Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive243

Soibangla
''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 Soibangla

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 : standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.


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


 * 1) 2018/10/14 Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump. I don't see any way that a reasonable editor could view this as WP:DUE or WP:NPOV.
 * 2) 2018/10/11 Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story) at Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), and conspiracy theorizing on the talk page.
 * 3) 2018/10/14 Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing. The details of the bizarre QAnon allegations should not be included on Soros's page, and certainly not where multiple people had already objected in a discussion started by Soibangla.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS): Notification on 4 September 2018


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Their edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out. I also note their reply regarding their addition at Donald Trump.  Overall, I don't believe this editor understands Wikipedia's policies well enough to edit in the American Politics area, and request an indefinite topic ban. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to withdraw this; the addition on Donald Trump isn't actionable on its own, but I see a pattern of behavior here. Virtually every edit I see has a clear POV; something like this is engaging in WP:SYNTH to suggest that Republicans are somehow wrong about the War on Poverty; this is both confusing and clearly undue. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Soibangla
''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 Soibangla
I am beginning my statement now, but it is not yet complete, I will provide notice when it is

Accusation: "Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump"

It was one paragraph, three sentences, supported by three reliable sources. If there had been a consensus reached that the lede had been somehow "locked down," I was not aware of it. The added paragraph was certainly relevant to Trump's BLP, whereas the two subsequent paragraphs, which had evidently reached consensus before this apparent "lock down," are more suitable for the Trump presidency article, not his BLP.

Accusation: "Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story)"

The WSJ uses a paywall for most stories, so linking directly to WSJ will not allow users to check the ref. However, WSJ chooses to bypass their paywall when they tweet an article, so I linked to those WSJ tweets so users can access the whole thing. This is just the way WSJ chooses to make their content available, I am doing nothing devious.

Accusation: "Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing"

There was nothing suspicious about it, nor was it a denial. Another user had unilaterally declared that consensus had been reached, made an edit reflecting that perceived consensus, and then I made a subsequent edit that complied with that perceived consensus.

Accusation: "edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out"

"vaguely concerning" but "I have no specific diffs to call out"? What does that mean, exactly?

I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious.

I will have more to say, pressed for time right now. soibangla (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer
This is an absurd filing. Lesser methods of DR should be used, and differences of opinion and complaints about a sourcing style don't belong here. Soibangla does much excellent work. I think you should reserve drastic measures like this for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN
I am WP:INVOLVED in this situation. I was the one who removed Soibangla's full-paragraph addition to the lede in the Donald Trump article, and when I took it to the talk page, I said I thought that adding it without discussing it first was "highly inappropriate". In no way did I mean that to indicate any sort of violation of the DS. Soibangla made a bold edit, it was challenged, they have not restored it - where is the violation? I am hopeful that Power~enwiki will withdraw this referral, as is being suggested at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dave
This board should be a last resort not the first!, DR or ANI is thataway →. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Soibangla

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


 * I have to repeat what I said in response to the above request: This looks like a content dispute to me. Arbitration and AE do not resolve content disputes. If the edits are problematic from a content point of view, such as regards neutrality, accuracy, content forking, etc., then the way to correct this is consensus-building on the talk page. Content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, but it normally takes a long history of problems or obvious, severe violations for them to rise to the level where AE action is needed, and I don't see this here. I'd therefore take no action.  Sandstein   11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I find myself agreeing with MelanieN. This topic area should be approached with caution and discussion is encouraged, however there may be room for bold edits in moderation. The reported conduct does not in my view rise to sanctionable conduct at this time, but may do if it becomes part of a longer term behavioural issue. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with those above. The editor made a bold edit - apparently well backed up by sources :) - it was reverted and, hopefully, will be discussed somewhere or the other. Vague comments about edits in other articles are, um, vague, and I'm surprised that an editor of power-enwiki's caliber is resorting to this sort of thing. The latest example of WP:SYNTH, though it does look like synthesis, is best discussed as a content issue. AE should be resorted to when you have a well documented case for a violation of an arb ruling and this is nowhere near that. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Opening statement by AGK
I am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by.
 * 1) In, immediately above, Debresser cited two diffs that were around 27 hours apart – and requested enforcement of a 1RR (one revert per 24 hours) general sanction.  To be clear, I have recommended enforcement action in that case – but only as a result of different diffs of user conduct which I came across during a review of the request.
 * 2) In, above, a meritless request for enforcement was submitted.
 * 3) Nishidani, enforcement requested August 2018, was again closed without action.

I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests. AGK &#9632;   21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

 * I would only like to say that in my point of view, both Nishidani and Nableezy have behavioral problems, and are moderately disruptive from time to time. The fact that this forum has decided that there were no grounds for action, does not mean that there were no grounds for my reports. Just like in real life, not all court cases end in convictions.
 * I noticed that AGK is worried about "reprisal". May I remind you that it is me, who was reported here a week ago in a clear attempt at reprisal. I myself do not have such inclinations. In addition, please feel free to research the issue, and you shall see that there simply was nothing that could have provoked me to seek reprisal. Specifically regarding VanEman, I hadn't seen him in over a year, and even that was not in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Most, if not all, ArbCom restrictions, like ARBPIA, include a clause about proper behavior in the spirit of community editing, not to mention decorum. Most of my reports were not about straightforward violations (like my last report regarding VanEman, which was accepted). They were specifically about editors' behavior, as in long-time patterns: editors using derogatory language (Nishidani and Nableezy), editors being pushy and ignoring the opinions of other editors (Nableezy). And in all my reports there have been admins (and certainly non-admins) who have said that there is some truth about the issues I reported, just that it is not actionable. Please check that.
 * So a warning about what? Not to report edits that are not actionable? How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not? Especially since were are talking about discretionary actions.
 * By ruling time and again that there were no violations, ArbCom has effectively decided to ignore Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3, which reads "Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles". However, it would be completely unfair to propose to sanction the editor, who tries in good faith to uphold the rule that this forum has itself instituted. Or does ArbCom want to remove that point from its decision now? Debresser (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In reply to Huldra's comment In that WP:ANI discussion too, all commenting editors agreed that Huldra's edits were problematic, just that the closing editor decided it is a content issues, and not actionable at WP:ANI. How using misleading edit summaries is a content issue, I don't understand till this day. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * In reply to Kurtis' mention of a January report of mine I can't believe you really try to hold that report against me. We all know that trying to game the system by waiting a little over 24 hours is actionable! I was sanctioned not long before that for an edit I made after 1d3h. In view of that fact, you have to admit that at least the report wasn't unreasonable. (Especially galling was that the very same admin who sanctioned me for my revert after 1d3h refused to see as a violation Nishidani's edit after 1d5h. IMHO that was a biased decision, and not one of ArbCom's better moments.) Debresser (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
@Kurtis Is this sequence of edits the kind of report that would be too broadly interpreting WP:ARBPIA3? Or is that reserved for "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" only? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roland What is disruptive about this section? It needs to be clear if Kurtis proposes reporting a straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation is acceptable, and wants a restriction only regarding reporting "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring" (since that is obviously more prone to interpretation)? That is apart from the question if other admins will endorse his proposal. Debresser (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roland And let's be honest, if this is indeed, as I think, a straightforward violation, then it will be very interesting to see if admins will have the moral integrity to act on it. Based on my experience with some of the admins here, I have my doubts. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy In reply to this edit: October 22 18:50 - October 22 09:16 = 09:34 < 24h. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy In reply to these edits: You are right. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

 * I've reviewed Debresser's reports to AE over the past two years. Apart from the ones mentioned by AGK, there's also (in reverse chronological order): Nishidani (January 2018), El_C (June 2017), Nishidani again (May 2017), and finally Nishidani (October 2016). Of these, the only one that resulted in a sanction for the reported party was the 2017 AE submission concerning Nishidani, with Sandstein implementing a one-month topic ban from Israel/Palestine articles – and even then, several commenters felt that the diffs provided were not actionable. There does seem to be a pattern here, albeit a sporadic one. The question is, does it warrant a sanction at this time? Or would a final warning be sufficient? Kurtis (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Debresser: "How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not?" – To tell you the honest truth, a lot of it just boils down to common sense. It's inevitable that some AE reports are going to end up as borderline cases, and the decision is usually determined by factoring in things like the editor's past history, the seriousness of the violation, whether they're making a good-faith effort to learn from their mistakes, etc. But there's also an expectation that the filing party will use good judgment in submitting a report. To give an example, in January of this year you reported Nishidani for violating a 1RR restriction. The two reverts you cited were, by your own description, over 24 hours apart. At the time, the two of you were engaged in a content dispute. Bringing the situation here made it look as though you were attempting to gain the upper hand. Whether you realize it or not, this is a common thread for many of the reports you've made to AE and ANI over the past few years. Your idea of what constitutes a violation is much, much broader than that of most people. Going forward, I think it would be a good idea for you to avoid making any AE reports that aren't clear-cut cases (e.g. an editor makes multiple reverts to a 1RR article in a single day), as well as ones in which you're an involved party. I also recommend that you get into the habit of using other avenues for dispute resolution rather than escalating tensions by immediately pursuing sanctions against other editors. You'll probably find it a lot easier to get things done when you begin to think of them as collaborators rather than antagonists. Kurtis (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

 * Just a note: Debresser doesn't only report editors to AE, he also reports you to AN/I, last time he reported me there was in July 2017. (It was closed without any sanction), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. As I said at the time: I misread "2nd century BCE" for "2nd century CE". And Debresser, without giving me any opportunity to explain, took it straight to AN/I. As I said back then, drama much?  (Also, it isn't the first time Debresser have dragged me to AN/I, with no result), Huldra (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
This page is not the right place for this discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho
These sanctions are set up as a destructive way to end disruption that has not been reasonably taken care of by other means. When sanctions are placed the situation is generally, "enough is enough". If this is becoming a game that is in itself highly disruptive. Everyone here is a volunteer, from editor to admin but we don't have a shortage of editors. The opinion however has been bumped around a time or two that we have a shortage of admins. Admins time aside we also don't want to run off good editors. If -insert any editors name- is coming here for retaliation or any nonsense then the appropriate action should be taken, what ever that may be. A warning, the stated purpose of this noticeboard, or some punitive action. Case by case due to the facts of the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR
Surely Debresser's latest comments above are a breach of his topic ban, and an an egregious example of IDHT behaviour, fully justifying the original post by AGK? RolandR (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
- Debresser isn't under any topic ban, you should strike your assertion. Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
Uhh, Debresser, you claim the revert you made was undoing a "straightforward WP:ARBPIA3 violation". That kind of demonstrates the point that you have no idea what an ARBPIA3 violation is, the edit you reverted was emphatically not a revert. You just did a blanket revert without even a semblance of an explanation, and have as of yet declined to even pretend to justify it anywhere. You seem incapable of actually identifying what a revert is, in addition to the problem of understanding exactly how long 24 hours is.  nableezy  - 17:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem there is my edit wasnt a revert. It doesnt touch what Shrike reverted at 06:16, 22 October 2018‎ UTC. That you bring it up here is yet another example of what this section is about. You bringing up totally and completely bogus "violations".  nableezy  - 18:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved admins

 * Yes, we do see Debresser quite a lot here with, as far as I can recall, often non-actionable requests. I wouldn't object to a restriction against making new AE requests.  Sandstein   11:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Because discussion among admins has died down and we are back to the usual unhelpful pattern of recriminations among involved editors, I'm closing this thread. Any admin remains free to take whatever action they deem appropriate.  Sandstein   07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have procedurally re-opened this in order to enforce. I will close in short order.   AGK  &#9632;   17:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether it is retaliatory or not, there is a clear pattern of poor/inappropriate reports to this noticeboard. I would prefer a strong warning however, with a restriction on AE requests if the problem continues. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am enforcing as follows:

13zmz13
''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 13zmz13

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:44, 21 October 2018 (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) 11:53, 21 October 2018 editing an article clearly under WP:ARBPIA3 (see Talk:Shurat HaDin), in spite of only having 116 edits
 * 2) 11:55, 21 October 2018 same
 * 3) 12:25, 21 October 2018 same


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


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

I (and another editor) have tried to make 13zmz13 understand that they shouldn't edit the IP articles (see here), alas they seem to think that rules are only for lesser mortals than themselves. Huldra (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notified, Huldra (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning 13zmz13
''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 13zmz13
I have yet to receive even one iota of evidence that suggests Shurat HaDin is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"... 13zmz13 (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

 * I wonder why user:Huldra nor user:Zero0000 did not warn in similar manner other user User:Spiny Norman that edited the same article --Shrike (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by RolandR

 * Shrike asks why Huldra and Zero warned 13zmz13 but not Spiny Norman. Maybe this is because SN has made just one, minor, edit to the article while 13mz13 has so far made fifteen POV edits, and reverted repeatedly. And note that one of 13mz13's recent edits was a reversion of a self-correction by Zero of a typo; this is the essence of edit-warring and blind reversion. RolandR (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
This article is about an Israeli organization that fights "Israel's enemies" (mostly Arabs and Iranians) by means of law suits. Of the law suits prominent enough for their own article sections, approximately 75% directly concern the Arab-Israeli conflict. So the claim by 13zmz13 that it doesn't know the article is "related to the Arab-Israeli conflict" is absolutely unbelievable. Even the specific section edited by 13zmz13 (most recently with an additional revert after this case was filed, also violating 1RR) concerns a law suit against "Palestinian solidarity activists". Please give this contempt for the truth the reception it deserves. Zerotalk 10:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning 13zmz13

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


 * Shurat HaDin is entirely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because it describes an organization which deals primarily with legal issues related to that conflict. 13zmz13's conduct and insistence to the contrary is disruptive. 13zmz13 is blocked for a week.  Sandstein   11:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

ScienceApe
''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 ScienceApe

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS


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


 * 1) 21 October 2018 You're inability to understand a strawman fallacy reveals quite a bit of how low your IQ must be - personal attack
 * 2) 21 October 2018 Knock off the obvious biased white knighting - personal attack
 * 3) 21 October 2018 Stop with the idiotic strawmanning and white knighting first.;  Oh you're the white knight etc - personal attacks


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see

These personal attacks by itself show this editor needs a break from Elizabeth Warren (or a block) at the very least, but he has also engaged in edit warring (4 reverts in 30 hours), where he cried "synthesis" despite being explained how the source supports the sentence, and his conduct at the section shows self-evidently poor behaviour and ignoring what the sources are saying or people's responses. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning ScienceApe
''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 ScienceApe

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


 * I agree with the filer. Science Ape is indefinitely topic banned from Elizabeth Warren for bludgeoning and unpleasantness on article talk and edit warring at the article. The user may appeal the ban no more frequently than every six months. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:14, 21 October 2018 (UTC).

Onceinawhile
''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 Onceinawhile

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 27 Oct 2018 First introduction of text.
 * 2) 02 Nov 2018 Revert after text  was removed not waiting 24h


 * 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):


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Because only they broken the provision its his revert that violated our polices and started the edit war.Had he waited 24H and discuss this wouldn't happened --Shrike (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The provision in question is pretty clear If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit..It was violated
 * Also there is an issue of WP:OR most of the edits by this user including this diffs doesn't even mention the neologism that is topic of the article including diff in question.It was clearly done to WP:POVPUSH and constitute WP:TE.If admins interested I could provide additional diffs that user use sources that don't mention the neologism. --20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

--Shrike (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Onceinawhile
''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 Onceinawhile
I was not aware of the change in the rules. The banner was changed in a subtle but important way in May this year, ostensibly to clarify that the 24-hour rule for new edits applies from the point of the revert, not from the point of the original edit. I now see the change at ARBPIA took place even earlier than this, but it was not put on the banner until May this year. No-one ever notified me of these changes to ARBPIA, and I don't have the banner on my watchlist. I am not sure how I am supposed to keep up with these changes, but I apologize for not doing so.

If I had been informed of the rule, I would have immediately self-reverted. I would like to make a show of good faith now, but I am not sure how I can. The only evidence I can offer is that that revert was my last edit to the page, and I did not participate in the ensuing edit war. I made 20 edits to the talk page instead.

As to powerenwiki's comments, the nominator's subsequent participation in what had by then become a classic edit war puzzled me, because he and I had reasonably constructive set of discussions during the prior week on the article talk page, with no suggestion that he objected to the 5,622 bytes of information now in question, and also because he made no subsequent talk page contribution to justify his change of heart.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * One reflection on the rule - it starts "If an edit is reverted". Is the word "edit" supposed to capture new content as well as changes to existing content? I have been thinking about what the rationale might have been for this new rule; I presume that the spirit of the new rule related to the age-old problem of identifying which was the "first revert". I had never imagined that the addition of new content to a new article could be considered as a "first revert". It all seems very strange to me, but I commit to ensure full compliance going forward. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
I see at least 6 different editors edit-warring over this change. Why is this the only editor that should be subject to Discretionary Sanctions? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Onceinawhile

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


 * I accept Onceinawhile's submission that, wrongly, they did not think ARBPIA § General 1RR Restriction is counted from the most recent revert – rather than from their own last edit. Nevertheless, as  noted, Enclave law was in the throes of an edit war.  Onceinawhile contributed to disruption of this article when they reverted.  An enforcement sanction therefore appears unavoidable to me.  I am topic-banning, for 3 months, from pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. power~enwiki's broader point is unconvincing: this noticeboard cannot decline to enforce because "A was bad, but B and C were too."  Given the topic areas we typically see here, many enforcement requests would need declining if enforcing administrators took that approach.  AGK  &#9632;   21:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz
''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 Malik Shabazz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA : specifically, violation of TBAN imposed by DS.


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

The diffs below are possibly stale and less clear cut, but are presented to show a possible pattern of edits around the conflict during the TBAN:
 * 1) 03:04, 7 November 2018 - removal of ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement notice from talk page. The Land of Israel, Land of Israel, and Land of Israel lede contain conflict related material - the notice is not off topic (one may possibly claim that removing an ARBPIA notice from a clearly unrelated page (e.g. Thrombosis) would fall under an exemption - but in this case the notice is clearly applicable to significant parts of the page).
 * 2) 03:12, 7 November 2018 - article itself is closely related to the conflict. The edit itself removed "Zionist baby killers" as a cited example of contemporary antisemtism - the phrase itself being conflict related.
 * 1) 14:43, 20 October 2018 - conflict related - edit cited BLP exemption. Possibly stale, added to show possible pattern.
 * 2) 03:52, 18 October 2018 - edit to The Electronic Intifada which is intrinsically conflict related.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 17 August 2015 - 48 hour block for "Repeated personal attacks and incivility"
 * 2) 20 January 2017 - 4 day block for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for your personal attacks on others ("dickhead", "moron") in the context of discussions about the WP:ARBIPA topic area"
 * 3) 12:47, 23 May 2018 TBANed from ARBPIA for 6 months.
 * 4) 3 June 2018 Warning of TBAN violation.
 * 5) 6 July 2018 Blocked 31 hours for "To enforce an arbitration decision and for personal attacks at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard".
 * 6) 09:07, 30 July 2018 - blocked two weeks for "topic ban violations, incivility and personal attacks".
 * 7) 10:31, 30 August 2018 - blocked 72 hours for personal attacks.


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


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:47, 23 May 2018 by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This complaint is about the 7 November edits - the October diffs are possibly stale and are are not as clear cut, however they were added to show a possible pattern.
 * In regards to the conflict relatedness of diff2 - a reasonable interpretation of "Zionist baby killers" is that the implied nationality of the babies in question is Arab, particularly since the cited WaPo source for that stmt continues in the same paragraph to say "...dismissing Jewish students as “Zionist baby killers.” At rallies on college campuses, speakers regularly list “Zionists” in the same category as white supremacists and Nazis. Progressive leaders circulate lists of acceptable Jewish organizations, including only those that do not address Israel or that define themselves as Palestinian solidarity groups." - tying this to I/P.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * addendum - in 12:35, 7 November 2018 Malik Shabazz used the edit summary "rv vandalism" when reverting a mandatory notice of this AE filing against him. I will note that the AN/I complaint leading to the last block on 30 August - ANI archive 991 section - mentions a previous use of such language in relation to a mandatory notice.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Malik Shabazz
''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 Malik Shabazz
Despite Icewhiz's assertions, every mention of the state of Israel is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If Sandstein had intended to ban me from anything related to Israel, I think he would have said so. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As usual, Sandstein, you focus on form instead of substance. Adding an ARBPIA template to a page doesn't make the page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, nor does removing a misplaced template. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz forgot to mention that I broke the speed limit at least three times on my way to work this morning. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:02, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
I very much disagree with the notion that removing an ARBPIA template from a page where it does not belong and was added without discussion by an involved editor in the topic area is covered here. If an uninvolved admin decides that a biblical concept is part of a conflict that began in the last hundred years or so then they can do it, but that is not what happened here. The second diff is wholly unrelated, neo-Nazis in the United States not exactly being a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  nableezy  - 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, Icewhiz is here reporting straight reversions of vandalism as meriting sanctions. That is about as bad faith as an AE request gets. He reports this reversion of an editor who has, citing "eye for an eye", made a couple of vandalism edits (here and here) in response to a favored website being listed as Islamophobic (removing that here). Takes a special kind of bad faith to report that, so much so me thinks a boomerang is in order.  nableezy  - 16:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WarKosign
While Sandstein is correct in noting that "it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism", the edit in question was removing reference to this article, which discusses anti-Semitism in regard to I-P conflict. Moreover, the user was banned from editing "anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", and while anti-Semitism can be practiced by anyone, it is very much related to the conflict. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Malik Shabazz

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


 * The request has (partial) merit. The topic ban does not cover a "mention of the state of Israel", but rather the Arab-Israeli conflict. The edit in the second first diff at issue pertains to text that relates to that conflict. Specifically, Malik Shabazz removed the template ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement, which describes the discretionary sanctions that apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But the first second diff is not actionable because it concerns "antisemitic anti-Zionism", i.e. antisemitic opposition to the state of Israel, which in and of itself does not relate to the Arab part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In other words, it is conceivable that there is non-Arab antisemitic anti-Zionism. I would therefore take action only with regard to the second first diff and invite admin comments about what to do.  Sandstein   12:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat unconvinced here, because yet again it's someone immediately jumping on a possible violation by an editor whose edits they oppose. A far better thing is to discuss it with the editor concerned, suggesting they revert rather than running off to AE.  For example, here's an edit that I made on User:יניב הורון's talk page suggesting that they may want to back away from that subject. That editor hasn't contravened their topic ban since.  My inclination here would to be to warn the editor about any edit that skirts round the edge of their topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed only the November diffs, I'm unconvinced a sanction is required. I'm not terribly happy about the template removal, but really the substance of that topic is not ARBPIA related, and it requires some real nitpicking to believe it should be sanctionable simply because it involved an ARBPIA template. That said, I would recommend that Malik avoid such a removal in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it showed the best judgment to remove the template, but I also agree that we don't need to sanction for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

1l2l3k
''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 1l2l3k

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:1l2l3k
 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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

Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :


 * 1) Revert after  text  was removed not waiting 24h
 * 2) First introduction of text.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

The user is well-aware. The page is in the middle of an edit war and one user has been suspended for it already.
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I don't understand how to request it. This is my first time, and I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobulls (talk • contribs) ( I've moved this post here from the admin section where it was misplaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC) )

I have notified him on his talk page.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning 1l2l3k
''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 1l2l3k
My two reverts were done at a distance of 4 days, not 24 hours. The first one was on 2 November and the second one on 6 November. Still, I self reverted, after seeing this report, for the sake of the peace among wikipedians who are discussing in the talk page, in order to promote a better working environment, and also since the reporting party is so upset about my revert. Further, when a discussion is ongoing, the reporting party should refrain from making edits, that's why I did my second revert (4 days after the first one). Also, I don't see any diffs above in his report to be able to say anything else. I'll get back to this report when the diffs are clearer as to what exactly I did wrong. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
Not a violation - 1l2l3k didn't originally author anything - he reverted on 2 November, and again on 6 November - and regardless self reverted.

In addition, one should note that filer has engaged in personal attacks and casting aspersions - on the Wikiproject Palestine page - 16:38, 6 November 2018, had edited in violation of the general prohibition on 18:03, 23 October 2018 (becoming extended confirmed due to subsequent editing on unrelated topics), and has also played loose with 1RR - performing reverts 24 hours + 13 minutes apart - 15:59, 5 November 2018, 16:12, 6 November 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

 * The user was never notified of the sanctions in the ARBPIA
 * This case for WP:BOOMERANG per ICEWHIZ diffs.Also before the filing I left notice on his talkpage to strike his personal attack instead and remove violation of WP:CANVASS instead doing that he filed AE action. --Shrike (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning 1l2l3k

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


 * Cleaned up the format of the request and moved a comment by Gobulls to their section as it was misplaced in this one. No opinion otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , for sanctions to be possible, you must show that the editor against whom you are requesting sanctions has been made aware in one of the prescribed ways. I do not see that the editor has received a discretionary sanctions alert, so unless you can show awareness in one of those ways, not just by asserting they are, this complaint will have to be dismissed. (Of course, by having been the subject of an AE request, will be considered aware going forward, but they must have been aware at the time the claimed violation occurred.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Warkosign
''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 Warkosign

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WarKosign

WP:A/I/PIA
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME :


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) November 11, 2018 violating revert (in my opinion, from my understanding of the situation)
 * 2) November 11, 2018 original revert
 * 3) November 10, 2018 original author

Unknown
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

He was aware of the rule, as is evident here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=867566165
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I informed him on his talk page.
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Warkosign
''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 WarKosign
did not specify what my supposed violation is, so I can't respond to that.

This is the second time in less than a week the user fills a garbled enforcement request against an editor that happens to disagree with them. As with 1l2l3k above there doesn't seem to be any real violation. The user misinformed you that they notified me about this request: the user wrote on my talk page that they might report me, but not that they actually did. I was surprised to find my name here after responding to the message on my talk page.

Please review Gobulls's behavior. To me it seems that such an inexperienced editor is not supposed to be editing in the area at all due to 500/30: they have 610 edits, 87 of them on I/P articles and many of these made before they had 500 edits. They have battleground mentality, accusing users who happen to disagree with them of vandalism and sock puppetry, reporting first 1l2l3k and then me for bogus violations. The user repeatedly inserted the same content despite several editors explaining on the talk page that it violates NPOV. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 10:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jonney2000
Someone should warn about making inaccurate complaints.Jonney2000 (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
Diff #2 in Gobulls's report is misleading, as Gobulls's "original revert" was on 15:57, 10 November 2018. Gobulls reverted the content a second time on 17:32, 11 November 2018 - which is misleadingly labelled as the "original revert".Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Warkosign

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


 * I am closing this as not actionable because the request is too confused for me to make out which specific remedy has allegedly been violated, and why.  Sandstein   13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by יניב הורון
''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 : – TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : 3 week block for topic ban violation:


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.
 * 

Statement by יניב הורון
I made a mistake. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development is related to my topic ban. However, I didn't realize the article was under ARBPIA because it isn't extended-confirmed protected (that's why the IP that I reverted could make such an edit in the first place), there was no template and I was making a small edit about US definition of the organization. If you give me the chance, I'll never edit in that article again, not to mention I'll be extra careful in other unprotected articles. I apologize. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

 * I don't have a problem with the block being reduced to time served as long as Yaniv is more careful in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)]

Result of the appeal by יניב הורון

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


 * Unblocked per Back Kite.  Sandstein   18:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile
''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 : – Onceinawhile (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : 3 month topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed, logged


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Acknowledged.  AGK  &#9632;   22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Onceinawhile
I broke then ”original author“ rule a week ago, having not previously been aware of it. I made just one edit to the article that day (a revert); my previous edit had been four days prior. I pled guilty and apologized. I was hit with a very severe sanction.

A topic ban impacts me severely. I have great interest in the area, and my contributions are always constructive. I created the only Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related FA in the last 8 years, the only GA in 2018, and five of the last 10 DYKs. I am passionate about collaboration between the two “sides” - see WP:IPCOLL which I rewrote a few years ago. I operate only by consensus and 1RR (as I had previously understood it).

Since the sanction, a few things have become clear:


 * The closing admin’s sanction was shown to be unprecedented in its severity (of 8 previous “original author” cases, only 2 were sanctioned previously - but both with multiple other reverts) ; this was not disputed
 * The closing admin’s closing comment about the article being “in the throes of an edit war” at the time of my edit was shown to be incorrect ; this was not disputed
 * The “original author” rule itself was shown to have lost the consent of the community (see ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA)
 * That I had been unaware of the rule was acknowledged by the closing admin and confirmed subsequently by the nominator’s failed search to disprove my statement.
 * The nominator’s subordinate claim of OR (re content dispute, but it goes to my reputation) was shown to have no substance, relating solely to whether the article title should be “short form” or “long form” (multiple threads here).

I appeal to admins to reconsider. I believe a warning would have been more appropriate.


 * you’ll note I did not criticize AGK’s behavior nor show frustration even once; despite my disappointment, he is entitled to his judgement here. But I think your comment was absolutely outrageous. To paste that snippet out of context from the rest of that post – its stated World War I centenary context, the block log (which shows American Politics and PIA as the two most sanctioned areas) and my juxtaposition of “collaborative” vs “battleground” editors (where I stated I have never been in the latter camp) – is wholly unacceptable. I have made dozens of posts which explain how I think about battlegrounds in Wikipedia, and I will not stand for being misrepresented. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PS – in case it helps, I had been to see a WWI exhibition on the evening I wrote that post. It is the 100th anniversary of the Armistice of 11 November 1918. I shouldn’t have to worry that every time I make my discussions here a little more colorful I am putting myself at risk of having an admin draw a conclusion on the basis of a misread metaphor and entirely out of context from everything I have ever written and the way I have always behaved. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to continue to cast aspersions about my “mindset” based on a metaphorical sentence (actually about rank vs. “on the ground” experience), I request that you spend a moment looking at any or all of my other comments in recent years for substanting evidence. You won’t find anything to substantiate your attacks on my reputation, but you will find endless comments advocating for collaboration.
 * PS – Happy Armistice 100 Day. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK
(OIAW) does not dispute that they reverted another editor at to restore back text that was deleted and disputed. OIAW also does not dispute that the revert was a breach of the Arab–Israeli conflict § Reverting general restriction.

I accepted the explanation, at the time of the enforcement request, that OIAW was truly unaware of the restriction. However, I would not choose to take enforcement action principally because an editor refused to apologise. Conversely, apologising is not a 'get out of jail free card' that negates the need for an administrator to look at disruption in the article being reported for enforcement. The enforcement action taken was to exclude OIAW for 3 months (90 days) from the affected topic area.

In the days after the original enforcement request, I spent some time at my user talk page discussing with OIAW why they reverted the editor. I am not sure the discussion will be immediately helpful to any colleagues reviewing this appeal. There was more than a touch of wikilawyering, particularly around the 'awareness' aspect. I cannot see that during the enforcement request, in their appeal to me directly, or indeed in this new appeal that OIAW recognises jumping to a revert is the type of conduct that tends to disrupt articles such as these.

At the time of applying the sanction, I also considered that the affected article – and topic area – is 'live' and suffering from poor standards of editorial quality. Recently, the topic has been at this noticeboard frequently.

Perhaps you will agree that this action was commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, that I respond[ed] flexibly and proportionately, and that the decision was within the bounds of administrator discretion (WP:AC/P). Note that the underlying remedy is the subject of some ongoing discussion at WP:ARCA as to its fitness for purpose. AGK &#9632;   22:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Huldra
Please end this topic ban now. Just read the "Debresser" section above this, to see how much "bad blood" this sanction (And Sandsteins on Nishidani) has created.

Admins are supposed to "put out flames", not throwing petrol on the fire, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser
The violation was real. The editor should have been aware of it. IMHO these two simple points means that there is no grounds for removing the sanction altogether. It was overly harsh, though, and I wouldn't mind if it were shortened to a week or two weeks. In the future, admins should take care to sanction all violations more or less to the same degree, allowing for slight variations based on circumstances that may be grounds for leniency or harshness. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz
Below, Black Kite wrote: There really needs to be some sort of consistency here, or we risk being accused of making up sanctions at random, or worse of being biased. LOL It's a well-known fact that Wikipedia sanctions, particularly with respect to ARBPIA, are arbitrary and capricious. I'm glad that's starting to dawn on the clueless admin corps. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, Zero0000. It is for the benefit of the encyclopedia. After all, one of the most clueless of them all assures us it is a feature, not a bug. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
The sanction against Once was a good example of bad judgement. Frankly I was shocked when it happened, and less than impressed by AGK's attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

For a long time it has been a convention between the regular editors of inviting each other to self-revert when they make a mistake. None of us want to break the rules on purpose but all of us can forget previous edits, miscalculate the time, or fail to understand the rules in the same way that others do. Here and here are two examples where Shrike (who reported Once without a warning) benefited from this convention. There is no doubt whatever that Once would have immediately self-reverted if the rule breach was brought to his attention. Shrike knew that 100%.

I find it hard to recall more than one or two editors in the past decade who worked as hard as Once at getting the facts right by meticulous source collection and collation. If you want to see how valuable he is, look at Balfour Declaration, which Once brought to FA status largely by himself despite it being a subject fraught with controversy. With a little work it could be published in an academic journal. As proof of the respect I hold for him, I spent hours visiting a library across town to obtain obscure sources that he wanted to check. But one revert against a rule he was unfamiliar with and he's gone for 3 months. This is supposed to be to the benefit of the encyclopedia? Zerotalk 02:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Your understanding of Once's "foot soldier" comment is erroneous. Description of the I-P area as a battleground is unfortunately a correct description and every regular editor is in the trenches by that metaphor. Once did not create this situation and does not approve it. The distinction that Once makes, which you ignore, is between those for whom the aim of the battle is to write good articles despite the toxic atmosphere, and those for whom the battle consists of obstruction, destruction and pov-pushing. Once places himself in the first camp, which is where every editor in the area should be, but for some reason you think that is a bad thing. In fact he is one of those regular editors most clearly in the first camp. Zerotalk 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis
I strongly support lifting this topic ban. A few days ago, I left a message on Onceinawhile's talk page encouraging him to appeal his sanction, offering my own opinion that he does have a case to plead. This is someone who has done great work for Israel-Palestine articles; even a cursory review of his talk page should demonstrate this. The one revert he made might technically have been a violation, but it is offset by otherwise highly productive and collaborative editing on his part. I'm prepared to accept Onceinawhile's explanation that he was unaware of the restrictions until the AE report in which he was sanctioned.

Sandstein hit the nail on the head. Topic bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. The only thing we're preventing by banning him from his area of expertise for three months is the creation of high quality content in one of the most contentious parts of Wikipedia, which makes it counterproductive and useless. Kurtis (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I will simply copy-paste what I wrote on AGK's talkpage. The only small tweak is that currently there's an ARCA request about this stupid rule which would probably avoid these kinds of situations in the future.


 * 1) The rule is extremely confusing, and nobody (not even admins) understands it. Several admins at AE have said so explicitly. Also see this entire AE request, where everybody, including Shrike, shows that they don't understand the rule. Not to toot my own horn, but I was the only one who had the correct interpretation. It is unclear to me that AGK even knows how confusing this rule is and how it has been treated at AE, since I don't recall them ever weighing in on a dispute on this rule.
 * 2) Onceinawhile stated explicitly that they would be happy to self-revert. It is very common for people to break 1RR by mistake. I have done so many times. Here is one of many examples.
 * 3) AGK decided (based on what criteria, it isn't clear), that a single infraction of this unclear rule deserves a three-month topic ban. How did AGK get to this conclusion? Do they hand out 3-month topic bans for isolated 3RR violations on the edit-warring noticeboard? Perhaps all the work Onceinawhile put in to get Balfour Declaration to FA clearly shows to AGK that the former isn't qualified to edit in this area. That was sarcasm. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, 's comments make no sense to me. It's not an admin's job to look out for what will benefit Onceinawhile ("I'm only punishing you for your own good" is really lame, by the way). It's their job to look out for what happens on Wikipedia. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 06:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
This looks like an excessive sanction and I endorse the appeal, fully concurring with statements by and. Remember that sanctions are supposed to prevent further disruption, not punish editors and taint their record for minor or unwitting violations. — JFG talk 07:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile

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


 * I think this is a very harsh sanction, for the simple reason that currently at AE editors aren't being treated equally. Every one of the cases that comes up regarding this useless first-mover remedy (and various other 1RR issues) ends up differently.  You only have to look back through the archives of this page (and there's one currently going on just above) to see that sanctions for violation of this 1RR range from no action, to warnings, to short blocks, up to long topic bans like this.  AGK actually said to OnceinaWhile on AGK's talkpage "You breached that requirement and have been excluded from the topic for a time. Any other editor who breaches the requirement will be excluded too, in their turn." - this simply isn't true. There really needs to be some sort of consistency here, or we risk being accused of making up sanctions at random, or worse of being biased. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was sympathetic to this appeal until I read  "I am just a foot soldier fighting for our encyclopaedia on the front lines of one of our two most contested battlegrounds" on AGK's talkpage. Whilst at the severe end, AGK's sanction was within the band of reasonable responses to the breach of sanctions, and that comment makes it clear to me that Onceinawhile would benefit from stepping away from the topic area for a few months. I would decline the appeal. WJBscribe (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that needs to be taken in context. Later, OIAW says "On the other hand, some battleground editors have become specialists, rarely building anything, but instead walking the line carefully, pushing and prodding well-meaning editors until someone loses their cool, trips over a bright line, or frankly gives up from sheer exhaustion. They also enjoy the game of "admin roulette", throwing up an AE or ANI and hoping they strike lucky.".  And they're right. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m sure I’m missing something, but the context doesn’t help for me. I don’t think WW1 anniversaries excuse expressions of battleground mindsets, nor do the frustrations at the reality that different admins will - naturally - exercise discretion differently. As I said, I was minded to support the appeal until I read the words I quoted above. WJBscribe (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the diff and I don't think Onceinawhile was expressing a battleground attitude. Onceinawhile seems to note that they were "fighting for our encyclopaedia" (emphasis added), not for a given POV; the clear meaning of that sentence was merely to establish an understanding that AGK is more experienced in arbitration/governance-related matters. The WWI references are unfortunate in retrospect, but certainly don't convey any battleground attitude that I can see. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 09:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Responding to a couple of other points:
 * Kevin/Zero, a belief (however genuine) of being on the correct side doesn't really help to alleviate my concern about someone describing parts of Wikipedia as a battleground and their role being a foot soldier.
 * Kingsindian, my point was that the concerns I outlined led me to the conclusion the encyclopedia may also benefit from Onceinawhile not editing this area for a while.
 * Onceinawhile, your comments here have shown me quite the opposite. I accept that it was possible that the words I quoted had simply been poorly chosen. However, your behaviour on this page suggests otherwise; I expressed sympathy for your appeal, said that what gave me pause were words you had recently written and in response I have been accused of acting outrageously, misrepresenting you and casting aspersions. All for daring to react to your own words. If your intention had been to convince me that the impression I formed of you from your words on AGK's talkpage was mistaken, you couldn't really have gone about it in a worse way.
 * That said, I note that I am in minority of respondents to this appeal and other clearly see things differently. If no one else opposes it, I will not stand in the way of the sanctions being lifted. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I would grant the appeal, but not for the reasons invoked above, which are unconvincing. Yes, AE sanctions vary wildly between users and admins, but that is a feature, not a bug, of a sanctions system explicitly relying on the discretion of individual admins. There can be no expectation of consistency or equal treatment in such a system. Yes, the ARBPIA 1RR and similar rules are overly complicated and badly understood and are not based on community consensus, but that does not matter because they have been imposed by ArbCom and are therefore binding, the end. If you don't like all this, and there are perhaps good reasons not to like it, then complain to ArbCom or elect different arbitrators. No, my reason for granting the appeal is this: in my view, sanctions must as a minimum pass a rational basis test, i.e., they must be at least of a nature to reduce actual disruption and misconduct in the topic area. In my view, this topic ban fails that requirement. The reason for the ban was that AGK believed that the article at issue was "in the throes of an edit war", and that "Onceinawhile contributed to disruption of this article when they reverted." On appeal, Onceinawhile contends that there was not actually an edit war, and AGK does not contest this assertion or address the issue. I'll therefore have to proceed on the assumption that Onceinawhile did not in fact participate in an edit war. That being so, no factual basis for the sanction remains, and it is therefore not likely to be useful to prevent future misconduct.   Sandstein   20:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After careful consideration, I would grant the appeal because it does not serve a preventative purpose or, in the alternative, that it no longer serves a preventative purpose after the elapsed time on the topic ban. The nature of the violation does not indicate to me that Onceinawhile is a net negative in the topic area. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is no objection, I will lift the topic ban in about a day based on the consensus of uninvolved administrators here. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 00:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Calton
''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 Calton

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS, 1RR/consensus required restriction per 2016 US Election AE


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

On 3 November 2018, 11:07 UTC, I called upon Calton to seek consensus on the talk page, and I opened a discussion there on 4 November 2018, 08:40 UTC, including a ping to Calton for attention. Calton did not reply, although he edited Wikipedia several times since then. Consequently, I decided to file this AE report.
 * 1) 2 November 2018, 15:11 UTC – First revert on Steve Bannon, a page placed under DS with 1RR + consensus required. This edit restored content, a "See also" section, that had been added by another editor on 2 November 2018, 00:25 UTC, and that I had removed on 2 November 2018, 12:18 UTC. This constitutes a first violation of the "consensus required" provision that states "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." As is customary with this restriction, the alert is placed in a prominent edit notice.
 * 2) 3 November 2018, 14:19 UTC – Second revert, violating both 1RR (albeit barely, after 23 hours) and more importantly violating the "consensus required" provision a second time, instead of going to the talk page for an attempt to gain consensus.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Two prior AE blocks for violating 1RR in the DS/American Politics domain: 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day); see Calton's block log.


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


 * Was blocked for 1RR violations on 24 December 2017 (24 hours) and 11 June 2018 (72 hours, lifted after a day), see the block log linked to above.
 * Participated in WP:AE debates several times in the last twelve months, most recently on 24 August 2018 and 12 September 2018.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The disputed content is still in the article, as I did not want to edit war over it. Somebody should remove it if Calton does not self-revert, and the content debate should take place at Talk:Steve Bannon.

Further notes:
 * Reading comments by various admins, I concur that the "consensus required" provision is overkill for the Steve Bannon article, and I would welcome its being lifted, with no action on my report.
 * Regarding Calton's position, casting aspersions on my motives ("you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles", expressed on my talk page instead of here), I have replied that we may not like the rules but we must all follow them.
 * About the basic content dispute, I note that several other editors have continued the revert game, and I'm the only one who opened a thread on the talk page to discuss the relevancy of those "see also" links. Please join the talk page discussion. — JFG talk 07:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I would not have reported Calton for a 23h 1RR. The reasons for the report, as clearly stated above, were his two successive violations of the "consensus required" provision, and refusal to engage in a discussion towards consensus. Even today, he still has not defended his edit on the article talk page. I am not amused by your calling me "strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical", and I would appreciate your striking this aspersion in light of the actual content of my report. — JFG talk 18:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At the risk of excess digging, I'll post another reply. You are misrepresenting my report, which clearly refers chiefly to the diffs documenting two consecutive violations of "consensus required", and only mentions the barely 1RR in passing (viz. more importantly violating the "consensus required" provision a second time). And for sure, I was also within an hour of 1RR when I reverted Calton after his first violation; sorry about that. The difference is that I started a dialogue on the talk page, and he refused to engage. Our WP:AVOIDEDITWAR policy clearly states: Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page. I did that, the reported editor did not. In this regard I'm surprised that you would suggest to "come down a little harder" on me instead of on the person who did not seem to care about the consensus process in this particular instance, and who only replied to this filing by throwing political aspersions on my talk page. — JFG talk 20:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not mean that you took part in edit-warring: indeed your addition to the text was constructive. I merely pinged you as one of the people who edited the disputed section, so that everybody could chime in on the talk page; sorry for the misunderstanding. — JFG talk 18:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

✅

Discussion concerning Calton
''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 Govindaharihari
Topic ban both users from the whole segment not just this one article, American politics editing ban for both users. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
I'd just ignore it (and trout JFG for bringing this). They both made reverts 23 hours apart and haven't otherwise edited Steve Bannon. Wikipedia suffers when AE admins enforce the letter of the law (here 1RR) and ignore everything else about those edits. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This has been open another week, and no admin has seen it as appropriate to place sanctions. As the separate "Rethinking consensus-required" can handle any process concerns, I move that this be closed. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Legacypac
Calton is a level headed editor who does good work. The inclusion or exclusion of these two See also links is no big deal one way or the other. Imposing 1RR on the American politics sanctions on page where the subject is not a politician but is a controversial complex person is not helpful. Best to let thos drop re Calton and consider taking this 1RR off the page. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Adavidb
Despite my being identified above as having 'continued the revert game', I merely added an introductory sentence to the section in question (with the intent of ending the reverting). —ADavidB 07:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Calton

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


 * is clearly aware of this filing, and has apparently chosen not to respond. It does look to me that both Calton and  violated 1RR and consensus required, and I would propose topic banning both from the Bannon article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'd prefer to get a sanity check before proceeding here, if no other admins have any comments, I'll proceed as proposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I interpreting the silence by other administrators as a collective shrug. Looking at the underlying content dispute (whether to link 2 articles in a See Also section) I can't help but add to that shrug myself. Looking at the article history it looks like there are 3 users who have technically violated the consensus required restriction (including Calton) and 2 users (Calton and JFG) who have technically violated 1RR with 23 hour reverts. I'm not familiar with Calton but I have observed JFG's editing in the American Politics topic area. My own perception of JFG is that while they typically take predictable positions on issues that divide editors favoring different points of view, they are also more likely to collaborate, compromise, and respect consensus than a lot of the other players in the topic area. I'm still not sure of the best way to handle this, but when I see the "consensus required" sanction being used as a revert rationale it makes me wonder if we need to rethink the sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur in the shrug. I normally expect the administrators who place page-level sanctions to enforce them. In this case, that would be, who created Template:Editnotices/Page/Steve Bannon.  Sandstein   16:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's reasonable to expect Admins who place page-level sanctions to be the prime enforcer. Having said that, I've changed my mind about consensus required. if you have time could you remove that? If not, I'll try to find time but I'm pretty busy and the talk page header change looks complicated. That was Coffee's design. Edit summaries are easy. Maybe there's another TP header? I'll have a look.  Doug Weller  talk 17:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. I've been thinking about trying to add options to the template so the admin placing the restriction can choose whether to do just 1RR or 1RR and consensus required. Also I just realized the template you used is a different template than the one I recently got consensus at AN to modify, and it affects another hundred or so different pages. Luckily it doesn't include the civility restriction, so I shouldn't need to go back to AN for a second consensus to make the changes necessary to bring some uniformity. ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do think that it is reasonable to expect sanctioning admins to undertake any required enforcement work. Adding sanctions templates to an article generates enforcement work that other admins may not be willing to undertake – especially when, as in my case, I find the templated sanctions themselves somewhat questionable.  Sandstein   15:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that an ordinary DS with 1RR needs to be mainly enforced by whoever added it. I take your point about consensus required and Coffee, who created the template, used to keep track of consensus on talk pages, which frankly I think is too big a burden to expect anyone to do. However, the issue for Steve Bannon is now moot as both the edit summary and the talk page banner have had consensus required removed. I hope you haven't spent a lot of time on it, AGK did it for me.  Doug Weller  talk 16:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty much in agreement with Seraphimblade, Awilley, and Doug. I see 1RR violations by both Calton and JFG. Both are pretty stale at this point, and it's hard to argue that a block would be anything but punitive in either case. That said, they're both experienced editors and they should both have known better. I'd favor a logged warning to each of them about the 1RR violations, and no further sanctions. I am disappointed in JFG; it's either strikingly clueless or actively hypocritical to report someone for a 1RR violation while simultaneously violating 1RR oneself, and insofar as trouts and warnings are handed out, I'd come down a little harder on him for that reason. I agree with getting rid of the consensus-required sanction by any means necessary. While it's a good idea in theory, it has proven endlessly counterproductive in practice. I haven't seen much good come from it, and it provokes quite a bit of wikilawyering. I'm fine with leaving this report open for more adminstrative input if anyone feels strongly, but given how long it's already been open I would favor closing it now. MastCell Talk 00:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You now claim that you reported Calton for violating the consensus-required provision, and not for violating 1RR. In fact, you reported Calton for violating 1RR and for violating the consensus-required provision. It's right there, in black and white, in your original filing, so please don't try to convince me that 2 + 2 = 5. In any case, as Seraphimblade noted above, you also violated the consensus-required provision, so even if I were to accept your assertion about 1RR, it would still be somewhere between clueless and hypocritical to report another editor for behavior which you yourself were concurrently engaged in. It's okay to be clueless sometimes; I've certainly done things that were strikingly clueless. In those situations, it's usually best to fess up and move on. Your response here&mdash;equal parts sanctimony and easily-disprovable falsehood&mdash;is more concerning than the original, rather minor, violations. That said, I still think warnings are reasonable (as opposed to the page bans proposed by Seraphimblade), but I'll leave it to another admin to close this report. MastCell Talk 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @MastCell, I don't think Seraphimblade meant to say that JFG volated consensus-required, I think they meant to say that JFG also violated 1RR. That's the way I read the comment the first time, and I also looked at the article history pretty closely and I only saw the 1RR violation (with JFG reverting to the status quo revision). In any case I'm going to close this now with no action. On second thought I'll let a regular here close this as they see fit. I had mis-read MastCell's comment above thinking that MC had already logged warnings for both editors, which was more than enough trouting for me. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll close it, since it's just been hanging open. (Thanks for the bump power~enwiki) ~Awilley (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Aj abdel
''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 Aj abdel

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 00:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 : All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.


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

Before warning: After warning:
 * 1) 23:52, 13 November 2018 Changing "Palestinian Territory" to "Palestine"
 * 2) 23:55, 13 November 2018 Kerem Shalom border crossing. Refers to Israel as "The Occupying Power"
 * 3) 23:58, 13 November 2018 changes "Palestinian Territories" to "Occupied Palestine"
 * 1) 00:46, 16 November 2018 References 1948 War


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

N/A


 * 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, this diff]
 * Also was given a personal note by at the same time - here

This editor has a clear POV on the conflict, and has continued to ignore the general prohibition, even after being notified of its existence.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

01:02, 16 November 2018
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Aj abdel
''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 Aj abdel

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


 * The request has merit. Blocked for a week.  Sandstein   21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking consensus-required
As most of you know there are many (~150ish?) American Politics articles under a discretionary sanction known as "Consensus-required". The restriction typically reads, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged." The original motivation of this restriction was for it to be a "correction" for 1RR: to prevent situations where the following occurs: User:Coffee, who I believe came up with the restriction, explained the above in this 2016 ArbCom clarification request (see Coffee's first indented reply beginning "Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction..." I recommend reading the entire paragraph.
 * 1) A drive-by editor adds contentious content to an article
 * 2) A regular editor trying to maintain a neutral article reverts, using up their 1RR
 * 3) The drive-by editor reverts the content back into the article, using their 1RR and leaving the article in a non-consensus state

Over the past 2 years the consensus-required restriction has mostly succeeded in eliminating the scenario above, along with the added benefit of stamping out a lot of tag-team edit warring. It has required some administrator discretion along the way, such as deciding how long material must be in an article before removing it counts as a bold edit (in which the removal of text could be reverted) instead of a revert (where a talkpage consensus would be required to restore a deletion). User:NeilN, I think, used a couple of months or so, depending on the article, and other admins have kind of followed suit.

However the restriction has also brought some unintended side effects. The biggest one is that it allows a single editor or minority of editors to dramatically slow down article development and filibuster changes they don't like. You end up with situations like this:
 * 1) Editor A adds some new information to an article
 * 2) Editor B doesn't like that information, so they revert, invoking a "challenge" in the edit summary
 * 3) For the next couple of weeks nobody is allowed to add anything like the original edit to the article while the tribes of A and B argue and vote on the talk page
 * 4) Eventually, often after pages of discussion and voting, an RfC perhaps, and a close which is also argued about, the sentence that Editor A wrote two weeks ago is placed into the article "by consensus".
 * 5) Unless the person who closed the RfC had the foresight to explicitly state otherwise, the wording of the sentence is locked, and changes to the wording of that sentence require a new talkpage consensus to overturn the old one.

The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change. Take for example the 3rd paragraph of the Donald Trump article beginning "Trump entered..." That paragraph is the product of thousands of man-hours and yet it's still got jarring juxtapositions like "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." that nobody is allowed to fix because even minor rephrasing can't be done without explicit consensus. (You can see which sentences you're not allowed to touch by clicking "edit" and reading the hidden text.)

Getting back to the point, I would like to ask the AE community to think about something that could replace our consensus-required restriction: something that would still mitigate the first-mover advantage of 1RR and encourage talkpage consensus building, but that would also allow for swifter article development with less gridlock. I'll list a couple ideas I've thought of already:

Also note that none of the above prevents tag-team edit warring. That is a problem, but I think it may be outweighed by the fact that one of the more rapid forms of article development involves partial reverts in which editors progressively tweak an addition, taking into account concerns expressed in edit summaries, until they arrive at something that everybody can live with. That kind of editing is the way much of Wikipedia works, and is currently disallowed by the consensus-required rule. ~Awilley (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think your ideas have merit, but wouldn't it be better to bring it up on the Village Pump, with notification on Centralized Discussions? Or is there some reason that I'm not seeing that AE is a better venue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, although does have merit - after all, AE contributors will have the most experience in this area. But I think we need ideas from the wider community, so would suggest moving this to WP:VPP.  &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  22:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I posted here because 1: I'm interested in the insights of the people who have direct experience with consensus-required in American Politics articles, and 2: any change to consensus-required will require a consensus of administrators either here or at WP:AN. I hadn't even thought to post at VPP...I don't watch that, and I don't know who does. Perhaps a notification over there pointing to this discussion would do the trick. ~Awilley (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't monitor WP:VP regularly either, but I do go there when something of interest to me is listed at WP:Centralized discussion, so I think notifications at WP:VPP and "Centralized discussion" would be worthwhile.Certainly, getting input from the admins at AE who have to deal with the 1RR issue is a good idea, but I'm vague on how one actually goes about changing the situation. My impression is that it would have to come from ArbCom as it's part of the Discretionary Sanctions regime that they created, but I could be wrong about that.  Specifically, I'm unsure if the change must come from the Committee, or if the community can change how DS is handled. (I'm generally of the opinion that ArbCom serves the community, so I think the latter is possible, but the nature of Discretionary Sanctions as a creation of ArbCom confuses the issue for me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BMK, these sanctions were placed by individual administrators, not ArbCom. The modification process is outlined at Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions. Basically I need either consent from the admin who originally placed the sanctions (User:Coffee for many of these) or "affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA". Would you mind if I collapse this side discussion about venue so it doesn't distract from the main topic of this thread? ~Awilley (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem from me in your collapse of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think this is a better venue to discuss this at than VP. At this point, I can't imagine that you would have any pushback if you were to simply replace Coffee's page restrictions as you see fit. He has been inactive for quite a while and is no longer an admin. - MrX 🖋 15:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right that I'd get very little pushback. But it would only take one person to take me to ArbCom and get me desysopped. ~Awilley (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I tried to re-think this in June at User:Power~enwiki/AE-DT and didn't get anywhere. Perhaps the comments there will be of some benefit. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Return the pages to normal editing. Use 3RR vigorously like it should be and the edit warriors will eventually cease due to topic bans or blocks. I have no idea why admins have to keep fiddling around with rules and making up new ones when they don't even forcefully administer the ones we have site-wide with enough vigor. The biggest problem with the American Politics arena is not so much the incessant POV pushing by near single purpose accounts, its the fact that we are limited for references by the least worthy source of information, namely, the NEWS, which is increasingly partisan, unable to report objectively and lacks the ability to review a situation or event dispassionately through the prism of reflection and outside the fog of recentism. --MONGO (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This would be an improvement over the current consensus required restriction. It would make it far less likely that partisan sockpuppets and SPAs could lock down any progress on article improvement. I've have been very involved since the first case the resulted in American politics discretionary sanctions, and find that the consensus required restriction actually interferes with improving the encyclopedia. The only sight downside I see is that three rules would be slightly more complicated than one. That can be addressed by simply listing them in the form proposed above in the edit notice, on the talk page, and in a user talk page notice template. - MrX 🖋 15:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The goal would be to prevent constant article instability on very active and controversial articles, without completely stalling article improvement and development. I agree with above comments that the consensus required restriction freezes article development. The third suggested rule: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. would be an improvement. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 16:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The end result is that you get articles bogged down with these one-sentence snippets that nobody is allowed to change This is exclusively a Donald Trump problem; as far as I know, no other article has an extensive list of consensuses for the lead (or even a list of consensuses in general is rare). If, say, "His campaign received extensive free media coverage; many of his public statements were controversial or false." is an issue, one can simply proposed a rewording, on the talk page and if it is an improvement, there'll be well enough editors supporting the change for a consensus within a few days - one nice thing about the article is that one doesn't have to wait weeks or use an RfC to get comments/feedback/consensus for changes. I have made >500 edits to Donald Trump including some reworking of the structure of the article etc and haven't felt overtly stifled by the restriction, which is largely only an issue if one is editing the lead.
 * What happens to portions of the lead that aren't locked down is that they constantly get churned - i.e, constant edits are made, that sometimes improve and sometimes worsen the sentences, and on the whole the lead doesn't improve because so many people want to edit it. Same thing would happen to the sentences that are locked down if they aren't locked down anymore; in addition, since these are by definition controversial sentences, you'd see constantly things like removing "false" or adding "lie" to that sentence, which is IMO combated well by that all caps and very clear message telling people not to modify that sentence without prior consensus. And on Donald Trump (though perhaps less on other articles), the consensus-required restriction has been extremely helpful and I would oppose replacing it with any of the options suggested above; it has led to a relative peace despite the controversy of the article, due to it in effect creating binding consensuses, and works well as the regular editors of the article don't WP:GAME the restrictions but follow the spirit of it.
 * Consensus-required is an issue on rapidly developing articles, or on less high profile articles, where it becomes very difficult to edit an article or to garner a consensus; IMO in those cases the consensus-required portion should simply be not used. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter, I agree that the situation at the Trump article is unusual, though I see it more as one of the worse datapoints on a larger spectrum of gridlock. Returning to the example of the false statements sentence, here's the most serious attempt I can remember to do something to it. link (TLDR: half the participants got hung up on free media coverage and both proposals were closed with no consensus to change anything.) I often worry that the sanctions and extra administrator attention has contributed to stagnation at the Trump article, with all but the most determined editors giving up and editing elsewhere. As a recent example, I've noticed that the article Matthew Whitaker (attorney) has gotten literally hundreds of edits in the past week, but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general.
 * In any case, thank you for the input. That's very helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That proposal failed because it was a more of a major reworking rather than a minor copy editing (and that change would be reverted if editors were allowed to directly edit the page). but according to the Trump article Jeff Sessions is still the attorney general That is I think due to the extended confirmed protection rather than the the consensus-required restriction; lot of small updates like that are done by non-extended confirmed editors/or at-least those non-extended confirmed editors draw attention to areas that are in the news/need updates. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess the part I am missing is the why. Yes it slows article development in favor of establishing consensus and promoting stability, which I would think is a good thing. But I am not sure replacing one, by this point well understood, standard with three new ones that almost do the same thing as helpful. A common theme with the majority of the articles under consensus required is the rush to insert everyday news into articles before weight can be determined. Also almost all the articles under the restriction are contentious topics usually with a BLP component thrown in for good measure. So slowing down flurries of edits is generally helpful to avoid recent news and it gives a chance for everyone to talk it over and come to an agreement on the article talk page.
 * That is not to say there are not issues with consensus required. From what I have seen there are two main problems. One is enforcement, while admins are not required to do anything really, with this provision I have seen many specifically states they do not want to enforce it. I am not seeing anything in the new provisions that would help that issue. Second is what is long standing? NeilN has given his personal opinion on the matter stating "four to six weeks as longstanding". Which I think is an acceptable standard that could be codified into the requirement. I think if those two issues could be fixed with consensus required it would be an even more helpful provision. PackMecEng (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The one place where I think a consensus required restriction might be an improvement is on BLPs. I think there were good reasons to put the restriction in place, but it should have been applied to BLP instead of American Politics. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 23:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One issue is that it encourages people to resort to "process-heavy" consensus-resolution methods, especially an WP:RFC, because they're reluctant to just rely on talk-page consensus. Those methods are meant to be last resorts - they take time, consume energy, are somewhat impenetrable to new users, and lead to pages covered in excessive layers of RFCs and other policy-cruft.  Sometimes an RFC is necessary, yes, but most of the time it's possible to reach consensus via discussion, even on contentious pages.  And this leads to the bigger problem - the consensus-required restriction encourages people to be intractable, and especially to deny a developing consensus even when it's obvious, insisting on an RFC to prolong the process of adding something they don't want in an article (and in hopes that people will go away.)  All edits, remember, require consensus - the restriction does nothing unusual in that respect.  All edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until someone objects, and the restriction doesn't even change that (since you still need a revert to invoke it.)  What the restriction functionally does is cripple all consensus-building short of an WP:RFC, because people are terrified to say "well, I see a rough consensus here even if you disagree" (and if they do, whoever they disagree with can just go "nu-uh, time for an RFC!")  Resolving controversial edits requires putting pressure on everyone involved to reach a consensus; people participate, even if they feel very strongly against what's being proposed, because if they don't then discussion might reach a consensus on something they dislike without any of their input at all, encouraging them to try and find a mutually-agreeable compromise.  "Consensus-required" removes much of the pressure from people who want to keep changes out of the article (because they know it will be very hard to demonstrate consensus against them with anything short of a full WP:RFC, which can take a month), and therefore encourages people to drag their heels and refuse to compromise, paradoxically discouraging the very consensus-building it was intended to encourage.  We cannot run an WP:RFC for every single edit that anyone objects to - that's unproductive and only serves to entrench disagreements.  --Aquillion (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An RFC is always an option regardless of this provision. If someone wants to be a stickler on an article that is not covered by consensus required they can revert, start a RFC, and essentially freeze that change until the RFC is finished. Also if someone is consistently doing something like that they tend to get topic banned these days for tendentious editing. Finally is an RFC on a contentious topic really a bad thing? What is wrong with wider community input. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Occasional RFCs on a contentious topic are not a bad thing. Having an RFC for every significant change is a bad thing because it vastly increases the required effort for working on the article, because it discourages compromise and negotiation in favor of WP:BATTLEGROUND "we have more people, so we're doing it our way" thinking, because it leads to large numbers of WP:RFC results that slow down editing and discourage new users, and so on.  An RFC is a last resort, to be invoked when other resolution methods have failed and the topic has had extensive discussion.  Additionally, while it is notionally possible to ban someone for tendentious editing, in practice an experienced editor can come up with some reasonable-sounding objection to almost any edit; and it's entirely possible that they legitimately think what they say and are not intentionally being tendentious - they just object to every single edit people make that goes against their views on the topic, and the current way consensus-required is interpreted turns those objections into "if you want to do anything here, you need an RFC."  The problem isn't that users have gotten worse (and we don't want to ban all of them), the problem is that this restriction discourages people from yielding on anything short of a clear-cut RFC when they feel strongly about anything, because they know that as long as they hold their ground on any point it's extremely difficult and time-consuming to establish a consensus against them.  Before this restriction, people would be encouraged to participate meaningfully in discussions and compromise out of concern that a consensus would be reached without them if they didn't.  Now, they're encouraged to revert liberally, drag their heels and view it as a prelude to an inevitable RFC.  Basically - it's important that it be possible to reach a consensus through talking.  Not just through the more formal structure of RFCs.  Even (especially!) on controversial subjects.  (And, beyond that, while you say editors who are intransigent can be banned for tenacious editing - people who edit war, which is the problem this restriction was trying to fix, can also be banned; and they can be banned much, much more easily, since edit-warring is usually obvious even if they manage to skirt the red-line revert limits.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In practice that is not really what happens though. Take everyone's favorite articles where consensus required kind of started from Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump, RFCs are not terribly common for how much happens with those articles. At this point most things that get challenged reach consensus before a RFC and everyone moves on. Which is pretty good considering how decisive those articles are. To the concern about not banning enough people, you should take a look at the piles of bodies from people topic banned in that area. Plenty of experienced editors have been shot down there. It has slowed in recent times because honestly there are not a ton of regulars left on those articles compared to just a couple of years ago. So far the only reason I am seeing in favor of changing is that it is arguably easier, which I am not convinced of yet, and that it is faster which again I am not sure is actually a good thing for the topics the provision is attached to. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how 30+ RFCs could ever be described as "not terribly common." There are RFCs there for "Include a link to Trump's Twitter account", "Keep Barron Trump's name in the list of children", what to mention in the "Alma mater" infobox entry, and seven separate RFCs specifying exact wording of various parts of the article.  This isn't reasonable, and it's a direct result of this policy.  And my objection is not that it would be "faster" or "easier" without the restriction (although both those are true), my main objection is that the restriction functionally discourages compromise by giving objections so much weight.  When there's a disagreement over what an article should say, the delicate balance between the two sides is what encourages them to compromise (because if they don't, a version they disagree with utterly and had no input into might end up as the consensus version.)  Normal editing also discourages frivolous objections, because they can be quickly overruled if a bunch of people disagree with you and few (or no) people support you.  Immediately setting all disputed edits on the road to an RFC encourages people to be liberal with their reverts and objections, and to drag their heels on any sort of compromise or to make extreme demands about what the ultimate text should read, because they know that many people won't have the stomach for a full RFC.  This, in turn, contributes to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on affected articles, and drives off both new and established users who don't want to deal with the time-wasting process-cruft that results - in particular, given the draining nature of dealing with the molasses that the restriction tends to cause, only the most intransigent or tenacious of editors are likely to remain. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For that article, number of edits, contentious subject, and one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia yeah 30+ is not that much. Also frivolous objects are routinely ignored, if there is clear consensus the way you describe an RFC becomes disruptive and actionable in that regard. Which has happened a few times, so that is again in practice not an issue. Also your objections to the speed and easy of editing such a topic are also rather unfounded as again non-controversial things do tend to sail right though, even if challenged. I will agree with you that editor fall off on these kind of articles is an issue but I do not feel that this provision is the cause. It is just a draining subject in general that has seen many fall, willingly or otherwise, even before consensus required was a thing. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I really don't think that is the result of the policy - it's Donald Trump, the reason for so much discussion and RfCs over anything isn't the restriction, but that Trump is extra controversial - and I have to agree with PackMecEng. All the RfCs have quite a bit of participants on both sides, and if the restriction wasn't there what would replace it would be edit warring. As I said above, if you want to edit the body of the article one can simply do so, and rarely get reverted or get frivolous objections (in my experience) even when making substantial changes. It is just that the smallest things in the lead or infobox get debated. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Based on your experience with consensus-required in AP articles, would you be willing to let me know which (if any) of the four options in the table above you think would make a good replacement for the consensus-required restriction? What do you think would be the effect on day-to-day editing? ~Awilley (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I prefer "Enforced WP:BRD", although 3 is probably "safest" in that it accompanies that with a clear-cut red line rule that would back that up. But the basic goal should be to try and get everyone to the negotiating table, so to speak, discouraging edit-wars.  I don't feel that Consensus Required is actually helping, though - we've navigated plenty of controversial topics without it in the past.  So I would even take removing it and replacing it with nothing over the current situation.  Consensus is always required, after all; the practical effect of the restriction is "informal consensus doesn't count" (or rarely ever counts, or, at least, users are afraid to act on it), which makes consensus-building harder, not easier.  --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's another way of thinking about the above options in terms of how they prevent bad behavior and allow good behavior. In the truth table below you can see that the options that restrict the most bad behaviors also restrict the most good behaviors (the normal dispute resolution that we see elsewhere on the encyclopedia). This chart raises the question of whether it is more important for page-level restrictions to prevent bad behavior or allow good behavior. My personal view is that editor-level sanctions should be our primary tool against bad behavior and page-wide restrictions should strike a balance between preventing bad behavior and allowing good behavior, in a way where the bad behavior is obvious to admins who can step in and deal with the bad at the editor-level. ~Awilley (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * One thing I want to emphasize is that all the "bad behavior" that the consensus required restriction is intended to address is easiest bad behavior for AE to handle. Edit warring in any form (whether slow or fast) is generally obvious, and if someone keeps doing it it's pretty easy to bring them to WP:AE just by putting together a big list of all their reverts - yes, it can occur in bursts during high-profile events when lots of new people are pulled to the article, but as long as administrators are strict and users are quick to bring obvious problems to WP:AE, it's not an intractable problem.  Tenacious editing in other forms, on the other hand, is much much harder to prove, and therefore much more difficult to address via WP:AE.  The consensus required restriction tries to "solve" a problem that we already have the tools for at the expense of making tenacious editing (and generally being intransigent and refusing to compromise) more rewarding.  It hasn't solved the underlying problems, and in some respects it actually discourages compromise - what it's done is empowered editors who would otherwise be topic-banned for revert-warring if they behaved so obviously tenaciously through reverts by allowing them to instead revert everything they disagree with just once and then put up a solid wall of "nope" to all compromises on talk, relying on the fact that the restriction makes it very hard to demonstrate consensus against them and that people often won't have the stomach to go through a full WP:RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 09:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Debresser
''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 Debresser

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 23:09, 7 November 2018 Straight revert of this
 * 2) 23:12, 7 November 2018 partial revert of this


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Blocked for 2 weeks for 1RR violation previously


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


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 07:57, 17 July 2017 by.
 * Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 October 2018.

Debresser on the talk page wrote ''I reverted a few things. Not [t]he same thing twice. That is counted as one revert.'' However the two reverts listed above have an intervening edit (here), making those 2 reverts that do not count as "one revert" and a clear violation of the 1RR. He made the same argument on his talk page, despite having multiple users show it was a violation. Given Debresser declined to correct the issue and instead argued that there is no violation, I brought this here.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Even if one were to accept the (absurd) notion that calling Benny Morris a Zionist is a BLP violation, the exception only allows for removing the BLP violation. Debresser's second edit did much more than that. There is no, afaik, exception for "nearly consecutive edits". Icewhiz's dissembling below is utterly irrelevant. Once Debresser was notified of the 1RR violation he chose not to correct it but argue it away on both his talk page and the article talk page. So even if the intervening edit were "unnoticed" he surely noticed it when he was directed to it.  nableezy  - 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Um Beyond My Ken, a sanction would generally require more than a feeling that something is getting old. This is a black and white 1RR violation. You want that ignored because you dont like the filing editor? Any comment on the substance of the issue?  nableezy  - 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if there is no substance to your view besides a feeling I am not sure it needs much of a response. For the record, I have yet to make a single edit to Efraim Karsh in this dispute, so the argument that my editing is what brought me here is apparently also based on nothing more than a feeling.  nableezy  - 21:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * on what basis? Can you point to any frivolous request I have made here? The idea that there should be a sanction for reporting actionable misconduct strikes me as capricious and having no basis in our policies.  nableezy  - 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * with all due respect, I do exactly that, all the time. The reason I did not discuss this with Debresser is because several other editors had attempted to do so, and Debresser refused to self-revert. And below again argues that his 2 reverts are not a violation of the 1RR rule. When somebody is given the opportunity to correct an issue and refuses to do so your position is that he should not be reported? Then why have a 1RR? This is entering bizarro-world. This is a basic report, there are 2 reverts and a user who refuses to abide by a topic-wide prohibition. If yall would do something about editors who act like the rules dont apply to them I would not be here that often.  nableezy  - 03:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you have cited no such thing, you have theorized based on a feeling. This is an utterly pointless distraction from a basic violation of the 1RR. I welcome somebody to actual look at that, and if you or anybody else would like to file a report against me where I can defend myself properly that would be just great. Completely ignoring the report however seems to be what you are going for here.  nableezy  - 03:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, there is an objective 1RR violation here, a violation that Debresser was informed of and then refused to rectify. And now says does not matter for reasons that escape my comprehension. Does that matter at all? Or are these bright line rules not something that counts here?  nableezy  - 16:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Shocking development, Debresser violates the 1RR again. Not entirely surprising as it does not seem to be enforced against him. But for the record: <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Notified
 * labelled a revert at 17:00, 15 November 2018
 * labelled a revert at 23:10, 15 November 2018‎
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Debresser
''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 Debresser
I was surpised to see myself reported here, since I have explained the pertaining guideline both on the article talkpage and my user talkpage:

An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. I have been there a few times over the last ten years. I remember once reporting somebody and having it explained to me, many years ago. An intervening edit does not make a difference in this respect. By the way, that specific intervening edit was made in the middle of my edits to another section, so I had technically no way of noticing it before pressing the "save" button.

On a sidenote: I see no real reason to institute a "mutual report ban", so to speak. If a report is bogus, like this one, jus close it asap, and be done with it. If there were bad faith involved, I'd propose to use WP:BOOMERANG, but I generally do not suspect Nableezy of bad faith. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@All those who say I misunderstand 1RR. It does not make a difference, because, as I explained already, the edit of the other editor was made between my previous of 01:09 and my next edit of 01:10, and since it was made to another section, there is technically no way I could have been aware of it. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
Debresser's edits were nearly consecutive - his editing that day was all in a 6 minute window, 23:06-23:12, with an intervening edit by Al-Andalusi in 23:09 to a different paragraph, which could've quite possibly gone unnoticed in the space of consecutive edits. Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some. Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Huldra - Wikipedia is not a RS, definitely not for BLP. I did not add this label to Benny Morris (to which I made a couple of small edits a while back). I did remove this now, as it does not appear in the citation given (see (google books preview of the cited page). He is more often described as a post-Zionist historian, or "new historian". But that is a content question on the Morris article. Assertions on BLPs should be sourced per policy.Icewhiz (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * - my relations with Debresser are friendly, AFAICT, we never were in conflict. In regards to Nableezy, I have never been uncivil towards him and as far as I recall have not made meritless claims at AE regarding him. I have spoken in defense of Debresser in several filings by Nableezy against Debresser. I do accept that I comment from the peanut gallery too much (though fixing my typos does inflate my edit count) - silence is a virtue that I need to get better at. However, several other editors in ARBPIA have also commented frequently at AE. Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In regards to Huldra's comments below of filing herself and "bad blood" - I would like to point out that on 22:49, 4 November 2018 Huldra seemed to suggest that having people from the "other party" blocked at AE for "good faith" mistakes would be desirable in order to advance a desired policy change.Icewhiz (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Would anyone be interested in a topic ban for Debresser and Nableezy filing AE reports against each other? It seems to happen every other week or so. Maybe an IBan between the two would be a good idea? It's really getting old. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You could throw Icewiz in there too. None of them can talk about any of the others, file at AE about each other, or comment on any filing (AE, AN, ANI) involving any of the others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, Nableezy, the vast majority of editors have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report. You, on the other hand, appear in both roles regularly, and it is -- at least in my opinion -- becoming disruptive.  If you can't edit without filing AE reports or causing others to file them against you, then you're most probably not editing in the best possible way. If you can't change this, then perhaps the community will be interested in changing it for you, and for your opposite numbers as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I never said I didn't like you -- in fact, I don't know you. My complaint has nothing to do with your personality and everything to do with the way you and your opponents use AE as if it was your private complaints department.  Just one time, or two or three, let it go -- if it's as bad as you seem to think it is, someone else will report it.  The same goes for those who file against you.  Wikipedia will not shatter into a million pieces if you don't report every problem you come across. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AN and ANI are what are pejoratively called the "dramah boards". Generally AE is not considered one of them, because it's not free-form the way those pages are.  Here, the discussion is much more strictly structured.  So, does Shrike outnumber Debresser and Nebleezy on AE?  If so, then maybe Shrike should be included in the group topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If any admin were indeed tempted to impose such a topic ban, it wouldn't be on the basis of this report per se, it would be on the basis of the history of you and the others I've cited filing AE reports at the drop of the hat, apparently as a means to get a leg up on your opponents. If it were to happen, this report would, I assume, simply be the needle that broke the camel's back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Nableezy, I'm certain that you think my suggestion is a "distraction" from another use of AE to get at an editor whose POV opposes yours, which really is rather the point. Neither you nor your allies nor your opponents should be using AE as a weapon against each other, and I'd like to see it stop.  I'd like to see admins look past the immediate report and see the bigger picture behind it, and ban you all from filing AE reports. I think that is quite justified by the history of this page, and will be borne out by its archive.  The evidence is there for anyone to see, and is quite obvious to anyone who, like myself, has been reading this page for years.  You've all had your fun beating each other over the head with the AE hammer, and now it's time that it stopped.I'm under absolutely no illusions that this is likely to happen, but I think it would be best for Wikipedia, and for the editing in this contentious subject area, if it were to come about.  It's clear that discretionary sanctions haven't worked as well as they might have, since they've simply provided the warring editors with more tools with which to fight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Zero: I can't help but think that you've misunderstood my proposal (well, not really a proposal, more like wishful thinking). I have not suggested stopping "everyone" from filing reports at AE, I have suggested banning editors who have become disruptive at AE because of the volume and frequency of their reports and of being reported. Your response is somewhat similar to decrying blocks or topic bans of disruptive editors in Mainspace as meaning that we "may as well shut down the encyclopedia".On the other hand, Zero may well have a point that the topic DS has helped - but it also has shifted some of the disruption here.  In any case, I think this is the last I need to say about this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
I would like to mention that Debresser was given plenty of opportunity to revert, but refused. (See his talk page.)

And if Nableezy hadn't reported it, I would have.

Compare the above report, on this page where Onceinawhile was reported by Shrike, without any warning first. Onceinawhile was given a 3 months topic ban (within 2 hours). Why should Debresser be treated differently? Huldra (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As for Icewhiz statement "Furthermore, the second cited revert would quite possibly fall under WP:NOT3RR(7) as it makes the assertion that a BLP is a "Zionist historian" - this assertion is not supported by the cited journal article, is not the common way this BLP is described, and "Zionist" itself is used a pejorative by some."

...let me remind you that the Benny Morris article state in the intro that Morris regards himself as a Zionist. It has done so at least since 2010 (I didn't check further)...and Icewhiz himself edited the article as late as August this year, without removing it. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

....aaaaaand gone, Huldra (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Icewhiz: Of course WP isn't a RS; but my point was that an assertions which has been in the lead of the Benny Morris article at least since 2010, hardly can be considered "a redline BLP vio".
 * Beyond My Ken: your statement "the vast majority of editors have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report" might be true in general, but it certainly isn't true for anyone editing in the ARBPIA waters. Virtually all of us appear here at regular intervals; that goes with the territory. Btw, other regulars, say Shrike, has a higher percentage of his edits to the "Dramah" boards than Nableezy. (I just checked: "gut feeling" isn't enough in ARBPIA), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Beyond My Ken look at their contributions; the answer is yes (pr percentage). And I would think it terrible if anyone would be sanctions just because they have a high number of edits to AE or ANI: what should matter its the number of spurious reports, ie. reports which goes nowhere (except wasting peoples time).
 * User:Thryduulf To repeat: Debresser was given a chance to revert, but refused. BUT: a lot of reports are made without "the accused" being given a single chance to revert. The case with Onceinawhile (on the top of this page, appeal just after this case) is one such case:  Onceinawhile was brought here (by Shrike) ...then  topic banned for 3 months (after less than 2 hours by AGK). Needless to say this has created  a lot of bad blood. Don't expect that  people after that will sit idly by when Shrike, or any of his friends (like Debresser) break the rules, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz: Shrike just filed a report on a "good faith" mistake made by 	Onceinawhile, and was "rewarded" with having Once topic banned for 3 months by User:AGK. When Shrike ..or Debresser goes straight to AE or ANI to file reports over "good faith" mistakes, then don't for a moment expect that I, or others, wont start doing the same. Huldra (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphim System
With all due respect to BMK's views that the vast majority of editors have have never filed an AE report, and have never been the subject of an AE report. That simply isn't true for editors who are active in the conflict area. If someone reverts your work, and there is a 1RR restriction on the article, you could be sanctioned for reverting back. If you ask them to self-revert and they don't, you are supposed to report it. Most of the time the report is enough to prompt a self-revert, but they may not do it until the report is filed. Admins here have consistently asked us to file the reports and not to revert back and risk sanction ourselves. Topic banning AE reports from both parties would be like lifting the 1RR restriction for those two parties. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm very concerned that Debresser does not seem to understand the 1RR policy. Based on his comments it seems we can expect further similar violations: An editor can make multiple reverts, just not of the same content, and that is not a WP:1RR violation. This is not one if the difficult to understand parts of the policy: whether involving the same or different material and if other editors as you to self-revert, you should. This is a rule that every editor in the topic area is expected to follow. His comments here are sufficient evidence that nableezy made the right call kicking this up to AE. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 15:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear at this point that there are no admins willing to take action, but I think the closing admin needs to make it clear for Debresser and everyone else editing in the area whether there has been a violation here and whether Debresser should not make further 1RR violations (which he has done while this complaint was open). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Summary: Debresser breaks 1RR but denies it on the basis of an incorrect understanding of the rules. Icewhiz tries diversionary tactics, unsuccessfully. BMK wants to clamp down on reports of editors who violate 1RR and refuse to act on several warnings.

Recommend: Minor penalty optional. Inform Debresser that his understanding of the rule is incorrect and warn of a more severe penalty if he re-offends. Zerotalk 03:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

BMK's proposal is completely bizarre. If nobody is allowed to make reports here, we might as well just close down this noticeboard and undo all the ArbCom motions it is supposed to enforce. I remember very well what the I-P area was like back then; I wonder if BMK does. Zerotalk 06:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

BMK, Debresser objectively broke 1RR and refused to self-revert despite two different editors asking him to. Bringing him here after that is not disruptive. It is how the system is supposed to work. Shooting the messenger would not be an improvement. Zerotalk 14:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Govindaharihari
Support banning User:Debresser and User:Nableezy they are both disruptive in this area. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian
I'll first comment on the technical aspects, then make some general comments.

Technically, this is clearly a 1RR violation. However, if you look at the edit times, all the edits are within a few minutes of each other, and Debresser probably simply didn't see the intervening edit here. I would AGF here and advocate for no sanctions.

In general, complains that Debresser might have initially been unaware that they committed a vioation, but their refusal to revert when it has been brought to them shows that they don't care. In general, I think it's wise for people to self-revert here. I would just point out the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride; people will not want to admit mistakes publicly, even if they privately resolve to not do the same thing in the future.

Another broader comment: one of the purposes of 1RR is to slow down rapid-fire editing. People in this area used to (still sometimes do) engage in lots of rapid-fire reverts/edits with little care for consensus or BRD or talk page discussion. To some extent, this is fine (most consensus is achieved through editing, proper phrasing etc.), but doing so can also step on a lot of sensitive toes. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 05:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Debresser

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


 * I haven't examined the diffs in question, so no opinion on the merits of this filing, but I'm certainly tempted by Beyond My Ken's idea of a three-way mutual iban that explicitly includes a prohibition on any of them filing an AE request against any of the other two. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a sanction for reporting actionable content. It's a sanction for seeing every little thing that puts a toe on and possibly over the line and jumping straight to an AE filing. Other people exercise judgement, talk to the editor concerned and only file when actually needed. These editors will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct by the other parties, just as they will be perfectly capable of reporting any misconduct of yours they would have reported. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)