Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220

Stormwatch
''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 Stormwatch

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 2017-10-02 Falsely claiming 'vandalism' as grounds for reintroducing material apparently removed by consensus
 * 2) 2017-10-02 Falsely claiming 'Definitely vandalism'
 * 3) 2017-10-02 Claiming 'That's some orwellian shit.'
 * 4) 2017-10-02 Talking about 'unpersoning'


 * 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):


 * User's talk page notification, back in 2015
 * User's talk page reminder in September of this year
 * User's response to that reminder


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Cassie Jaye is the producer of The Red Pill, pretty unambiguously closely related to the Men's rights movement and I strongly believe, related to GamerGate for which sanctions apply. Note that I personally take no position here on whether or not Cassie Jaye deserves an article outside of the documentary. I do strongly take the position that notability has not yet been established, and that IMDB does not serve to establish notability. This position has been raised on the article's talk page.

Note; I am an admin, but may be considered involved here because on 2017-03-07, I nominated this article for speedy deletion. At that time, the article consisted of nine words. I currently take no particular position on whether the article should be a simple redirect or should be a separate article. --Yamla (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

User has been notified. --Yamla (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Stormwatch
''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.''

Result concerning Stormwatch

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


 * Since Arbcom has decided that alerts expire after one year, the GamerGate notice that the editor received in 2015 is no longer in effect. This does not rule out taking normal admin action for edits such as this one at Mike Cernovich, where he describes some people who opposed GamerGate as 'dishonest journalists' in Wikipedia's voice. This seems to be an example of WP:Tendentious editing. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at Jaye, I'm having a hard time finding anything that relates to Gamergate in the edits Stormwatch was doing there. Of course, falsely claiming an edit to be "vandalism" is still sanctionable behavior, as is edit warring. The Cernovich edit I'm quite unimpressed with (and that's unquestionably GG related), but it seems like AE sanctions aren't available for it due to the age of the notice. I'm still rather inclined to think we ought to do something here about the tendentious editing, but I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss it since we can't use AE remedies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't issue sanctions because of the expired alert, and this isn't the place to discuss normal admin actions. Closing this with a renewed alert.  Sandstein   17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can't issue sanctions because of the expired alert, and this isn't the place to discuss normal admin actions. Closing this with a renewed alert.  Sandstein   17:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Angel defender
''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 Angel defender

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA3 :


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


 * 1) 5 October 2017 Defamatory edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
 * 2) 5 October 2017 Defamatory edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
 * 3) 5 October 2017 POV edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit
 * 4) 5 October 2017 POV edit on BLP which this account is not permitted to edit


 * 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.

Despite repeated notifications of the 500/30 restriction, this editor continues to edit articles covered by the sanction. Today, they made a series of defamatory edits to a BLP covered by the sanctions. They have also made several POV edits to the article Olive production in Palestine, another article covered by the sanctions. 
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Angel defender
''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 Ryk72
ECP requested at WP:RFPP. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Angel defender

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


 * I've blocked indefinitely as a routine Admin block telling them that to be unblocked "You need to request an unblock using the instructions above, and show that you understand the concerns expressed by other editors and how you will avoid such problems in the future." The lack of communication on their or any talk pages after all the warnings is sufficient to block. Hopefully the block will get their attention and they will begin to communicate. If anyone wants to unblock with a topic ban go ahead, but it should include BLPs. Doug Weller  talk 07:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning 2.29.61.73

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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

Repeated imposition of their clearly POV and contested edit violates 1, 2 and 3 of this section of the Arbitration decision.
 * 1) 6:00, 7 October Latest imposition of their edit and the first since their DS alert, once again replaces "Northern Irish" with "Irish" with no supporting evidence
 * 2) 15:50 6 October same as above
 * 3) 05:02 5 October same as above
 * 4) 01:14 14 September same as above though calls it a spelling error for justification
 * 5) 23:57 18 August as before also citing spelling errors as justification
 * 6) 23:32 15 August as before
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * 21:43, 6 October 2017


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I requested via my last edit summary and at the IPs talk page to provide evidence for their change however they provided none. This is now their 6th imposition of their edit and have now ignored my request for a source as well as the DS alert I gave them yesterday.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 1)

Discussion concerning 2.29.61.73
''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 Scolaire
These edits relate to Janet Devlin, a 22-year-old singer from Northern Ireland. I can't see any Troubles-related content in the article, and there is no notice on the talk page to say that it falls under the ArbCom case. Simply changing somebody's nationality from "Northern Irish" to "Irish" is not a Troubles ArbCom issue. Scolaire (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Mabuska
, actually it does. Notwithstanding their edits to other articles, in this instance persistently removing Northern Irish for Irish especially calling it a spelling error can easily be construed as being Troubles related. Indeed see Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles, which whilst stating pages, does state "broadly interpreted", and the issue here is clearly within the catchment of it. The talk page ArbCom message which doesn't have to be included does state in it edits related to British and Irish nationalism, not just the Troubles.Mabuska (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning 2.29.61.73

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


 * I suggest that this IP be blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring as a normal admin action. If you check the pattern going back to August you'll notice lots of similar edits. They are so eager to defend their cause they even relocated Gregory Campbell (politician) from Londonderry to London to get rid of the word 'Londonderry' that they must have found offensive. The UK Parliament constituency that Campbell represents is known as East Londonderry. The IP made other changes to Campbell's article that were pure vandalism, such as calling him a 'twat'. The two-month run of bad changes from an apparently static IP suggests that a long block would have value. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur.  Sandstein   16:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IP blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism, as a normal admin action. Closing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IP blocked two months for Troubles-related edit warring and vandalism, as a normal admin action. Closing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 00:20, 8 October 2017 Volunteer Marek added new content.
 * 2) 00:31, 8 October 2017‎ I reverted
 * 3) 01:16, 8 October 2017‎ Volunteer Marek reinstated their edit without consensus.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Lengthy block log, but nothing recent seems relevant.


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


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12 December 2016


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I asked Volunteer Marek to self-revert but they have ignored me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am a little shocked at how many very experienced editors are using this report as a forum to discuss content. I brought this report because Volunteer Marek violated the simple, straightforward, and widespread DS rule not to reinstate edits that have been challenged without consensus. For to suggest that their violation was inadvertent is quite frankly beyond belief, especially after I politely notified VM of the violation and asked them to self-revert. VM is an extremely experienced editor who I understand focuses mostly on post-1932 American politics articles (as do I). Anyone who edits regularly in that space knows VM is one of the most consistent and ardent battlegrounders. It's exactly the sort of editing pattern that Post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions page restrictions is designed to cut down on. While of course I defer to admins' greater experience, I think merely issuing a warning to this editor and for such a clear-cut violation would be inappropriate. As for the proposal to do away with the restriction, I would not oppose it (never liked it anyway). But my main concern is that we should all be playing by the same set of rules, and politics battlegrounders with over 68,000 edits should be the last editors to get some sort of free pass. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek's most recent comment shows a continued unwillingness or inability to distinguish a conduct dispute from a content dispute. As I mentioned on the talk page, the content dispute is over; the conduct dispute is not. VM seems to think this renders this report moot. No. The point of the arbitration remedy is to achieve consensus before disputed content is reinstated, not after. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

22:20, 8 October 2017

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek

 * Another user agreeing that Forbes is RS here
 * Added a second source here
 * Dr Fleischman himself using the second source and calling it reliable
 * User:Doug Weller affirming the use of Buzzfeed as a source

Additionally, inline citations are not required in the lede as long as the text is well sourced in the body of the article. Which it is. Hence, it's sort of hard to understand the objection and why Dr. Fleischman is bringing this here.

Dr Fleischman's own edits
 * Removing a source claiming it does not support text. Not true.

Masem's claim below that "any (Forbes) "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not (reliable)" is also completely false. The two discussions at WP:RSN are a) this one and b) this one. a) Most certainly DOES NOT say "definitely not reliable". What it says is "reliable if the contributor is reliable" which is the case here. Likewise b) again says "reliable if the contributor is reliable" and "no, it's not user generated content" (and in the particular case discussed there the commentators deemed Forbes reliable). Masem, please don't falsely misrepresent discussions like this, especially since this is something that is trivial to check. There's absolutely no "definitely not" in there by any stretch and I have no idea how you came up with that. Please retract or strike.

Regardless, like I said, 1) there are other sources in the article, 2) lede doesn't need citations if it has them in text, 3) additional citations could - and were - easily provided, all that Dr. Fleischman had to do was ask for them.

I'm also not quite sure what DS was suppose to be violated here. There was one revert by Dr. Fleischman and one by myself. I did start a discussion on talk. Dr. Fleischman responded by making the claim about Forbes' reliability. So I added a second source just to appease him, although, one more time, this actually was not necessary since there were inline citations in main body already.

So this is sort of a strange request over ... not sure what exactly, but definitely something trivial that could've (and I think was) handled simply through good faithed discussion and clearing up of what appears to be a misunderstanding on Dr. Fleischman's part.  Volunteer Marek  05:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, since Dr. Fleischman himself added the buzzfeed source and didn't object to the text within the main body, this seems like an attempt at playing some "gotcha" game.  Volunteer Marek  06:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * - so yes, to begin with I did completely forget about that stupid restriction (and it is dumb as several other commentators here noted). I did remember it when Dr.Fleischman left the note on my page (at Oct 8, 18:35) but I did not "ignore it". Based on a) Dr.Fleischman's edit summary ( not a reliable source), b) the fact that he DID NOT object to the same text appearing in the body of the article (which makes their BLP claim transparently bad faithed) and c) the fact that he even added the Buzzfeed source as reliable to the same text in the body of the article himself, I took that to mean that what was being "challenged" was the source itself. So I went and added a source used by Dr. Fleischman , (on Oct. 9, 00:04), which I thought would address the "challenge". Since Dr.Fleishman himself, as well as another user and myself all agreed that Buzzfeed was reliable for this, the edit presumably had consensus once the new source was added.


 * Now reading Dr.Fleischman's comments below this looks more like he was trying to WP:GAME the restriction (which is one of the reasons the restriction is dumb) and set up a "gotcha" trap; neither his stated reason nor his notification on my talk page nor this report were made in good faith. The fact that he calls me a "politics battlegrounder" sort evidences that. What's more WP:BATTLEGROUNDish? Taking steps to address another editor's stated objection like I did (by adding a source he himself used), or running to WP:AE over a trivial matter and agitating for sanctions? Here's a hint: the degree of your true WP:BATTLEGROUNDness is directly proportional to the number of spurious time wasting WP:AE reports you file.  Volunteer Marek   17:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And oh yeah, here Dr.Fleischman says the problem is solved but he still wants to persist with this AE report none the less. That's also a bit disingenuous since now I can't even self revert my own edit because the original edit has consensus... he's set up a perfect catch-22.   Volunteer Marek   17:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well I can just repeat - Dr. Fleischman indicated clearly that he was challenging the source, NOT the text itself (indeed they left the same text in the article and even added a source to it). So I reasonably inferred that providing a second source - one which he also used - was sufficient to address "the challenge". I guess I could go in and remove the original source he objected to (Forbes) to "self-revert" but now he says he's satisfied with the situation as it is, so I'm not exactly clear on whether that would be appropriate either.
 * You can't separate out the "content" issue from the "conduct" issue because in adding the second source (conduct) to address the objection I was working on the basis of what I understood was being challenged (content).  Volunteer Marek   19:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
From the edits quoted, it appears that DrFleishman believes himself to be the sole arbiter of content on this article, and if he unilaterally removes something without discussion, he then threatens the good-faith user with AE if they revert for cause. It seems to me that a boomerang is in order here more than anything else. There was no violation of 1RR, since VM's first edit was adding content, not removing or altering another editor's content. Softlavender (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
Overall, there is no violation because 1RR was not violated, and one can just replace the Forbes source with the Buzzfeed source. Discussion is proceeding on the talkpage, and I don't see any issues.

1RR has this "loophole" because the initial edit is not counted as a revert, so the person who is objecting to the change finds it irritating that the initial change can be reinstated but if they revert it, they will break 1RR. In the ARBPIA area therefore, a slightly modified 1RR remedy is used, which reduces irritation. ArbCom might want to consider implementing that remedy for ARBAP2 as well. However, this is not a matter for AE. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just saw that the Talk page contains the infamous "consensus required" provision. I have two comments on this matter: First, it is a very BAD IDEA. Thankfully, we got rid of it in the ARBPIA area using an ARCA request. Second, when I read the WP:ARBAP2 page or WP:ARBAPDS, it does not mention any such provision. Is the talk page template out of date? Who added this provision there? Since I think it is a bad provision, I would not want any sanctions. Talk page discussion is proceeding normally, and things can be handled there. However, this issue ought to be clarified. By that I mean: please get rid of the provision. You can thank me later. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 13:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine, the "consensus required" provision was first used by on some pages (though they seem to have had a change of heart, and no longer support it). The template was, as far as I can judge, created by  to add this provision.  is no longer active; though I believe  has been keeping an eye on these kinds of things.  simply added the template to various pages and didn't actually add the provision themselves. This is all very confusing, but I might give it another shot at ARCA, with a more focused request, like the one for ARBPIA. As far as I can see, the AE discussion you linked to was very close to converging on the same solution as the one being used in ARBPIA, but somehow it petered out. So another attempt might well succeed. I'll have to look into this area a bit more, as time permits. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 14:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
There is no 1RR violation but there appears to be a violation of the "do not reinstate challenged edits" provision, which is displayed prominently in the article's edit notice and on the talk page: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute, and content is out of scope for AE anyway. As others noted, it should be resolved by talk page discussion. Until then, the contested edit should stay out. — JFG talk 09:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I share the general sentiment that this "do not restore challenged edits" provision-that-keeps-on-giving has created way more drama than it was supposed to prevent. It has been regularly abused for stonewalling any content change in controversial articles. Time to get rid of it completely. — JFG talk 19:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Legacypac
All I can see on review is normal editing, no violation of anything. Lede does not need sources for content sourced in the body. I don't see an edit war either. Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward
The Forbes contributor sections are not reliable. They clearly say "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Edit warring to use them as a source for BLP related content is exactly what DS are for. --DHeyward (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MarkBernstein
This discussion currently hinges on whether Forbes contributor articles are reliable, but that is utterly irrelevant to the question. The facts in evidence, which are clearly pertinent, are known through Joseph Bernstein’s original reporting in Buzzfeed, which has since been widely discussed. These facts are clearly pertinent to the article; the reversion with a comment complaining about the source cited was surely disingenuous, as numerous alternative sources (especially the original reporting) could be adduced in its place. Instead, the complainant sought to suppress these facts; a vain effort in all likelihood, but one that we have seen time and again here and which on which we expend a vast amount of time.

This sort of fact suppression makes Wikipedia seem ridiculous. Recent disclosure of well-funded Russian efforts to subvert Facebook and Twitter should give you pause. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System
Just a comment that if an admin imposes a discretionary restriction on a per article basis there should be a requirement that the restriction be periodically explained and renewed. According to the admin discussion below this restriction was imposed in 2016 - these should not be allowed to sit on a page indefinitely for no reason, until the admins who imposed the restriction just forget about it. If the admins do not renew these restrictions they should expire after a certain time (like 6 months.) Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO
RE: this "do not restore challenged edits" provision-that-keeps-on-giving has created way more drama than it was supposed to prevent. It has been regularly abused for stonewalling any content change in controversial articles. That's off-topic for this time and place, but I'd welcome separate discussion of it at a suitable venue. If you want to argue from an empirical basis, we'd need evidence. I disagree with your characterization of this provision and its effects. If you have diffs to support your statement, perhaps you could bring them to a suitable venue for orderly discussion. I see the opposite: wasteful edit-warring at AP articles that do not have this provision. I'd just as soon see it on all the AP DS articles.

As to this complaint, there was no harm done or intended, so it should be dismissed. SPECIFICO talk  23:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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


 * Only to comment that is long-standing that while Forbes articles written by staff are RS, any "Contributor" article (as in the addition VM did) is definitely not. ( in July 2017 has two sections dealing with Forbes contributors). So they should not be used as a source for factual claim, much less any controversial one. --M ASEM (t) 05:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not retracting what I know is long-standard conclusions from RSN (eg and plenty more in a search). I will agree that if the contributor has an established track record that we might allow it as an RS, but we treat Contributors from Forbes as user-generated content. --M ASEM  (t) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is this not just a content dispute? The complaint does not identify any conduct rule that was supposedly violated.  Sandstein   06:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the question of whether you reinstated a reverted edit in violation of a discretionary sanction documented in the edit notice, as outlined by JFG above.  Sandstein   10:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "consensus required" restriction may have issues, but it was validly imposed, and violated in this case. Volunteer Marek's confrontative response is a bad sign. An enforcement block would be warranted, but I think that admins who impose such broad restrictions - in this case, - should take the responsibility of enforcing them where appropriate. I'll therefore let them determine what to do here. The question of whether the source at issue is reliable is a content issue and outside the scope of this board.   Sandstein   19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be a violation of a consensus-before-reinsertion restriction; I'm not inclined to do anything about it beyond a warning, though. These restrictions are easy to fall foul of unintentionally and I don't think we should whack anyone for isolated, inadvertent violations.  GoldenRing (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not a topic-wide restriction but one that's applied to pages as a discretionary sanction, in this case by Ks0stm in 2016; it's logged under Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016. As for overturning every instance of this restriction, I proposed it a few months ago here but it died a slow death; enough admins felt that the restriction was useful that nothing happened (and actually I think they had a point).  There was a proposal to replace it wholesale with "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted" which I think would have been an improvement, but there was not enough support to do it.  If you want to have another crack at this, my advice would be to try proposing that change to the larger audience at AN.  GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:GoldenRing as to the history of the restriction. If someone wanted to revisit the 'consensus required' provision at AN, they could certainly do so. But while we are here at Breitbart News, nothing prevents a consensus of AE admins from modifying the restriction applied to this particular page, if they want to remove the 'consensus required' provision and do something simpler. There is a procedure for changing page-level restrictions that is described at WP:AC/DS. Or, since User:Ks0stm applied that restriction to Breitbart News in December 2016we could begin by asking that admin to reconsider. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm explicitly applied the consensus required provision and logged it with the entry Breitbart News placed under 1RR and consensus required as indicated with 2016 US Election AE as linked above. Otherwise, I quite agree with you.  I don't have time to put together another proposal on this right now, but I would certainly support BU Rob13's proposal in the previous discussion if it was put forward again.  GoldenRing (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I only placed the article under 1RR/consensus required because that was what came packaged in ; it wasn't so much an explicit decision to make it consensus required. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you as the sanctioning admin don't want to take enforcement action here, I intend to close this request as no action taken soon. Please consider placing only sanctions that you also intend to enforce, and removing the sanction from the article if you do not think it is actually necessary.  Sandstein   08:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So closed.  Sandstein   13:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lexers615
″ ''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Lexers615 (talk) 06:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Run-in_with_an_editor_acting_like_a_troll_results_in_me_getting_warned_by_another_editor
 * Sanction being appealed : Support thread closed after public shaming, gaming on the system, hence issues remain...


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A_Train&action=history

Statement by Lexers615
Basically, it's WP:DOUBLESTANDARD at its best... On one end, you have an "established editor" who's profile is nothing but a flamebait WP:GAME], and then you have his buddies who ganged up to defend him, in an increasingly annoying WP:GAME, and I wasn't aware at that point that WP:ANIISLOUSY. I still disagree that my entry was a mere dictionary entry, but that's not my appeal here. The problem is that the administrator who arbitrarily decided to "show off", worded his post in an unequivocal way reflecting his bias, gaming further on, and exacerbating an already annoying situation.

Given the very arbitrary nature of the powers of editors with powers and administrators, this macho show of force arguably has the same future consequences as a short ban.

And, this said, I'd like to remind that said admin said that calling someone "self centered and arrogant" is against the rules, but referred to me as "thin skinned", and that the editor who caused the incident caricaturizes anyone disagreeing with him on his profile page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David.moreno72 using trash language. In such circumstances, I believe civil language being unnecessary and impedimenting, and trash talk has the added advantage of candid honesty, without any possibility to WP:GAME, while involved people did game on, using apparent civil language for public shaming. This is excruciating even more, as one of the "editor with powers" refused to check the flaimbaiting profile and, cherry on top, did make allegations that I plagiarized the Merriam-Webster relevant definition, while I did quote it, and it was only use as part of a much larger definition. So that guy basically insulted me three times in a few sentences, and his baseless accusations are proven rubbish when we compare my post vs Webster's entry and we just click on the other guy profile. And feel free to compare my original post with some existing articles... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Damaged_beyond_repairs vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_society

Basically, A Train's action was nothing but ganging along his buddies.

Also, with what I've read tonight, and what I experienced yesterday, given the ANI page has severe known unaddressed ongoing issues regarding bad faith and ganging up, I believe its very existence should be reconsidered. WP:ANIISLOUSY

Result of the appeal by Lexers615

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



Jytdog
''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 Jytdog

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :


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


 * 1) 17:50, 29 October 2017 1 Revert
 * 2) 15:45, 30 October 2017‎ 2 Revert
 * 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):

Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The user broke 1RR if he will self revert I will withdraw this request. --Shrike (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) Technically that was a breach per WP:3RR  "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material".--Shrike (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You right I like to withdraw the complaint.--Shrike (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

--Shrike (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Jytdog
''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 Seraphin System
I want admins to be aware of this. I have encountered this before, and it has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I couldn't dig up an example. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Jytdog

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


 * Only is a revert;  is a straightforward edit (the text Jytdog removed was added in 2007 as part of a lengthy rewrite). There has been no breach of anything here. &#8209; Iridescent 09:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Shrike, I am not going to sanction someone for edit-warring when the edits in question are a apart, and nor is anyone else. Drop the stick. &#8209; Iridescent 09:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)



Collect
''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 Collect

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others: Please see the first listing, "Option 2"


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


 * 1) October 30, 2017 At WP:EDR, Collect is listed as "banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace." Ames is an American writer (mostly) specializing in politics. If I missed an explanation that the restriction contains exceptions for vandalism and/or (per Collect's edit summary) BLP issues, this should get declined since the reverted edit was probably one or the other.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) May 9, 2015 This was the addition of those restrictions to WP:EDR.


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

Not applicable

For what it's worth, there's a longstanding rumor that Ames, whose birthplace isn't public knowledge, was born in Russia so this doesn't meet the WP:BANEX "obvious" standard. (If it's true, it's a BLP violation but if the only thing missing from a factual claim is a reliable source, it's not an obvious violation.)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

And would either of you mind copying and pasting the specific, exact text you're citing at BANEX? I looked through BANEX for what User:GoldenRing called "standard exceptions" as well as what User:Black Kite "fixing an error" exception and, in light of the restriction at WP:EDR ("Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace"), couldn't find what you're referring to.  City O f  Silver  01:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notice

Discussion concerning Collect
''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 Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
This could be regarded as a violation of the ban only in the most extreme and rigid technical sense. I recommend declining this request as "silly." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq
@CityOfSilver: Wikipedia is not a game of gotcha. Is there a reason to dispute the edit in the week-old diff you provided? Is that edit the only problem? Why has no one reverted the edit if it is a problem? Why has no discussion occurred at the article talk page since 3 June 2017? Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The concern isn't over the edit although again, it isn't an "obvious" BLP violation so it's not an exception listed at BANEX. "Is there a reason to dispute the edit in the week-old diff you provided?" Of course there is. The editor isn't allowed to edit Mark Ames's article except to remove vandalism or obvious BLP violations. He could have done literally the greatest edit in that article's history and it wouldn't be permitted. He also could have done the smallest, least objectionable edit in that article's history and if it came after that sanction, it wouldn't be permitted. This was my mistake; I failed to point out that the problem is behavior, not content.


 * I don't know if I've ever interacted with Collect but it's truly weird (and I literally mean it's inexplicable. No passive-aggressive connotations) that he's got a group of people who seem to be claiming that the word "any" as used here carries exceptions for stale concerns, value, visibility, uniqueness, and whatever else. None of these are mitigating factors. You (to an extent) and the other editors who have lowkey tried to mitigate this have couched things in a way that absolutely, positively, without exception requires either ignoring or misreading the word "any" to include exceptions.  City O f  Silver  04:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, now I remember. Collect was one of at least six users who opposed a request about gendered pronouns and couched their explanations in a book none of them had read. I was wondering why that stuck in my craw.  City O f  Silver  04:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Collect

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


 * I think the standard exceptions in WP:BANEX apply here. Unless someone knows otherwise, this should be closed with no action. GoldenRing (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The article is borderline as to whether it's relevant to the topic ban, the edit is clearly fixing an error, and it's a week old anyway.  No action required here. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is not actionable. The article is on its face not related to US politics, and the edit was a clear BLP correction. Closing accordingly.  Sandstein   07:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 05:34, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek adds content sourced from Business Insider to Donald Trump–Russia dossier.
 * 2) 06:21, 8 November 2017: James J. Lambden reverts the portion of Volunteer Marek's edit sourced to Business Insider, stating: "trim; rm Business Insider, if accurate a reliable source should not be hard to find".
 * 3) 05:36, 8 November 2017: Having been reverted for WP:BOLDly changing the lead in the middle of an ongoing RfC on November 2, Volunteer Marek again tries his hand at rewriting the lead to reflect breaking news.
 * 4) 06:20, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek's BOLD lead changes are reverted by James J. Lambden, stating: "revert lede changes; consensus on talk is against". (James J. Lambden's concurrent edits at 06:20 and 06:21 count as a single revert.)
 * 5) 06:39, 8 November 2017: Volunteer Marek reinstates the Business Insider source and all of the disputed content derived from it, violating the Discretionary Sanctions requirement that "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article". Volunteer Marek also reinstates his preferred lead, apparently claiming immunity from DS because "Lede change [is] based on new info".


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 December 2016.

Volunteer Marek was just let off the hook for another clear-cut DS violation in October because—while all parties acknowledged the violation—no admin was actually willing to sanction him. Rather than admit error in this case, Volunteer Marek personally attacked James J. Lambden, calling him "obnoxious and creepy" and responding to James J. Lambden's DS warning as follows: "fuck off you creep you know you're not welcome". (James J. Lambden did not respond in kind to these and other aspersions by Volunteer Marek.) Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

MastCell, I did not allege that Volunteer Marek violated 1RR. James J. Lambden's second revert was arguably exempt from 1RR because otherwise the "consensus required" and 1RR requirements cancel each other out whenever the editor making disputed edits reverts once. While I agree that the "consensus required" rule that Volunteer Marek violated is archaic and enables tendentious WP:GAMING, as long as it is on the books it should be enforced consistently: Admins often seem eager to interpret Volunteer Marek's actions in the most charitable light possible, but I do not think that such courtesy is generally extended to other editors in similar circumstances. I support rescinding the "consensus required" warning from the article if it is not enforced in this case. I have also amended my earlier timeline for greater clarity.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's ironic that Volunteer Marek is simultaneously accusing James J. Lambden of blindly reverting him and maintaining that because James J. Lambden's edit was only a partial revert specifically challenging the reliability of one Business Insider opinion piece that he couldn't have known it was a revert at all. Compare that with his comments at this same venue just last month, in which he similarly claims that his DS violation was unintentional because "it's sort of hard to understand the objection" and attacks the filer of the report for "playing some 'gotcha' game." As GoldenRing says, Volunteer Marek's recidivism is relevant to this case. Personally, I thought that Volunteer Marek's position was far more credible last time around.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek
''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 Volunteer Marek
First, I want to note that I made a proposal to remove the "consensus required" provision from the template here. Several administrators in the past have stated that their intent was just to add the "1RR restriction" DS to a page but inadvertently added the "consensus required" provision ONLY because it comes "packaged" into the template. When asked about enforcing it they've expressed no interest in doing so, as has been noted below.

Second, and relatedly, yes, that provision is stupid for a whole host of reasons, one of which is that a tendentious user can just jump in, blindly revert and then "demand consensus" (which they have no intent of working towards). This is more or less what's happened here. I don't know if I've violated the provisions - Lambden changed the wording and removed a part of my edit. He did not entirely remove my edit. I can't tell if that's an over all "challenge" to my edit (it wasn't a revert but a rewrite) or just a rewording. I guess it's a "partial challenge". Or something. The "consensus required for challenged material" provision is stupid.

There's no BLP issue here and nobody's ever raised a BLP objection. Business Insider is fine as a source.

Regarding the "unverified" wording. The removal of that info occurred before Nov 2 (late October), and the info that and the testimony by Page which, according to sources, explicitly verified some info. Basically, the information that's out there in sources changed and hence an update to the article was needed. If you update an article with brand new sources, is that a revert? However, if this was all there was to this disagreement, I'd be happy to wait on it.

My comment to Lambden, which TTAAC brings up, was NOT in response to his DS warning. It was in response to his continued posting of taunting comments on my talk page. I have asked him MULTIPLE times before not to post on my talk page. He knows that I regard his actions regarding me as constituting WP:HARASSMENT - he follows me to articles he's never edited before and makes blind reverts just to mess with me. Other users (User:SPECIFICO, User:Snooganssnoogans and I believe User:NorthBySouthBaranoff have made similar complaints regarding Lambden, so it's sort of a general problem with his WP:NOTHERE editing on Wikipedia; he has trouble interacting with editors whom he regards as having wrong political views). Hence his posting to my talk page JUST AFTER I removed his previous comment was pretty clearly made with an intent of ... being annoying.

As for "consistent enforcing" of the "consensus required" provision. I don't believe I personally ever filed a report on anyone for violating that provision (if I did it was so long ago that I've forgotten). Precisely because I think it's a stupid provision. I'm also pretty sure that the sanction is NOT generally enforced, except in cases where there's some other form of chicanery going on. So ... "consistent enforcing" here would be to ignore it.  Volunteer Marek  12:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@TTAC - nothing ironic there. What constitutes a revert is pretty clear cut. What constitutes a "challenge" (which is what I specifically discuss) is not. That's part of what makes this "consensus required" restriction so confusing.  Volunteer Marek  16:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that while I may or may not have violated the "consensus required" provision (which is inane and easy to forget about since it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia's BRD guideline) unlike Lambden I did not violate 1RR. Furthermore, once the DS violation was pointed out, I did not restore the part of my text (it's still not in there) - and personally, whenever *I* see someone violating this particular provision or even the 1RR provision I do them the courtesy of reminding them of it first, rather than running off to WP:AE to try and "score points" and agitate for sanctions. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've performed this courtesy for the filing editor, User:TheTimesAreAChanging on several occasions - there have been several instances, where I could have reported him here but instead just approached them on their talk page and said "hey, remember there's that DS sanction, be careful". That is why it's so disappointing that the courtesy is not being returned and that TTAC has instead chosen to revert to the type of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior (and yes, filing WP:AE reports when not needed is exactly that) which characterized his editing before his (now expired (lifted?)) topic ban in this area. No good deed goes unpunished, I guess.  Volunteer Marek  14:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is the last example of what I'm referring to above. TheTimesAreAChanging violated 1RR on the article Donald Trump on social media. I could've run here and reported him. Instead I went to his talk page and just reminded him of the restriction. When he replied I indicated that I was happy to assume good faith and let it go. I'm pretty sure there have been similar situations elsewhere and I've acted in a similar manner (though I think my comments were on talk). Now I'm saying to myself "you've been here 12 years, you know how Wikipedia often works, why did you try to be nice, why didn't you just go report him when he violated the sanctions - then he wouldn't be here today reporting you". Such is life on Wikipedia I guess.  Volunteer Marek  14:32, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Another 1RR violation by Lambden

 * (first) revert of
 * (second) revert of

So first that second revert is indeed a revert since it concerns the contentious quote by Goodin. Now, I'm guessing Lambden is gonna argue that it's not a revert because he didn't "EXACTLY" restore the same text (he's tried using this argument before). But compare "Dan Goodin, of the technology site Ars Technica, said he was disappointed in the report which provided "almost none of the promised evidence" linking Russia to the DNC hack" to "Ars Technica security editor Dan Goodin wrote that, "The US government's much-anticipated analysis of Russian-sponsored hacking operations provides almost none of the promised evidence linking them to breaches that the Obama administration claims were orchestrated in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.". It's the same thing, just paraphrased.

Second, Lambden knows this is a revert and knows that there was no consensus to include it because he participated in the discussion and attempted to (unsuccessfully) have this piece of text added before.

Third, and in light of second, it seems strange that Lambden would actually restore this text and violate 1RR in doing so. I'm guessing - and pardon my lack of good faith here - that the revert was made to provoke a revert from someone else (prolly myself, maybe User:Geogene or User:SPECIFICO) which could then be leveraged into a sanction-seeking report. It seems Lambden has adopted the "I'm willing to go down, as long as I take someone with me" tactic here (and GoldenRing's suggestions sort of play into that kind of strategy).  Volunteer Marek  18:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

So Lambden, instead of explaining why you violated 1RR for the second time in, what?, two days?, you instead drag out some old diffs and pretend they're 1RR/3RR violations by me (they're not, and this was already covered at the time). Man, talk about Whataboutism. This is like some Wikipedia version of "But her emails!!!!" - when your own disruptive behavior is brought to light, don't even bother denying it, just try to deflect it and change the subject.  Volunteer Marek  01:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

OKay, this is pretty desperate.
 * "that VM is now calling a 1RR violation" - Lambden, are you saying that  was NOT a 1RR violation? It's not me "calling" it, it IS a 1RR violation. Your second one in two days.
 * What in the world does this edit have to do with this 1RR violation? It's a completely different article that has nothing to do with anything here. Lambden just looked for some instance of somebody saying something "negative" about me so he could add it here. It's a smear.
 * As to the 1 year old WP:AE report I filed against that user, which Lambden falsely calls "frivolous". Yeah, I'm actually wondering why the admins dropped the ball on that one. In that instance the editor in question changed "it was reported she gained too much weigh and rumors began to circulate", which was bad enough, to "it was reported that she swelled to more than 160 pound", a pretty straight up and very obnoxious BLP violation (there were also other BLP violations. The article in question, on Alicia Machado was subject to a coordinated attack (organized off wiki, on reddit and 4chan). Look at all the edits to the talk page  that had to be rev del'd between September 30 2016 and October 6 2016 and on the article itself during roughly the same time . Yeah, I would love to know why there was no action taken - I'm assuming it's cuz the archive bot got to it first or something. It was anything than "frivolous". I mean, unless you happen to think that attacking women and making fun of their weight is what Wikipedia is for (Lambden might be thinking of twitter or reddit. KotakuInAction is it?)
 * Lambden says "Comments about VM's behavior by all editors in that request are just as valid " - would these be the comments by "User:Paul Keller", the sock puppet (one of dozens) of another serial harasser and stalker User:Lokalkosmopolit, that's been indef banned?

Lambden's violated 1RR on two articles in two days. The second violation was made while this report was already open. It's a pretty clear cut case of "I don't care about rules and I intend to be disruptive". He can bring up some irrelevant AE report from one year ago, or post diffs to some edits on completely different articles, and make up whatever nonsense about these he wants to, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still two 1RR violations in two days, AFTER being made aware of the first one. This is sort of how Lambden operates. Whenever the facts/sources/evidence is against him, he tries to deflect and when someone points out that they're engaging in disruptive behavior he employs the "uh uh, I know you are but what am I" tactic, basically ensuring that no productive discussion can be had. THAT "is not how consensus editing is supposed to work".  Volunteer Marek  20:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender
I can't speak to the actions of James J. Lambden or what to do regarding him, but I would recommend against a topic-ban for VolunteerMarek unless the situation gets out of hand. I say this because, although over-zealous at times, he does excellent work in the political sphere. I would also recommend that the "consensus required" dictum re: replacing cited info be removed from the posted sanctions, as we've had complaints about it here and agreements to fix that, but it hasn't been done. Also, as GoldenRing has noted, Coffee isn't going to be returning to Wikipedia, so another admin needs to step up and change the sanction or initiate a proceeding to officially decide to change it. Softlavender (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by James J. Lambden
MastCells' characterization of my 1RR accusation against VM as an "aggravating factor" assumes it's groundless or insincere which is it not. I presented it clearly twice, here again:
 * 16:16, 3 November 2017 - Original edit: "a combination of some verified and some as yet unverified allegations"
 * 05:36, 8 November 2017 - VM's first revert, restoring essentially the same text: "allegations ... some, but not all, of which have been independently corroborated"
 * 06:39, 8 November 2017 - VM's second revert: "allegations ... some, but not all, of which have been independently corroborated"

This occurred while an RfC to settle this exact question - whether "some" or "partially" should be used - was in progress violating consensus required as well as RfC procedure. VM has repeatedly ignored RfC procedure in political articles, most egregiously at Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials where he repeatedly restored disputed text during an RfC
 * 1) 02:44, 14 September 2017
 * 2) 03:42, 14 September 2017
 * 3) 13:22, 14 September 2017
 * 4) 13:02, 15 September 2017
 * 5) 16:14, 15 September 2017
 * 6) 20:21, 17 September 2017
 * 7) 15:59, 21 September 2017
 * 8) 03:48, 23 September 2017
 * 9) 20:54, 23 September 2017
 * 10) 17:43, 27 September 2017
 * 11) 20:39, 27 September 2017

VM's use of language offensive not just in verbiage but meaning, and aspersions which have persisted for months ("fuck off you creep", "Please fucking stop stalking my edits you creep", "obnoxious and creepy stalker", "You're freakin' obsessed and it's creepy as fuck. Get a life") should be addressed.

Immediately following this dispute VM made a "revenge revert" at Daily Caller then proceeded to Uranium One (an article he had never edited) to restore text that I had removed a week earlier. This behavior should be addressed.

These topics are covered by DS with the expectation of higher scrutiny. I am seeing the opposite and it has created an atmosphere of unproductiveness and hostility.

The rules of the page in question specify consensus required and 1RR, so we have one the one hand: and on the other: The suggestion below is the latter be sanctioned and the former ignored.
 * 1) A violation of consensus required in two instances
 * 2) A violation of 1RR
 * 3) A restoration of disputed text during an RfC
 * 1) A violation of 1RR

I reverted a straightforward consensus required violation (and a poorly-sourced edit which has not been restored) specifically because it violated DS. It is not preventative to mislead editors with a provision posted in authoritative language, disregard it after the fact to eliminate justification, then hold them responsible for an unjustified revert. If the consensus required provision will not be enforced it should be made clear. Had it been I would not have reverted. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: A day ago I filed an edit-warring complaint against an editor who made 6 reverts claiming a BLP exemption to remove the word "bipartisan" in the description of a lobbying firm. Although no source was provided (the claim was in the lede) it was easily sourced and the article now includes it. That complaint was dismissed and the BLP defense accepted.

Here I removed an inaccurate BLP claim* The claim is not included in our current article because it's incorrect. I made 2 reverts to remove it yet that is not seen as justification and no mention is made of VM's edit-warring to reinsert an inaccurate BLP claim by anyone but GoldenRing.

* The inaccurate BLP claim is the line: "The meeting [with Andrey Baranov] was also documented in the dossier and confirmed in Page's testimony, as well as by US intelligence sources." Neither the Steele dossier nor the intelligence community document a meeting with Baranov. They claim a meeting with Sechin which is not confirmed by Page's testimony. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That discussion was painful to re-read. I had forgotten the extent of obstruction in that article. I don't share your interest in "gaming" strategies. I don't have the time and more importantly I rarely file complaints so it would do me no good. If you want to get picky about reverts then your violations are even more clear: That is just what I could find easily. You often remove the default edit summary from your reverts even when character count is not an issue, making them difficult to track. Maybe that is more so-called "strategy." James J. Lambden (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two under 1RR: (this of that), (this of that)
 * Five under 3RR: (this of that), (this of that), (this of that), (this of that), (this of that)

I noticed the text I added (that VM is now calling a 1RR violation) was restored by a 14 year old account. Examining the editor's history I see this edit-summary from a week ago - "Self rv i forgot it's marek... i'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole" - an established editor reverting what he considers an improvement solely because of VM's hostility. That is not how consensus editing is supposed to work.

I wondered about their previous interaction so I followed that comment to this frivolous AE complaint VM had filed against him. So frivolous that not one administrator commented before it was archived. Scrolling down I see my own comment, which I had forgotten - comment.

Comments about VM's behavior by all editors in that request are just as valid now as they were a year ago. His behavior has not changed nor I suspect has the inability of our processes to deal with it. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
For those suggesting a topic ban: would it be for all of AP2, or just "Trump/Russia" topics? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I don't think that a healthy serving of WP:TROUT will be enough here. A TBAN on Trump/Russia-related issues (narrowly construed to include only AP2 pages with "Trump" or "Russia" in the title, and for about a month) applied to Lambden and Marek equally seems reasonable. Contentious editing is a dis-service to the encyclopedia, and if they can't avoid that, something must be done. I feel a full AP2 ban would be too severe here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
I think this is just the latest episode when James J. Lambden persistently follows VM on various pages to get him banned, while VM is working very hard to improve the content everywhere, and specifically in the area of US politics. Also, I think this "consensus required" editing restriction is extremely unhelpful and should never be used. It does not really help to establish consensus, but prevents quick improvement of pages on recent controversial events. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO
TTAAC and James Lambden have demonstrated on this AE thread what editors in American Politics see every day. Each of them appears incapable of discussing facts and policy without personalizing their remarks, disparaging other editors, and mounting irrelevant and dismissive aspersions. They both have a long history of stalking and harassment of other editors. In TTAAC's case, he has already received a TBAN per ARBAP2, he socked to evade the ban, and he squandered the good faith extended by Sandstein, who lifted his ban based on TTAAC's promise not to resume his personal disparagement and battleground rants. And that's just in calendar 2017.

This AE complaint is over a trivial matter that's typical of the dozens that arise -- which may or may not entail technical violations -- that are never escalated to this enforcement page. Marek has consistently refused to take the bait from TTAAC and has tried to collaborate courteously with him Marek has repeatedly asked Lambden to stop his harassment.

I recommend a TBAN for James B. Lambden for his ongoing stalking and harassment of Marek and others. I recommend that TTAAC's TBAN be reinstated due to his manifest failure to reform his disruptive battleground participation in American Politics articles, in effect violating the terms of his parole. Black Comedy: TTAAC's AN complaint on me within days of promising Sandstein he would not resume his battleground rants. It's disturbing that TTAAC appears to have stepped back and waited until another AN complaint about him was archived the day before he posting the current pointless AE complaint about Marek. . SPECIFICO talk  02:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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


 * I‘m of the view that the admins who add these sanctions templates to articles should address violation complaints. Pinging could you take a look?   Sandstein   06:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Since Coffee last edited in April, I think you're unlikely to get much help from this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This complaint is confusingly presented; the diffs are not in chronological order, which makes it difficult to assess their legitimacy. Additionally, diffs #3 and #6 both link to the same edit, yet are presented as if they were two different edits and two different violations. I'm going to assume that this was an honest oversight rather than an attempt at deception, but it should be corrected by . Looking at the article and dispute in question, there is a clear-cut 1RR violation by (06:21 and 06:44, 8 Nov 2017). Given the black-and-white nature of the violation, and the aggravating factor that he accuses others of violating 1RR in the second edit summary, I would propose a block of the appropriate length for him. As far as the complaint against Marek, I'm less clear. I see one clear-cut revert by him (06:39), and several other edits which appear to add new information or wording. It's possible that there's a 1RR violation there, but I don't quite see it and the complaint is not well-constructed enough to clarify. Does anyone else see one? As for violations of the "consensus required" provision, it seems to me that there's a general reluctance to aggressively enforce this on all sides. Which makes sense; the provision seems like a good idea in theory, but easily game-able in practice (by reflexively reverting and then demanding "consensus", one tendentious editor could use this provision to basically hold a page hostage). I'm going to defer to other admins to interpret and, if appropriate, to enforce that remedy here. It's not immediately clear to me that the provision has been violated from the diffs provided in the complaint nor from my own review of recent editing on the page, but if others feel that there is a violation then they can certainly place the sanction that they think is appropriate. I would argue that if we (collectively) don't intend to enforce the restriction, then we should explicitly remove it to avoid confusion. In summary, I'd propose a block of  for a clear-cut 1RR violation (aggravated by hypocrisy in accusing others of a violation), and will defer to anyone else's interpretation of the "consensus needed" provision. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 06:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree the complaint is not put very clearly. Here's the history from this morning:
 * In these two consecutive edits at 05:34 and 05:36, VM added some fairly controversial material, sourced to Business Insider and a change to the lead.
 * In these four consecutive edits between 06:20 and 06:36, JJL reverted the change to the lead and significantly changed the other material added by VM, including removing everything sourced to Business Insider.
 * At 06:39, VM re-instated the changes to the lead.
 * At 06:44, JJL reverted the changes to the lead again.
 * In these three consecutive edits between 07:54 and 08:14, VM re-added a substantially reduced/toned-down version of the controversial material, this time sourced to USA Today and Newsweek.


 * I think it's pretty clear that JJL has violated 1RR here and some sort of sanction is appropriate. IMO topic bans are more appropriate than blocks in these situations - editors getting on with editing something else is helpful to everyone, so long as the disruption doesn't also carry over.
 * I think it's also pretty clear that VM has violated the consensus required provision. I argued against enforcing it last month because it's easy to be inadvertently tripped up by them and basically assumed good faith.  I think a second violation a month later is rather stretching that good faith and some sort of sanction is appropriate here.  It also seems to me that whether VM's first edit counts as a fairly serious BLP violation hinges entirely on your view of Business Insider as a reliable source.  On a quick scout through RSN, I didn't find immediately obvious "never use this source" but I did find a lot of caution and scepticism and feel VM should know better than this.
 * In short, I think sanctions on both are appropriate and would favour topic bans over blocks. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been tried - see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218. A significant number of administrators there were opposed to simply removing it, and for what look to me good reasons.  It's all very well for VM to oppose the restriction and think what he likes about it; he still has no excuse, given the history, for violating it.  GoldenRing (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined towards a relatively narrow ban, perhaps from articles and edits related to Donald Trump. Also relatively short in both cases - one or two months perhaps?  GoldenRing (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)  fixing ping, sorry.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see how this edit of VM's is supposed to be "fairly controversial". Blocking Lambden after the fact is blocking after the fact--I think rather that considering the lengthy and tendentious career Lambden has had in that area they should be topic-banned, at least for three months. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't changed my mind since that discussion. I think it should be removed. Yes, I said that I liked User:BU Rob13's suggestion that we replace it with "Editors cannot restore edits which they have introduced within 24 hours if the edits have been reverted", but I don't think "consensus required" is fit for purpose and the uninvolved administrators at that discussion seemed to agree. I think it should be treated like a lame duck and put out of its misery (sorry, I think that's a mixed metaphor). Other than that I've got no comment on what should be the outcome here.  Doug Weller  talk 15:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that behind the back and forth and history of the pair here, that there's any immediate action that can be taken outside a healthy dose of trouts, but I think all editors in this topic need to keep in mind that WP:NOT is policy, and we strive to avoid WP:RECENTISM - just because it is widely reported does not mean it has to be immediately added to WP. A lot of the conflict in the AmPol area would be cut back if editors were not on a race to insert the latest-breaking political scandal news before the information has had a chance to make its course through a news cycle, to at least get a sense of how "serious" it is, or at least to make sure we're using the best sources possible if this is contentious information. Eg, if VM had waited 24hr, after which other sources that are considered more reliable than Business Insider came about with corroborating stories, then we wouldn't be here - the content sourced to works like Newsweek seems reasonable then to include. Even if it is the case that the NYTimes brought allegations to the forefront, waiting a bit (24hr) to understand how it fit into a larger picture, potenitally initiating discussion on the talk page pre-addition, would be helpful to reduce conflicts here. --M ASEM (t) 16:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I endorse the removal of the "consensus required" provision, which I'm beginning to think should be removed from all articles. As Coffee hasn't edited in some time, I don't feel we are stepping on any toes by doing this here and now, for this article anyway. I doubt it need replacing with anything, but will accept modification rather than flat removal as a second choice.  I would opt out of opining on any other merits herein.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus required provision is to stay, as has been discussed by ArbCom. Just because I've not edited in a while, is not a logical argument for the removal of a working concept. Also, no Sandstein... all administrators should be able to handle these concerns. But, I do think it would be encouraged to talk to an admin familiar with the matter first (yes this would obviously include the imposing admin). Coffee (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I typically stay out of AE, but I will say this: consensus required makes sense and should not be removed: it already has a basis in policy (WP:ONUS) and having it as a sanction, like 1RR is only designed to be a bright line in making sure that policy is followed. I recently intentionally imposed the sanction on Roy Moore for this very reason, and I'm sad to see it brought up here that it should be removed from all pages. I have no thoughts on this particular case, but refusing to enforce a valid sanction based in well-established policy is a bad idea. Coffee's restriction was correctly placed, and if it has been violated, that should be taken into account here. While the sanction can be gamed, 1RR with multiple editors can also be very easily gamed without this restriction, and it is important to remember where this sanction is applied: typically to high profile and visible US politics pages, where there are going to be many editors watching. It helps to force talk page conversation and avoid edit wars, which is a net positive.TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Huldra
''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 Huldra

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :


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


 * 1) 14 November NPOV violations Usage of terms like "segregation wall" and using ARIJ site without clearly attributing who make the claim about land ownership.
 * 2) 14 November 2017 NPOV violations Usage of terms like "segregation wall" and using ARIJ site without clearly attributing who make the claim about land ownership.
 * 3) 12 November 2017 Making claim by ARIJ in wikipedia voice
 * 4) 12 November 2017 NPOV violation
 * 5) 10 Novemeber 2017 Usage of POV term "segregation wall"
 * 6) 2 November 2017 Usage of POV term "segegration wall"
 * 7) 13 October 2017 Falsifying Ben-Gurion quote


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


 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 September 2017.

@User:GoldenRing The user is editing from 2005 and clearly editing from one sided agenda while we all have our POV per WP:YESPOV.I think as old time editor she clearly understand that usage of term "segregation wall" have negative connotations toward Israel and its not neutral term Such not neutral language to promote one sided POV is not acceptable in my opinion. Our article about the barrier says while Palestinians call it a racial segregation or apartheid wall.[1][2][3].Would be OK to use if I use "anti-terrorist fence" in Wikipedia voice?--Shrike (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Usage of term "segregation wall" in Wikipedia voice is clearly POV violation we have article named Israeli West Bank barrier this name was decided after many discussions as the most WP:NPOV using the term segregation with term wall is clearly to promote one sided agenda.Just for reference the BBC and UN use the term barrier
 * ARIJ source is Palestinian think tank that make claims about land confiscated by Israel.Those are claims made by Palestinians and should be attributed as such if be used at all.In latest RSN it was noted by at least one uninvolved editor that the source is not reliable other editors opined to the very least it should be used with attribution.Usage of such POV source in Wikipedia voice without any attribution is clearly a POV violation per WP:BIASED.
 * Diff 3 : While Haaretz is WP:RS and article is negative on Israel but we not allowed to selectively quote a source to suit our agenda.To fulfill the WP:NPOV requirements the civil administration reaction from the source should be quoted to the claims made.
 * Diff 5:Except usage of "segregation wall" she also deleted negative information about Palestinians like "security concerns" and "uprising in 2000"
 * Diff 7 I understand that last diff maybe a little stale but it needed to show POV pattern of this user the quote "these villages are in our pocket [...] We can act against them also after the [reinstitution of the] truce. This will be a police action... They are not regarded as enemy forces as their area is ours [i.e., in Israel] and they are not inhabitants of the state...[and] these villages do not represent a military danger.".While the original quote missed the word "not"(mine emphasis) thus changing the meaning of the quote and putting Ben-Gurion in negative light.I think such clear disregard of source is not acceptable in Wikipedia.Many sources that she quote are without online access we cannot trust such user to edit such sensitive area
 * I still think we should expect differently from user with 12 years of experience in the area contrary to new user or that edit rarely in the area but I understand what you saying and in future I will engage in conversation first--Shrike (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@User:Zero0000 No one ask to use Israeli name i.e "Anti-terrorist fence" but usining WP:NPOV name "barrier" like BBC and UN use is a reasonable request from a user with 12 years of experience in the area--Shrike (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Given Huldra expalantion I will WP:AGF and withdraw the request.--Shrike (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * References


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :



Discussion concerning Huldra
''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 Huldra

 * Whaw. Firstly, this is the first time I have ever heard anyone protesting my use of "Segregation Wall" ...which is the name I used when using the ARIJ source, as ARIJ uses that name. The Israeli West Bank barrier have no less than 27 redirs: it is difficult to know which ones are not acceptable if nobody says anything about it. I am no mind reader!
 * Diff No. 7: as for "Falsifying Ben-Gurion quote"  (where did AGF go?): yes, I absolutely made a mistake there, in my quoting Ben-Gurion, I missed a "not." Did I do it on purpose? Heck, no! But I do make mistakes...if you look at the above diff #5, you will see that I am correcting another one of my mistakes: I had given palgrid=158/176, instead of the correct palgrid=151/176. Did I "falsify" the palgrid number? Apparently I did...if you use Shrikes language.  (PS: I make  mistakes....90% of the time I am the one discovering them. Here I stupidly wrote that the inhabitants paid 0,000  akçe in taxes... (Correct was  2,000  akçe). It took me 2 years before I discover it. Here I falsely wrote that the village had 220 inhabitants in 1945...it took me 6 years before I got the correct 270 inhabitants. And here I falsely wrote that  Guérin found a village to have 300 inhabitants, when he actually wrote 350 inhabitants....etc. etc. etc. I have added about 10,000 sources to Wikipedia, and yes, some of those sources I have misquoted first time around. But never on purpose.)
 * As for using Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem, or ARIJ, with attribution, yeah, you could, BUT: there are 960 links to arij.org on Wikipedia, while there are, say, 3648 links to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel). If we need to write "according to ARIJ" for each ARIJ link, then we also need to write "according to Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs" for each mfa.gov.il link. Now that might not be a bad idea, but I totally object to only one side having to attribute their sources. Huldra (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
The request is weird. What is the supposed policy which is being violated? Also, for some reason, there wasn't any talk page discussion about issues of content and phrasing, prior to bringing this to WP:AE. There are several issues here, and I'll deal with them in order:


 * The wall in the West Bank has many names, and some variant of "separation fence" is used by many different authors. For instance, here is Barak Ravid in Haaretz: After Terror Attacks, Israel to Complete Separation Barrier Construction Around Jerusalem, Southern West Bank. See Hafrada for many other sources. Indeed, there exists a redirect Segregation Wall. One of the expressly stated purposes of the wall is to separate (both land and people), so it's weird to say that the term shouldn't be used. If the term is considered non-neutral, one can discuss on the talk page and get a consensus on the default term which is to be used. As an aside, if someone consistently uses Temple Mount instead of Haram Al-Sharif, are we going to haul them up for NPOV violation as well?
 * The use of ARIJ as a source: I don't see any consensus in the RSN discussion, which was archived after a few days. There aren't very many detailed sources on West Bank villages; one commenter who opined in the RSN discussion said that other sources could be used, but failed to provide any alternative ones. This matter should be decided by discussion on the talk page, and if necessary, by an RfC. In the meantime, it would perhaps be good to attribute the claims.
 * That a quote from Haaretz should be balanced by including Israeli administration response, is a strange requirement, as well as an isolated demand for rigor. If we are going to make a practice of banning people who quote one source and not add balancing opinions, we might as well go ahead and ban everyone from this area. I'll make a deal with anyone here: pick any person in this area, and I'll find you at least five instances of them selectively quoting sources.
 * The last point is about the stale diff about the Ben-Gurion quote. Shrike has not said why this should be regarded as falsification and not a simple error of transcription. What happened to WP:AGF? But good faith in this area is very scarce, so let's investigate whether the claim makes sense. The part of the sentence just before the allegedly falsified part is They are not regarded as enemy forces as their area is ours [i.e., in Israel], which implies that "they are inhabitants of the state", and not that "they are not inhabitants of the state". In addition, the fragment preceding this sentence talks about "police action", a term which is used for actions which the government deems to be internal to the state (foreign actions are called "military action"). Any way we read the passage, the alleged fabrication makes no sense. Therefore, the most likely explanation is an error in transcription, not deliberate fabrication. It is good that Shrike checked and corrected the error, but their conclusion of malfeasance is not tenable. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 09:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Huldra can make transcription errors like everyone else, but in more than a decade of close observation I haven't once seen her fail to correct such an error immediately when it was pointed out to her. Deliberately doctoring it would be 100% out of character. As for "segregation wall", why should the Israeli name have priority over the Palestinian name, especially in an article on a Palestinian town? (Incidentally, for quite a few years "separation barrier" was the official Israeli name, which is essentially the same.) Finally, I've said elsewhere that I think ARIJ should be attributed, not because it is inherently unreliable but because it is good practice in this corner of Wikipedia to attribute practically everything that has a political component (including most pronouncements of the Palestinian or Israeli governments). But this opinion cannot be said to have general consensus yet. Zerotalk 12:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani
Applied Research Institute–Jerusalem is an internationally recognized research institute. The fact that it is 'Palestinian' should not raise eyebrows of concern. It is funded by the European Union; it is used all over google books in scholarly works without attribution (Google 'Arij +Jerusalem 'and you get 5,500 results there), and just broadly googling yields 143,000 hits. It is one of the primary sources used on most Israeli settlement articles which, when not citing ARIJ or the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics for real history or data, use such egregiously eyesore non-RS sources as Keneged Kol HaSikuim, Harmodia, Arutz Sheva,israeltown.com. Rami Levy Hashikma Marketing, The Temple Institute,torahalive.com Nefesh B'Nefesh, etc.etc.etc., without a murmur of worry or concern by pertinacious NPOV/RS monitors of the sister Palestinian articles. If your concern is NPOV, Shrike, there's a lot of work out there on settlements begging to be done, along the lines of what Huldra does with Palestinian villages with extraordinary patience and meticulous erudition. Almost none have datum-by-datum RS sourcing, they are free compositions, and totally unencyclopedic.

That said, it is true that where Arij uses its preferred term, segregation barrier/wall, it should be used, if at all, with attribution. There are no neutral terms to describe the security/separation/apartheid -barrier/wall/fence as one can see from specific studies like that of Richard Rogers, Anat Ben-David,Coming to terms: a conflict analysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of ‘security fence’, ‘apartheid wall’, and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian territories, Media, War & Conflict vol. 3, No.2, 2010 pp- 1–28. You make far too many frivolous complaints against editors with an outstanding record here Shrike.Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning Huldra

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


 * I tend to agree with Kingsindian's analysis here. I think the Ben Gurion quote issue is better explained by error than malice.  Perhaps the use of "segregation barrier" is not ideal if there is a more neutral term that could be used, but I'd expect to see some attempt to discuss this before requesting sanctions (if someone can point me to such a discussion then go ahead; I spot-checked a couple of user and article talk pages where you might expect it to happen and didn't find anything).  My biggest problem is with the use of ARIJ as a reliable source; Huldra started the discussion at RSN regarding it and, while the result was not blazingly clear either way, that should have been a signal to be cautious in its use.  If you can only find a single, not-very-reliable source for something that proves controversial, then it's probably an indication that that material is heading into UNDUE territory.  I'm still not in favour of sanctions here, but perhaps a warning to tread carefully in the use of sources.  GoldenRing (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the use of a (more) neutral term would be a reasonable request. But as far as I can see, you didn't make that request, you brought it straight here.  This is not a situation where a bright line has been crossed; in the matter of choosing one term over another for better neutrality, I don't think it's unreasonable of me to ask you to have raised the matter with the editor first.  I asked above for pointers to any such discussion and, since you've not provided any, I assume I was right the first time and they haven't happened.  GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. All diffs but the last are mainly content disputes, and the last diff is stale. Whether a source is reliable or partisan is a content issue, except perhaps in extreme cases. Repeatedly using an apparently POV term for the wall/barrier/thing that Israel built, instead of the presumably consensual article title, is also potentially a conduct issue, but as GoldenRing says this should have been a matter of discussion before bringing it to AE. I would take no action.  Sandstein   17:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : –   Volunteer Marek   16:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : "You are banned from interacting with (...) TheTimesAreAChanging for three months"


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by Volunteer Marek
As of right now, I'm just going to appeal this one provision - the interaction ban with TTAAC. There's no reason for it. It's dumb. There was no consensus for it, hell, it wasn't even MENTIONED in the relevant AE report. Not a single admin, including GoldenRing, brought it up. In short, where the hey did this one come from?

The only connection in that report between TTAAC and myself is that he is the one who filed the report. So it looks like the only reason GoldenRing imposed this sanction is that - that a user brought an AE report against another user. So apparently now, bringing a report to AE automatically (and I mean "automatically" because there's no other reason given for this iban) results in an iban between the two users involved. Ummm.... what??? How does that make sense? This looks like a case of a trigger happy admin who didn't bother reading the diffs, didn't bother reading the comments by his fellow administrators, didn't bother actually familiarizing themselves with the topic area and the users involved at anything more than a superficial level, just decided to slap some random sanctions on folks because s/he could.

More to the point, my interactions with TheTimesAreAChanging have been nothing but cordial. And I mean that. I even mentioned that in my response in the AE report. I even went out of my freakin' way to assume good faith when he violated 1RR (which should be a lesson to everyone who assumes good faith it seems - you do that at your own peril). At least since his topic ban expired, he's never complained about any problems with me, never accused me of incivility or personal attacks and vice-versa. I mean, come on GoldenRing, can you provide at least ONE diff which would support your i-ban? As the kids say, diffs please.

I do want to note that this is the second instance that GoldenRing has fumbled the ball in their attempts at placing weird sanctions on me. In Sept 2017 they placed a topic ban on me from immigration related articles which was quickly removed by another admin (User:Fram) which then was reinstated cuz of technicalities, which he then had to rescind due to criticism from other administrators (User:Floquenbeam, User:Drmies, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:Black Kite, User:Neutrality, User:Chris Howard ... I'm sure I'm forgetting someone, there was a ton of admins disagreeing with GoldenRing). It's sort of hard to avoid the impression that this sanction is a bit of payback for that fiasco. Even if not however, at least the iban with TTAAC provision is completely absurd and unjustified.

I have no problem with the IBAN being removed bilaterally (i.e. TTAC shouldn't be banned from interacting with me either). Like I said, there's been absolutely no interactions either way which would warrant this ban. And since I-BANs are (well known) minefields and very easy to violate accidentally, this should be removed for both of us.

(Note: I have no idea if the interaction ban prohibits me notifying TTAC of this appeal so I'm just gonna ping'em here ping!.   Volunteer Marek   16:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoldenRing - "VM's protestations ring a little hollow when the complaint in question accused him of belittling and assuming bad faith of the complainant " - TTAC's claim that I was "belittling and assuming bad faith" towards him was based on this comment of mine. Let me quote it in full:

"Even though nobody will gimme credit, I *do* actually try to assume good faith to the extent that is possible. But yeah, here on Wikipedia, very often it very quickly becomes impossible. Visitors, shmizitorz."

Where exactly does this comment "belittle" TTAC? Where does this comment assume bad faith? For that matter where '''does this comment even mention TTAC"????? It says
 * That *I* assume good faith
 * That it can be hard sometimes
 * That people ("visitors") have been vandalizing my talk page.

If you based the Iban on that comment then you either a) didn't read the freakin' comment, b) ... I have no idea. You seem to have taken TTAC's claim at face value, either because you were too lazy to actually fact check it or because you just wanted to impose a sanction. Either way. Not good.  Volunteer Marek  17:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Spike WIlbury - I know how it works. And I'm appealing it. Nobody brought up a topic ban with TTAC (and if it wasn't even mentioned, it's sort of hard to even BEGIN talking about consensus). There is no basis for it. It came out of nowhere. If I can't bring that up, what exactly am I suppose to base my appeal on? Grovelling and whining?  Volunteer Marek  17:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

To be clear - I don't care about the IBAN with Lambden.  Volunteer Marek  20:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

 That VM objects to TTAAC's characterisation of his comments so vehemently is evidence in favour of the IBAN, not against it." - that is the, um, silliest thing I've read on Wikipedia in awhile. Somebody makes a false accusation. The subject of that accusation objects. BOOM! IBAN! What kind of logic is that?  Volunteer Marek   20:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, does this grave dancing on my talk page require a separate AE report or can it just be handled here?  Volunteer Marek  20:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by GoldenRing
I think the IBAN is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and this is the standard required under WP:AC/DS. VM's protestations ring a little hollow when the complaint in question accused him of belittling and assuming bad faith of the complainant, and his appeal here indicates he feels victimised by TTAAC ("which should be a lesson to everyone who assumes good faith it seems - you do that at your own peril").

For the rest, the assumptions of bad faith and canvassing are so transparent that I don't think any more needs to be said.

I don't regard informing TTAAC as a breach of the IBAN; it comes under the provision for "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum" of WP:BANEX. GoldenRing (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The IBAN between TTAAC and VM is mainly about the interaction that VM links above. VM pretends above that it didn't involve TTAAC at all yet the title of that section is a link to a diff of VM responding to TTAAC.  As for his other questions (Where exactly does this comment "belittle" TTAAC and so on) - it wasn't me that characterised the comment that way, it was TTAAC.  That VM objects to TTAAC's characterisation of his comments so vehemently is evidence in favour of the IBAN, not against it.
 * Moreover, the point of these sanctions is to reduce disruption in the AP2 topic. VM appears to have taken the IBAN rather personally when it wasn't entirely intended as such; it was meant to separate editors who clearly don't get along, not punish VM for negative interactions with TTAAC.  It is, in fact, preventative, not punitive.  If I believed in one-way IBANs I would have seriously considered making the IBAN one-way; I don't, so I didn't (I'm still not sure what the result of such consideration would have been).
 * While I understand some of MastCell's reasoning in his second paragraph, it appears to be an argument against ever imposing IBANs under DS, since in virtually every case they involve editors who edit in the same topic area. Yet IBANs are specifically authorised by WP:AC/DS.  These are not the only editors active in this area and if something needs comment or removal, other editors can do it.  GoldenRing (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor SPECIFICO)
I was surprised to see Marek banned from interaction with TheTimesAreAChanging. The nasty behavior was entirely one way, from TTAAC. I posted two diffs in the AE thread to illustrate Marek's good faith water-off-a-duck's-back responses to TTAAC:
 * Marek has consistently refused to take the bait from TTAAC and has tried to collaborate courteously with him.

Regardless of whether he might have expressed it correctly, I also feel that Marek has a point that Golden Ring was not the best fit to close this complaint. Yes, GR may have been allowed to close it. I don't know what the formal standard is. But GR and Marek have had a recent problem interaction, and GR might be viewed as "involved" with respect to Marek. I'm not talking about a formal definition of involved, just that it would have looked better to the community if one of the other Admins had closed this. Since we have many Admins who volunteer their efforts at AE, it was not necessary to risk the appearance of any question as to the close. SPECIFICO talk  17:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging
As Volunteer Marek says above, the two of us generally get along just fine. He was disappointed that I filed the earlier AE report, and I was disappointed that he accused me of acting in bad faith, but you would have to go back nearly a year to find any truly uncivil interactions between the two of us. (I hope that GoldenRing was not influenced by SPECIFICO's diff-less aspersions referring to "nasty behavior" and "baiting"; SPECIFICO has some sort of personal beef that motivates her to follow me around and cast these false aspersions wherever I go, but neither Volunteer Marek nor I is aware of anything akin to what she described, sans evidence.) Volunteer Marek states: "he's never complained about any problems with me, never accused me of incivility or personal attacks and vice-versa. ... there's been absolutely no interactions either way which would warrant this ban." That is accurate.

I can also give you numerous examples of Volunteer Marek and I interacting cordially despite disagreements:


 * The current version of a paragraph in Stephen Miller (political advisor) was essentially authored by Volunteer Marek and I, in what I would call a healthy back-and-forth:, , , , , , , , , (This is highly contentious stuff, yet even the worst edit summaries express only mild exasperation.) See also this thread, which was not pursued further, and this RfC, on which Volunteer Marek and I agreed.


 * After a similar back-and-forth, Volunteer Marek and I resolved a dispute and implemented a compromise text that still stands at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Here is the thread, and here are some excerpts: "Volunteer Marek and I are often able to compromise, and I would like to think that we're not very far from doing so in this case."—TTAAC; "I'm okay with this version. I don't think it's ideal but it will work as a compromise."—Volunteer Marek (Note also SPECIFICO's childish trolling in an attempt to poison the well and prevent any agreement.)


 * That's all I feel like documenting right now, but I'm sure Volunteer Marek can attest that the two of us have similarly agreed, disagreed, and compromised at Dismissal of James Comey without resorting to incivility (and that Volunteer Marek has thanked me for edits to Zbigniew Brzezinski even if we didn't directly interact on that page).

In sum, James J. Lambden and Volunteer Marek have derailed a number of talk pages with mutual accusations of stalking and harassment, but I was not involved in any of it—and taking my concerns to AE does not, in fact, render me involved. With regard to my earlier statement that "Volunteer Marek also belittled me and suggested that I was acting in bad faith for pointing out that his repeated DS violations are not appropriate, thus prompting me to file this report," a.) SPECIFICO started the relevant thread in order to cast yet more aspersions, suggesting that it is ludicrous to treat me as a good faith contributor, and I was understandably dismayed that Volunteer Marek did not push back against (and, indeed, seemed to implicitly accept) SPECIFICO's mean-spirited remarks; and b.) The bit in bold was intended more for Volunteer Marek's consumption than for administrative eyes. I knew that Volunteer Marek would likely be surprised by my filing the report in view of our generally productive exchanges, particularly when he cited me agreeing with him on the merits during his prior AE this October (he may even have anticipated that I would comment in his defense—I made no statement during that process precisely because it would not have been favorable to Volunteer Marek's cavalier approach to the "consensus required" restriction), and believed that I owed him some explanation. In full context, then, the evidence does not support GoldenRing's extrapolation that Volunteer Marek and I simply cannot get along. The IBAN should be rescinded.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Gabriel syme

 * Been following this for a few days now, agree with above. The user who he was banned from interacting with even came here to advocate.Gabriel syme (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
As someone who interacted with VM and TheTimesAreAChanging on numerous occasions, I must tell: there is no any reason to impose the interaction ban between them. Moreover, I think there was no consensus among admins to use the "consensus required" sanction as a reason for the topic bans.

That sounds funny: there was no consensus to use the "consensus required" sanction. But there is more irony here. By placing this editing restriction on a page a single admin imposes his will on the entire community. What consensus? Yes, Arbcom allows it. But it would be fair (per WP:Consensus) to never use this complex and controversial type of sanction if there was at least one another admin who considered this type of sanction as generally unhelpful. But we had several highly respected admins who expressed such position during the previous discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek

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


 * The nature of this board allows admins to apply sanctions unilaterally. The closing admin isn't required to get consensus for individual sanctions. I find it hard to believe you don't already know this considering your number of appearances in this venue, but since you're raising it as a complaint, there you go. Additionally, I wouldn't even begin considering your appeal until you remove or hat the various comments on Golden Ring as an admin including unfounded insinuations about their motives. Your appeal should simply state why you shouldn't be banned from interacting with TTAAC --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that Volunteer Marek's request that GoldenRing indicate which specific edits by Volunteer Marek are the basis of the ban under appeal is reasonable. I do not see such diffs, or a rationale for this interaction ban specifically, in GoldenRing's closure of the AE thread above. could you please provide diffs of the edits by Volunteer Marek that you think merit this ban?   Sandstein   18:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While admins can indeed impose discretionary sanctions without consensus, and without prior discussion, such sanctions need to have a rational basis. I can't find one here. GoldenRing, above, appears to suggest that the interaction ban was in response to this talk page thread. I can't find anything in there that warrants an interaction ban. Accordingly, I would grant the appeal and lift the interaction ban as concerns Volunteer Marek. I have no opinion as concerns the other sanctions; they would need to be examined in separate appeal(s).  Sandstein   19:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of concerns about the interaction ban. First, despite significant administrative input on the thread in question, no one so much as suggested (much less advocated for) an interaction ban. Spike is entirely correct that an admin can impose sanctions unilaterally, so GoldenRing does have the technical authority to place the interaction ban, but it's a question of should, not can. In general, when closing an AE report where there's been significant administrative discussion, the close should attempt to reflect that discussion. A range of solutions were proposed in the initial thread, and given the lack of administrative consensus, it would be justifiable to apply any combination of them. But I don't think it shows great judgement to tack on a new&mdash;and very broad&mdash;sanction which never even came up in administrative discussion. My larger concern is that an interaction ban in this setting is a) unworkable, b) counterproductive, and c) likely to create much more drama than it prevents. Marek, TTAAC, and Lambden all edit in the same topic area. How are they supposed to avoid interacting with each other? The terms of an IBAN (as linked by GoldenRing) prohibit an editor from replying to each others' comments. How is that going to work when both editors are working on the same page? They need to be able to respond to each other in order to work through any content disputes. If any or all of them can't handle that sort of discussion productively, then they should be topic-banned. But I don't think an IBAN in this situation has been thought through at all. I see it creating a lot of AE reports for violations: let's say Marek makes an edit and Lambden disagrees, but can't revert it, mention it, or even mention Marek? Doesn't this give a massive first-mover advantage to whomever jumps in fastest, and effectively exclude the others from the pages in question? I'd advocate lifting the interaction ban on all sides. MastCell Talk 18:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with MastCell, for all the reasons. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with MastCell, and I am worried by this from GoldenRing "If I believed in one-way IBANs I would have seriously considered making the IBAN one-way; I don't, so I didn't." It doesn't matter what you believe in, you still have to have the evidence for the sanction. I can see no reason for this to be a two-way IBAN. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with my colleagues above that I don't see a justification for an IBAN on Volunteer Marek at this time. MastCell has explained the reasoning, so no need for me to say more. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek has only appealed the IBAN with TTAAC, but my colleagues above (MastCell, Drmies, Black Kite, TonyBallioni) appear to be protesting against any IBAN involving Volunteer Marek, i. e. the IBAN with Lambden as well. I agree with them, especially on account of the "first mover advantage" MastCell outlined. It is indeed a question of whether the IBANs should have been imposed, not whether they technically could, and it wasn't the right occasion for using single-admin discretion the way GoldenRing did. Please rescind them. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC).
 * To be fair I only looked at the one with TTAAC, because that was the one that VM was appealing. I will have a look at the one with JJL, but I have been involved with that editor recently so I probably won't opine on it. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Closure: There is clear consensus among reviewing uninvolved admins that the interaction ban of Volunteer Marek with respect to TheTimesAreAChanging should not have been made. That ban is accordingly lifted. The other sanctions imposed concurrently by GoldenRing are not being appealed here. Consequently, they remain in force until they are successfully appealed.  Sandstein  15:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I also agree with MC and others above. Jonathunder (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : "You are banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek for three months."


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging
Volunteer Marek's three-month interaction ban with me has just been lifted, but the IBAN GoldenRing imposed on me with respect to that user remains in force, rendering it a one-way IBAN. In his original appeal, Volunteer Marek noted: "my interactions with TheTimesAreAChanging have been nothing but cordial ... he's never complained about any problems with me, never accused me of incivility or personal attacks and vice-versa. ... I have no problem with the IBAN being removed bilaterally (i.e. TTAC shouldn't be banned from interacting with me either). Like I said, there's been absolutely no interactions either way which would warrant this ban." To support Volunteer Marek's appeal, I provided a list of examples of the two of us collaborating without acrimony in controversial subject areas. GoldenRing has stated that the IBAN is based "mainly" on this one diff, which can be interpreted as Volunteer Marek questioning my good faith, although he doesn't name me directly and I am not a participant in the discussion. That does not seem like a rational basis for a three-month ban to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
I mean, yeah, of course this should be granted. Swiftly.  Volunteer Marek  22:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging

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


 * I'm closing and logging as an obvious extension of the last case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)