Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive213

Statement by Huldra

• Whaw. User:WJBscribe: Yes, I was definitely aware of the editing restriction, I requested it! But it was put in place because if *one* newish editor made changes to an article, then it took *two* editors to return to status quo. It was never meant to keep everything in status quo until everyone agreed!! If this is the interpretation, then we can just shut down, as there will never be agreement about everything in the IP area. If you look at the talk page, you will see many editors from all sides discussing. To be blocked for 1 edit is a new interpretation, something I definitely was not aware of. Huldra (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• I have read "In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit"...as meaning that the *same* editor cannot restore one of his own reverted edits......but I never took it to mean that anyone else could not restore it either!! ......and I don't think anyone else in the area have interpreted them like that, either (nobody reported me..) Huldra (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I have participated on the talk pages for ages, besides the one edit WJBscribe links to on 21 March, also 20 March, 19 March, 19 March etc.
• And I repeat, I have not understood User talk:Huldra#Arbitration motion regarding Palestine-Israel articles to mean that no one could reinsert an edit before everyone agreed. If this is what it means, then I got a lot more than I asked for, back in December: That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period. Huldra (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:WJBscribe: You wrote, about Oncenawhile: "That makes me hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule". Well, I had no idea that I was violating a rule. And to repeat: I thought I knew that rule...as I had asked for it! Huldra (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Also, if the December 2016 amendment is the way WJBscribe has interpreted it, it in effect puts all articles under ARBPIA in 0RR. And that has never been discussed (And I, for one would be against it, as it wouldn't be workable). And that was definitely not what I meant should happen, when I asked for 1RR to be strengthen! Huldra (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:BU Rob13: it might be that my reading of the remedy was skewed by the fact that I know intimately what triggered the December 2017 amendment, namely me asking for "That one should not be allowed to add, or remove, the same material twice in a 24 hour period." I never dreamed it could, in effect, mean 0RR. (And that is something I would greatly object to. I know far to well how difficult it is to agree to what is "consensus" in the IP area, and would strongly object to such a remedy.) I asked for, (and thought I got) that status quo should get the advantage in a dispute between two editors. In this case, however, there were many editors involved. To decide what is "consensus" in such a case can, in my experience, be nearly impossible to determine. Huldra (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:Shrike: I have always self reverted if I have become aware of doing something wrong! But that is the problem here, I’m not sure I did! *If* the admins agree that I did, then I will 1: self revert, 2: go straight to WP:ARCA to get this rule changed. (Btw, reverting will bring back an WP:OR map, which nobody is for?) Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:BU Rob13: I started a RfC Talk:Kfar Ahim on 12 January, it was closed, for the second time, today. After 11+ years in this area, I know there is absolutely no problem too small not to be quarrelled over. Normally it works out somehow.....everyone keeps to 1 edit a day, + lots of discussion on the talk pages. AFAIK, nobody of "the regulars" in the IP area has asked for a rule the way WJBscribe has interpreted them, which basically takes away that one edit a day. And I mean what I said above: I will go straight to WP:ARCA to try to get it changed, if that is the correct interpretation. Huldra (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:WJBscribe, no, it isn't that I think a consensus is always impossible to reach. But Nishidani puts the point quite clearly; a single editor can always claim there is no consensus (And in the IP area Murphys law rule: what can go wrong, will go wrong.) That you do not follow what you yourself state, namely "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" is bad enough, but what I did is worse: When I went to WP:ARCA in December, it was to get a minor adjustment to the 1RR rule (And I think I speak for most of the "regulars" in the IP area, when I say that 1RR has generally been good). BUT: instead of a minor adjustment, I apparently got a monster rule, enabling me to be blocked, without notice, and without me knowingly making a mistake! Pinging the arb.commers who voted for this, to see if this is what they meant: Opabinia regalis Doug Weller DGG Callanecc Kirill Lokshin GorillaWarfare DeltaQuad Huldra (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:El_C, User:Opabinia regalis, as I said above, I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong. This time I was blocked without any warning, by an admin who has earlier stated that he "hesitate about a block, because I generally don't think users should be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule" .....alas, that was a courtesy apparently not extended to me, only to Onceinawhile. That none of you other admins have the guts to unmake an injustice make me not wanting to be a part of this place. Huldra (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• User:El C, I don't blame you, I know that the penalty for weel-warring is mostly instant desysop. The one I blame is User:WJBscribe, who blocked me without any warning, and without me knowingly breaking any rule. I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists! I see User:Newyorkbrad, writes here "In my view, "blocking without warning" should never take place in the sense of "the editor was blocked even though he or she didn't know he or she was doing anything wrong, and would have stopped immediately had he or she been told."" ...but that is exactly how I was blocked, and is still blocked! But apparently this is totally acceptable behaviour from WJBscribe? And I am absolutely not "wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day ", but as I have said, I would go straight to WP:ARCA to modify this monster rule, if 0RR is in fact correct interpretation. I addition to the examples mention by Oncenawhile, I can mention Palestine Liberation Organization, where there was also a bit of a scuffle among "the usual suspects", and none of us waited for a "consensus" on the talk page. Huldra (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

The relevant edits to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank were as follows:

1. A map was removed from the infobox and replaced with a different map by Oncenawhile (talk · contribs)
2. That edit was reverted by Shrike (talk · contribs)
3. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) once again removed the map (but did not replace it)
4. Oncenawhile (talk · contribs) self-reverted after being reported to WP:AE for restoring a reverted edit without consensus
5. Huldra (talk · contribs) repeated the replacement of the map
6. Huldra (talk · contribs) then posted on the talkpage: "To have an OR map, done by a WP editor in the lead is outrageous. I have reintroduced the official map [Oncenawhile] inserted"

Huldra (talk · contribs) was aware that the topic area was subject to the following AE sanction: "Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit." She restored a reverted edit, and then expressly acknowledged having done so on the talkpage. I note that in her appeal, Huldra suggests that her edit not violate the AE sanction because she did not restore her own edit. That is not required by the AE sanction as I read it. The onus is on those who wish to restore an edit that has proved controversial - because it has been reverted - to establish consensus. Huldra did not engage in talkpage discussions to establish a consensus either for the replacement of the map or, in the meantime, that there should be no image in the infobox pending resolution of the dispute. Such a discussion had in fact been commenced, see Talk:Jordanian occupation of the West Bank#Lead map - consensus to remove?. Instead she dived straight in and continued to edit war by substituting her preferred map to the infobox. I believe this is exactly the sort of behaviour the AE sanction is aimed at preventing - edit warring without prior attempts at seeking consensus - and that the block is proportionate to the severity of the breach. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Noting in response to Huldra's comments that I do not think her position is the same as Oncenawhile's, for whom I recommended a warning instead of block. Oncenawhile was unaware that reverting without consensus was prohibited. Huldra was aware of the applicable AE sanction. She apparently thought that what she was doing didn't fall within the AE sanction. That is something different. Where one is aware of an AE sanction, care should be taken not breach it. Huldra knowingly dived into an edit war in a topic area subject to sanctions in relation to reverting without prior consensus. She did so at her own risk. That she thought that her edit was technical permissible is not a good excuse IMO. WJBscribe (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I would have no objection to an early unblock if the concerns raised by BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) in relation to future conduct are satisfactorily addressed. WJBscribe (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't think those concerns have been addressed. Her recent response to you shows that Huldra is still be focused on her belief that she should have been told her edit breached the sanctions before being blocked, and that I treated her and Oncenawhile inconsistently, rather than addressing whether she will now approach edit wars differently in future. IMO what's lacking before there can be an early unblock is (per BU Rob13) "an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future." She still appears to be wedded to the idea of everyone having their 1RR per day. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I'm not asking anyone to jump through hoops. "...they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough." Fair enough, I won't object to you unblocking if that's the case, but when has Huldra said she'll abide by the rule? WJBscribe (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I read what you've quoted as referring to the past, not the future. If you think that's a commitment to abide by this AE sanction in the future so be it, but I think that's a pretty generous interpretation of her words. WJBscribe (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike (involved editor 1)

For me interpretation was clear no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.Also it clearly says editors so it doesn't mean one editor.But if its not clear to Huldra she can ask after her block expires at WP:ARCA--Shrike (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually it was me who reported you --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra Are you willing to self-revert if you get unblocked?--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Huldra The is map is not OR at all but that beyond the point.There is seems to be agreement that you did broke provision.The only question is that you was not aware if this is the case I support you unblock if you willing to self revert Shrike (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I object misrepresentation of my position I think the old map is good and until something better is found it should stay.Another thing I don't understand why @Zero0000, El C, Nishidani, and Sir Joseph: commenting as uninvolved editors the convention as far as I know was if the editor is active in topic area there are involved.--Shrike (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC) @El C: It seems that she is not willing to self-revert I think this should be condition to any unblock.--Shrike (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Oncenawhle (involved editor 2)

We really need to apply this consistently if we are going to apply it. For example, a few weeks ago at UN Watch, this happened:

• 22 February 2017 (9 edits) Drmies makes a variety of edits
• 04:56, 23 February 2017 IP partial revert (Try to gain consensus in the talk page before deleting such a massive amount of content. Some of this information is important and supported by secondary sources.)
• 04:58, 23 February 2017 Nableezy reverts per ARBPIA3
• 12:40, 23 February 2017 Shrike reverts Nableezy to restore the IP's version

Is this a breach? There was no attempt to discuss, unlike at the article which is subject to this AE. It's all very confusing to me.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday, Sir Joseph wrote "it is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit". Yet just one week ago, this happened at Ahlam Tamimi:

• 16:03, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland reverted an IP per ARBPIA3
• 16:07-16:09, 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted Sean hoyland
• 16:14, 15 March 2017‎ Sean.hoyland partially reverted Sir Joseph
• 16:22-16:35 15 March 2017‎ Sir Joseph reverted many of the same points again

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

BU Rob13 says that a successful appeal requires evidence of consensus and it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. The latter statement is incorrect; only Shrike had reverted the map (one person is not "multiple editors"). Oncenawhile only "self-reverted", not "reverted"; it's clear that they are opposed to the map. As for "evidence of consensus", nobody except Shrike is arguing in favour of the map (it's not clear to me what Shrike's position is; nobody has given a source for the map so far). Thus, a good case could be made that the edit is not a violation at all.

Speaking more broadly, the block by WJBscribe is not correct for several reasons. Firstly, to insist that a map without a source be kept in the article based on some interpretation of rules about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin is ridiculous. I remind people that WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN are core policies of Wikipedia.

Next, what was the need to act hurriedly, without even giving the party a chance to respond? And why was Huldra not given a chance to self-revert? What was the need for admins to act here, anyway? This kind of enforcement will make working in this area nigh impossible. WJBscribe seems to not appreciate this point at all. The provision was not meant to shut down all editing of the article till everyone agrees. In that case, we might as well wait for hell to freeze over.

Lastly, see Oncenawhile's comment about Shrike's editing on another article (the IP in question is a sock of AndresHerutJaim). This is not to demand that one of Shrike or Drmies be blocked; I would like nobody to be blocked. It's to say that these remedies need to be applied with common sense and people be extended the basic courtesies (like allowing them to self-revert, or discuss with them first) before hauling them here, and admins not be trigger-happy. In the past, I have seen admins use full-protection to force discussion on the talk page. That would have been much preferable to this kind of enforcement. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

(I apologise for incorrectly putting this first into the "uninvolved" section. Although I have not edited the article in question for 5 months, I have written to the talk page recently.)

I find this all quite confusing. It is very clear that Huldra requested a particular rule modification to favor the status quo in a revert contest, but got something different without realising it. That by itself should be enough for the block to be replaced by a discussion. I also took the word "editors" as applying to the person whose edit was reverted and not everyone. The way this is turning out, editing in the area will become impossible. Anyone can revert without giving a reason then reply "I disagree" to every counterargument. Also, I don't see a good argument from the blocking admin that consensus hadn't been achieved. Shrike was the only dissenter, versus Oncenawhile and Huldra and (to some extent, though I didn't make strong statements) myself. Moreover, Shrike has agreed that the map can be improved and we are working towards that. Better consensus than that is rare in the IP area. Zero^talk 23:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To be precise, there are two fatal deficiencies in the new rule that must be addressed to arbcom.

1. It allows a malicious reverter to effectively stop article improvement by making regular reverts without even providing a reason. The onus for gaining a consensus is then put on the reverted, who have to start a talk page discussion even if the revert is completely unexplained and ridiculous. This is not a boundary case; it will happen for sure and it will be used to target individuals as well as articles.
2. There is no time limit specified for when the revert was. So, in principle, before making any edit editors must examine the article history right back to article creation to see if they are repeating a previously reverted edit, and then the entire talk page history to see whether a consensus (whatever that is) was achieved in the interim. This is absurd.

Zero^talk 00:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is something else I want to say. I've been working in the IP area of Wikipedia for more than 15 years, which I'm sure is longer than anyone else. I have never seen any editor produce such a huge amount of well-written and well-sourced copy as Huldra has. It is quite distressing to see one of the project's best editors sanctioned because she misunderstood the arbcom ruling that she herself requested. What are we coming to? Zero^talk 00:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Huldra

It is very clear that the ruling is that consensus is required by any editor before reinstating a reverted edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

'no one can restore a reverted edit till consensus is reached.' (Shrike)

Read that way this gives an enormous preponderance of power to any one editor (contrarian or not) to remove anything at all he or she might object to, on whatever grounds, whether the policy given is cogent or erratic. At Archaeology of Israel which is not under the ARBPIA ruling, one editor is constantly reverting 2 others because, I assume, he believes that 'his initial revert means no one else can restore it unless a discussion is opened up on the talk page, where his consensus is required. The original intent was not to license trigger-happy reverters, surely?Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Huldra

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

• Huldra That remedy doesn't require that everyone agrees. It does require that there is consensus for your edit. The remedy says nothing about this only applying to those who originally reverted; the goal is to stop all edit wars, not just edit wars engaged by one editor. I don't think this remedy is particularly open for misinterpretation, and the blocking administrator was definitely acting reasonably in blocking here. A successful appeal will need to include at least one of the following: evidence of consensus, evidence you weren't reasonably aware of this remedy, or sufficient explanation to convince uninvolved administrators that the block is no longer preventative. Moreover, I'd like to hear what you thought the use of this edit was. Regardless of remedies, it's very clear the revert after multiple other editors reverted was a continuation of an edit war. Edit warring is restricted entirely, not just when you pass 1RR. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: I wholeheartedly reject the "hard to get consensus" defense for a slow moving edit war. Start an RfC, wait for it to be closed, then act (or don't!) on the result. An experienced closer such as myself or any number of other admins or experienced non-admins can be trusted to cut through the discussion and make an appropriate determination. If consensus for a change can't be reached, we default to the status quo in most cases or the version with least potential to harm for potential BLP violations. This applies in all topic areas; slow moving edit wars are never okay. I guess the most pertinent question here is whether you'll repeat this if unblocked, but ideally an unblock will also be preceded by an understanding of the proper way to handle a slow-moving dispute in the future. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think there was a genuine misunderstanding here that isn't likely to be repeated again. I, myself, am leaning toward unblocking due to that. Unless there are objections. El_C 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I also ought to note that, for someone as intensely involved in ARBPIA articles for so many years, she has maintained a rather clean block log throughout the years. El_C 17:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Earlier today, WJBscribe advanced a fair point about the provision's use in preventing edit wars due to 1RR tag-teaming. I would like to note, for the record, that despite my public objection to the rule as counterintuitive, in this case, it may have indeed stopped just such an edit war in its track. And that's always worthwhile. El_C 17:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The provision does need to have its own projectspace page so it can be further clarified. Reverts do need to be well-argued for it to apply, I would challenge. El_C 00:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm just about ready to unblock early (there seems to be consensus for this), unless there are no further objections. El_C 19:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• WJBscribe, I think it's unnecessary for the user to go through hoops—they said they'll abide by the rule (albeit challenge it at ARCA), and that should be good enough. The User views this as a form of 0RR and they are not wrong about that. But they are allowed to disagree with the rule—their unblock should not be contingent on them reciting conduct that takes it on. Agreeing to abide by the rule so long as it remains in effect should be good enough. El_C 22:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• "I have always worked within the rules, and always self reverted when I was told I was wrong." [and] I have always tried to follow the rules scrupulously, but it is rather difficult to follow rules you do not know exists!" Unless there are no further objections, I'll be unblocking in the next hour. El_C 23:25, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• How is it generous? I asked the user what they would do now and they say they always abide by the rules. You think that changes now? Because it's in the past-tense? You want the user to just plainly say I will follow the rule, and I don't think it's necessary, I think that it is implied. El_C 23:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• FWIW this part of the sanction appears totally counter-intuitive to me. It is effectively stopping development of any articles under ARBPIA because as soon as anyone edits, they can be reverted for no reason whatsoever with the expectation that a talk-page consensus should then occur. I do realise that this is effectively following WP:BRD but I would expect that the initial reverting editor give a very good reason for reverting, which at the moment is not happening. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It was introduced because of the frequent issue of tag-teaming in this topic area, which meant that whichever side had the greater number of editors would always be able to 'win' the battle to get material included by being able to outrevert the other side. Number 57 23:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that 2 days is a reasonable length for an infraction that was technically committed, but given the mitigating factors I think unblocking early would be a good idea. I also firmly believe that uninvolved admins need to do a thorough examination of this restriction, and whether it is helping or hindering the development of the topic area. If it is unduly restricting legitimate edits, it may be advisable to ask ARCA to come up with something more fine tuned. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that the block was invalid.
• To the extent that it was discussed, there is moderate consensus that the remedy may need further clarification at ARCA.
• Most contributors support an early unblock, largely on the strength of AGF. Other contributors would join this opinion if they had reasonable assurance that Huldra agreed not to do it again, at least until/if the matter is clarified at ARCA.
• Huldra disputes the validity of the block, but has highlighted her record of self-reverting and abiding by these remedies, and has committed to taking the matter to ARCA for clarification. Opinions vary on whether these commitments are sufficient. However a reading of this discussion and of policies like AGF indicate a consensus for giving her the benefit of the doubt.
• On this basis, and noting the preponderance of views from contributors, there seems an active consensus that - again without disputing the validity of the block itself - a slightly early unblock is low-risk and permissible under AGF. On which basis I've gone ahead and lifted it. As always, happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning TracyMcClark

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TracyMcClark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

:

ARBPIA DS, consensus must be reached before reinserting a reverted edit.

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

1. Mar 30 I remove the word "steel coated"
2. Mar 30 I remove "steel coated"
3. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the first edit.
4. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the second edit

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#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sept 27 2016.
• Was warned on his talk page to self-revert before being reported.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firstly, the reason why this is a day late is because as an observant Jew I was offline the past day.

In addition to the diffs above, before filing this complaint, I posted on his talk page that his post violates DS. He refused and said it was a content dispute. I then posted again, that regardless if he feels it's a content dispute, his post still violated DS. He refused and then told me to stay off his page. I didn't want to file this complaint, after all, I do believe we should warn first and then let the editor revert and use the talk page. In this case, that didn't happen. (Should we use rubber coated or just rubber bullets, can indeed be discussed on the talk page. The article I read said that it was a rubber bullet, to claim it in Wiki's voice as rubber coated steel bullet may not be correct. But regardless, we have an egregious violation of the DS, I warned him twice and even gave 25 hours to revert.)

• Seraphimblade As to why I reverted, if you read the article, the Israeli statement is that it is a rubber bullet. IIRC, I checked one article and I didn't see any mention of steel coated, and in one, it was in the headline, but I didn't see it in the article, but I did see the Israeli mention of rubber bullets. After TMC said it was in the article, I did look more carefully and did see it, but again, he should have used the talk page and pointed it out. We have DS for a reason. I don't care to have anyone blocked and a warning that after a revert, you use the talk page and not reinsert is all that is needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

(Please allow my edit here, it's easier to converse) That could be the whole point of DS. TMC should have gone to the talk page and posted that. I was working on the assumption (as someone who is familiar with firearms) that there are many types of bullets, and that rubber bullets are not the same as rubber coated steel bullets. Had he posted on the talkpage and not reverted, we wouldn't be here. As you pointed out in other AE actions, TMC did not follow procedure. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning TracyMcClark

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 TracyMcClark

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

• So, here's what I'm seeing here. Sir Joseph changed two instances of "rubber-coated steel bullets" to "rubber bullets" in the article, claiming the cited source () didn't contain that wording: . I normally would dismiss this as a content dispute, but after a quick look, I saw that the cited source not only does have the exact wording "rubber-coated steel bullets", and very early on in the article as well. So, @Sir Joseph:, I'm interested to know why you left an edit summary indicating the cited source doesn't say those words, when it clearly does. Misrepresenting references and falsifying edit summaries do go to behavior rather than content issues, so I hope there's a better explanation than that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, thanks for your explanation. I'll take your word for it that missing that in the cited source was accidental. Still, what I see here is where you made a clear error, another editor corrected it (in the process, making a minor error in procedure), and you, rather than telling them "Thanks, missed that", proceed to drag them to AE for a minor breach of protocol made while fixing your mistake. Certainly, we can all make a mistake or miss something, and I get that, but what apparently happened after concerns me a whole lot more than the minor protocol breach, to be quite honest. DS is to stop disruptive behavior, not play "gotcha" if someone misses a step but isn't behaving harmfully. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
• And now we move somewhat into the realm of farce, as I note you made a comment in another editor's section, while seeming to indicate you knew you aren't supposed to do that. If you're going to haul another editor to AE for something this minor, I would at least hope you would be scrupulous in following the protocols yourself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• This looks to be a storm in a teacup that shouldn't have come here. I recommend the request is closed with no action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning TheBD2000

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheBD2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

1RR and no reinstatement of challenged material without consensus on Protests against Donald Trump

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

1. 2 April Edited article lede to include disputed material, specifically, "multiple cities" which puts undue weight/influence on the statement.
2. 2 April Reinstated that material after it was removed by revert and without engaging in talk page discussion to create consensus.
3. 2 April Again reinstated challenged material without discussion, and has refused request to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Given DS notice by NeilN here, March 6.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I challenged the edit by reversion and opened a talk page discussion, and TheBD2000 has simply ignored it; the user here has violated both 1RR and the requirement not to reinstate challenged edits without talk page consensus. They have refused to engage in discussion and refused a request to self-revert. I acknowledge that I (inadvertently) violated 1RR as well, and accept any sanctions resulting from that, but I was attempting to work in good faith with the editor and got nothing but blind reverts for my trouble. Refusing to engage in good-faith discussion and consensus-building is not conducive to editing sensitive topics such as this one.

This can be closed - TheBD2000 has agreed to self-revert and begin discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion concerning TheBD2000

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 TheBD2000

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

Request concerning 238-Gdn

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

238-Gdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, and 30/500 rule re new editors

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

1. 4 April Removes RS tag (added here) placed re source used to support a statement connected to a violent incident in the West Bank
2. 4 April violates 1RR -- material subject to 1RR in part by virtue of restoring a statement (deleted here) about the above incident ("Ginsburgh published a letter in The Jewish Press stating that the case in Kifl Haris [a West Bank village] was dismissed by an Israeli court when the villagers failed to produce a corpse.")

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

• 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 31 March
• Editor discusses talk-page ARBPIA notice:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the 1RR violation: the editor is not eligible to edit in connection with the Arab/Israeli conflict, per the 30/500 rule (also notified about this one: . As the "Controversy" section of the article makes clear, Ginsburgh is notable in large part for his profile as the rabbi of a radical settlement in the West Bank and for his statements about the violent actions of settlers against Palestinians there. We don't have to "broadly construe" the relevance -- it's quite direct.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified:

Discussion concerning 238-Gdn

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 238-Gdn

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

• I think that there is more than enough of an overlap for the 30/500 rule to apply. Given that 238-Gdn also appears to be exclusively interested in this one article, that they have edited for a while, and that they have been notified of the sanctions in place, the naive new user argument also appears to be a stretch. At the minimum, 238-Gdn should be asked to wait till they satisfy the 30/500 rule but I'm open to the idea of additional restrictions as well. Will wait for other opinions though. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• @Dweller: I'm all for giving new users a bit of slack in general, but: (i) 238-Gdn was told he wasn't eligible to edit I/P topics ( ); (ii) He participated in a discussion that explained why other editors believed the article feel within the I/P topic area (Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Kifl Haris and the Israel-Palestine conflict?); (iii) His comment above that "the page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts" shows that he aware that (at the very least) "this one incident" (i.e. the one his edits related to) is relevant to the conflict; and (iv) isn't the whole point of the 30/500 rule that ArbCom have found the edits of new users in this topic area to be disruptive? The point is that people need to make their 500 edits away from the disputed topic area to establish their bona fides. I'd support a 24 hr block and a warning not to edit Yitzchak Ginsburgh until 238-Gdn meets the requirements of 30/500 (on the basis that no edits to Yitzchak Ginsburgh count towards the 500 edit requirement). WJBscribe (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with User:WJBscribe. In his reply to this AE, User:238-Gdn reveals poor understanding of Wikipedia policy and certainly gives us no confidence that he will follow the 30/500 rule in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree with WJBScribe, except that I'm not sure that a block is necessary this time around. I think an unambiguous warning that any further edits in violation of the 30/500 restriction will result in an immediate block will be sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
• I concur with Seraphimblade; a final warning and a block next time the user makes an "innocent mistake" straying into this area seems like a good idea. The editor does appear to be acting in good faith, which makes me optimistic they'll be able to prove they can contribute usefully in another area before taking the plunge in the I/P topic area. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
• This does not call for large hammer. I think the policy is relevant but let's just make that clear and let them know to edit somewhere else for a while, then they can return there (nondisruptively / following ARBPIA / etc). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning Shrike

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

• "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

• Sanctions (ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

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

1. 6 April 2017 here is the edit where I removed the "King of Israel" paragraph per WP:UNDUE WP:BALANCE after consulting a tertiary source (Britannica)
2. 6 April 2017 restoring "consensus version before edit wars" - to be clear this adds content I removed, as well as removing content that I added. I didn't mean to confuse the uninvolved admins.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. "blocked for editing in highly controversial areas and not able to demonstrate competence while exhausting community's patience"
2. Blocked for violating 3 month I/P topic ban

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the users previous blocks speak for themselves. Incompetence, using Wikipedia as a battleground, etc. I had previously attempted to engage with the editor, but it seems clear from today's ARBCOM complaint for a minor and unintentional infraction on my part that I have no alternative but to seek formal enforcement of ARBPIA rules. I have never filed a request like this, so if I have made any errors please let me know and I will correct them. He has previously been sanctioned for violating a 3 month topic ban by editing an article where I am working with another editor to develop consensus and cleanup citation. Most likely, today's ARBCOM complaint is an ill-conceived reaction to legitimate consensus building between editors.

I don't know how to withdraw a complaint, but it seems the admins are uninterested in the fact that User:Shrike filed AE to undermine consensus building and citation improvement of Israeli apartheid analogy. I do not want to be accused of filing frivolous, retaliatory complaints, and it seems this has overshadowed the main issues per WP:Wikilawyering by our admins, so please consider my complaint withdrawn

The admins are entitled to disagree with me on interpretation of the consensus clause, but it is improper to accuse me of filing frivolous complaints

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification on talk

Discussion concerning Shrike

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 Shrike

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

• I'm no doubt being slow but at the moment I don't understand why this edit breaches the AE sanction. Could you please explain? WJBscribe (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  It seems to me that Seraphim System made a series of edits which added/removed content. Shrike reverted these edits. I see a revert, not reinstating a reverted edit, so no sanctioned conduct. I also agree with Bishonen regarding retaliatory filings. WJBscribe (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• This appears to be even more of a frivolous request than the one above; from what I can work out Shrike was not reinstating a reverted edit, but reverting new edits to a previous version. If this is indeed what happened, filing this request is more worthy of a block than what was being reported. Number 57 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on the diffs provided by Nishidani, it appears Seraphim System has violated the ARBPIA requirement to "obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit" (which they were blocked for). However, Ayava1's second revert is then allowed under the rules ("Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit."). Number 57 16:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • After being told by Bishonen that retaliatory filings are not acceptable, Seraphim System has bizarrely seen fit to report me to ANI for responding to the diffs posted above by Nishidani. It's almost as if they're trying to get blocked. Number 57 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Retaliatory AE filings are not acceptable, Seraphim System. You can use the thread above to make your point if you have one, which per Number 57 above is hard to discern. This filing seems to be based more on Shrike's block log (two blocks), which is supposed to "speak for itself", than on anything that has happened in the past five and a half years. Shrike's block log does speak for itself in the sense that it shows Shrike has received no blocks since 2012, and the 2012 one was undone per community consensus after less than four hours. IMO this filing can be closed with an admonishment to the filer to please not bring up ancient history and not cherrypick what they see in block logs. Did you not notice the quick unblock in the log, Seraphim System? I would have thought it was quite as visible at the blocks themselves. If Seraphim System wasn't a fairly new user I'd propose a short block for a frivolous AE filing. Bishonen | talk 16:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Request concerning The Rambling Man

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited : "The Rambling Man is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors."

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

1. 10 April 2017 The edit summary is insulting, "fuck you, asshole". It seems to be a dig at Floquenbeam, restarting a dispute detailed in the last AE report.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. March 2017 Blocked for one month, reduced to one week on appeal.

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

• 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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TRM has continued to camp at WP:ERRORS where his behaviour seems to have had the effect of driving off admins who were initially willing to help. For example, at the previous AE report, Ealdgyth wrote, "... his behavior at WP:ERRORS does indeed come across as heavy-handed, unpleasant, and negative. I stopped even thinking about doing much at ERRORS..." Despite his undertaking in the last AE report, he still seems to have trouble letting issues go. For example, see his current extensive interaction with BU Rob13 which includes edit warring and badgering repeatedly. This doesn't seem to be the behaviour which was promised, "...a self-imposed limit of one response to any editor with whom there is any disagreement..."

• The mystery diffs referred to by Bishonen were dummies provided in the boilerplate of the AE template. I left them in by oversight and then tidied up when I noticed them. This is not a simple process, alas. Andrew D. (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Moved here from admin section. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• As background, WP:ERRORS is on my watchlist and the edit summary stood out as being remarkably pungent. Initially, I thought it was a general retort with perhaps a nod to the Terminator movie. Then I supposed that it seemed to be throwing Floquenbeam's words back at him. Whatever is meant by it, it doesn't seem appropriate as such language can easily be taken the wrong way and it doesn't make for a congenial atmosphere. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man

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 The Rambling Man

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

• Those of Andrew Davidson's diffs that I can access don't seem heinous to me. But then, Andrew, I don't understand how those "difflinks" that you have named "date" (why?) are meant to work. They don't work at all for me, all I get is the message "Firefox can’t find the server at www.difflink2.com", etc. May we have ordinary diffs, please? Bishonen | talk 17:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

• And now I see the mystery diffs were quietly removed by Andrew Davidson as I was typing. Could people please at least not file here until they've got a coherent complaint? There's enough waste of time on AE. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

• Just for the record, I've moved one of Andrew's comments from here to his own section above. Vanamonde (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• That edit summary doesn't seem to be directed at anyone in particular. Unless Andrew Davidson is referring to some backstory here (an explanation would be helpful), I don't see anything actionable here. --regentspark (comment) 18:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  The diff does provide useful context. Perhaps TRM just liked the phrase and decided to co-opt it (imitation ... flattery.. etc.) Regardless, one fu in response to another fu hardly qualifies as something to get het up about. A gentle shake of the head with a "tsk, tsk" should cover the situation more than adequately. I don't think Floq needs anyone to fight their battles anyway, so either we follow up the ban AD from filing complaints against TRM or just let it go (my preference). --regentspark (comment) 18:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is the context if needed: . But I sympathise with Floquenbeam not wanted to be dragged into this. I also sympathise with TRM for getting frustrated that no one actioned (or discussed) his reports to WP:ERRORS for the entire day. Not sure the snarky notes about the time having elapsed were helpful (and some admins have suggested that such edits discourage them from participating on that page, so TRM may be putting off admins who would otherwise be willing to help by adopting that approach), but I can see why he was irritated. In my own defence, yesterday was a very sunny day & also my birthday - so I didn't check WP:ERRORS. I think this should be closed with no action, and we should see if we can get more admins interested in checking WP:ERRORS? WJBscribe (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• I too sympathise with TRM regarding the issues at ERRORS. I try to pitch in where I can, but today I've been in front on the Internet for less than half an hour, and have otherwise been AFK. I agree with WJB's last sentence. Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Happy belated BDay! Agree with closing this without prejudice. El_C 20:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Closing this as a waste of time, with a mild warning to Andrew Davidson about The Boy Who Cried Wolf. Floq isn't bothered; TRM doesn't seem all to bothered that he potentially belittled himself, let's get on with our lives, eh? Harrias ^talk 20:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Vergiotisa

I am asking for the block to be lifted because I did not begin an edit war and I did not continue a naming dispute. I simply made a valid edit. However, I was obstructed and I was stalked and intimidated to prevent me from making a legitimate edit that ultimately prevailed and from making a further edit request as encouraged.

My initial edit was to remove a Wikipedia recognized copyrighted national Greek symbol Vergina Sun WIPO from being inappropriately used on a template. Not only is the symbol in question a recognized copyright in Wikipedia it is also recognized in the interim accord signed by both parties, that its use by the Republic of Macedonia to identify itself is a provocation towards Greece.

• Article 7 paragraph 2 states: Upon entry into force of this Interim Accord, the party of the Second Part (FYROM) shall cease to use in any way the symbol in all its forms, displayed on its national flag prior to such entry into force.

• The minister of foreign affairs at the time, Karolos Papoulias further clarifies in the accord that the symbol of Article 7, paragraph 2, refers to the Sun or Star of Vergina in all its historical forms.

This is ecchoed by Wikipedia itself that restricts the symbol's global use as a national emblem of Greece.

Any use by the Republic of Macedonia is only a reference to its use during the period 1992-1995 before the signing of the accord.

In my attempt to make this simple correction:,

1. I was pushed into an edit war by user:pepperbeast and by user:Gryffindor
2. I was targeted and stalked on unrelated edits by:

• user:pepperbeast

1. Boy
2. Baculum

• by user:Gryffindor

1. Ottoman Vardar Macedonia

The map I edited created borders that did not exist at the time and does not show clearly the administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire for the region.

• and by User:NeilN

1. Undoing name clarification that conformed to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia).

Macedonia by itself, will be used to refer to the country in all other articles in contexts where this is practically unambiguous. Examples of contexts that are typically unambiguous: Tetovo, Macedonia.

On the page reverted by User:NeilN, Macedonia does not mean officially the Republic of Macedonia. That is misleading to the reader. Macedonia also means the province of modern Greece and the ancient Greek kingdom both unrelated to the Republic of Macedonia. This was an unnecessary addition to the sentence and a standard edit of clarification on a topic I am familiar with, that completely conformed to the naming convention.

The targeting that resulted in my feelings of intimidation are clear.

In regards to fair Notice:

The initial notification that the arbitration committee had imposed discretionary sanctions on articles pertaining to the Balkans was understood by me to imply that the template I had edited was being monitored for a disregard of standards of behavior. As I understood it, a clear copyright violation is of no need for arbitration (as proven by the final change of symbol on the subject template) so for me, there were no conduct issues on my part and the notification was routine.

When I was reminded on my talk page of the 3 edit rule by user:Gryffindor I immediately stopped editing activity and only responded to yet another suggestion for the Vergina Sun in the talk page. When the template became fully protected, I thanked the administrator, and as per the suggestion on my talk page by user:Gryffindor I made a request to further clarify the recent move of the template on the templates talk page.

My request on the template talk page:

I requested that the ambiguity be taken out of the title of the template which recently had “republic of’ omitted from its title. I did not ask for anything contrary to Wikipedia’s naming convention on Macedonia only that it be clarified to avoid confusion as per the convention. To highlight how and why the ambiguity was indeed an issue I referenced Article 2 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity which works towards the harmonious interaction between diverse groups and which applies to the use of the name by both countries.

However, understanding that I had been stalked and targeted by three users in what looks like an attempt to intimidate me and to stop legitimate edits being made that clarified the vagueness between disambiguation’s, I added the last paragraph in my request, albeit strongly worded, on the talk page, the place I was encouraged by the notice on my talk by user:Gryffindor and the admin's edit request noticeto address any issues with edits.

In Conclusion:

The request’s denial by admin would have sufficed to end the topic and for me it had ended there, but instead the opportunity was given for both user:pepperbeast and user:Gryffindor to respond with their inaccurate POV while I was demonized on my talk page by User:NeilN and blocked from responding.

I ask that the block be lifted because I was not the instigator of any edit war or false copyright claims nor did I intentionally disregard Wikipedia rules or continue a naming dispute. I clearly used the appropriate wikipeida convention name. My claim of vandalism was an address to being stalked on my unrelated edits by the three users without cause. I do not have a history of causing problems in Wikipedia, disrespecting other users, or of consciously disregarding Wikipedia rules and conventions. What was a simple and accurate edit was escalated by the inappropriate actions of three users, one of which I was aware, was an admin who instead of moderating, escalated the issue resulting in my block and with no accountability on anyone else's part.

I apologize that my frustration at what felt like an attack by stalkers and propagandists, let me to lecture in the final paragraph of my request. For my part as a relative novice of wikipedia still, I will make it my task to learn the appropriate discussion, resolution and reporting avenues to avoid anything similar in the future.

I thank you for your consideration. Vergiotisa (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by NeilN

I believe the appeal well-illustrates why the block was levied. Vergiotisa's editing, starting from September 2013, has almost exclusively focused on the ARBMAC area and they've made false accusations of vandalism and disruptively edited logo content before. Examples: , --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I have to admit to not understanding Vergiotisa's statement above. The interim accord between Greece and Macedonia is not binding on Wikipedia, which was not a party to it. It is also -- I don't believe -- binding onany third parties under U.S. law. The link provided by Vergiotisa as showing that Wikipedia restricts the use of the symbol does not, as far as I can tell, say any such thing. In the first place, it's a Commons image and not a Wikipedia image, but in the second place, the file information clearly says that it's in the public domain in Greece, the country of its origin, so presumably is PD here as well. A public domain image can be used in any way desired, there are no restrictions on its use placed by Wikipedia, Commons, the WMF, U.S. law or any other authority.

If I'm wrong in these statements, I'd appreciate being corrected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by pepperbeast

Editor obviously has a bee in their bonnet about Macedonia, and believes s/he's being stalked and and harassed when someone disagrees with them or checks out their other edits. Their response to the present block is to blame others (me, Gryffindor, NeilN) for their behaviour, and this block appeal is mostly a litany of what other editors did wrong. I think s/he needs some time to cool off. PepperBeast (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Vergiotisa

Result of the appeal by Vergiotisa

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

• I'm pretty confident NeilN's sanction is reasonable. I might've imposed a short-term edit warring block and a longer (3 month or so) topic ban, but that's just me. The procedural claim they raise doesn't make much sense; they were notified of discretionary sanctions and continued their conduct thereafter. As with BMK, I don't see how the image is a copyright violation, considering it's in the public domain. Sanction should be upheld. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Handling a copyright violation is indeed an exception to the prohibition against edit warring, but in this case, the image in question is shown as being PD and I have not seen any reason to believe it is not properly classified as such. Similarly, Greek treaty conditions are not binding upon us. And it doesn't matter who "started it" when it comes to edit warring. So, if this was a newbie mistake, here's what you do: If someone reverts you, stop right there and take it to the talk page. If you can't reach agreement after a calm discussion, utilize dispute resolution; that's why we have it to begin with. If you edit war, especially in sensitive areas subject to arbitration restrictions, you will wind up blocked or topic banned. I see no reason to overturn the sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I concur with the above that while a copyright violation would have been sufficient grounds to act, there was no copyright violation in this case. I think if the block were to be removed at this point it's clear that the behaviour would continue, and given the long history of this dispute on Wikipedia I think it's necessary to be firm on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC).
• Ditto. Little if any awareness that they've done anything wrong. An attitude wherein everyone is at fault but the seeimgly single purpose editor in question, is troubling. I agree that being firm can be seen to send a message. I probably would have gone with a shorter block, but a month is certainly within reason. El_C 04:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I cannot find clear evidence of a copyright violation in Vergiotisa's statement. Copyright is not created by bilateral treaties except that the parties may agree to restrict their own uses of something. Wikipedia is not bound by such treaties. What I recommend to Vergiotisa is to first appeal the "public domain" designation of the image at the Commons copyright pages. If the copyright gnomes on Commons agree that it is subject to copyright, then it might be possible to restrict its use on en.wikipedia too. Other reasons for not using the image in particular ways on en.wikipedia should be argued on talk pages and/or dispute resolution noticeboards. I'd want to see a more clear undertaking, with details, that the edit-warring behavior would cease immediately before even thinking about lifting the block. Zero^talk 04:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning Seraphim System

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

Per notice on talk page: "Consensus required: Editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit."

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

1. 21:18, 9 April 2017‎ Restoring reverted version without a consensus.
2. Disruptive PROD
3. Calling other user "genocide denier"
4. , Edit warring

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 6 April 2017‎ Blocked recently for the same violation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User:Ryk72 The matter of East Jerusalem is separate matter from the west bank though for example UK did recognized the annexation of the west bank it didn't extend this recognition to East Jerusalem as the international community considers Jerusalem to be Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) exactly for those reason such matters should be discussed on the talk page--Shrike (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Seraphim System

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 Seraphim System

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

• Whilst Seraphim System undoubtedly has an anti-Israel bias in their editing, in this case they were merely updating the link to reflect the outcome of an RM at the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank article; this report is frivolous at best. Number 57 12:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if follows that the link had to be updated after the move, linking to redirects is fine where appropriate. This was a matter upon which editors could legitimate disagree depending on the context of the article in which the link is used. Anyway, the possibility it might (hypothetically) have been straightforward to establish consensus to restore the reverted edit is no excuse for not doing so. I see a clear violation:
  1. Huldra changes Jordanian occupation of the West Bank to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank
  2. Bolter21 reverts, changing it back to Jordanian occupation of the West Bank
  3. Seraphim System repeats Huldra's reverted action, without obtaining prior consensus

Seraphim System has been blocked previously for breach of the same sanction, so is aware of it. I would therefore therefore propose a 48 hr block for a second offence. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I don't agree that a RM discussion is consensus for changing the name of an article and all wikilinks that point to it. We allow linking to redirects or using piped links according to editorial discretion. For example, there is consensus that Gdańsk rather than Danzig should be the name of that article, however it is right that East Pomeranian Offensive should use [[Danzig]] or [[Gdańsk|Danzig]], because that was the name at the relevant time. Updating links after RMs should, once it proves controversial (Huldra's edit was fine), be discussed in the context of the relevant article. WJBscribe (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with WJBScribe. This is a violation and the edit summary accompanying the revert indicates that it is not merely a restoration of a link over a redirect. A short block seems appropriate. --regentspark (comment) 13:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Just to be clear here, are we actually suggesting sanctioning an editor for fixing a double redirect, or is there an actual reason why that link should have been piped from the previous name? Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  Changing a link is not the same thing as fixing a double redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Excuse me if I'm being dense here, but the article had been moved to Jordanian annexation of the West Bank on the 6 April. The disputed edit was on the 9 April. Is there any reason why the link should have been piped through the previous name? Because otherwise it is simply fixing a double redirect. I'm not involved in ARBPIA at all, so I may be missing something obvious. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• I... think this is not an AE case. The for/against on the particular edits are within reasonable behavior EVEN IN a problem area such as PIA and the editors can all discuss this like adults on the talk pages. This dispute could have gone far enough to rise to disruptive and AE relevant but has not. AE is NOT supposed to be a super-veto venue for content or style disputes on problem areas. We're supposed to deal with individual or group misbehavior on topics Arbcom has had to intervene in previously. I recommend close no action, strongly urge the parties to use talk pages like you're supposed to and AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see why fixing the redirect, even with their edit summary, is enough for a sanction. I don't feel there's a risk of future disruption that can't otherwise be avoided through conversation with the editors involved. I would also close this with no action. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning Razzieman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Razzieman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAP2, specifically discretionary sanctions placed on United States presidential election, 2020 by Ks0stm on 6 December 2016

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

1. 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User removes info on Anthony Weiner
2. 22:40, 10 April 2017‎ User self reverts
3. 22:41, 10 April 2017‎ User removes same info, but this time reverts IOnlyKnowFiveWords
4. 00:55, 11 April 2017‎ User reverts me, re-removing the Anthony Weiner info

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• 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 22:58, 10 April 2017 , specifically to the 1RR restriction on the page in quesiton

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was inactive for over a year but returned in February 2017 to engage in a series of reverts. Was dormant until yesterday when they continued the behavior. Last 7 edits (and the only edits since January 2016) have been reverts or removals of material on American politics pages.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Razzieman

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 Razzieman

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

• Blocked one month to stop immediate disruption. Open to longer sanctions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• You're completely right about content, IP, but multiple unexplained reverts without even the most basic edit summary is problematic in this area. Can this editor actually communicate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've left a note on their talk page asking for a response. Their past edits are an odd mix of constructive edits, unhelpful edits, and outright vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Endorse NeilN's block for the edit warring. I think we should give the individual a chance to make a statement (to be copied from their talk page of course), but if they don't indicate a clear understanding of what the problem is and how to correct it going forward, I'd strongly consider a topic ban. The American politics area is difficult enough without unexplained, drive-by reverting. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe we've at this point left enough time for a response to be made, and the editor doesn't seem to be around. Given that, I'll close this request with a topic ban, unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• Agree with NeilN's block. Considering they've only edited in this area since they returned to WP, I also believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• It's been a week and no reply. Agree that reverts were of problematic content, but lack of overall communication is troubling. Endorse block and recommend closing soon. El_C 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
• There are two options for whoever closes this thread: (a) close without further action since the block is already issued and no admin objects to it, or (b) keep the block in place and add a topic ban. I would support whatever topic ban User:Seraphimblade has in mind, but my own suggestion is an indef ban from all of WP:ARBAP2 across all pages of Wikipedia including talk, with the right of appeal in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Request concerning E.M.Gregory

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 24 April 2017 10.49 Full revert
2. 24 April 2017 11.22 Partial revert of same material

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

• ArbPIA reminder at their user talk page on 5 April 2017 (no idea if this was their first reminder or not)
• 21 April 2017 warned on same article by Black Kite about 2RR

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

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

E.M.Gregory took full responsibility for his mistake, both here and at WP:ANI, so I recommend minimal action, perhaps even a warning. An editor who has been active in this area and has been able to avoid problems, should receive some credit here. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning E.M.Gregory

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

• Ah, my favorite topic area to see at AE again. Doing some looking into the diffs presented, on the face of things it is fairly obvious that a violation did occur. However, there are several mitigating factors. First, we have a 2+ year old account with a clean record and block log. Second, he's been brought up at AE exactly once in his tenure here, in 2015 where no admin suggested taking any action. Third, he has admitted getting heated, and he did self-revert. Fourth, the fact that this case was filed within half an hour of Fram opening an ANI thread (and after E.M.Gregory had already admitted that he was hasty and made a mistake) smacks of admin shopping. Fram has, in fact, given out ARBPIA DS notices before, so he knows perfectly well that AE is the appropriate place for this. I'm inclined to resolve this with a warning to E.M.Gregory, but waiting to hear more opinions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Fram: My research didn't show the topic ban, so I'll review that thread to see if that changes things. A prior topic ban in the area is often grounds for more severe sanctions. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• If this was on AN3—which in cases of 1RR is actually more likely than AE or ANI—I'd be blocking for 24 hours (due to previous history of topic ban and prior warnings). I still don't understand why the user didn't simply self-revert, as was suggested to them. What happened there? El_C 15:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Since the user did self-revert after all, I would be willing to consider 0RR for 72 hours in place of a 24-hour block. El_C 21:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know the other user's ARBPIA background to tell whether the warning already extended would suffice here. El_C 22:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• I haven't researched the context, so I'm not offering an opinion, merely links for E.M.Gregory's one-month ARBPIA topic ban: . Bishonen | talk 19:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC).
• A one-month topic ban a year ago is hardly grounds for blocking an editor who recognizes their error, fixes it, and where there exists little evidence that the conduct at issue will reoccur. A 0RR restriction would be sufficient, but I don't see the case for anything more severe. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• I also agree that a warning is quite sufficient here, and will shortly close as such absent any objection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)