Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184

HistoneSebas
''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 HistoneSebas

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) October 26, 2015 User violated 1RR
 * 2) October 27, 2015 User violated 1RR again, even after I notified him that he had already violated 1RR on the previous day through his talk page User talk:HistoneSebas
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The user failed to respond to discussion on article talk page and his own, to violate 1RR twice.
 * No! This is not a reversion for my preferred version, there has been a discussion regarding the content on the article on the article's talk page, which the user failed to participate in. --Makeandtoss (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's false. You haven't made a single comment on the talk page of the article to explain your multiple reverts of sourced content!! You only opened a discussion for the infobox result (for the line "both sides claimed victory"... nothing to do with casualties). And stop leaving me aggressive messages on my user page.--HistoneSebas (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHistoneSebas&type=revision&diff=687777168&oldid=687776947
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Ugh, why isn't anyone bothering to check the battles talk page where I provided TENS of sources saying Israel was repelled.--Makeandtoss (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning HistoneSebas
''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 Rhoark
I'm not convinced of a 1RR violation from the diffs provided. An edit that makes a good-faith attempt to incorporate feedback is not a reversion. Rhoark (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
EdJohnston's comment here is not accurate, since Makeandtoss did give many sources for "repelled". The destruction of the Karameh camp was only part of the Israeli war aims. However, there has been no dialogue between HistoneSebas and Makeandtoss on the article talk page. This is the kind of stuff which results when people try to argue complex historical matters through edit summaries.

In the larger context, this supports my belief, frequently expressed, the "result" section in the infoboxes should simply be deleted. It is a magnet for POV pushers and vandals, and serves no purpose at all. Actually, infoboxes should burn in hell. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning HistoneSebas

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


 * I'm not seeing this as a full on 1RR violation. It's borderline but Rhoark's above point stands. On the other hand I'm a little concerned that this filing is being used to protect a preferred version of content. Besides that as far as I can see Makeandtoss actually did break 1RR themselves: revert 1 17:34 26 October 2015 and revert 2 16:50 27 October 2015 - that's two reverts (both restoring the same content) in 23 hours. WP:KETTLE?-- Cailil  talk 00:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * One option would be to block both parties for edit warring. The editors seem to be reverting back and forth on two questions: whether Israel lost 27 tanks or 4, and whether the Israelis were 'repelled.' The assertion the Israelis were 'repelled' looks a bit like promotional editing for the Jordanian/PLO side, since the sources agree that the Karameh PLO camp was destroyed. What did the supposed 'repelling' keep the Israelis from doing that they actually wanted to do? In lieu of blocking both parties, I'd suggest full protection of the article for at least five days. Sources do suggest that the Israelis encountered more resistance than they expected and you can imagine that the Jordanians would feel they put up a good showing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Anticyclone à banias
''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 Anticyclone à banias

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles :


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


 * 1) 07:50, 29 October 2015 First revert
 * 2) 20:53, 29 October 2015 Second revert


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation

Another new account edit-warring on Gaza Strip
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Anticyclone à banias
''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 Rhoark
Interestingly, the question of whether this violated WP:1RR hinges on whether is to be considered an editor. Rhoark (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The user seems to have been discussing this matter on the French pedia where it's determined they made a good faith error adding information from an outdated CIA factbook. Rhoark (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This sort of due diligence I think ought to be done before filing. Rhoark (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Regardless of the merits of the complaint, I dislike the notion of bringing this to WP:AE before discussing it on the talk page. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Anticyclone à banias

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


 * I've asked User:Anticyclone à banias to agree to stop warring at Gaza strip and wait for consensus. If there is no adequate response a block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers
''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 Justlettersandnumbers

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME :


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


 * 1) Date In 2013 disputes were resolved concerning notability of the page "Barony of Blackhall; for the past two years the site has functioned peacefully. Now an editor Justlettersandnumbers has decided to attack the site once more. The editor appears to be a specialist in Italian livestock farming and is not a specialist in Scottish history. Without attemting to understand his or her motives, the personal and subjective nature of the editor's repeated attacks on the contributor of the page would disqualify this person from continuing to attempt to bring change to this page.
 * 2) Date Explanation
 * 3) Date Explanation
 * 4) Date Explanation


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

The pge contributor is williing to work with and editor who knows about Scottihs history and genealogy to improve the page
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

"I have launched an arbitration request to request your removal from eidting this site." left on Justletersandnumbers talk page
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Justlettersandnumbers
''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 Justlettersandnumbers
In case anyone wants to look at whether there is any merit in this complaint, my relevant edits are:
 * , where among other things I asked new user how he or she was aware of events in 2013 after only a few hours on the project, and also asked that editor to beware of sockpuppetry. I believe the situation here is quite clear, but I don't have much luck with SPI requests. Please ping me if any further input from me is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , where among other things I asked new user how he or she was aware of events in 2013 after only a few hours on the project, and also asked that editor to beware of sockpuppetry. I believe the situation here is quite clear, but I don't have much luck with SPI requests. Please ping me if any further input from me is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , where among other things I asked new user how he or she was aware of events in 2013 after only a few hours on the project, and also asked that editor to beware of sockpuppetry. I believe the situation here is quite clear, but I don't have much luck with SPI requests. Please ping me if any further input from me is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , where among other things I asked new user how he or she was aware of events in 2013 after only a few hours on the project, and also asked that editor to beware of sockpuppetry. I believe the situation here is quite clear, but I don't have much luck with SPI requests. Please ping me if any further input from me is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , where among other things I asked new user how he or she was aware of events in 2013 after only a few hours on the project, and also asked that editor to beware of sockpuppetry. I believe the situation here is quite clear, but I don't have much luck with SPI requests. Please ping me if any further input from me is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This has emanated in part from my citing the article for copyright violations, and for my edit here:, removing unsourced or poorly sourced content about the current baron. This appears to be a long-running effort by WP:COI accounts to retain an entry on this person--whose encyclopedic notability has never been established--on Wikipedia. The above report is a WP:BOOMERANG. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Justlettersandnumbers

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



Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
''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 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) :


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


 * 1) 7 November 2015 Replacement of an existing redirect with an article, violating his ban on the creation of articles

On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by me, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * 2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:


 * Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
 * Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.


 * Other editors may move pages created or substantially edited by RAN, but only if they explicitly take responsibility for any copyright violations on that page.


 * This remedy may be appealed after the later of 6 months and when all draft articles he has authored, in his userspace and in the draft namespace, have been verified free of copyright violations and moved to the article namespace by other editors or deleted. In order for appeals of this remedy to be considered, he shall be required to submit evidence of substantial work on his part towards resolving the Contributor Copyright Investigations (CCI) filed against him, most particularly the one focused on his text contributions.


 * Any article or draft article created contrary to this restriction will result in a block, initially of at least one month and then proceeding per the enforcement provisions. The article or draft article may be speedily deleted under criterion G5 by any administrator.


 * Any page moves made contrary to this restriction may be enforced by blocks per the enforcement provisions. The page move may be reversed by any editor able to do so.

Today, RAN converted an existing redirect at William Sloane Coffin, Sr. into an article with the edit noted above, and then expanded the article with an additional 9 edits.

I would contend that a redirect is not an article. This is not merely a technical distinction: a redirect has none of the attributes of an article, except a title. A redirect is, instead, an automated pointer to an article, not an article in and of itself. This distinction is recognized at, for instance, Redirects in the section How to edit a redirect or convert it into an article; the word "convert" is a clear indication that a redirect is not an article, but must be changed in some fundamental way in order to become one. The distinction between redirects and articles can also be seen in Criteria for speedy deletion, in which there are different rules for the deletion of articles and for the deletion of redirects. It is recognized in the distinction between Articles for deletion and Redirects for discussion.

The fact that articles and redirects are different things is simple common sense.

By converting a redirect into an article, RAN has, in effect, created an article that did not exist before, which I believe is a violation of his ban from creating articles as outlined in section 2.3 quoted above. Such "pushing the boundaries" of his various sanctions is par for the course with RAN, and indeed has led to a number of Arbitration proceedings both before and after the full case he was the subject of.

If the admins here agree with my argument, I have no recommendation for what kind of response is appropriate. I will say that the article itself is not problematic, and should be retained. BMK (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me also say that I have not been monitoring RAN's activities in any way since the conclusion of the Clarification request. This came to my attention because I created the redirect at William Sloane Coffin, Sr., and it was therefore on my watchlist.  Nor is my report prompted by the replacement of my redirect with an article; as I said above, I'm perfectly happy to have the article there instead of the redirect.  The problem here is not the content involved, it's solely in the behavior of RAN and his apparent inability to adhere to his sanctions, or, perhaps, to perceive what his sanctions mean or what their boundaries are. BMK (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, a clarification from ArbCom would be peachy, I guess, even though they just did that. Besides, I'm not sure why clarification would be necessary. Before yesterday, if you typed "William Sloane Coffin, Sr." in the search box, you would end up in the article MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Historic District because there was no article titled "William Sloane Coffin, Sr.".  Today, if you typed that in to the search box, you'll end up at the article William Sloane Coffin, Sr., because that article now exists.  That didn't happen miraculously by spontaneous generation, it happened because RAN made it happen, even though he is explicitly banned from creating articles in any namespace on Wikipedia.  If that's not "creating an article", I'm completely boggled about what one would call it.  There was no article, now there is an article, RAN is the one who did it - that's pretty cut-and-dried, and does not really need clarification. BMK (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Alansohn: Unfortunately for your argument, I created no article, I created a redirect: the automated edit summary says "(←Redirected page to MacDougal-Sullivan Gardens Historic District)". Contrast that with the automated edited summary for an article I actually created Naughty but Nice (1939 film), which says  "(←Created page with ' {{Infobox film | name = Naughty But Nice | image = Naughty But Nice 1939 poster.jpg | image_size = 225px | caption = thea...')" .  The first I "redirected", the second I "created". Both articles and redirects are pages, but they are not the same thing.{{parabr}}As I said, I do agree that the article should stay, and I don't deny that it improves the encyclopedia, but that's really not relevant here: RAN's ban doesn't say that he can't create an article "unless it improves the encycylopeda", it says that he cannot create an article, period.  As for creation, as I said above, absent Divine Intervention, for an article to not exist one moment and then exist the next means that someone had to create it.  That someone was not me, it was RAN. BMK (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Alan, but you're entirely wrong. I created a page. That page was a redirect, which is not an article. I've created a number of articles and certainly know the difference, as do you. All of those articles were pages as well, as is this one I'm typing on right now, but it is not an article either.  Talk pages are pages, File info pages are pages, Articles are pages, Redirects are pages, but all of them being pages does not mean they are the same thing. I did, indeed, create a redirect where there had been nothing, so I "created" a redirect. RAN then made an article where there had been a redirect, thus creating an article.  I don't know how to make it any simpler for you. BMK (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Kingsindian: "Petty"? Perhaps, but note that I am not calling for any specific sanctions against RAN. If the admins reviewing this complaint feel that a warning is sufficient, that's fine with me - at least until the next time RAN attempts to push the boundaries of his bans, which he has does constantly over the years. BMK (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One last thing: I contend that a redirect is not an article, and that in converting my redirect into an article, RAN created an article, violating his ban. Alansohn, on the other hand, says that I created an article when I made the redirect.  If Alansohn is correct that creating a redirect is the essential act of creating an article, then RAN has violated his ban by creating redirects here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and in most of the rest of these. (He also violated his ban on page moves here. You can't have it both ways.  Either my definition of the creation of an article is right, or yours is, but either way he has violated his ban. BMK (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Alansohn: If you believe I'm harassing RAN in some way because I filed a Request for Clarification and this Arbitration Enforcement Request, please feel free to file a report at AN/I -- but be sure to include specific incidents supported by diffs. If you believe -- as it seems you do -- that I am in some way connected with User:Javert, (who I have never neard of, but who was apparently indef blocked in 2009 because the account was no longer in use [?]), then I invite you to file an SPI with the behavioral evidence you feel supports that contention.  If you aren't planning on following through with either of these suggestions, I would appreciate your not making unsupported allegations again. BMK (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
''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 Andreas Philopater
I would suggest that clarification by the committee as to whether or not this breaches the ban is the only desirable outcome here. The article itself should be retained; no further sanctions should be applied. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Alansohn
On October 16, 2015, after a request for clarification requested by User:Beyond My Ken, Section 2.3 of the case involving Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") was amended to say:


 * 2.3) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ("RAN") is indefinitely prohibited from:


 * Creating any articles or draft articles in any namespace.
 * Moving any page into the article namespace from any other namespace.

RAN did not move an article into article namespace. Nor, did RAN create an article. BMK was the one who created the article in this edit. Both RAN and BMK worked collaboratively to expand the article. The term "create" -- to bring (something) into existence -- has not been met here.

As there was no violation of any aspect of this enforcement action and as the encyclopedia has been unequivocally improved by the collaboration between both BMK and RAN, I move that there is no justification for any enforcement action to be taken here. Alansohn (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , the article you created was, is and will remain an article. Your initial edit created an article ex nihilo titled William Sloane Coffin, Sr. Check the history of that article, which shows that it was created, by you, at 15:51, 3 July 2011‎, more than four years ago. The day before it didn't exist; For the 1,600 days since, it has existed as an article, and that article has been expanded. In pursuing an enforcement action here, where none is justified, you are again creating something out of nothing. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, / Javert, has over the course of his editing history, demonstrated that he is obsessively concerned with the pursuit and punishment of RAN. There is nothing productive here other than a desire to exact his ounce of flesh for some imagined slight that some other editor has committed. The article that BMK has created, and that RAN has expanded, is one that even BMK acknowledges is unequivocally encyclopedic and should be retained.It's time to end this once and for all and close this misguided and self-destructive pursuit of justice. Alansohn (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Having followed slightly the RAN drama for some time, I am amazed by the pettiness of some of the stuff brought against them. BMK states that the article should be retained, and there was no disruption to the project. Why then are we here? This seems to be the triumph of WP:BURO thinking. At most, there should be a clarification on whether the topic ban was breached, in which case, perhaps WP:ARCA might be a better venue. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 05:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
A redirect is not an article. That's clear. I don't know if that really needs clarification, but there's all kinds of places in which we count them separately, for instance. I can't see the NYT obituary on which RAN's version was based so I can't see if there was a copyvio (I assume there wasn't, AGF and all--and common sense). I understand that Tim has been ferrying content in a way allowed by ArbCom (thanks for doing that, Tim) and don't know why RAN didn't go that route here; I can't help but think that RAN was trying to skirt the decision here a bit. Personally I don't see the point in a block or something like that, but I suppose it's a good idea for ArbCom to at least speak out on the matter in order to admonish/clarify. Drmies (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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



Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD

 * Appealing user : – Hugh (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Block imposed at User_talk:HughD; logged at WP:DSLOG
 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : Notification.

Statement by HughD
The block notice cited "deliberate violation" of the topic ban. No violation of the topic ban, intentional or otherwise, took place. The topic ban is an administrator action under discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBTPM. The scope of topic ban is "...any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers..."

The block notice and discretionary sanctions log entry cited an edit to Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban. The demonstrated consensus of our community is that no reliable sources support a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Evidence that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban includes, most significantly, an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking admin that Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not within scope of the topic ban User talk:Ricky81682: "I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity...There should be leeway to edit there..." Additionally, Wikipedia article space, edit history,. and talk page discussion clearly demonstrates community consensus that the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is not related to the Kochs.

The block notice stated reason is "...adding content related to Donors Trust which is directly related to Tea party politics and to the Kochs..." Article Donors Trust was not edited. Donors Trust is not directly related to the Tea Party movement. Koch family foundations have contributed to Donors Trust. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund, the whole point of which is that no relationship may be inferred between a specific grantor and a specific grantee. Donors Trust is a donor advised fund; contributors to Donors Trust describe/specify/recommend the ultimate grantee. Funds generally must disclose their transfers to Donors Trust, and Donors Trust must disclose their grantees, but only very, very occasionally can we reliably state that a given donor contributed to a given org via Donors Trust. A connection grantor -> Donors Trust -> grantee is extraordinary difficult to document. See Searle Freedom Trust for an exception that proves the rule: as required by law, Searle disclosed that they contributed to Donors Trust, but also chose to disclose that their contribution was earmarked to fund a court challenge to affirmative action; a noteworthy, reliable, secondary source wrote about it, and we included it in our project. The topic-banning admin extended the topic ban to all organizations funded by Donors Trust, without consensus and without notice and without logging, and then blocked retroactively for violation of the extended topic ban.

In discussion of some of these issues subsequent to the block notice, the banning/blocking admin advanced various alternative justifications for the block, including suspected use of a role account, socking, and ownership behavior, which charges can be addressed upon request if necessary.

Respectfully request community discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding several related issues raised by this block:


 * 1) Is an explicit ruling from the topic-banning administrator a reasonable basis for a topic banned editor to consider in determining the scope of a topic ban?
 * 2) Is the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity reasonably considered within the scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
 * 3) Is the Donors Trust reasonably considered within the scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
 * 4) Are all grantees of Donors Trust reasonably considered within scope of a Tea Party movement or Koch brothers topic ban?
 * 5) Is added a source to an article that mentions a banned topic a violation of a topic ban, even if the article is not within scope of the topic ban, and even if the content added to the article text does not violate the topic ban, and even if the source is not primary about the banned topic?

Respectfully request repeal of block, strike-through of the block notice and strike-through of the block in the discretionary sanctions log. The block was not necessary to prevent disruption of our project. I am appealing this block in order to clear my name and clarify the scope of the topic ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I embrace my responsibility to recognize the boundaries of the topic ban. Without appealing the the previous AE report linked to by the banning/blocking administrator, WP:TBAN clearly authorizes conscientious editors to contribute to our project to articles which include content in scope of a topic ban, just not the parts of the articles related to the topic ban. Previously, I acknowledged possible mistakes in judgement with regard to the boundaries of the topic ban, but this is not one of them. My point here is that in my due diligence here, all evidence supported the position that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was not in scope, evidence including an explicit ruling from the banning/blocking administrator, Wikipedia article space, Wikipedia edit history, and Wikipedia talk page discussion. My objection to this block is not based on my intention, which is unverifiable, but on this evidence. The evidence is more than a reasonable person might find necessary for a good faith determination that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity was not in scope. Respectfully request community discussion by uninvolved administrators of the banning/blocking administrator's role in this block, which the banning/blocking administrator admits below was a mistake; this mistake has the form if not the intent of entrapment. The banning/blocking administrator's novel extension of WP:TBAN to encompass so-called "second level links" is not included in the ban notice or in WP:TBAN. The banning/blocking administrator's claim that the edited article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity is related to the Kochs via Donors Trust is counter-factual. Does the community endorse the ability of an topic banning administrator to explicitly rule an article out-of-scope, then reverse the ruling without notice, and then block? Hugh (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Topic bans work when editors and administrators understand policy and act reasonably. Policy is clear. Our articles Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and Donors Trust very clearly "as a whole have little or nothing to do with" the Tea Party movement or the Kochs. Editing the parts of these articles unrelated to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs is specifically permitted by WP:TBAN, and articles which merely wikilink to these articles, so-called "second-level links," are certainly out of scope. The block was objectively unreasonable and deserves redress from the community. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully request uninvolved administrators participating in this discussion, if you believe that a topic ban violation occurred, kindly cite a specific edit of concern, kindly indicate whether you believe the violation was with respect to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs or both, and kindly cite a specific clause of WP:TBAN which you believe most closely describes the topic ban violation. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Our project's article Donors Trust is comprised of seven sections, 16 paragraphs, and some 23,000 bytes. One paragraph, in the "Donors" section, describes the well-documented financial support of the Kochs. As per WP:TBAN, this paragraph is in scope to a Koch topic ban, but the article as a whole is out of scope. Our project's article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity describes the financial support of Donors Trust. This is not grounds for a reasonable person to consider Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, in whole or in part, to be in scope to a Koch topic ban. Hugh (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for attempting to bring new sources to our project's article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity. Whenever we incorporate new reliable sources and new significant points of view into our project we improve our project. Your suggestions are appropriate at article talk. May I respectfully suggest you pursue your conviction that an obvious relationship exists between the Franklin Center and the Kochs in article space where it will benefit our readers WP:READERSFIRST. Let us know how that goes. Your 1st and 3rd refs, NBC is the publisher and CPI is the agency; this ref has been part of our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity since and serves as part of our sourcing for the Donors Trust funding; however, numerous attempts to draw further from this source and others to include an alleged Koch connection have been consistently reverted, for various reasons, see for example  "WP:SYNTH" and  "non-neutral reference to Koch bros, readers are free to click through, unsourced association between Franklin and Koch is WP:SYNTH and BLP violation." SourceWatch has never successfully been added to an article of our project on a conservative organization, as an editor experienced in this area I am not sure how you are not aware of this. Your last suggested source is a letter to the editor, as I know you to be an experienced editor I am not sure why you would bring this source forward at this time at AE. The consensus text of our project's article, its edit history, talk page discussion, and an explicit ruling from the topic banning administrator, all very clearly reflect our project's consensus that there is no noteworthy, reliably sourced relationship between the Franklin Center and the Kochs. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) In a recent essay cross-posted at ANI and  you argued that the funding of political causes by billionaires is not notable ("It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like..."), so while I am not surprised to see you pile on here, I am surprise to see you argue in favor of a significant Koch connection here. Hugh (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC) When an editor attempts a well-referenced, good faith addition of Koch-related content to an article in our project, it is undue, it is synth, it non-neutral, it is a BLP violation, but when it comes to topic ban enforcement, the Kochs are everywhere - even where they are not. Hugh (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully request strike-through of the block notice and in the DS log. Respectfully request uninvolved administrators declining this request, kindly cite a specific edit of concern, kindly indicate whether you believe the topic ban violation was with respect to the Tea Party movement or the Kochs or both, and kindly cite a specific clause of WP:TBAN which you believe most closely describes the topic ban violation. Respectfully request this appeal remain open for wider community discussion of the issues raised in good faith above WP:NODEADLINE. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ricky81682
First, the topic ban is for any articles involving the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers, for one year. Second, this last AE argument already had repeated violations with the same argument of a lack of intent. I don't believe intent to violate the topic ban is required. It's a bizarre and impossible argument to prove. To summarize the extensive arguments I provided at User talk:HughD, I was asked at User_talk:Ricky81682 asked about Watchdog.org (related to another edit warring issue) which had no mention of the Koch brothers there and mentioned the Franklin as one of a number of in-linked articles (with a possible tenuous connection). Prior to HughD's involvement, this was what the Franklin Center looked like, which does include a reference to Donor's Trust which directly refers to the Koch family foundations and the like. I missed it and probably should have told HughD that the second level links are directly related but I did not inform him of that. However, whether or not that was an oversight on HughD's part is less likely to me when you examine this edit of HughD's which includes a citation to this article which clearly states that the Franklin center is tied to the Koch brothers. The point is, this shouldn't be a game where HughD asks me to examine article after article and I have to solve the tenuous connections that may or may not be there when HughD knows full well that they exist and even makes it my fault that I missed the connection so HughD should be allowed to edit freely on the topic. This is a complete waste of my time and energy to police someone else like this. I considered the ban description pretty obvious but seeing as how no one else has been banned under that sanction and HughD's insistence of playing this game, I suggest we provide HughD with a broader more definite topic ban so that it's clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think I'm just annoyed with this. It's a fairly concrete topic ban and the punishment is the week-long bock, it shouldn't be a block and further expansion of the ban. If the ban is incomprehensible to HughD given the alleged size and scope of the Kochtopus or whatever, then HughD can suggest a different scope. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement (involved editor 1)
HughD is right. Guy Macon is a hypocrite here as is Ricky81682. The topic ban is completely i possible to follow given the millions of potential topics. Why should HughD have to make sure he doesn't violate a ban he didn't even come up with?

Statement by (involved editor 2)
This is classic entrapment. HughD was told this wasn't related to the topic and once he edited there, the trap was sprung and he was punished.

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HughD
One detail of peripheral interest here. HughD mentions the administrator’s "novel concept of "second level links." This isn't, in fact, a particularly novel concept, at least not among hypertext researchers. Nodes reachable within N links of a starting point are clearly interesting and have been studied both in terms of technical and rhetorical strategies. I’ve used the term neighborhood for the concept; more mathematically-inclined researchers would simply say "the subgraph of diameter N from node V" or something like that.  The Information Architecture people use "clicks" as a shorthand: "Koch Industries are just two clicks from the Franklin Center."  So it’s not an outré invention. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
The following sources: appear to refute the claim that "No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/14/16939114-koch-funded-charity-passes-money-to-free-market-think-tanks-in-states
 * http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Franklin_Center_for_Government_and_Public_Integrity
 * http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/02/14/12181/donors-use-charity-push-free-market-policies-states
 * http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/koch-backed-news-site-attacks-oaklands-minimum-wage-initiative/Content?oid=4037371
 * http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/jul/27/koch-brothers-newspaper-effect/
 * I am concerned that HughD claimed that "No evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity and the Tea Party movement or the Kochs" when a simple Google search turned up lots of evidence for such a relationship (see my statement above). Are we going to have to repeat this exercise again and again as HughD seeks out new and innovative ways to write about the Koch brothers? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * HughD, there is a huge difference between your first claim ("no evidence supports a relationship between the Franklin Center for Government and ... the Kochs") and your second claim ("no noteworthy, reliably sourced relationship between the Franklin Center and the Kochs.") WP:RS does not apply when deciding whether a topic is within the scope of your topic ban. If a Google search turns up lots of unreliable sources say that the Koch brothers fund the Franklin Center for Government, you need to stay away, even if the sourcing isn't up to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in an article.


 * HughD, Re: "you argued that the funding of political causes by billionaires is not notable, so while I am not surprised to see you pile on here, I am surprise to see you argue in favor of a significant Koch connection here." you have once again completely misunderstood my position. What I previously argued was that Wikipedia has dozens and dozens of articles on billionaires, and in the vast majority of those articles nobody has found relatively small (for a billionaire) political contributions by those billionaires to be notable unless they happened to be named Koch. This is easily verified. Again, I have zero interest in politics, political contributions, or billionaires, but I do care about Wikipedia being NPOV even when talking about people who have unpopular political views. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by HughD

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


 * It's HughD's responsibility to adhere to the topic ban, not Ricky81682's responsibility to research each topic on behalf of HughD to verify if it is or isn't in compliance. HughD can appeal the original ban or suggest a narrower restriction or exemption.  Failing that, there are five million articles on Australian shrubs and the like to edit which are not related to the relatively narrow topic ban.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Topic bans work for those who understand them and are willing to follow them. It appears that no amount of words will be enough to convince HughD where the exact, precise limits of his ban lie. Per the header of this report, HughD is appealing a one-week block which has already expired. I recommend this appeal be closed as moot. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to widen the ban to simplify enforcement, can you propose a new version? EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify one thing, my warning rather than block which Ricky linked to wasn't directly related to intent but instead that Hugh seemed to recognise the problem and assured that it wouldn't happen again. That's a one chance thing so this block (on a topic which was covered by the TBAN is completely appropriate). Even if it wasn't the block has now expired so I also agree/recommend that this can be closed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as boundary-pushing behavior. Suggest a trouting now and an expansion to the American Politics 2 topic ban should this reoccur.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close? - Three admins have responded, besides the original banning admin User:Ricky81682. Among the three admin reviewers, nobody proposes to grant this appeal so I suggest it be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Nocturnalnow

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions : Biographies of Living Persons discretionary sanctions with regard to the biography of Huma Abedin.


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


 * 1) 3 October 2015 Removes long-standing, well-sourced description of fringe, highly-derogatory claims as a "conspiracy theory."
 * 2) 6 October 2015 Uses a partisan primary source for negative comments about the subject.
 * 3) 6 October 2015 Reverts negative partisan primary source into the article after it was removed.
 * 4) 7 October 2015 Again reverts the negative partisan primary source into the article.
 * 5) 11 October 2015 Adds more negative material, despite talk page concerns that it is unduly weighted and a coatrack.
 * 6) 12 October 2015 Reverts the above material back into the article against talk page consensus.
 * 7) 13 October 2015 Again removes the long-standing description of negative, discredited allegations as a conspiracy theory.
 * 8) 14 October 2015 Removes a reliable source, falsely claiming that it was written by the subject's husband.
 * 9) 17 October 2015 Inserts a partisan primary source and an unreliable partisan source (Breitbart) to source negative claims about the subject.
 * 10) 17 October 2015 Inserts a link to a partisan primary source into the External Links section, violating WP:BLPEL.
 * 11) 18 October 2015 Reverts the material back into the article after it was removed as not meeting quality and sourcing standards for content about living people.
 * 12) 18 October 2015 Once again reinserts those unacceptable sources.
 * 13) 18 October 2015 Yet again reinserts those same unacceptable sources.
 * 14) 18 October 2015 Reverts the link to the partisan primary source after it was removed as not an acceptable external link for a biography.
 * 15) 18 October 2015 Again reverts the above link.
 * 16) 30 October 2015 Makes personal attacks against the article subject and her spouse on the article talk page.
 * 17) 31 October 2015 Again removes consensus description of widely-discredited partisan attacks against her as being discredited, giving undue weight to a fringe theory which has been widely rejected by mainstream sources.

Edit-wars the NPOV tag into the article despite clear consensus that it doesn't apply:
 * 1) 00:15, 23 October 2015
 * 2) 20:08, 22 October 2015
 * 3) 03:28, 22 October 2015
 * 4) 18:56, 21 October 2015
 * 5) 02:23, 19 October 2015
 * 6) 21:59, 7 October 2015
 * 7) 20:41, 7 October 2015
 * 8) 01:54, 7 October 2015


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


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

Notified of the sanctions by Gamaliel here.

This user is essentially a single-purpose account; out of fewer than 200 total edits to the encyclopedia, nearly 140 of them are to this biography or to its talk page. Effectively all of the edits and discussion have been highly negative toward the subject or have sought the inclusion of negative material about the subject, indicating that this user is not here to build an encyclopedic article about Abedin but rather to grind an ax against her and/or her husband. This is neatly demonstrated by this talk page comment which makes personal attacks on the subject and the subject's spouse. They have consistently edit-warred against clear talk page consensus to include negative material out of proportion to its prominence in reliable sources, to treat fringe allegations and claims with undue weight, to use poor and partisan sources and to cast aspersions on Abedin. Biographies of living people should not be edited by people with axes to grind against the article subject and I believe this editor should be encouraged to edit something else. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Re: D.Creish, as the reliable sources in the section discuss, the fringe claims about Abedin and the Muslim Brotherhood are widely condemned and rejected by reliable sources and commentators ranging from The Washington Post to the Anti-Defamation League to Senator John McCain, have frequently been described as conspiracy theories and have been supported only by a small fringe minority of right-wing extremists. The single source you quote in "defense" only proves my case — you have linked nothing but an opinion blog post by Andrew C. McCarthy, a conservative columnist writing for a conservative publication. That these sort of partisan outlets are the only sources you can find to defend the claims is exactly the point — they are rejected by the mainstream. Describing the claims in the language used by the broad majority of mainstream sources - discredited, conspiracy theory, rejected, partisan, paranoid, dishonest, meritless, reprehensible, etc. - is the very definition of how we write encyclopedically and neutrally. Referring to them in any other way gives those fringe and highly-defamatory claims undue weight and violates fundamental policy. NPOV does not mean we give all "sides" of an issue "equal time" or equal credence. Fringe, discredited and meritless attacks on a living person must be treated as such.
 * I would also note that this user is a brand-new account which recently showed up to edit Abedin's biography in a negative manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rhoark raises a red herring by mentioning the fact that the highly-defamatory and widely-discredited claims about Abedin are made by "congressional representatives." Members of Congress are not themselves reliable sources, and their opinions and claims about living people hold no more and no less weight than any other person's opinions and claims in this encyclopedia. As with anyone else, the weight to be given to these claims in Wikipedia is governed by how reliable sources treat them. It is indisputable that the overwhelming weight of mainstream reliable sources consider these claims, regardless of their source, to be scurrilous, baseless and meritless. Those mainstream sources which have commented on them all but universally dismiss them as politically-motivated paranoia on the order of McCarthyism. The only support to be found for them is among right-wing sources, and even then, they are defended only by a small minority of conservatives. They are, in short, fringe theories, and highly-defamatory fringe theories at that. The biographies of living persons policy demands that we treat defamatory claims about living people with extreme sensitivity, and not give fringe negative claims undue weight or "equal credence" within biographical articles. This is a textbook example of why that policy is in place. Calling these highly-defamatory claims "allegations" without immediately mentioning the mainstream view of the allegations as discredited unfairly depicts the issue as one with "two equal sides," as opposed to what it is: a partisan fringe leveling politically-motivated attacks which have been widely rejected by virtually everyone else across the political spectrum. Policy demands that these claims must be depicted as what mainstream sources say they are — baseless nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow
''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 D.Creish
Based on edits since my involvement in this article I question the filer's neutrality.

They have several edits to the article so I'll confine my evidence to this one example: They insist on title-ing one particular section "Conspiracy theories" despite the lack of majority support for that statement and that those who allege the theories are living congresspeople, so BLP applies.

They've reverted a number of editors to retain this heading:    

On the talk page they misrepresent sources to support the "conspiracy theory" heading:

This is misleading. Only some do, a fact acknowledged in the opening sentence of the section:The claims in the letter were widely rejected and condemned, and were sometimes labeled as conspiracy theories.

Again, a misrepresentation. The National Review article, a reliable source cited in that same section, describes her mother (Saleha Abedin) as "closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood" - the claim here is supported

Their last edit to this heading relented somewhat in titling it "Discredited partisan attacks", which I believe is still not sufficiently neutral or supported. The heading they reverted from was my (more neutral, I believe) attempt at a compromise: "Security clearance controversy"

I also believe the filer has violated rules against canvassing. He notified an editor who frequently agrees with his edits of this filing but failed to notify me despite my involvement just yesterday in a disagreement involving myself, the filter and Nocturnalnow where Nocturnalnow and I agreed. I only discovered this filing after seeing his latest revert and "stalking" his contribs.

I believe more editors on the article and talk page, and a focus on neutral language throughout would be beneficial. D.Creish (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: NorthBySouthBaranoff, I take issue with the claim that I've edited the article in a "negative manner." I've made 3 effective edits to the article:


 * One was to change the sentence: In June 2011, Abedin's husband became embroiled in the Twitter photo scandal, which was poorly written - "the" is confusing and ambiguous - to an earlier version: In June 2011, Abedin became the subject of widespread media attention amid her husband's Twitter photo scandal for which I provided additional sources to satisfy an earlier objection.


 * The second was the heading change, which I describe above.


 * The third was to correct a sub heading Reactions to the letter which made reference to a "letter" without context. In fact, the sub heading I replaced it with Backlash  is arguably more favorable to the subject and less favorable to the group to whom you refer as "conspiracy theorists."


 * I believe my edits to the article speak for themselves. D.Creish (talk) 08:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Why exactly do you feel I deserve a restriction? I haven't edit warred, I haven't added objectively contentious material. Just today I made the following post to the article talk page:
 * whereas NorthBySouthBaranoff (the editor you feel should not be restricted) swooped in without talk page discussion to revert against consensus. I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. D.Creish (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As for a general restriction on the article, the edit warring mostly concerned the section heading which is settled for now. I'd consult the editors involved but I don't foresee any issues. Re: 0RR, it seems like it could easily be abused: negative or questionable material could be added but not reverted (if I understand the restriction correctly.) D.Creish (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As for a general restriction on the article, the edit warring mostly concerned the section heading which is settled for now. I'd consult the editors involved but I don't foresee any issues. Re: 0RR, it seems like it could easily be abused: negative or questionable material could be added but not reverted (if I understand the restriction correctly.) D.Creish (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nocturnalnow
With regard to the a single-purpose account assertion, I tried to show the Filer | yesterday that I have a long history of editing going back to 2007, albeit under 4 different User names as I have forgotten my password several times after a rest from editing. I have always had a notification and linkage of that fact on my talk and or User page. I always figured the edits are what's important, rather than the name of the Editor, but in respect of other opinions, I have now written down my password and put the piece of paper in a drawer.

With regard to the other complaints, I think that any objective and thorough analysis of my editing history of the article will show a reasonable person that my accepted edits have dramatically improved the BLP even as it currently stands, and at least some of the non-allowed edits would have improved it even more. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP, however, when I announced such an intention awhile back, an Editor who in my view has been also trying to improve the content expressed his | disappointment with my leaving the BLP. That, plus my own reluctance to abandon what I thought is a non-NPOV BLP, led me to conclude I should continue editing Huma Abedin.
 * However, I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel  and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLPs; so, I will be doing that regardless of the outcome of this enforcement request. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu
I'll comment a bit later. For now, World Series! – Muboshgu (talk) 06:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
The Huma Abedin article needs some serious protection and topic bans. The subject is closely associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign and hence is receiving special attention, primarily focused on WP:UNDUE mention of Abedin's husband's sexting scandal, and claims that Abedin had "immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations" (claims where one ref states "Sen. John McCain denounced the allegations").

As an example of the "NPOV" editing on this BLP, it appears this edit at 07:27, 13 October 2015 changed the accurate "Conspiracy theory allegations" heading to the smear "Allegations regarding family members". That edit was by 119.81.31.4 which is now blocked for three years!

has a total of 24 edits, six to Huma Abedin: two highlight a scandal regarding the subject's husband (1 + 2); two repeat the removal of the "Conspiracy theories" heading (3 + 4); and two are minor adjustments. An article like this should not be getting attention from blocked-for-three-years IPs and perfectly formed new accounts and Nocturnalnow who has a total of 203 edits including 67 to Huma Abedin and 79 to its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel
This editor should be encouraged to use some less contentious articles to learn about Wikipedia policies like BLP, PRIMARY. UNDUE, RS, etc. and return to this article after the election. I believe they want to improve the article but they appear to have a strong viewpoint and a less than ideal grasp of current BLP practice. Gamaliel ( talk ) 04:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that 's excellent review of the diffs illustrates the situation well. Nocturnalnow is not quite up to speed on how to properly handle BLP issues, and so a lot of time is wasted explaining basic policy and dealing with minor conflicts. Other editors are getting frustrated, as is Nocturnalnow because perhaps they feel that the resistance they are getting is obstructionist and not policy-based. Nocturnalnow should realize that the incident is already covered in the article - nobody is advocating shoving it down the memory hole - and so they should be satisfied even if it is not described in the exact language and manner they would prefer. Wikipedia is often about compromise.

I"m not sure how to handle this, but I think the best thing would be for Nocturnalnow to practice with these issues in a less contentious article that they do not have such strong opinions about.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * SInce many people (including myself) on one side of the argument are saying some of these edits violate BLP, a 0RR restriction would essentially only apply to one side of the dispute, or it would at least encourage the other side to invoke BLP as a justification for evading the 0RR.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 14:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark

 * 1) Changes heading "Conspiracy theory allegations" to "Muslim Brotherhood allegations". Even if the label of "conspiracy theory" were sourced well enough to WP:ASSERT (debatable), this edit narrows the specificity, averts WP:POVFUNNEL, and adheres to the advice of WP:POVSTRUCTURE. Good edit.
 * 2) These are primary sources as the complainant states; however, I would criticize this edit primarily on grounds of being coatracked, and also out of date. Results of Judicial Watch's inquiry are covered by the NYT. On balance, I'd say it's not an edit that deserved to stand on the page, but neither is it enforcement-worthy by any stretch.
 * 3) first revert to reinclude the above, with the comment "This information is also in the Hillary Clinton email controversy article and relates directly to the Subject of this blp"
 * 4) second revert, with the same comment.
 * 5) Adds factual statements about an FBI investigation, sourced to Fox News. I concur that it is a coatrack; however, I see no talk page concerns until a message by the complainant 6 days later.
 * 6) revert to restore the above, with the comment "Please read the content. Abedin is specifically mentioned and the email article you refer to is relating to Clinton, NOT Abedin"
 * 7) Changes heading "Conspiracy theory allegations" to "Allegations Regarding Family Members". Good edit, per no. 1, though it doesn't follow MOS for capitalization.
 * 8) Removes a source based on good-faith belief that it was written by the subject's husband. It was actually a category tag positioned to look very much like a byline, as resolved on the talk page. Trout-worthy.
 * 9) Adds further information on the Judicial Watch inquiry, sourced to Breitbart, which is generally considered unacceptable for contentious BLP claims.
 * 10) Adds an external link to a FOIA response.
 * 11) revert to restore Breitbart-sourced content with comment "Well sourced. Please do not keep reverting content you do not like. Please get a consensus on the talk page before reverting yet again." NBSB had in fact opened a talk page section a few hours prior.
 * 12) Goes for a hat-trick, restoring the Breitbart source, the FOIA EL, and also changing heading "Discredited allegations against family members" to "Controversal allegations regarding security clearance"
 * 13) Restores the Breitbart section again with an additional citation to the Daily Mail (also not sufficient for contentious BLP)
 * 14) Restores the FOIA EL with the comment "I see no prohibition against this link in the policy you reference. Please advise which section/part of the policy you think applies on the talk page."
 * 15) Restores the EL again with the comment "Get Consensus on Talk before removing this again". At this point he apparently actually looks at the talk, responding to NBSB's thread from the day before with "Its certainly not intentional on my part. Is there a list of generally acceptable Reliable Sources anywhere? I thought the Daily Mail was just as good as the Guardian."
 * 16) Describes controversies related to the subject with respect to due weighting considerations. This is not a personal attack.
 * 17) Changes heading "Discredited allegations against family members" to "Allegations that Abedin might be a security risk".

Further edit warring over the NPOV banner, whose wording tends to encourage such behavior.

Nocturnalnow does not seem to have a firm grasp on evaluating the reliability of sources. He also needs to be reminded that the "discuss" part of BRD is a two-way street. The claimed history of accounts seems plausible, as they seem to have similar linguistic patterns and a recurrent interest in American political scandals. I would not call that interest so narrow as to be a SPA, though. I suggest Nocturnalnow be placed under 0RR for BLP articles / claims to avoid similar disruptions.

Although Nocturnalnow's behavior is not acceptable, the filer should be admonished that NPOV does not read "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views except conservative ones." While sources can be found who unleash all sorts of invective about the Muslim Brotherhood allegations, it is a claim that was supported by five congressional representatives, and many respectable news organizations chose to criticize Bachmann only by proxy of John McCain. That is the profile of a minority view, not a fringe one. There are some very good sources to draw on to criticize the allegations, but it is simply indefensible to do so through such prejudicial section titles. This is an encyclopedia. Rhoark (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording of the NPOV banner is a persistent contributor to edit warring across the 'pedia. I've opened a discussion on that at Template_talk:POV Rhoark (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I had intended not to further argue content issues with on this page, since there seems to be a loose consensus on where things stand with Nocturnalnow. In light of 's comments however, I need to speak to the content issues that bear upon the conduct of all parties. We should not tolerate anyone wishing the article to read more negatively, no matter how patiently they negotiate. That is what we call civil POV pushing. We shouldn't tolerate that from any point of view. Per NPOV, Wikipedia should describe disputes but not engage in them. If reliable sources substantiate the claim that a POV is factually wrong, that's still describing. That's not the state of sourcing in this matter, though. I don't think you will find a reliable source contesting any of the following: The mainstream point of view is that worrying about these things is paranoid, vicious, ignorant, Islamophobic, McCarthyist, regressive, and generally unworthy of consideration. That's my take as well. It is not, however, objectively verifiable or falsifiable. The majority opinion is still an opinion, and to express it through the form of a section heading is engaging in the dispute. All the disparaging things the media has said about Bachmann should be put to use in describing the level of acceptance of her views, but not the views themselves. I highlighted the fact that these concerns were raised by a group of congressional representatives - not because I'm so naive as to suppose elected officials are reliable sources, but because the closest thing there is to a bright-line test of fringiness in non-academic topics is a lack of prominent adherents. Congress is fairly prominent, which is why I said this issue has the profile of a non-fringe minority view. Were it fringe, though, the only prescription would be to leave it out of the article. If it's in the article, it has to be described impartially. Avoiding false balance is a matter of weight, not a call to endorse the majority. There is no hybrid or middle ground of NPOV and FRINGE that allows Wikipedia to take the gloves off. Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That Huma Abedin has a high degree of access to the Clintons
 * That Abedin can be connected at several degrees of separation to the Muslim Brotherhood by way of various family members
 * That family members with foreign entanglements are a major area of concern in a clearance background check


 * I appreciate User:EdJohnston's confidence in my interpretations, but I must also point out I recommend 0RR for Nocturnalnow only. As I believe in measures that are preventative rather than punitive, it's a recommendation tailored to the type of disruption he is evidently prone to cause. If D.Creish has been disruptive, evidence of that has not been presented. We've only been told that he has a low edit count. Rhoark (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
After looking at the diffs, it appears that both NorthbySouthBaranoff's and Nocturnalnow's edits are partisan. Both editors could be interpreted as engaging in BATTLEFIELD behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, saying something like this could be interpreted as not being a very welcoming or congenial reception to a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Professor JR
I don't normally participate in Dispute Page or TalkPage discussions, but have decided to here, as I must agree with Cla68 -- User:NorthBySouthBaranof's edits certainly qualify as partisan, or in violation of POV, as well, if Nocturnalnow's can be adjudged to be so; and, upon my review, it appears to me that Nocturnalnow's have not been, and that this filing is unwarranted. Clearly there is also no basis for the assertion by the filer that Nocturnalnow is a single-purpose account(!), and the filer's neutrality is quite apparently and obviously in question (check NorthBySouthBaranof's contributions history) as pointed out by D.Creish. It might be advisable, and to the benefit of all Wiki users and readers, if NorthBySouthBaranof were to take a brief respite from editing the Abedin article, or any other article relating to Hillary Clinton; and this comment by another editor was also entirely out of line and uncalled for. --- Professor JR (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ryk72
Regarding the 500/30 restriction, referred to by below, and also independently here and at ArbCom Palestine Israel 3 here; I again urge the community to formalise this measure by amendment of WP:Protection policy and through the use of a similar technical implementation to Semi-protection. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Nocturnalnow

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


 * Noting that I've fully protected the article. Also if you wish to submit evidence regarding other (ie not Nocturnalnow) could you please submit a separate AE request, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The full protection seems like a good idea. What to do when protection expires is a harder question. Editors might be required to get approval from an RfC for any further negative material. But it's not easy to word such a restriction. *If* this article were under a 500/30 restriction like the Gamergate controversy article, neither nor  would be allowed to edit (neither user has reached 500 edits). For now, I'd suggest that User:Callanecc extend the full protection for another three weeks. If we see any useful discussion on the talk page during that time it may give some ideas for what to do in the future.  When protection expires, if there is a steady stream of people wanting this article to be more negative (who aren't willing to negotiate patiently over the wording) then article bans or a 500/30 restriction might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd actually be tempted to put them both (or at least Nocturnalnow) under 0RR on this article and see what happens then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alternatively 0RR on the article (with normal exceptions so vandalism and obvious BLP stuff can be removed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading Rhoark's interpretation of 0RR I am tempted to agree with User:Callanecc. I would put Nocturnalnow and D.Creish under 0RR restrictions on the article but give a warning to User:NorthBySouthBaranof. (I would make no exception to the 0RR for vandalism or BLP because some of the warriors believe they are defending BLP). But if this article becomes a political football during the campaign my guess is that long-term full protection may be the only option. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After checking the history of the article in the last few days, I'd favor closing this with no action. Though the edits by User:Nocturnalnow don't inspire confidence, they are not yet enough (in my opinion) to justify an editing restriction. And there are too many editors to pick out one or two who are doing a conspicuously bad job on BLP. If the article gets into trouble again, a longer period of full protection could be the best option. That has the virtue of forcing a discussion before changes can get made (via edit request). Of all the above comments, I draw attention to the neutral tone of User:Rhoark's assessment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing: There has been a lull in the admin discussion. I'm closing this (as a noticeboard case) with no action. This is without prejudice to any admin who wants to impose 0RR or other restrictions, either on individuals or on the Huma Abedin article. If edit warring on this article continues then more admin action is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Request concerning Lvivske

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE :


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


 * 1) 4 November 2015 First removal of "Neo-Nazi" from the lede; the issue at the time was under discussion at the talk page. After this edit, I opened an RfC at the talk page.
 * 2) 4 November 2015 Revert; after this revert, the page was protected
 * 3) 10 November 2015 Next revert; the user insists that the lede is "incorrect POV". The RfC is ongoing, the only arguments of Lvivske are essentioally repetition that "this is wrong POV". They did not edit between 5 and 10 November; their first edit after this period of inactivity (which started when the article was protected) was the revert.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above (last time 18 June 2014 by Callanecc)
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 October 2011 by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Obviously, this is not the first time Lvivske edit-wars in EE articles, without giving any satisfactory explanation to their reverts. Whereas many of the opponents of the "neo-nazi" definition constructively participate in the RfC, Lvivske decided to edit-war. When I alerted them that I am going to file an arbitration enforcement request, they have chosen to revert again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

. Yes, I mean WP:ARBEE. If you open one of the folded templates on the page, Lvivske's name is there. Sorry if i screwed up smth, this is the fist time I file an Arb enforcement request.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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
User is headhunting. First edit was made independent of any ongoing dispute the user had (there was no dispute notice on the article so I had no idea he was arguing with someone when I came across it). After I made a long series of edits to the article, all of my work was reverted at once without a legitimate reason. I was then threatened by Ymblanter that he would go to arbcom if I tried to edit the article again. Naturally, I restored my work.

Ends up he was having a dispute on the talk page about the lead, so no explanation was given for his reverting of all the work to the body I did, nor did he in good faith attempt to restore any of it.

He got the page locked with the offending, disputed, wildly POV version in place. Five days pass, I come back and see that there is overwhelming consensus to go to 'my version' of the article. I wait another day since there is no real objection to anything, and restore my work. Ymblanter files this to spite me.

Whatever. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 22:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
I recently applied full protection to this page to stop the edit warring. I have only been involved administratiely and have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but obviously, just waiting for the page protection to expire and reverting again while there is an open, active RFC on the subject is not acceptable behavior.

Regarding a few points in Lvivske's statement above:
 * He got the page locked with the offending, disputed, wildly POV version in place. see WP:WRONG. As an admin it was not up to me to take a side in the dispute, but rather to stop the edit warring. If "your" version had been the one on the page at the moment I applied protection it would have stood during the protected period.
 *  Five days pass, I come back and see that there is overwhelming consensus to go to 'my version' of the article. If you have been edit warring in an article, and it is protected to stop the edit warring, and there is an active discussion of the issue on the talk page, you are clearly not the right person to be determining what consensus may or may not exist. You should leave that for a neutral third party who closes the RFC when it has concluded.
 * As you are apaprently already under some editing restrictions I can't imagine any of this is actually new information to you.

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MyMoloboaccount
If you look into Lvivske's edit history it seems he violated his restrictions several times Revision as of 19:39, 30 September 2015 to Sputnik article. No discussion on talk page, no cooling off period observed. Revision as of 05:01, 29 January 2015 no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. Revision as of 05:01, Revision as of 05:00, 29 January 2015 Russia article, no cooling off period, no discussion on talk. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark
Lvivske is listed in ARBEE not in the original decision but as having received an alert that is explicitly expired. Lviviske has however been sanctioned in the area, which suffices as evidence of awareness that does not expire AFAIK. Rhoark (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
Lvivske is under editing restriction: "..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". Here he provided an explanation of disagreement on 5 November 2015, well before 6 hours prior to his last revert  and after his previous edits on the same page. Here is discussion on this article talk page that followed. None of editors who commented after November 5 explicitly objected to the edit by Lvivske. Even administrator who brought this complaint here mostly agreed with edit(s) by Lvivsky ! The condition of his editing restriction seem to be completely satisfied. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As about his revert during standing RfC... Given that no one on RfC during whole week objected to his edit, this may be viewed simply as WP:IAR improvement of content by Lvivske. WP:CREEP. My very best wishes (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Lvivske

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


 * Lvivske is still under a Ukrainian 1RR/48 hr revert limitation per this 2014 AE appeal that was declined. His recent edits at Azov Battalion may break this restriction. The restriction states "..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".  I don't see where Lvivske followed this rule before making his Nov 10 revert. He also removed 'neo-Nazi' twice on November 4, which is within the 48 hour limit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You write that Lvivske is "Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above." Are you referring to WP:ARBEE? I cannot find their username on the decision page. Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's unfortunate that Lvivske's other content edits got lumped in with the "neo-Nazi" dispute, but he seems to have violated the 6-hour slowdown at the very least. The restrictions he is editing under seem strangely complex, but I'm sure he's aware of them. Since he's already been sanctioned for one-week periods, I think a two-week or one-month block is appropriate. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should consider a topic ban of Lvivske from the Azov Battalion. Even if his restriction is hard to understand, reverting while an RfC is still in progress is one of the things we don't like to see, and appears obviously wrong. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Lvivske was notified of discretionary sanctions in the old days at this AE request by User:Shell Kinney in August 2009. Rhoark argues above that Lvivske's 2011 ARBEE editing restriction should be considered 'evidence of awareness that does not expire AFAIK'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing: User:Lvivske is banned indefinitely from the topic of the Azov Battalion on both article and talk, but may appeal at any time. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki

 * Appealing user : – Yossiea (talk)  02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : 48 hour block for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_occupations&diff=690173133&oldid=690166858


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : (None needed). S warm   ♠  05:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Yossiea~enwiki
That was not a personal attack. Don't come in the middle of a discussion just because one person decides to complain, if that happened at all. If you want to chase people away from editing Wikipedia, that's a good way to do it. Look at the Talk page for Military Occupation, and how serialjoepsycho does not assume good faith and how he attacks me and my editing merely because he doesn't like it, yet he doesn't get warned.

In regards to the indef
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization as per the US, EU and most other organizations. Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF, it's not as if I'm just attacking, this person is a terrorist sympathizer, big difference between an edit disput and a terror dispute. This has nothing to do with my edit dispute at the MILITARY occupation of Gaza and I was ready to cool down and begin editing again after my 48 hours were up but this is unacceptable. To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down? In any event. I think an indefinite block is extreme, you have already caused me to no longer edit Israel related articles. Taken from Yossiea~enwik talk page at their request-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) (strike through per request by the currently blocked user My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Swarm
First, no one complained to me about you. I came across the discussion on my own and acted as an uninvolved administrator. Second, So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel. is an explicit assumption of bad faith against an established editor in good standing, which constitutes a personal attack, and is exactly the kind of thing that is not tolerated under discretionary sanctions and should not be tolerated when dealing with a highly controversial subject matter. I read the entire discussion and I find many of the comments on both sides to be utterly unhelpful, however you were the only one to make it worse by launching an a clear personal attack against an opponent. S warm  ♠  05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
I have to question if this 48 hour ban is actually enough. I've just noticed in this diff that this user has attempted to canvass users from wikiproject Israel to the discussion. Targeting one interested on a perceived basis of their views, Vote stacking, per WP:CANVAS. There's what seems to me to be WP:IDHT behavior in the discussion. Certainly at the very least warning is called for with the canvassing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite?
While the comments in regards to a Hezbollah may go abit far, the position is not unreasonable. Wikipedia is not under a rock and it's editors do not live under a rock. A number of organizations/countries consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization. If these comments do (I'm not personally suggesting they do) go to far then it comes down to inflamed passions in a contentious topic area. There's plenty of folks that do this same thing without receiving an indef block. If a punishment is necessary in this regard then I ask you instead to consider an indefinite topic ban in regards to ARBPIA related topics. If they've not had any issues in other areas there's no point.

Pinging as the facts have changed and the unban request has thus changed, unless it's necessary to open a new request in which case I apologize.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh pardon, I don't wish to imply of wrong doing on the part of the Admin that changed this to indef. If I did inadvertently imply that it was unintentional. There wasn't anything inappropriate about the action in my view, it's just abit harsh and should be reviewed in my view.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
This is pretty much an aberration on the part of Yossiea the evidence suggests. It relates to a specific topic area. They as far as I understand admit this on their talk page. A ten day block isn't necessary to end the disruption. Blocks and bans are not intended to be a punishment. A simple topic ban will do. Considering that they have suggested that they are aware that this was caused by stress of operating in this area and that they are not interested in operating in this area at this time it seems that the disruption has ended and you could simply take no action and just give them the rope. Any I would propose that you either give them a topic ban or take no other action but simply unblocking hem as soon as the first block is scheduled to end or right away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I do feel that this a acknowledgement that they know the comment is unacceptable, though it does seem they try to justify it to some extent. As I understand  they seem to be concerned that a ban on the Arab and Israel conflict will ban them from subjects related solely to Israel such as [Har Nof]]. I think this concern should be genuinely considered. There's probably enough justification for a topic ban. I could point out a number of things even the 1RR that you mention as a justification for the topic ban but there concern does seem reasonable as well. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment of franp9am
As far as I understand it, Yossiea has been blocked forever. I'm quite new to en wikipedia and am not familiar with all corners of it. I participated in the discussion in the List of Military Occupations. While I don't agree with some of Yossiea overreactions, an indefinite block seems to me a bit too strict. In support of Yossia, I would like to remark that the discussion was quite heated anyway and some comments from "the other side" were also at least on the border of personal attacks, seems to me. (@Liz: Please, if this is the wrong place to write, move it to the right place instead of deleting).

As for Liz comment below, I would like to note that Yossiea has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter". While I don't think that such a behaviour is helpful or constructive, it makes a difference. (The quotes given by user:RolandR were made after the block and could not have been the reason for the block). Franp9am (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by RolandR
For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Franp9am is incorrect in her/his assertion that Yossiea has "has not called another editor a terrorist but a "terrorist supporter"". What Yossiea actually wrote is "I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI... Calling a supporter of Hezbollah a terrorist is not attacking an editor in violation of WP:AGF,... To not be able to call a terrorist a terrorist is, have we gone so far PC that the world is upside down?" RolandR (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Nableezy
I am afraid you seriously misunderstand several things. First off, the userbox makes no mention of any group, or even Israel's occupation, and regardless of that, the right to violently resist aggression and foreign occupation is kind of codified in international law. There is no advocacy for violence, its rather a criticism of the inconsistencies in Wikipedia's process for dealing with certain unpopular views. But besides all that, why exactly would it be necessary to question the motives of somebody if they were a supporter of Hezbollah? Are only Zionists permitted to edit articles on Israel? Yossiea said, and thanks Roland for the quote I hadnt seen that, I doubt he should be editing this since a terrorist who endorses terror has a COI. Are people really so close minded to not see that there are multiple viewpoints that exist on such topics as the Arab-Israeli conflict? Or is the argument that only one side of that discussion should be allowed to edit articles on that topic? That is not the Wikipedia I remember. The userbox does not say I support Hezbollah, but even if it did that shouldnt matter. I shouldnt be insulted for such a view no more than I should be able to call a Zionist editor a war crime supporter or a war criminal (the latter being what was done here). People have different views than you, part of being a grown up is accepting that.

As to the conflict at the article, no we both didnt have good points. Yossiea's position is backed by zero sources. Not a single serious source claims that Egypt occupies Gaza. That was what the lol no was a response to. Not a "reasonable argument".  nableezy  - 20:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved AnotherNewAccount
No idea of all of the circumstances surrounding this, but I feel the need to stand up for Yossiea here. Honestly, if you've going to block or topic ban somebody for calling somebody a "terrorist" or such language, then frankly you'll have to block or topic ban half the editors in the topic area! It's a rough-and-tumble area, and sometimes debate does get heated, and I've seen far worse conduct by other users without any admin intervention whatsoever. An indef block or a topic ban is a gross over-reaction here, and I cannot support it - most users get away with merely a warning.

By the way, Yossiea seems to have been a model editor until this unfortunate incident. And the condescending attitude shown towards him by Serialjoepsycho on his talk page is totally uncalled for. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Rhoark
This case as well as the case against directly below stem from a userbox displayed by. The box reads "This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable." The group in question is presumably Hezbollah, considering the box links to a 2008 ANI thread about the deletion of pro-Hezbollah userboxes. The decision to do so rested largely on the "T1" criterion that is longer accepted. The most applicable current guideline seems to be User pages which prohibits user page content that advocates violence, but not statements of support for groups that may be known for violence. Nableezy's box is in clear violation of this guideline and should be removed. Under present guidelines, however, it would seem that a pro-Hezbollah statement in or out of a userbox would be tolerable, so long as it did not advocate violence.

Yossiea~enwiki and nableezy came into conflict over the question of whether Israel's involvement in the West Bank should be classified as an "occupation". Both had reasonable arguments, but nableezy's comment "lol no." provoked Yossiea to personalize the dispute. The accusation that nableezy is "not interested in the truth" is clearly projecting motives onto nableezy that aren't supportable by evidence. However, I would consider it entirely appropriate to interrogate nableezy's motives in editing about Israeli occupation given the polemical userbox statement referencing Israeli occupation. "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact.

Apparently more contentious than the original issue is Yossiea's use of the word "terrorist". While appealing the block on his talk page he several times referred to nableezy as a "terrorist sympathizer". Honestly, that should be uncontentious, given the statement on nableezy's user page explicitly endorsing violence by "individuals or groups". That leaves no room for excusing the support as applying merely to Hezbollah's political arm or formalized military actions. Once, in a long winding discussion, Yossiea made the lazy gloss of omitting the "sympathizer" part, making for an apparently inaccurate accusation that nableezy is himself a terrorist. That would be very simple to redact, and in no way justifies an indefinite block. The notion that Yossiea's continued defense of wholly defensible statements is grounds for extending the block is Kafkaesque. Yossiea's continuing use of the word "terrorist" is not a pattern of escalating disruption, but a foreseeable consequence of the misplaced scrutiny between the disputants in this matter. Rhoark (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani
"Apparently more contentious than the original issue is Yossiea's use of the word 'terrorist'. While appealing the block on his talk page he several times referred to nableezy as a 'terrorist sympathizer'. Honestly, that should be uncontentious, given the statement on nableezy's user page explicitly endorsing violence by 'individuals or groups'."
 * Nableezy is quite right that resistance to an occupation cannot be classified as terrorism, except perhaps by the occupying power. This is a matter of international law. Terrorism does not make distinctions (civilian vs.military targets) which are made by legitimate resistence movements. If we conflate resistance with terrorism, then there's a heck of a lot of WW2 European history to be rewritten. Hezbollah has engaged, as has its adversary Israel, in acts of terrorism (as Israeli historians admit). It is also many other things, that have little to do with terrorism, and much with the defense of a local ethnic reality.Nishidani (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes
While comments by Yossiea were obviously inappropriate, no one was actually offended including Nableezy, as follows from his comment. Yossiea looks to me as a well-intended long-term contributor who spent a lot of time fixing vandalism problems and making gnomish edits. However, he has poor knowledge of dispute resolution procedures, administrative noticeboards, and sanctions in APBPIA area, as follows from his clumsy attempt to submit an arbitration request, his ridiculous appeal here, and comments on their own talk page. Based on their latest comments, he is ready to make every effort to improve. If I were an admin, my suggestion would be to limit the sanctions by a few day block he already received and a warning at this time. I also think he should voluntarily avoid editing the page List of military occupations that brought him the trouble. P.S. I think his argument about Gaza Strip (that was not West Bank) was reasonable, given that Israel currently conducts a blockade of this area, which is different from straightforward military occupation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki

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


 * The cited diff is a personal attack as noted by Swarm, and the block is just 48 hours. Since the block appears justified, granting an appeal doesn't seem like the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is a personal attack and 48 hours is pretty fair (could easily have been longer) block length. Therefore I'd decline the appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the indef is pretty harsh for the second comment but I can see the reasons it was imposed (also noting that the AE element only exists for a year then it become normal admin). Instead of the 1 year AE block I'd make two alternate suggestions for : (1) One week (or similar) AE block and TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict and/or (2) One week (or similar) AE block which is part of an indefinite normal admin block (so that a month from now any admin can unblock (ie the normal method) without needing to go through the AE appeals stuff. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the entire discussion on the talk page and what I saw disturbed me. I saw no evidence of attacks on Yossiea by serialjoepsycho or anyone else, despite the claim here by Yossiea.  I did see evidence of other editors trying to explain sourcing policy to Yossiea and Yossiea arguing for changes to the article based on his personal interpretation of the facts, as opposed to providing reliable sources. I'm a bit stunned that someone who's been editing since 2005 doesn't have a handle on WP:RS yet, or is willing to throw it out the window in a contentious topic area.  I hope this is a temporary aberration, but we should consider a topic ban from this area should this behavior continue.  In the matter at hand,  I suggest we deny the appeal as being baseless.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 13:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to mention that this 48 hour block became an indefinite block when Yossiea referred to another editor as a "terrorist" on his talk page. I would say that this was a severe block for a personal attack but I have no confidence that Yossiea will not repeat the remark when in the middle of the next dispute. He doesn't seem to understand why he's been blocked and until he does, I have no faith he can cease the hostile behavior towards editors he disagrees with. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry not to have moved your comments. I came back to the page to repost them in the editors' section when I saw that you reposted them yourselves. Thank you for doing so. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the indef block, this is (slightly modified) what I wrote on Yossiea's talk page: I'm not going to defend Yossiea's behavior - it is combative and uncooperative and he seems to have no awareness that it is inappropriate. But the user in question has had a userbox on his user page since 2010 which complains that he can't have a pro-Hezbollah userbox, and regularly has used his userpage as a soapbox on related issues. I don't think Yossiea should be calling out that editor or any other editor based on their personal views, but I'm not sure an indef block is appropriate in this case. Gamaliel ( talk ) 22:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As per Serialjoepsycho, I do not think the admin who blocked indefinitely acted inappropriately in any way.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to redefine sanction
I support the indef as an appropriate response to an egregious personal attack which he proceeded to defend as if it were justified. We would not be in the wrong for leaving the block in place, IMO. That being said, I think a reduced, clearly defined sanction would provide the project with the same protection, without an indef. I would support 's suggestion for an indefinite topic ban for ARBPIA articles and an AE block with the length reset for 10 days. This seems like a sufficiently strong enforcement action and one that would provide ample preventative measures. and any others, objections? S warm  ♠  05:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. But the deal is off if the editor insists on being able to call other users terrorists. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't pay any particular attention to the original AE unblock request; when I'm patrolling CAT:RFU, I generally stay away from AE issues, as other people seem to be doing fine with that particular process. I'm amenable to whatever you decide here; my block might have been a bit harsh, but then, the incivility was particularly egregious. I hesitated for a moment because of the AE stuff; I wouldn't have hesitated otherwise, given the nature of the language used. --jpgordon:==( o ) 06:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm trying to help them out here because they've been around for a long time and for the most part have not had any issues aside from a 1rr vio and are begging for another chance. But it appears they don't see a problem with their comments and don't feel any sanction is necessary. They're pushing it. S warm   ♠  22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Swarm's idea. This seems the best for all concerned.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yossiea has posted a relevant message on his user talk page. Gamaliel ( talk ) 03:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently the indef block is still in place. It looks like the reviewing admins are in support of the block reduction to ten days accompanied by an ARBPIA ban. I wouldn't support anything below that unless User:Swarm is in favor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If and  are happy with the indef TBAN and 10 day block we can do that. However given the statement Yossiea posted on their talk page I'd be willing to consider just the TBAN (even for a limited during) and no block (from a punitive vs preventative basis). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm content with reducing the block to time served; its purpose, I think, has been accomplished. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this as well. S warm   ♠  16:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've unblocked with no conditions. If the community wishes to impose a TBAN, they can do so, and he can argue against that if he sees fit. But the AE block is long expired, and the indef is unnecessary; the user has promised not to repeat the bad behavior that led to it. The indef is not an AE issue in any way. --jpgordon:==( o ) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Onefortyone
''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 Onefortyone

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) Canvassing.
 * 2) Use of false sources and misrepresentation of source. Already pointed on his talk page and here, he use this source on Graceland(edit) for claiming that Biltmore Estate is more visited than Graceland. However that source doesn't mention Graceland anywhere, neither they say that Biltmore is 2nd most visited. He made this new edit to the article, however this book is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. Thus violating WP:OR too.
 * 3) Personal attacks: referring opposition as "Elvis fans", and considers fair edits to be "vandal" or "vandalism".
 * 4) Edit warring. Already told by user:EdJohnston not to add any controversial material without gaining consensus first. There was discussion about his edits on three different venues. Yet he selected to re-insert non-consensus and incorrect edits again.
 * 5) Stonewalling. After he saw that consensus is against him, he resorted to stonewalling by copy pasting cherry picked quotes and pasting same feud on at least three pages ("did user Excelse present irrefutable arguments..")

This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now there is one more serious issue, it is that Onefortyone considers his opponents to be socks. Including WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I have already described before that I am not a sock, neither these identities were mine. Onefortyone has been told before to file a sock puppet investigation if he want to make these allegations, but he is not wanting to do it and continuously copy pastes these misleading accusation of socking on multiple venues. I have been editing for two years and I went to check Onefortyone's recent edits because his editing seemed like trolling, when he made this edit to "Graceland", this article is on my watchlist, not only it did misrepresented sources it considered fair removal of irrelevant content as "vandalism". I only targeted those pages where he was claiming such edits to be vandalism. I saw that he has been adding rumors and I also found out that he is the only one who has been edit warring over removed content and non-consensus content for over 6 years, and that's how I described it on edit summary, that somehow led him to claim that I am here for more than 6 years. It is actually obvious that Elvis Presley had over 1000s of biographer, Onefortyone happened to find a couple of biographers who have echoed some unpopular stories about Elvis only as "plausibility" and not as anything authentic, Onefortyone pushes such stories as "they are academics", while rest are "Elvis fans" as seen on WP:RSN too. Excelse (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Recent links included by Onefortyone for supporting his edits are rather menial and failing to address the points already raised against his edits on their talk pages for years, one must see :, yet Onefortyone cites few small edits of others as exemption from making disruptive edits which is beyond me. Excelse (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Callanecc yes there are a few evidences of recent misconduct. His comments show lack of remorse and includes false charges of socking. Even after I pointed out canvassing above, OneFortyOne has again attempted to canvass those people who are totally unrelated to his editing on these links that I have provided. He is still denying on this recent link that it was wrong to consider fair edits as vandalism. Not to forget this kind of aggressive quote spamming, even after being told that he has cherrypicked the text from the book, no one except him agrees with his edits, while three people including myself have agreed with the opposing version.


 * If Ed's reminder had actually worked, Onefortyone wouldn't be misrepresenting sources like he did on Graceland with his original research just after that("according to same source") It is usual that he is going to continue edit warring and check everyday whether his version is current or not despite apparent disagreements and resort to canvassing. Excelse (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Callanecc, Onefortyone made this new edit to the article, however this book is not comparing Biltmore with Graceland or calling it second most visited either. That's how it is not only source falsification but also OR because onefortyone believes anything crossing 600,000 visitors in a year(not every year) is more visited Graceland. Excelse (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Callanecc you see that book is not saying that Biltmore estate is 2nd most visited or more visited than Graceland nor comparing with Graceland with Biltmore estate, then why we should compare them? Biltmore estate happened to have more visits for a year, but it is not regarded by any to be most visited or more visited than Graceland even if we take recent years or last 20 years. That's how onefortyone is misusing the source and doing OR. Graceland's is still 2nd most visited. Excelse (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Callanecc Yes there was attempt to solve these issues on his talk page. I discussed changes of about 5 articles. I didn't opened discussions on talk pages of articles because most of the content was about Elvis and things related to him, and it would look repetitive if I open almost same dispute on each article talk page. But he never discussed the content, instead he attacked that his edits are all good and only "Elvis fans" don't like them. Still we can say that he had been told to use a source that disagrees with Graceland being 2nd most visited, and explicitly states it.
 * Furthermore, it had been pointed out that his edits to Graceland are also problematic because he is citing a polemic, when it is completely irrelevant to do so. At Graceland, he continues to paste irrelevant quote of Albert Goldman, by hyping this unreliable polemic as "décor throughout the house has often been criticized. Critics such as..", then quotes his words "it appears to have been lifted from some turn-of-the-century bordello "), finally when they have to do nothing with basement. Mind that this edit, same edits were also made by this user on Toilet-related injuries and deaths.


 * Mind that these edits came after he recognized the reminder from Edjohnston and also had warning not to repeat these edits before consensus, and discussion about these sources related to Elvis Presley's death were already being discussed at WP:RSN, as well as his own talk page. Excelse (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is where the problem exist. While failing to describe his disregard of WP:CONSENSUS, and edit warring, Onefortyone tells that he finds Memphis apartments website or a self-published Memphis service help website that he posted twice should considered as WP:RS. This how, Onefortyone use of self-published and unreliable sources has been also prevalent.
 * After that, Onefortyone begins his original research, in the sense that he believes that because Biltmore estate had 1 million visitors, thus its more visited. He forgets to mention that Graceland is also said to have been having over 1 million visits a year.
 * He believes that the more you copy-paste the more you are correct. Thus he doubles the length of his reply everytime as also seen on WP:RSN, despite whole discussion was entirely unfavorable to him he fails to accept WP:RS. Best he could come up with is, "Wikipedia article on Graceland is not a fan site," that's why misleading rumors and crank material must be allowed, even if it is entirely irrelevant to the subject. Clearly that's not fair. Excelse (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, yes that's the thing that actually made me file this report. The aggressive quote-farming of sources, and most of them being self-published gossip sources, as described on WP:RSN. Thus its WP:GAMING, to post same rejected information on multiple pages just to make a WP:POINT. I have replied on this article talk page for a record now, and analyzed the credibility of his sources that were already discussed on WP:RSN. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is an issue here. Like User:EdJohnston points, this sort of disruption is actually going on for many years and has been sanctioned before and reported. Excelse (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Callanecc, I recommend you to see my reply, and you can figure out the problem with his editing. It happens that a number of sources states otherwise or contrary to the established view and at the same time they are unreliable, self-published. Onefortyone fails to observe it, and that's why in his recent reply on here, he pointed the removal of his gossip sources on other articles to be worrisome. Who use the sources like The Gossip Columnist? Only Onefortyone.

Furthermore, it was Laser brain who reported to EdJohnston first. I don't think I am an WP:SPA, its just I got active on wikipedia after over a year and have contributed on different subjects, its just I want to sort out this problem first. Excelse (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, I am not getting why he just can't accept consensus and go along with it. Actually this sort of WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:BLUDGEONING is far more disruptive. The way he repeats same quotes from same refuted material. Mind that he is repeating the same quotes as well as those "medical examiner" quotes that were refuted already at WP:RSN. And in this reply he also tries to prove that his random self-publisher authors are reliable sources, one example is when he says that "Victor Pross is a reputed artist" and that "..published by AuthorHouse, a subsidiary of Penguin Random House". And his use of talk page as WP:FORUM, "Her account must be true as you will never get this image out of your brain, if you are the first person to see your love lying dead on the floor." Like really? Excelse (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 2006 Topic banned on few Elvis articles for 2 months.
 * 2) 2006 Topic ban violation block.
 * 3) 2006 Topic banned for two months from Elvis Presley article.


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Onefortyone
''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 Onefortyone
As many diffs show (see, for instance,   ), Excelse and his supposed sockpuppets or meatpuppets (see   ) are new users whose edits are nothing more than an attempt to remove well-sourced content from Elvis-related pages that is not in line with their personal opinion, but was part of these articles for many years. From time to time, some of these Elvis fans took me to arbitration, because I am not always singing the praise of the mega star, having a more balanced view of the singer. However, according to arbcom decision, my opponents in these cases were all banned from Elvis-related articles, as all of my contributions are well-sourced (see, for instance, this more recent list of sources here), and their massive removal of content was thought unjustified. Here is what the arbcom says: "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." Therefore, Lochdale, one of my former opponents, who had shown "evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" and "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley," was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." See. As Excelse says in one of his recent edit summaries, "Six years passed, only second self published forums cite these gossips other than this page" (see ), it could well be that he was deeply involved in the former edit wars and is one of these banned users, especially in view of the fact that in the past I had been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See. So some warnings against Excelse may be necessary, as most of the sources I have used are mainstream biographies of Elvis, studies published by university presses and books written by eyewitnesses. See also this discussion or this one. Onefortyone (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What exactly has happened during the last weeks? There was an edit war between two editors. On the one hand, there is user Excelse removing paragraphs from Elvis-related articles without plausible justification simply because this content is not in line with his fan view of Elvis Presley. On the other hand, there is user Onefortyone reincluding this well-sourced content, which was part of the said articles for many years and was written by different editors. See, for instance, this massive removal of well-sourced content or this removal of content, which was written by at least three editors, namely DomiAllStates, ElvisFan1981 and Onefortyone in 2009 and 2011.

Furthermore, in his statement below, administrator EdJohnston has raised the question "whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption". Perhaps it is possible to explain which of my contributions have been disruptive. I have only reinstated well-sourced material that has been removed by Excelse and I have rewritten some paragraphs, adding additional sources. To my mind, Excelse's massive removal of well-sourced content, accompanied by false accusations, is disruptive. According to Disruptive editing, "some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions ... An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." This exactly describes the behavior of Excelse. Administrator EdJohnston also claims that "Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals". My contributions on the talk pages say otherwise. See, ,. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Other editors are also of the opinion that Excelse should not remove any reliable sources from Wikipedia articles. See. Onefortyone (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As Excelse falsely accuses me of source falsification concerning Graceland and Biltmore Estate and falsely claims that Biltmore "is not regarded by any to be ... more visited than Graceland even if we take recent years or last 20 years", here are some further, and more recent, sources: According to the Memphis City Council Summary Sheet (2014), Graceland is "the third most visited residence in the United States, after the White House and the Biltmore Estate ..." See,. "Graceland hosts 600,000 visitors annually, making it the third-most visited home in the U.S. behind the White House and Biltmore." See Memphis Daily News, VOL. 129, NO. 233, Monday, December 01, 2014. "Graceland is the third-most-visited home in the U.S., after the White House and the Biltmore in Asheville, North Carolina, according to Elvis Presley Enterprises, which manages the attraction." See. Biltmore Estate "hosts almost one million visitors every year." See. "The largest private home in the United States and a National Historic Landmark, the house welcomes approximately one million visitors each year." See. "Biltmore Estate ... attracts nearly one million visitors a year." See Ellen Erwin Rickman, Images of America: Biltmore Estate (2005), p.130. "Graceland, the mansion estate of Elvis Presley, is one of the most frequently visited private homes in the country. In fact, the late King of Rock’s home places third only after the Biltmore Estate and the Whitehouse." See. These sources have now been listed on the related discussion page. Concerning the critical remarks by Professor Goldman and other academics about the décor at Graceland, these remarks are part of a special section entitled "Critical voices about the décor". As the Wikipedia article on Graceland is not a fan site, such remarks are not "irrelevant" but necessary for reasons of balance. They should not be removed, especially in view of the fact that these are opinions by academics. Interestingly, in his statements above, Excelse is not referring to the diffs including the entire discussions. Compare, for instance, this diff given by him and this diff including the entire discussion, which is certainly supporting my view. Another example is this diff given by Excelse, which omits the entire discussion here. As every unbiased reader will agree, most accusations by Excelse are untenable and can be disproved by evidence, i.e. the many reliable sources I have cited. Query: did Excelse improve the content of the articles in question? No, he didn't. He has only made false claims and removed large blocks of well-sourced content, as his short contribution history shows. Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

There is now the false accusation by Excelse that my well-sourced contributions are "original research" and most of the sources I have used are "self-published gossip sources". In fact, many of these sources are mainstream biographies of Elvis and studies published by peer-reviewed university presses. Furthermore, after I had provided additional sources, user Laiser brain says on one of the discussion pages, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like "Mainstream biographers are of the opinion" because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." See. Therefore, Excelse is wrong in claiming that the "whole discussion was entirely unfavorable" to me. Indeed, what is written in the biographical studies I have cited is also supported by several medical observers. See. It seems that Excelse does not like what these sources say. Onefortyone (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I must admit that I do not understand the following statement by EdJohnson below: "So Onefortyone has decided that he is personally in charge of rectifying the situation and did not wait to achieve talk page consensus before re-adding his material." To my mind, exactly the opposite is the case. It is true that two weeks ago or so, I have added an additional source to the article on Graceland. See. After that date I didn't contribute to that article. Instead, in order to show good faith, I have now started a discussion on the talk page concerning my sources. See. As for the other Elvis-related articles in question, the material removed by Excelse has not yet been re-added, though I am of the opinion that this massive removal of well-sourced content accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries and without leaving explanations on the talk pages is not O.K. See, ,. It is a mystery to me why the many false claims by Excelse, which can be disproved by the evidence to be found in the many reliable sources I have cited, have not yet been discussed on this talk page. Onefortyone (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The fact that two other SPAs have recently appeared on Wikipedia, who removed exactly the same paragraphs from Elvis-related articles as Excelse repeatedly did (see, ), supports the view that Excelse may be a single-purpose account. This strongly reminds me of another user who was edit warring with me and then reported me for alleged probation violations at arbitration enforcement some years ago. However, the sockpuppets of this user were all banned. Onefortyone (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Excelse continues to make false claims. He says, "he just can't accept consensus and go along with it." However, there was no consensus against me, as this discussion shows. Excelse further claims that the "medical examiner" quotes I have given "were refuted already at WP:RSN". This is an obvious lie, as Dr Warlick's opinion cannot have been refuted as it was not cited there. In fact, user Laser brain only thought that Peter Guralnick, who cites the opinion of the medical examiners, might have been misinterpreted. Concerning my sources, Laser brain has also stated, "I have found the quotations in the sources given without a problem. ... The real question is whether the sources are reliable (probably yes) and whether they're being used appropriately (likely not)". Later in the discussion, Laser brain adds, "I think we're making headway here. ... I like 'Mainstream biographers are of the opinion' because that's precise and it doesn't suggest that the biographers are medical experts." On the talk page I have now added the opinion of Dr Warlick, who was present at the autopsy. He supports the view that Elvis died on the toilet, as the mainstream biographers say. Such a medical source was requested by Laser brain and I have provided it. Excelse seems to be the only user who questions the reliability of these sources, calling my edits disruptive. Onefortyone (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, what makes me suspicious is that for a relatively new user with less than 100 edits, Excelse is all too well-versed with specific Wikipedia terminology such as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; WP:GAMING; WP:POINT; WP:RSN; WP:FORUM; WP:CHERRYPICK; WP:BLUDGEONING, etc. (see his statements above), as would only have been expected from a user who in the past was deeply involved in similar edit wars and arbcom cases. So a reappearance of one of my former opponents should not be ruled out in his case, especially in view of the fact that he has only removed content from Elvis-related pages - content similar to those paragraphs that were repeatedly removed by my former opponents who were later banned from Elvis-related topics by arbcom decision. Onefortyone (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid edit warring and personal attacks, though it is not easy to keep calm if massive content has been blindly removed from the article pages, only accompanied by false claims in the edit summaries. As you can see, in order to show good faith, I have now started intensive discussions on the talk pages. See,. However, this seems to be a waste of time, as Excelse is still unwilling to accept my sources, and he continues to remove content that is not in line with his personal view from the article pages (see ). So a warning against this user should also be considered. Isn't there an arbitrator who can help solving the content dispute from a neutral point of view? Onefortyone (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Checkuser has now shown that Excelse and Related0977 are confirmed sockpuppets (see ), although Excelse has explicitly claimed that they are different users (see ). It is likely that he has also used this IP in order to remove content and to avoid the 3RR. So he may indeed be one of my former opponents who was banned by arbcom some years ago, and with reporting me for alleged probation violations he seems to be the person who is gaming the system here. In view of this fact the well-sourced content recently removed by Excelse and his sockpuppets from Elvis-related pages, which was part of the said articles for many years, should be reincluded as fast as possible by the administrators. Onefortyone (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gwen Gale
Please be aware that there is a ten-year background of sockpuppets edit warring off-and-on with Onefortyone in this topic area. See also this from 2007. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Onefortyone

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


 * See:
 * Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone (Nov 2005)
 * Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone (Nov. 2005)
 * Requests for arbitration/Elvis (Nov. 2006)
 * Requests for arbitration/Elvis (Nov. 2006)


 * Probation from 2005: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research."


 * A ban on Elvis-related editing should be considered. There has been a previous discussion at User talk:EdJohnston. The question is whether Onefortyone's zealous efforts to add certain material to Elvis-related articles crosses the line into disruption. Since there are three relevant Arb cases, the committee has already judged some of his past edits to be disruptive and they did enact a probation which allows for bans. One of the options is to go ahead and enact a ban from Elvis-related material, but that would need some evidence of recent bad behavior. The above complaint is more complete and thorough than the one left on my talk page, so I think the option of a ban should now be considered. Would like to hear from others who can look at the diffs in the above complaint and give their opinion. I became aware of this editor through a post by User:Laser brain on my talk page. Without carefully judging all the material, and just observing the attitudes of the participants, Onefortyone does not seem to be eager for careful discussion of his proposals. He is quick to accuse the people who revert him of various misdeeds: "Don't you see that Excelse is one of those POV warriors who are here to remove well-sourced content from articles that is not in line with their fan view?" EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For a more recent discussion of User:Onefortyone's editing, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616. Lots of TLDR there from the accused person, which makes it hard to understand exactly what's in dispute. The level of disruption from Onefortyone seen in 2010 would probably be enough to justify a topic ban under the standards that are currently applied to others at this noticeboard. If he gave any hint of being open to negotiation, or being willing to express himself briefly, it might be taken into account.


 * I can't rule out that some of Onefortyone's opponents may be socks, but irrespective of who is on the other side, the long term issue of needing consensus for controversial material remains. I hope that Onefortyone knows there is a right way and a wrong way of bringing up sock charges. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2015 (
 * Signing again to delay archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that there is enough here to warrant a TBAN. A lot of the misconduct (such as personal attacks  and edit warring at Toilet-related injuries and deaths) occurred before Ed's reminder about the probation so I'm willing to believe that Onefortyone has pulled their head in a bit. If a sanction is needed, I wouldn't go any further than a logged warning unless there is additional (recent) evidence of misconduct. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's original research? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excelse, Onefortyone quotes this from the book, which seems to support their point. Am I missing something? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I see what you mean, but I'm seeing this a content dispute (ie whether to compare or not) rather than necessarily a conduct issue and I note that there was no attempt at talk page discussion (on that article's talk page). I'm still not convinced that a TBAN is necessary (but I wouldn't objection to someone else placing it) at this stage through I believe a warning definitely is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, the latest evidence presented by Excelse has convinced me that a TBAN is likely necessary but I'd like to give a chance to respond to the evidence and analysis from Excelse. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Having seen Onefortyone's replies to the evidence I'm content that a topic ban is not needed here but instead a warning for personal attacks and edit warring. I'm still not sure on the misrepresenting sources claims especially now that Onefortyone has posted additional sources on the talk page. what are your thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Callanecc, regarding new behavior since my November 5 reminder to Onefortyone of this probation, see Talk:Graceland. His last post in that thread has a date of 19 November. He states "However, this has recently been removed by Excelse, which is not O.K. Therefore, I have reincluded the correct information, adding some sources." So Onefortyone has decided that he is personally in charge of rectifying the situation and did not wait to achieve talk page consensus before re-adding his material. Having noticed that his attitude never changes, and that any problems are always the fault of someone else (who are often socks, in his opinion) I'm voting for a topic ban from Elvis-related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * His two recent edits clarified his meaning which I think explains what he meant more clearly, and is more consistent with the page history. On the other hand, Excelse (all but 8 of their 67 edits were in the last month and a half (ish)) looks a lot like an SPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that Excelse's latest comments are accurate and they don't show the level of misconduct I believe is necessary to consider a ban, so I'm still with a logged warning (especially since the reminder has improved Onefortyone's conduct). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What consensus? I agree that there are other issues present in what you've brought up but I'd rather add those (eg FORUM) to the warning than topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The best reason for a topic ban would be to facilitate normal development of Elvis-related articles, free of attempts to push a POV or to use low-quality sources. At present I don't have the patience to dig into edit histories to see if banning Onefortyone would help achieve that. In the current thread, I have found that the statements by Onefortyone and Excelse have not been helpful in allowing admins to reach a conclusion. In the absence of informative statements I'd need to do my own analysis going back over several years, which I haven't the time or patience to do. For whatever reason this AE complaint has not attracted regular editors who work on the Elvis articles, who might have provided background. Since there isn't time to do a thorough analysis, I'd settle for a logged warning if User:Callanecc can suggest how to word it. EdJohnston (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See this thread from my talk page about two weeks ago, if you have time. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How does this look:
 * In response to this Arbitration Enforcement request you are warned that even if you believe that other editors are acting inappropriately it is never acceptable to make personal attacks . You are also warned that any further edit warring will result in sanctions unless clearly covered by an exemption. Your use of Wikipedia as a forum is also ill-advised and should be avoided. You are explicitly warned that any further misconduct in the Elvis Presley topic area will likely result in an indefinite topic ban.
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support the warning proposed by User:Callanecc. One of my concerns was the aggressive tone with which Onefortyone defends his own changes and criticizes others. This includes misuse of the word 'vandalism' about other editors. An example of this is in the thread which Gwen Gale provided above: "a new vandal removes content primarily from Elvis-related articles", followed by three links, one of which was Special:Contributions/Excelse.  So my interpretation of Callanecc's wording is that Onefortyone may be blocked if he makes more incorrect charges of vandalism against people who remove his changes. Callanecc, thanks for your patience in drafting an appropriate message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll include a specific mention of inappropriately labelling edits as vandalism when I put it on 141's talk page. It's worth noting though that Excelse was socking, doesn't change my belief that a warning is appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)