the difference between right and wrong, you should have reported users like Sepsis II long time ago instead of trying to censor me for causeless ideological reasons.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Sepsis II
''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 Sepsis II
I can't comment unless Sandstein recuse himself from WP:ARE, I would explain why, but if I did that here he would ironically blocked me. Sepsis II (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you place enforcing the letter of wikipedia policy before the interests of wikipedia. Have you ever applied WP:IAR or WP:DUCK? Sepsis II (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you act like you can't understand the complaint when it's extremely obvious, because you didn't close the complaint as a clear misunderstanding of 1RR policy, because you block good users for being honest thus crushing honest discussion here. Sepsis II (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Awe what a precious moment a wonderful new user has return to bless wikipedia with his wonderful edit, . If anyone here was interested in improving wikipedia they would immediately ban that account, related IPs, and unblock Sean.hoyland. 05:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
The first 2 diffs are reverts of IPs, "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." Actually Brewcrewer should probably be blocked for that terrible edit, one of the worst I've seen for a while I have to say. AmirSurfLera, as a sockpuppet, you are violating the rules to be here are you not and yet you expect others to follow the rules. How can that kind of behavior possibly be justified ? How can ARBPIA function when there are 2 classes of editors, those who have to follow the rules and those who don't ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But it should be you who reports yourself. That is what you should do. It should be you who does the right thing. It should be you who explores ways to legitimately return as an editor. It should not be me and others wasting our time trying to stop you. You should be trying to stop you. My statement shows that, like most editors, I know the difference between right and wrong and that I tell the truth. Every editor in ARBPIA looks like a POV editor to me. I'm defending common decency not Sepsis. Why ? Not out of some sense of moral outrage or part of some pointless battle over microgeography, but because ARBPIA simply can't function when there are 2 classes of editors, one that has to follow the rules and the other that doesn't. It just doesn't work. Sepsis hasn't violated 1RR in the example you provide. On the other hand, you probably violated 1RR at the same article, 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens, in your 6 edits between 2014-06-20T02:10:03‎ and 2014-06-20T19:00:00. ‎Many people have been violating 1RR, strictly speaking, at that article as it's developed but it seems you are motivated by revenge and so have filed this case.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I said probably because it's hard not to violate 1RR when an article is being developed. I haven't looked at your edits. I am not going to do it here because I am not going to trying to get you blocked for a 1RR violation if there is one. You were not edit warring or editing in a different way than other editors at that article at that time. I raised it as a potential issue because I see double standards in your behavior and attitude. I would like you blocked for sockpuppetry but without a clear set of requirements that you need to meet in order to return as a legitimate editor and without an agreement from you that you will abide by it there is little point. What you need to do to see whether you violated 1RR at that article or anywhere is read a recent case at ANI that clarified what a revert is and examine your edits in light of that (see here). A revert probably isn't what you think it is. It wasn't what I thought it was. That discussion has implications for everyone in ARBPIA so I also posted it at WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration here. And you should trust me.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
Sandstein, if you have blocked Sean for his comments above suggesting sockpuppetry, you really should block checkuser Elockid for his comments here. RolandR (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
SH's comments about ASL's (putative) sockpuppetry ('The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose') appear to draw on Elockid's checkuser judgement that 'it is a user who has edited before', which AmirSurfLera is on record as denying. If those comments consist of an inference, unproven and therefore unwarranted, then there might be a case for SH's short suspension for disruptiveness. If they stem not from personal guesswork, but rather, as would appear to be the case, from taking an experienced admin's judgement as objective, then it is hard to understand the severity. (Well, it is not that severe, except contextually. I haven't checked the log,- but can't recall him ever doing anything that brought down the book against him - but SH is notorious for not allowing his judgement to succumb to group pressures or POVs from either side. He keeps both honest by his independence.) I dislike expressing opinions here, and do so only because of the senile frailty which tempted me to make a semantic joke, for which I apologize.Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Sepsis, you cannot choose your judges here or elsewhere. You have no right to impose conditions, and in doing so by personalizing this you implicitly challenge the bona fides of an admin with extensive experience. and in doing so you thus prejudice your defence. You should retract or expect that the attitude displayed tells against you (whereas in my view, the evidence by ASL is groundless). Nishidani (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You are still in the wrong. Admins do not block people 'ironically', which would be a patent abuse of their function, which is rule-governed. Sandstein requestd a comment from you if the non-actionable charge underwent amendment. It requires no great exercise of imagination to see that, if ASL has not emended his statement, his charge is not actionable, and no statement is required. If ASL has emended his charge and evidence, then you are obliged to respect Sandstein's request for your comment. You are making something simple look extremely complicated. All you need do is construe precisely what Sandstein wrote, and reply succinctly if necessary. I don't know how things stand, but this is a matter of WP:AGF, demonstrating one's bona fides and wikipedian compliance with standard procedures, and should not be personalized implicitly or otherwise.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Without wishing to defend Sandstein, I think you ignore that,were WP:IAR and WP:DUCK part of an admin's tools, the result would be chaos, since the first would lead to discretionary abuses, while the second is inferential. Editors can avail themselves of these measures on rare occasions. Administrators must hew with finicky exactness to (a) evidence and (b) the written code for judging evidence. A second point is that, admins have a collegial environment, which generally, not always, is self-correcting. They may not convince the plaintiff, but they must convince each other. Given that, your reserve is misplaced, for you are at liberty to request, I would think, a further opinion. But you should not judge or prejudge the outcome of any admin's review. We all have POVs that are at odds with the interests of wikipedia, this is true of me as it is of you, and we are obliged to rein that in. The interests of wikipedia are not with 'truth' but with quality and comprehensive range of precise reportage of the best sources and admins do not evaluate edits in terms of their qualitative value, but in terms of their consonance with the given rules. They can't be expected to know what editors on the ground might know, which is your real complaint. For were they to evaluate cases omnisciently, they would get a God complex and exercise a discretion as arbitrary in mundane terms as it would prove parlously close to partisanship (since the vast majority of bad editing comes from obvious IP, sockpuppet and POV-obsessed editors promoting a national cause, something its partisans grieve over in blogs that rage against wikipedia precisely because the rules, and general adminitrative sanctions in wikipedia do, in the end, militate against these practices, and the collateral damage is minimal. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Three editors now Roland R, myself and Dlv999 have asked for clarification of why SH's use of Elockid's statement to assert something quite specific, that ASL has edited wiki before adopting a new handle, is sanctionable. This is important since SH is virtually the only experienced editor in this troubled area who tracks the extremely problematical and intricate patterns of socking there. A ban that is not tightly argued and reasonable beyond dispute risks effectively maiming our ability to defend wikipedia from the large number of socks, meatpuppets and pseudo-newbies who barge in almost daily. This is not special pleading for SH, nor is it partisan. It is special pleading to not make the work of editors in this area even more sisyphean than it already it.Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
The above diffs are for 3 reverted editors. 2 of those are ip editors. IP under these sections fall under the 3rr policy as understand. Since as written above this can be "declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below." I do have to question you waiting for it to be amended. And while these sanctions are allowed to be applied broadly under ARBPIA, I have to say you went a little bit more broad than I expect was intended. Being that the only relation to this and ARBPIA is that this was a request for sanctions under it and being that you do have policy that governs user conduct here I have to question such a broad application. Taking into account Nishidani comments, then taking into account Sean's comments... Specifically the third paragraph. He says he would like to see AmirSurfLera blocked but with requirements that actually would allow him to came back and edit properly. With all of that I'd like to ask you to reconsider your sanctions and amend them. Sean is often a contributor I see in arbpia related pages. I often see him making editors aware of arbpia sanctions. That is both Partsan types of editor any other type of editor. Over all I feel he very nuetral in his actions. His conduct here not withstanding, I do feel overall he can be more helpful than hurtful to this specific process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Dlv999
Are any of the of the admins willing to address the point raised by RolandR? Namely that SHoyland's comments about AmirSurfLera being a sock were based on information he received directly from checkuser Elockid. To my mind it seems totally rational and reasonable to base statements about editor's sockpupetry on information received from checkusers. Dlv999 (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Sepsis II
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''

I have removed an extraneous comment that had nothing to do with the matter at hand. Editors who have nothing useful to say about the specific complaint being made here should not comment. All participants are reminded of WP:AC/DS. Concerning Sepsis II: The complaint is not actionable as submitted because it does not cite a specific remedy that is to be enforced. I am waiting for it to be amended and, if it is, for a statement by Sepsis II. Concerning AmirSurfLera: The allegations by Sean.hoyland of sockpuppetry and violating revert restrictions are not actionable for, among other reasons, lack of submitted evidence in the form of diffs. Concerning Sean.hoyland: The conduct by Sean.hoyland, above, is disruptive in that they repeatedly allege that AmirSurfLera is a sockpuppet without providing appropriate or indeed any evidence, even after being asked to (see WP:ASPERSIONS). Because this complaint concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict, this thread is subject to WP:ARBPIA, about which Sean.hoyland has been previously notified. As a discretionary sanction, and also as authorized by WP:AC/DS, Sean.hoyland is blocked for 48 hours for their conduct on this page, and is also banned from commenting on arbitration enforcement requests by others relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area, except where Sean.hoyland's own conduct is the subject of the request.  Sandstein  11:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please tell me why you think I should recuse myself?  Sandstein   18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The reasons you give – disagreeing with my approach to arbitration enforcement – are not reasons that would warrant a recusal. Your request that I recuse myself is declined. On the merits, the request is not actionable. As Sean.hoyland points out, the remedy at WP:ARBPIA (as amended) provides that "reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring". The complaint does not make the argument, and it is also not evident, that the reverts (of IPs) at issue are sanctionable as edit-warring, or that any other remedy might apply. I would therefore take no action in this case.  Sandstein   19:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything (including that it's non-actionable re the reverts of IPs) except one thing: I think the indefinite restriction on Sean.hoyland from commenting in AE requests (etc) is very harsh given that they were also blocked for it. I'd ask that you at least set an expiry date, three months seems to be reasonable period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sepsis II made three reverts but two of them were of IP edits, so they don't count against 1RR. I agree with Callanecc that if Sean.hoyland is to be banned from commenting on ARBPIA requests at AE, the duration should not exceed three months. It should also be made clear whether Sean's restriction only prevents him from making posts at AE or if it restricts him from comenting on others' AE problems on all pages of Wikipedia. Note that there were three reports of violations by AmirSurfLera at AE in Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151 and two of them led to sanctions. One time he was blocked for a week. The next time a problem with AmirSurfLera's edits is reported here a topic ban ought to be considered. We can tolerate a few mistakes by new users but this editor is pushing the limits. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Concurring with the comments above discussing a limited restriction for Sean.hoyland regarding comments at AE, and that this request should be closed without action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the opinions above, I'm limiting the restriction that applies to Sean.hoyland to three months, and am closing the request without action.  Sandstein   09:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Request concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA - 1RR, WP:SOCKPUPPET, WP:COMMONSENSE


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


 * 1) Revert 1
 * 2) Revert 2


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

He's a sock.

Well Callanecc, there are just so many puppetmasters with the same hatred, the sock in the case above is obviously either Nocal or AndresHerutJaim per their long history of using socks to edit 2012 in Israel and like articles. This account could be so many, possibly not even one of a known sockmaster but a second account of a current editor. I could point to the account editing the same pages as previously blocked sock but these sockmasters have been working so long that the vast majority of IP articles have been attacked by them. Other editors have stated this account could be one by AnkhMorpork, Nocal, or Breein1007. Here's one of his sister account. At least one admin can spot that this account is a sock.

Anyhow, this account fails the duck test; no normal editor makes a hundred edits over two years but only on a few days. His first edit is a revert, his second is to delegitimize the existance of Palestinians. I know this is futile; many of these sockmasters have hundreds of warnings to their names from this ineffective board.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Block the sock.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.
''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 Kipa Aduma, Esq.
What is described as "revert #2" is nothing of the kind - it is the addition of a new tag to the article. As to sock allegations, I see that in the report just above this one, an editor making similar allegations without proof was blocked for disruptive editing. Consistency requires that the same standard be applied here. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Result concerning Kipa Aduma, Esq.
''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * Sock of whom, where is the evidence that they are a sock (same or similar edits by the master and the sock)? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Pre-empting Sandstein-- you need to include the specific remedy of the case you want enforced for this to be actionable. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This is going to be wayyyy too difficult to handle here, I'm in the process of filing an SPI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * just saying "He's a sock ... block the sock" is definitely not going to get you any action and just wastes time. Imagine if admins could just use that as a rationale for blocking any account they wanted to. If you want to see action from any admin, even on this "ineffective board" you need to provide evidence and explanation. For complex cases, especially where you don't know who the sockpuppeteer is you need to report it to WP:SPI with evidence so that it can be investigated. In any case, recommend closing this as deferred to SPI (Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq.). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that sockpuppetry reports should generally be handled at WP:SPI, and that this request can be closed without further action. Thanks, Callanecc, for doing the paperwork. I would remind the complainant that accusations of misconduct without the expected quantity and quality of evidence are disruptive and can result in sanctions. But, in response to Kipa Aduma, Esq., this request falls short of being sanctionable because I am assuming it to be a good-faith attempt at requesting admin action that cites at least some conduct patterns as evidence, rather than, as in the request above, being a response to an enforcement request that personally attacks the complainant for being a sockpuppet without any evidence being offered even on request.  Sandstein   09:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)