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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :

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

1. 04:25, 20 July 2018 Revert of this edit by restoring the unsourced category, also possible BLP violation
2. 06:23, 20 July 2018 Second revert (of my edit) shortly after

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BTW, my comment regarding presumptions (which he regarded as a "personal attack") was a response to this silly edit summary in a related article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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.

There was no notice on the talk page or the article that the article was under a 1RR restriction. I got a notification regarding the DS on Israeli-Palestinian topic area here but that didn't say anything about a 1RR restriction either. I don't know whether in this topic area - like Syria or US Politic - the 1RR restriction only applies to articles which are explicitly tagged as such, or in some broad manner, but if it's latter, I was not aware of it (and if it is the latter, there really needs to be a better job of alerting editors to it).

I would be perfectly willing to self revert, but User:Icewhiz (gee....) jumped in to revert as soon as he saw User:Calton bringing the possibility of a self-revert on my talk page [2], making it impossible for me to self revert. Note that Icewhiz didn't even wait 10 minutes for a response for me, which makes it seem like his purpose was to make a self-revert impossible, so that this AE report would have some legs. This also qualifies as WP:STALKING by Icewhiz.

As to the merits of the edit - this is a bit ridiculous. It's an article about the guy who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin. The relevant category is "religious terrorism". Icewhiz and co. are arguing that this category is "unsourced". That's absurd and WP:GAME, what are they asking for, an inline citation to a category? Amir explicitly used a religious defense at his trial which means the "religious" part fits and this is sourced in the article [3]. The text says ""The attempt to grant RELIGIOUS authority to the murder..." is", yet Icewhiz stands there and argues there was no religious aspect to it!!!!! See also [4] Furthermore, there is the equally ridiculous assertion by Sir Joseph that "assassinations are not terrorism". Sources disagree [5] [6] [7] [8]. This is just WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And we have another frivolous invocation of WP:BLP by Icewhiz to try to WP:GAME content. Sources overhwelmingly describe this as religiously motivated (the guy freakin' said something like "God made me do it"!) And sources overwhelmingly describe it as terrorism (unlike JFK or whatever red herring people pull out of their thin air). It's hard to see how assertion to the contrary can be made in good faith. Indeed, if there's ANY article that belongs in the category of "Jewish Religious Terrorism", then this is it. If this doesn't belong in there, then the category itself shouldn't exist.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: - take a look at the article Jewish Religious Terrorism where this is listed as the #1 example [9] and very well sourced. This designation is not controversial in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at removals of this category by Sir Joseph for other reasons (see the current ITN nominations), they also removed the category from Duma arson attack where the charged terrorists were members of a terrorist organisation whose goal is to overthrow democracy and replace it with a monarchy based on religious law. Likewise the removal at Yigal Amir was done with equally ridiculous edit summary 'assassination of a leader is not terrorism' - there is no possible way to describe that except amazingly ignorant. I was just about to put that back SirJoseph's removal at Duma when I saw this. Its also trivial (you might want to read the books mentioned in that article too) to source that Yigal Amir is within scope of Jewish religious terrorism. This is clearly POV white-washing by SirJoeseph at this point, and he needs to be restricted from editing any articles in the IP area. If you are going to sanction someone for breaching 1rr, you also need to address the ridiculous editing from POV-driven editors that is provoking it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise his removal of Jewish religious terrorism from the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre a clearly terrorist incident by someone who was a member of religiously motivated proscribed organisation, whose shrine was dismantled by the IDF after Israel banned monuments against terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, dont be ridiculous. LHO and JH were not described as terrorists because the concept of domestic terrorism barely existed when they comitted their crimes. Its only in much later analysis they are even mentioned in line with domestic terrorism (one of which is listed as further reading in JH's article btw) given the US lack of experience with domestic terrorism until relatively recently. Its also not a BLP issue to categorise articles related to Jewish religious terrorism even if the subjects have not been called terrorists directly (which Yigal certainly has anyway) if the act they commit is motivated by religious terrorism (which it was). Go read Jewish religious terrorism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @Dweller: the problem is, over a sustained period of time editors have (to a lesser or greater success) worked hard at removing any reference to 'terrorism' by Israel/Israeli's - of which this is just the latest iteration. Its not a new thing. I could put multiple mentions to terrorism in Yigal's article, reliably sourced, in less than 10 minutes, I could just copy across the (sourced) line from the Jewish religious terrorism article if I wanted just one. Would it be there in a week? Maybe. But it wouldnt make it a month. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @Sandstein: : While Yigal claimed religious motivation, the religious motivation was that Yitzhak Rabin's invovement in the Oslo I Accords was a betrayal of that religion. Yigal (and other religious conservatives) considered it heresy. So its well-within scope of IP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RE @MelanieN: : This sort of editing is brushed off too much as a 'content dispute'. Is it worth submitting an AE against Sir Joeseph for making these POV-laden category removals? Or would it be better to open up a case at AN (or Arbcom) to examine the (extensive) history of POV-editing in the topic area? I dont particularly want to start an IP3 arbcom case request, but this is really getting stupid now. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) Not a "silly edit summary" at all, since the category (Jewish religious terrorism} DOES exist for a reason: note the very first entry on that section. If you wanted to talk about a "silly edit summary", you could have gone with this one ("assasination [sic] of a leader is not terrorism". --Calton | Talk 14:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone and reversed the removals where I could find them. Yes, before you say it, content dispute, not handled here, blah blah blah. But there's a difference between "content dispute" and "you have got to be fucking kidding me". Cave of the Patriarchs massacre was NOT an example of Jewish religious terrorism? Assassinating a leader is not terrorism? --Calton | Talk 14:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Icewhiz's response below, I have to ask whether this a form of gaslighting or a WP:CIR issue, since the articles I'm looking at EXPLICITLY discuss the religious motivation AND have sources. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Dweller:: have a read of this. Notice any familiar names? --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note for @Icewhiz:: a Jewish religious concept, eh? Used to justify an act of terror? Which somehow means it's NOT lumped under "Jewish religious terrorism"? THAT's an...interesting...approach. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious BLP assertion - that is presently unsourced in both articles - both the religious motivation (the nationalist motivation is clear - the religious one would seem to be secondary if it exists) as well as this being terrorism. If you want to label a BLP a "terrorist" (he's clearly an assassin and murderer - however we do not label Lee Harvey Oswald or John Hinckley Jr. as terrorists - this is not a manifestly clear label for the situation) - one should have a strong source doing so. In regards to Yigal Amir - the BLP situation is even more severe as this is a BLP of a living person. The article, currently, doesn't have "terror" in the text, and Amir himself was convicted for murder, conspiracy, and wounding a body guard - not for terrorism offenses.Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

din rodef is a Jewish law justification - not a motivation - and in any regards - terrorism is not sourced.Icewhiz (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a Category labelled "terrorism" in an article that does not mention the word "terror" seems inappropriate to me, across the board, per BLP (in this case) and NPOV (for anyone long dead), regardless of ARBPIA. That's a comment on content alone. Edit-warring I'll leave to you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have a guideline WP:TERRORIST which limits our use of the word in Wikipedia's voice. That is why the articles on the Rabin assassination don't use the word despite many excellent sources which do. The way to fix the problem is to either source the description or get rid of all terrorist categories (not just some of them selectively). Secondly, I've been waiting for a chance to use the beautiful word "pettifoggery" on this board, and what better excuse than Icewhiz's "din rodef is a Jewish law justification - not a motivation" — and this for a deeply religious person who sought the approval of rabbis before committing his deed. Truly amazing. Zero^talk 15:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who adds a lot of content (incl. content on terrorism) from political science journals but who is not familiar with this specific content dispute, I just want to note that assassinations can undoubtedly be considered terrorism, and many assassinations have been categorized as terrorism. I'm not familiar with the history on this particular Wikipedia page, but my interactions with the filer of the complaint and Sir Joseph have been negative. In my experience, these editors have a tendency to remove reliably sourced content and add fringe and/or unsourced text and descriptions. Just my two cents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge admins to consider issuing a warning to the filer. This is basically a SPA account active only in ARBPIA - some edits are productive but some that are clearly not (I would say borderline vandalism) such as this one with no edit summary [10] - I checked several (but not all) the cited sources and they did not support the changes. Making non-neutral changes that are unsupported by the sources is a problem behavior, not a content issue — this editor's talk page is full of various complaints from multiple editors about edit warring and other issues. At the very least a warning about filing frivolous AE complaints is in order - AE should be a last resort.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would take no action here. Yigal Amir, the article at issue, is not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and therefore the 1RR restriction does not apply. The person is notable for a murder that seems to have had religious or political reasons that the article does not describe as related to the conflict. As to the contested category, it is indeed a content dispute and therefore not handled at AE. To the extent it is possibly a WP:BLP violation, it is at any rate not a sufficiently severe or obvious one as to warrant sanctions. Sandstein 15:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I second what Sandstein said. This report seems to me to be without merit. 1) There is no ARBPIA tag on the article. Unless there is an unspoken application of ARBPIA to everything related to Israel whether or not it is tagged, and everyone is just supposed to know it, the only Arbitration sanctions that seem to apply are those for a BLP. There is no explicit 1RR tag anywhere. 2) The OP filed this report immediately without giving VM any explanation or chance to self-revert. On getting the notification, VM indicated a willingness to self-revert but was pre-empted by someone else. 3) Most of the discussion here is about whether the category under dispute was or was not appropriate for that article. That is a content dispute and inappropriate for this board. IMO this complaint has literally no basis and should be dismissed. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with both Sandstein and MelanieN; this does not fall under ARBPIA and thus 1RR doesn't apply. There are valid BLP concerns here but that's a content dispute. --Masem (t) 17:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed accordingly. Sandstein 19:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

BullRangifer (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 :

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

1. July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- Implies that I and another editor (user:Markbassett? it's not clear) are topic-banned when in fact, we are not.
2. July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- criticizes another editor for agreeing with me saying "Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe"
3. July 18, 2018 After being called out by user:PackMecEng for making a personal attack [11] he doubles down on the personal attack.
4. July 15, 2018- The above diffs weren't the first time he referred to two topic-banned editors, I don't know whether or not to interpret this as a threat

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)

Notified of sanctions on January 6, 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs speak for themselves. Bullrangifer attacks editors he disagrees with as "fringe". In regards to the first diff about "topic banned editors", the only way that this makes sense is he is casting WP:ASPERSIONS that we are actually sockpuppets of topic-banned editors. Not surprising since he mentioned the possibility of me being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before [12] there he says he is NOT accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but why bring it up?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides Bullrangifer's response making no sense, he continues the personal attacks calling me a "fringe editor" yet again and now a "snowflake". Personal attacks like this are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:Typical WP:BATTLEGROUND response. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Your accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is ridiculous. Even though it involves the same editor, this is a separate issue. The ANI thread was not about a page under discretionary sanctions. And you have completely mischaracterized the discussion I had on Abeccedare's talk page. That discussion actually had nothing to do with BullRangifer, it was about another editor's conduct at ANI [13] As for [14] & [15], not everything on a talk page needs a source. Why don't you actually read the John Brennan & Bill Kristol articles? Because those facts are there. And it wasn't a "quality of source" issue, its an issue of WP:UNDUE--Rusf10 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:Oh I see, John Brennan voted for a communist is just something the far-right made up, right? Too bad that CNN reported on it [16], showing you do not know what you are talking about. And would you care to expand your comments on WP:DUCK, because that is about sockpuppets, are you now casting aspersions that I am a sockpuppet?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Volunteer Marek:- so you're saying that the CNN source that quotes Brennan is wrong?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Drmies:- Please recuse yourself from this discussion, you are WP:INVOLVED as per [17]--Rusf10 (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Drmies:No, Drmies, you may have avoided a warning in that case, but your behavior was unacceptable there. And the fact that we were involved in a dispute with me makes you INVOLVED regardless of the outcome. If you do not strike your comments here and recuse yourself, you are engaging in admin abuse.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @MjolnirPants:Drmies belittled me multiple times [18] [19] [20] [21] But it doesn't even matter, since WP:INVOLVED is very broadly construed.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Regentspark: I think you and one or two other admins are missing the point of my filing. I did not just file this because BR attacked MelanieN, he also personally attacked me. And from his comments below and the discussion User talk:BullRangifer, I have trouble accepting his apology (even if Melanie did) because he was given multiple opportunists to retract or apologize earlier, but only chose to do so after an admin threatened to sanction him--Rusf10 (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

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.

More harassment? Why am I not surprised. This is just more of their abuse of drama boards. This fringe editor's actions lately border on harassment and they need to be topic banned from American politics, broadly construed, and an iBan installed to keep them away from me. The last time their revenge MfD lost by a snow keep. At the MfD, their revenge motivation for starting the MfD was pointed out, and they were roundly called out by numerous editors for being on the wrong side of what RS say on Trump-related subjects. Anyone can check their contribution history and a pattern becomes clear. They tend to use spurious arguments to keep anything negative about Trump out of articles, no matter how well-sourced. That happens to be part of the subject of my private essay which they sought to delete. The community gave them a good spanking for that attempt to push a fringe, pro-Trump, non-RS-based agenda against a mainstream editor who consistently bases his opinions and editing on very RS.

Let me respond to their spurious accusations:

1. They seem to be paranoid. I have never said or implied that they or Markbassett are topic-banned editors. As I don't wish to cause anymore irritation than necessary, I won't mention the editors I was referring to here, but I'll provide that info to any 'crat who contacts me by email. Their topic-banning has created a calmer atmosphere in the Trump arena. Both are topic-banned and one has an iBan to keep them away from me. Unfortunately some editors, like Rusf10, seem to be filling their shoes, so a topic ban boomerang should be considered.
2. My comment was misunderstood, so I immediately clarified it. I did not "double down" on it. That's a false accusation coming from an editor who likes to throw around accusations of "casting aspersions". (BTW, when arguments are not policy-based, it's legitimate to question them and alert the editor(s) to the problem. That's not a "personal attack", even though directed at a person. It will usually be unpleasant, but as editors we should be able to handle such criticism. Snowflakes need not apply here. )
3. That diff only refers to PackMecEng's comment. My clarification response is linked immediately above.
4. Yes, I have referred to those two topic-banned editors before, and my response above covers it.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• He also uses this diff and babbles about me accusing them (Rusf10) of "being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before". WTF? I'm innocent and have no idea what that's about. More paranoia, and paranoia is a very poor reason for abusing dramaboards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Refactored by striking to restore focus to the real points made. My rebuttals should be more clear now. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have apologized on the article talk page. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been recommended that I leave an explanation for my atypical use of the term "snowflake" above. The immediate context should make it plain that it was atypical use. It's completely unrelated to the normal political epithet one sees. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I just saw comments about "partisanship". That's about a million miles off-base. My concerns (non-romantic affection) had zero to do with partisan issues. Will explain later...a patient is calling. See my talk for some/part of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• More about my worries and concern.... If I didn't care about and respect MelanieN, I wouldn't have bothered, but I was seriously concerned about non-policy based reasons for deletion. I expect that from Rusf10 and some others, but not from admins. I was truly shaken. My comment had nothing to do with partisanship on my part (nor was there any partisanship in MelanieN's comment). When PAG are cited as the basis for deletion of extremely notable and properly sourced content, there can still be disagreements, but at least the arguments for deletion are within what is legitimate. MelanieN's comment had no fringe or partisan aspects, only personal feelings, unlike this following comment which contained personal feelings and fringe/partisan assertions, and that's what called forth my comment that none of those views are policy-based or legitimate reasons to delete content. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:MONGO, that block was quickly lifted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently Rusf10 filed a spurious request for deletion on one of BR's essays, in what very much looked like an act of revenge for comments BR made here (this concerned a discretionary sanction violation by Rusf10, which he however, self-reverted). The request for deletion was closed as a SNOW KEEP, highlighting the spurious nature of the request. This report seems to be part of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern by Rusf10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just realized that this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rusf10. He brought essentially the same complaint to WP:AN [23], and the discussion there was closed by User: Abecedare with "No admin action needed yet". He then proceeded to harangue Abecedare about their close at their talk page, and was told, quote, "I am going to follow the advice I offered you all: drop the matter and concentrate on building the encyclpedia instead of wasting all this time watching each-other's edits and filing and responding to complaints". And furthermore, quote, "Please disengage and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground/schoolyard; none of you are coming across well in the process". Rusf10 has obviously failed to heed that advice as evidenced by this very request.

Together with the spurious MfD nom of BR's essay and Rusf10 persistent aggressive responses to BR [24], this is a pattern of badgering. It's actually no surprise that BR has finally responded in an exasperated way in this request to this badgering. And let's be clear - Sandstein's proposal for the topic ban is NOT based on any of the diffs presented by Rusf10, but rather, just on the frustrated response made here. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Sandstein, how about you actually bother asking User:MelanieN how she viewed the comment? I'm sure she can speak for herself and doesn't need you grand standing for her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're here, in this WP:AE Rusf10 was "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior".

As the comments by admin User:Abecedare above make clear, he's failed to take the second part of that warning seriously. As far as the first part goes, here we have Rusf10 cheerily disregarding that part as well:

• [25]
  • "not to mention how far-left (Brennan) is (he once voted for a communist)" - unsourced attack on a living person and an outright smear
  • " Bill Kristol (...) claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" " - another unsourced attack on a living person, implying that when somebody says they're a Republican they're lying ("claimed to be")
• [26]:
  • " Brennan is highly partisan" - another unsourced attack on a living person.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [32] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather WP:DUCK and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. All editors are asked not to use AE to continue interpersonal or content disputes, to avoid complicating this case. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a frivolous, vexatious, and unclean-hands report to me. Let's look at the diffs. This is not a personal attack and doesn't imply what the reporter says it does. While "Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude" wasn't worded very well, in the broader context of the dispute it obviously means "this kind of cavalier attitude about suppressing well-sourced information for PoV purposes, in favor of stuff sourced to fake news, endangers Wikipedia". No. 2 is also not a personal attack, though similarly unnecessarily personally worded. Criticizing an editor for holding a position that mimics that of a long-running PoV or fringe stance isn't an attack (either to that party or to the background party of the comparison), it's a criticism of viewpoint. Again, the broader context of the discussion makes it clear why that viewpoint is being criticized. Ditto with this one. What seems to be happening here is that Rusf10 is angry about being put in the WP:FRINGE box. If referring to it were an attack, we would not have that page. And it's an important page. The fourth diff is BullRangifer providing sound and civil advice, which Rusf10 did not heed, and the prediction in it is now likely to come true. I do think that BullRangifer would benefit from the first two sections at WP:HOTHEADS (basically, avoid "you" wording). One can make the same point without personalizing, and thus without providing incentive or ammo for WP:DRAMA like this AE time waste.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I don't think there's any rule against a good ole-fashioned WP:BOOMERANG at AE" – There certainly is not, as can attest anyone ever hit with one. Maybe the frequency with which they're employed has gone down, out of a desire to separate reports by username, but this is problematic for at least two reasons. It's basically a WP:PROCESSFORK away from ArbCom deciding it was a bad idea to name cases and other requests for the username of a party rather than the topic or other locus of dispute; AE seems to simply have not caught up to this procedural change. It's also a WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY problem; a new AE is now contemplated about Rusf10's behavior, when a) he was already teetering on the edge of long-term sanctions from the previous round, and b) more than enough evidence has already been provided herein, and will simply be repeated (plus some additions) in a new AE, which defeats the purpose of AE having rather strict concision limits and diff-pileup constraints. It's a "cut off your nose to spite your face" solution born of robotic but highly localized proceduralism. Neither other noticeboards nor ArbCom have any issue with the boomerang principle or with avoiding redundant process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the edits presented by the OP. (Correction: edits 2 and 3 are the same that I independently found objectionable. Still no comment on the other ones. — JFG ^talk 09:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking,[33] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors PackMecEng and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.[34] See developing thread at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink". — JFG ^talk 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: Count me in to try and devise a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: You have grudgingly apologized following peer pressure, and stricken some inflammatory comments here; thanks for that. However your latest remarks show that you still don't get it. The edits in which you twice told MelanieN to "revise her thinking", only because she happened to estimate that a piece of content was undue and an editor you don't like happened to agree, are an unacceptable indictment of wrongthink. Talk pages are the place where editors can freely express what they think, as long as it's on-topic and geared towards improving the encyclopedia. Both Rusf10 and MelanieN were expressing their views on the appropriateness of quoting an opinion by Brennan in the article on the Trump presidency. No matter whether you agree, you should not be "concerned" or "shaken" by other editors' stances. When you write I expect that from Rusf10 and some others, but not from admins, you are again showing disdain for a group of editors based on their apparent political affiliations, an attitude that your questionable essay made abundantly clear. You've been editing long enough that you should know this attitude is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Despite your protestations of checking your admitted personal bias at the door, you tend to behave as a WP:POVFIGHTER, and that is probably going to land you in trouble again. Please take this as friendly criticism and hopefully helpful advice. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if an admin is going to remove comments because they "continue a content dispute" (as here), perhaps they should ALSO remove the content-dispute stuff by Rusf10 that this is a rebuttal to? --Calton | Talk 08:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Calton: remove what that text was in response to or restore the text. Otherwise, this appears to be taking sides.

I agree with JFG that some of Bull's comments are probematic. But they're par for the course in AmPol, they're well out of character for Bull and the hounding Bull has been experiencing at Rusf's hands is ridiculous. An indef topic ban on Bull is ridiculously inappropriate (though lesser sanctions might not be. Hint: Try a one week topic ban and see if that helps), and Rusf should, at the very least, be one-way IBanned to cut down on the inevitable future drama.

@Masem: You and I have discussed some sort of restriction on how soon after a story hits the news cycles we can write about it. I think this is something that should be given some serious thought and discussion, though not here. I'll ping you on another page where we can discuss further. I'm also pinging @Awilley and NeilN: who have also been involved in trying to work out something to improve AmPol editing, just to ensure they're aware of this case as an example of how such a restriction might have cut off the drama before it got started. Sandstein, your input is always welcome (even though we don't always agree) so please leave me a message on my talk if you have anything to add to a topic-wide discussion about WP:RECENTISM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I don't think there's any rule against a good ole-fashioned WP:BOOMERANG at AE, when it is warranted. FWIW, I agree with you that a warning is probably enough. I've struck my bit about a 1 week T-ban, because I suspect Bull is going to take a break from politics on their own, and that's something I want for Bull's sake, not for the sake of the topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: watching this thread develop over the last hour or so, I think I'm going to have to differ with you about whether it's apropos in this case.

@Rusf10: just for the record, the fact that you previously antagonized and belittled an admin does not make that admin WP:INVOLVED. Note that you were warned against doing exactly what you're doing right now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN and I might agree 20% of the time on content but if you want a model contributor to these problematic areas hers is that model to emulate and she has been an inspiration to me as well. Therefore calling out MelanieN on partisanship is really extreme, especially coming from someone that would be far more likely then I to have agreements with her. Rusf10 last diff indicates BullRangifer is extremely unlikely to be able to remain objective in these problematic areas. I saw the Mfd there and found it extremely partisan but avoided it since it was in userspace and BullRangifer said that is where it would stay. Rusf10 last diff above where BullRangifer states: [35] "Don't attack mainstream editors who depend on RS, especially if your POV is the pro-Trump, minority POV, which is not backed by RS. We protect the first, and scorn the latter around here." Scorn the latter? I am hoping when this was written he meant only those that use unreliable sources, but his userspace essay that was at Mfd clearly tries to state that Fox News is an unreliable source when Wikipedia itself has never declared that. In the userspace essay, Bullrangifer states [36]"...Trump/GOP/Putin-friendly sources (Fox News, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Infowars, RT, Sputnik, etc.) say otherwise with their cover-up/distraction/conspiracy theories which fact checkers keep on debunking. Those are unreliable sources for political content, so don't use them, and frankly, don't even read them, except for research purposes ("What are the fringe wingnuts saying now?")". I think its a bit extreme to lump FoxNews in with the others in that recital but others may disagree.--MONGO (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell seems to think its only a personal attack if the recipient is offended? A novel attitude that I highly suspect would be not be tolerated with or without "bother to actually check in with Melanie to get her reaction to the situation" had the delivery been made by someone traditionally antagonistic to MelanieN's editing stance. The fact that these comments were directed at MelanieN who is much more likely to be in the same camp as BullRangifer and the way he said them (as if she was betraying the "cause") indicates an extremely partisan approach to editing on this topic by the reported party.--MONGO (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not BullRangifer's first trip to the rodeo. They were blocked for a week this past January in this very same topic matter. [37]

I'm catching up with this situation a little late, having missed all the drama at the article talk page. I am being cited here as the target of some of BR’s negative comments. I will say that his comments were out of character and that he has never addressed me like that before, even though we frequent many of the same articles. He is a productive and valuable editor at those articles. From reading through this AE report I see that there is a significant backstory between BR and Rusf10. IMO that was the cause of his uncharacteristic overreaction when I took the same position on an issue that Rusf10 later took. BR has apologized to me on the article talk page and I have accepted his apology. I would suggest BR not be topic banned over this, but simply warned not to let his emotions carry him away like this in the future. And people may want to look into the behavior of Rusf10 to see if it constitutes harassment or deserves some form of interaction ban. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: It isn't the case that people "didn't bother to check in" with me. I was pinged to this discussion, and to the article's talk page, multiple times. I just didn't happen to be online while this discussion was developing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OWB#37 strikes again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think MastCell's comments below are pretty much on point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The MelanieN-related diffs have been discussed enough by earlier participants; I think a formal warning for BullRangifer is sufficient. (and an informal warning to both that at some point soon, an "at wit's end" TBAN may be in play)

I generally dislike comments like this one (#3 in original report), but it's not a personal attack. The encyclopedia is written based on facts and sources, not simply based on "interpretations of policy". But that certainly won't result in sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. How long until Rusf10 is blocked for this nonsense? --Tarage (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are pretty self-explanatory and damning. There's clearly a conduct issue here. BullRangifer is an experienced editor and should know better. The only question is what sort of sanction to apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The comments directed at MelanieN crossed the line, but I will attest that they are way out of character for Bullrangifer, who has done yeoman's work on these articles and who has been more collaborative than most. I suspect that his untoward comments are a symptom of the stresses of following the dispute resolution process in an atmosphere of heated discussion, entrenched viewpoints, and even some bad faith on the part of a few editors. To put it another way, some of the behavior described in WP:FRINGEPOLITICS has taken a toll of the psyches of editors who are trying their best to defend the integrity of Wikipedia. Because of our imperfect system, sometimes there is collateral damage. In this case, the damage is slight and not likely to continue, so a word to the wise should be sufficient.- MrX 🖋 22:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone that edits AMPOL articles is a masochist. (I’m one in denial; but I’m not that valuable.) Bullfighter crossed the line, and then stepped back. Given the circumstances and recent history, his misstep is not surprising. The simple fact is that folks that edit these articles are dragged into the drama boards on a regular basis. We need to find a way to stop predictable flare-ups from demands for sanctions against, as Melanie put it, a “productive and valuable editor”. O3000 (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment on this request, but Drmies should not be commenting in the admin section. Drmies has edited the talk page in question as an editor, and has directly argued about content with Rusf10. WP:INVOLVED applies obviously. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think we need to take action against BullRangifer here. Even leaving the three reported diffs aside, their response to this request is wholly unacceptable, as it includes a number of personal attacks ("fringe editor", "paranoid", "snowflakes", "babbles"), and includes unacceptable aspersions, i.e., accusations of serious misconduct without evidence ("harassment", "their revenge motivation", "more of their abuse of drama boards"). Particularly, BullRangifer's assertion that "snowflakes need not apply here" is entirely at odds with Wikipedia's communal ethos as established in WP:5P4 ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility") and in the core policies linked to from there. Our community does expect and require that editors treat each other respectfully and collegially even if – especially if! – they strongly disagree about content. This statement reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that is incompatible with editing in the tension-filled American politics topic area. I therefore intend to topic-ban BullRangifer from modern American politics for three months to give them an opportunity to improve their interpersonal skills in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to the fact that at least for the first three diffs, there is nothing that I see in the immediate contributions in that talk page of anyone else using personal aspersions or similar uncivil behavior that often begets more uncivil behavior. BullRangifer's comments out of nowhere are definitely a problem and do suggest a topic ban is valid. --Masem (t) 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Given that BullRangifer has commented and apologized, as well as recognizing outside of the diffs the seemingly bad blood between parties here, I would now agree that this should be a warning on all sides. I'll still stand on my comment below there's a issue with how content is handle that leads to battleground behavior that makes it way to AEs here, something that still needs to be resolved separately. --Masem (t) 16:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MastCell: regardless of what other spats, even not by their own doing, an editor is involved in, the last thing you do is take that out on an editor not involved with that spat (focusing on the talk page in question). BullRangifer has apologized and struck comments, so I'd call this case one of a bad ill-tempered mistake, and warnings given with no further action (though do suggest that if there's a larger case towards Rusf10 in terms of harassing BullRangifer, then that should be presented as a separate AE. But it is important all editors editing in these contested areas to keep cool edits - step away from the keyboard and think for a moment before posting, for example. (I had to deal with that a lot during the whole GG situation, so I know it's very much doable). --Masem (t) 22:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with JFG that BullRangifer's comments regarding MelanieN in this discussion are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. Sandstein 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• As a complete separate comment in re-reading the diffs in context, the whole discussion that these diffs find themselves in is absolutely why we have NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM: trying to cover the reaction of politicians and mass media for every little thing Trump does (in this case) is far too detailed and leads to far too much bickering with editors, particularly with the current regulars on these articles that have shown a clear preference on which side of the external partisan battle they agree with (which includes both pro- and anti-Trump positions) and keep headbutting to maintain their preferred position. AE obviously can't address the content issue, but its clear the content issue is creating behavioral issues, and it would significantly help stem behavioral issues across the board if editors were not fighting to include the level of detail and analysis in the short term. We have no idea if these will end up being of that much importance 5-10 years from now. These AP2 articles need to stick to facts and avoid trying to incorporate what opinions and reactions are out there unless those reactions shown the test of time. Can't expect any admin action due to this overall, but it would really really really really help stop all these AE reports. --Masem (t) 13:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• BullRangifer's comment toward Melanie warrant a warning. Perhaps they will consider retracting and apologizing--their "clarification" is patronizing, condescending. I'm also a bit bothered by what I can only call a (brief) diatribe here. I do not think (in the absence of more evidence) that this by itself is worthy of a topic ban, though had I seen the Melanie-comments when they happened I would certainly have given them an only warning for personal attacks. Blocking for that now is not something I would do. I'll hasten to add that we're here for BF, and not for Rusf10, but it should be clear that the latter's comments about Brennan are, as far as I'm concerned, BLP violations. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had missed this edit--thank you, BullRangifer. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • MjolnirPants, sure you're right about boomerangs, and some of you know I have taken issue with Rusf10's editing before, from the point of view of WP:RS. I don't think this particular complaint is vexatious, though I myself do not believe it rises to ARE level--but Sandstein thinks it does, and their opinion means a lot to me. I do think that they seem to be adept at pushing buttons but we shouldn't be too hasty throwing boomerangs in a forum like this, which should go far beyond the kind of scrutiny we see at ANI, for instance. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rusf10, what I see there is "Rusf10 is warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith in other editors." When you're in a hole, stop digging. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the edits and comments since, including BR's apology to Melanie, I think the only thing we need here is possibly an interaction ban between BR and Rusf10. I would strongly oppose a sanction against BR only. Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It's pretty bizarre that the people who were offended on MelanieN's behalf didn't bother to actually check in with Melanie to get her reaction to the situation. I appreciate her comments here, both because they help provide some context for the immediate situation and because she is generally a model editor in this topic area, as others have noted. BullRangifer's comments about MelanieN were inappropriate. Because he has recognized that and apologized, and because MelanieN has accepted his apology, I don't see any indication for AE action in that regard.

  Masem, if you truly believe that BR's comments were "out of nowhere", then all I can say is that I don't think you've looked very hard. Or at all. There is an obvious history between Rusf10 and BullRangifer which, as MelanieN has suggested, contains elements of harassment by Rusf10 against BullRangifer. Rusf10 was formally warned about his battleground attitude just a couple of weeks ago—and there was substantial support among admins at that time to topic-ban him based on his behavior. He got by with a warning/last chance, which was pretty lenient. He then nominated a userspace page of BullRangifer's for deletion three days ago; the result was a "snow keep", suggesting that the nomination showed poor judgement at best. He then filed a complaint against BR at AN/I three days ago, which was dismissed with a number of editors criticizing Rusf10's attitude. Now this.

  I think it's important for BullRangifer to understand that his behavior was inappropriate, which it appears he does. I'm strongly opposed to doing anything here which would reward Rusf10's behavior, which has been consistently substandard and which toes, if not crosses, the line of harassment. Frankly, based on his recent previous warning and the fact that he's since been doing exactly the sort of thing he was warned against (as MjolnirPants notes), I'd favor a topic-ban for Rusf10 from American politics. It was clear at his previous AE report that he was on very thin ice and had already nearly justified a topic-ban with his behavior; given the continuation of negative behavior and lack of positive change I think it's reasonable to follow through at this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• BullRangifer got overheated. I'm afraid I do regard this complaint as a vexatious attempt to take advantage of that fact by Rusf10, an editor who narrowly escaped a far more deserved topic ban on this board a couple of weeks ago, and who seems to have failed to profit from the warning they received instead.[38] I agree entirely with MelanieN that BR is a productive and valuable editor in American politics articles. @Sandstein: I disagree with your plans for topic banning BR. Bishonen | talk 20:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• I appreciate BullRangifer's striking of their comments above and their apology. In view of this a sanction does appear less urgently needed. I'm still concerned, however, that their later statements do not reflect an understanding of why their comments were unacceptable, and are generally defensive in tone. I am therefore unconvinced that such conduct will not reoccur. However, in view of other admins' objections to sanctions I'll not impose any at this time and intend to close the request with a warning: BullRangifer, if I ever see anything like that from you again, you'll be permanently gone from this topic area. – As to Rusf10 it may well be that sanctions are warranted with respect to them, but I'd prefer it if any evidence to that effect was submitted as a separate request to allow for proper evaluation and processing. Sandstein 21:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care what happens to BullRangifer or Rusf10 but I think we need to take a strong line here on AE. If editor X brings in a complaint that editor A is violating the terms of contact with editor B, and if editor B is an editor in good standing who is perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, we should throw the complaint out forthwith. AE is becoming a "gotcha" venue and that's something we should actively discourage. In this case, MelanieN is perfectly capable of making AE reports on their own so why the heck are we paying attention to a third party? --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @RegentsPark: My view is that discretionary sanctions exist to protect the entire project and the community of editors as a whole against disruption, not individual complainants. I will take AE action if I consider it likely that an editor will behave disruptively towards others in the future, even if there is no complaint by a previously affected user. Sandstein 06:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Kingsindian that Drmies has too much personal involvement in the talk page under discussion to avoid application of INVOLVED. I respectfully ask Drmies to move their comments out of the administrators' section. Otherwise I have no comments on the merits of this case. Zero^talk 03:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a warning as discussed above. Sandstein 19:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TFBCT1 (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/Longevity#Motion:_Longevity_.28August_2015.29 :

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

1. 25 July 2018 Claiming that being placed in "limbo" on a GRG list is sufficient to remove someone from a living list; and stating that the GRG trumps other RS contradicting the consensus for this article.
2. 20 July 2018 Claiming that the consensus for inclusion, in place for at least 10 years in this article, is merely a guideline and also claiming that the prior error of inclusion negates that consensus.
3. 20 July 2018 and 20 July 2018 and 20 July Claiming that an earlier error invalidates the application of consensus. Then reverting an attempt to apply consensus and consistency between linked articles. Then edit-warring without waiting for consensus on the talk page.
4. 4 July 2018 Removal of an addition which is not supported by the GRG on the spurious/deceptive claim that an age template wasn't used (they were more than capable of making the appropriate edit as I did subsequently).
5. 8 June 2018 Claiming that the GRG and other longevity "experts" know better than Reliable Sources, again contradicting consensus (on the source article for this article).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188#Result_concerning_TFBCT1 Previous enforcement result: "Closed without action following assurances that the user will respect consensus."

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

• Previous DS enforcement as above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Prior to Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people/Archive_14#RfC:_How_should_we_word_the_lede? this RFC List of oldest living people differentiated between those validated by the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) and others that were reliably sourced, with anyone not validated by the age of 113 removed. The consensus of the RFC was that the GRG not have any precedence over other RS. Given there was some confusion as to how this consensus should be applied I clarified this here. User:TFBCT1 failed to comment on this at the time and subsequently repudiated the original consensus, claimed that the clarification was not the latest consensus, when in fact it was, and repeatedly claimed that old consensus was still current on numerous longevity articles when in fact many had been updated to bring them inline with the above consensus. There are numerous other instances of this user editing by pushing the "GRG trumps other RS" line despite me pointing out repeatedly that such editing has resulted in a topic ban. Note the comment by the closing admin: "Regarding, your question on my talk page and comment above, i'd simply refer to your own statement above I'm just arguing that GRG should be given more weight than say, a newspaper source. If that's not seeking to subvert our sourcing model then I don't know what is." This user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and has been warned as recently as 20 July 2018. Their typical modus operandi is frequently to edit-war without contributing to talk page discussion. Their current editing across multiple longevity articles could also be considered as perpetuating an edit war.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

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.

There is a long history between myself and the accusing editor not getting along. He has continually threatened to take action against me with no just cause. His first (3) points have no cause. My statement 07/25/2018 regarding the GRG and "limbo cases" was a direct result of his reverting other editors who had attempted to remove an individual placed by the GRG in "limbo." Even though he is aware that this concurs no confirmation of life, he attempted to reinstate an individual placed in "limbo." DerbycountyNZ has a strong anti-GRG bias and a general disdain for the topic of longevity and it is very difficult to have a productive conversation with him or collaborate. His (2) points from 07/20/2018 are an attempt to be inflammatory with an issue that has already been resolved with another editor. Each of us made notice to the edit warring board against one another. The issue is resolved amicably on the talk page with me siding with the opposing argument and the case being closed without cause. The 06/8/2018 argument is skewed and misleading and presented erroneously. It had to do with cases in excess of 115, not 113 as incorrectly presented, that had been previously defined as "longevity claims, " not pure longevity cases. DerbycountyNZ continually stated that he had no such knowledge of this prior definition, which is hard to believe. That situation was resolved once again with me capitulating and there has been no incidence since.

Most importantly, I do not have a modus operandi of edit warring without using the talk page. This is a blatant distortion of my character. I have a spirit of compromise and am always willing to take opposing views to the talk page. I have been updating the tables of the longevity pages every night @ 7:00/8:00pmEST/EDT for 12 years. This is quite a contribution to wikipedia and takes some dedication. I am thanked weekly by other editors for this commitment. It is disheartening to be constantly harassed by one disagreeable editor.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I have also never been blocked for "edit warring". This is pure fiction on the part of DerbyCountyNZ. And a further attempt to disparage my character.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These are all content disputes and therefore not actionable here, except the edit-warring on List of oldest living people. TFBCT1, please focus your response on that issue. Sandstein 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Contrary to what TFBCT1 writes, TFBCT1 was in fact once blocked for edit-warring, per their block log. In this case, TFBCT1 edit-warred on List of oldest living people on 20 July ([40], [41], [42], [43]). TFBCT1's response does not address this misconduct. A block is therefore required to prevent further misconduct. TFBCT1 is blocked for a week. Sandstein 15:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Malik Shabazz (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:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : specifically, violation of TBAN imposed by DS.

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

1. 01:03, 24 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour is ECP protected and under ARBPIA DS sanctions. Sarsour is a Palestinian-American who has been critical of Israel. The edits in question relate to criticism of Sarsour in relation to her BDS stance on Israel - which is clearly ARBPIA related.
2. 23:33, 17 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour, same issue as above. Also incivility -- "rv stupidity"
3. 13:08, 19 July 2018 - Linda Sasrour, same issue as above.
4. 01:55, 8 July 2018 - Linda Sarsour, same issue as above. PA in edit summary: "sorry you don't like the facts, as reported by reliable sources -- please peddle your hate elsewhere".
5. 22:10, 21 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue. Incivility - "Are the two of you as clueless in real life as you act on Wikipedia?".
6. 21:58, 21 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue. Incivility - "No, the natural conclusion of what I wrote is that the majority of editors are morons".
7. 01:43, 23 July 2018 - Talk of Linda Sarsour - in relation to the same issue.
8. 21:14, 28 July 2018 +21:17, 28 July 2018 - edits to Avera Mengistu - an Israeli held captive in Gaza (with no notability otherwise) - clearly conflict related, though not marked ECP protected or with DS sanctions.
9. 17:28, 28 July 2018 - edit to Israel. ECP protected and marked with ARBPIA DS sanctions. Edit is in relation to legal status of Arabs in Israel and Israel's identity as a Jewish state - which is conflict related.
10. 17:27, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above.
11. 16:04, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above.
12. 15:56, 28 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above. Mild incivility - "What a load of self-serving baloney".
13. 03:51, 19 July 2018 - talk of Israel, same as above.
14. 01:36, 20 July 2018 - Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque - article is ECP protected and marked as under ARBPIA DS sanctions. Removal of IP comment (not sure on what grounds - the IP should've provided a source for their assertions, but sources to at least some of the assertions made are available) which was directly related to the conflict.

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".

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:47, 23 May 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Many of these edits were performed by User:MShabazz - a confirmed alternate of Malik Shabazz, when looking through contributions both accounts should be examined. For the sake of limiting the amount of diffs, I did not list all of the edits to each article above. I ordered diffs by article.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:50, 29 July 2018

Linda Sarsour, the entire article, was placed under DS on 21 December 2017. This was discussed in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 4#Scope of article sanctions, including by Malik Shabazz here - 17:29, 27 December 2017 who said If Albert Einstein includes a section about his involvement in the Zionist movement or his opposition to the Revisionists, it absolutely is covered by ARBPIA., as well as [44] and [45]. Sarsour's support for BDS, views on Zionism incompatability with feminism, and criticism thereof are clearly ARBPIA (per Malik Shabazz also if it had not been tagged by an admin).Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I reject the overbroad interpretation of ARBPIA that Icewhiz likes to adopt concerning my editing, such as the notion that Religion in Israel and sources concerning the existence of the Second Temple are included within ARBPIA.[46]

Today, Icewhiz argues that criticism of one American by another American is within ARBPIA and that discussion of an Israeli law that only affects Israeli citizens are within ARBPIA.

I concede that editing Avera Mengistu was probably a violation of my topic ban. I merely did some clean-up to other editors' additions, but I didn't stop to think that he is an Israeli missing in Gaza, believed to be held by Hamas. I sincerely apologize for improving Wikipedia and promise I will never do that again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are all obviously topic-ban violations.

I have latterly noticed many bitter comments from Malik Shabazz. I'll give some unsolicited advice: he should stay away from this topic on Wikipedia. Look at it this way: in none of the discussions would his absence have had made any difference to the final outcome. Wikipedia is not worth darkening your mood for. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• In my view, these are all topic ban violations, not only the edits regarding Avera Mengistu as acknowledged by Malik Shabazz . Linda Sarsour is an American notable in part for her position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, as highlighted in her article's lead. While not all of the the article Israel is necessarily related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the talk page edits by Malik Shabazz are, because they deal with Malik Shabazz's assertion that Israel "has declared that one-fifth of its citizens will always be second-class citizens", which refers to the Arab citizens of Israel and the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People, which are topics very much related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as the respective articles indicate. As to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the article's lead indicates that it "has been a flashpoint in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". In addition, the complaint also includes evidence of incivility and personal attacks by Malik Shabazz. To prevent the reoccurrence of such topic ban violations and other misconduct, I am blocking Malik Shabazz for two weeks. Sandstein 09:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mr rnddude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Waleswatcher (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/Gun control :

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

1. 05:27, 20 July 2018 - This is not a breach of the DS, I'm including it because it's important to contextualizing the following diffs.
2. 07:23, 21 July 2018 - Gameing of the 1RR restriction by waiting a couple extra hours to avoid explicitly breaching it.
3. 11:29, 22 July 2018 - Gameing of the 1RR restriction by waiting a few extra hours to, again, avoid explicitly breaching it.
4. 12:13, 26 July 2018 - There is currently a talk page consensus at Talk:AR-15 style rifle#quotes removed by 72bikers here that the quotes should not be reinstated at this current time (two editors for permanent removal, two editors for clarification before reinstatement, one editor for clarification with no comment on reinstatement, one undeclared editor, and one editor for immediate reinstatement - Waleswatcher). Despite this, and multiple warnings, Waleswatcher has continued to revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None to my knowledge.

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

• Waleswatcher has handed out warnings to both 72bikers and Thomas.W. Moreover, I gave them a personally written only warning. It is plainly obvious that they are aware of the DS in place.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a little bit slapdash because I did not anticipate that Waleswatcher would choose to carry on, particularly given the attention this has already received at WT:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#How to handle this and two threads at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents. The primary issue here is that Waleswatcher has been gameing the DS restrictions, and then edit-warring on top of that. I think the fourth diff may constitute a direct and explicit violation of the discretionary sanctions. This has gotten out of hand, and we need an admin to intervene.

I'm going to take a moment to note that I (and others) stand accused of violating the discretionary sanctions as well. Our reverts are said to be a violation of the "consensus required" clause by Waleswatcher. One of several similar posts directed at myself and/or others - 23:23, 21 July 2018. Other accusations are available at WT:AE#How to handle this, these have been hatted by Sandstein.

Gameing of the 1RR restriction: The diffs I have provided above are all related to the 1RR restriction and edit warring in general. First, and foremost, I have already delivered a personal warning to Waleswatcher on their talk page about this: Second, waiting a period of 26 hours ([[Special:diff/851115390|previous revert]]) to perform the revert will not exempt you from an edit-warring block. Please refer to [[WP:Edit-warring]] for a detailed explanation, with particular focus to the following: Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. As 1RR is enforced on the page, you can change the word "fourth" with the word "second". Since that initial warning from me, Waleswatcher has received a standard template warning from Thomas.W (12:29, 22 July 2018) for continuing to edit-war and only a few hours ago a request for self-revert from Springee (12:29, 26 July 2018). The warnings have been to no avail.

With regards to this, I anticipate that Waleswatcher will justify their edit-warring as being strict enforcement of the consensus. I, and practically everyone else, disagree. The emerging consensus as I outlined above is against inclusion in their current form, and no fewer than four editors have directly addressed Waleswatcher requesting that they cease and desist. Those individuals are: Thomas.W, Afootpluto, Springee, and myself.

Notes:

I haven't filed an AE request before, so if there's any errors feel free to fix or request that I fix them.

There is a lot of material that isn't relevant to AE, but a reviewing admin may choose to take it into consideration. That material is available at User talk:Mr rnddude#For admins at AE. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Should I, or should I not, notify the individuals I have named in my request about this discussion? Mr rnddude (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein - I didn't put the restriction in place, though I understand why it's there. Modern sporting rifles or Assault weapons (depending on your POV) are the central subject of the modern gun control debate in the U.S. This has been particularly aggravated by their use in most of the deadliest recent mass shootings in the U.S. The article itself is not about gun control, but the subject of the article is one of the main topics of the debate. This type of rifle was also subject to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 1994. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I have notified Waleswatcher of the request

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.

This will have to be somewhat incomplete. I can only access Wikipedia from where I am now via a very slow phone data connection, which makes it very difficult and time consuming to post diffs, or even search for edits. So I cannot argue my case very effectively and will have to rely mostly on memory. Please excuse typos, same reason.

I hope admins will agree that the situation is pretty clear. It started with an edit by 72bikers, who removed some quotes that had been in the article since at least March, well before NealN put the current remedies in place. I did not agree with that removal and I reverted it. My edit summary was unfortunately incomplete - I hit the wrong button while in the middle of typing it. The "consensus version" I mentioned should have been "version consensus is required to change" or something to that effect, and I hadn't detailed my reasons for objecting yet.

I can understand how this might irritate someone that agreed with 72bikers' edit. Nevertheless, the rules in place there, as I understand them (and I don't see room for ambiguity, they are quite clearly written) are that once an edit has been challenged by reversion, it cannot be reinstated without first achieving consensus on the article talk page. So, when Thomas.W undid my revert, I politely requested they self-revert on their talk page. They refused, and I was accused of bad-faith by them and several other editors, notably including Mr rnddude. At that point I asked for guidance from NealN, but when I realized they were on vacation, I reported Thomas.W to ani. Unfortunately my report was quickly closed as wrong venue, with no guidance about what the right venue was (I didn't even know this board existed until later).

So, I decided to re-revert, with a long edit summary explaining my reasons more clearly and reminding everyone of the rule that consensus is required before a challenged edit can be reinstated. Unfortunately Mr rnddude reverted that, despite knowing the rule. This happened once again, this time Afootpluto doing the reverting. These look to me like clear and purposeful violations of the article restrictions.

I made sure my reverts were more than 24 hours apart to abide by the rules, even though it seemed to me that might not be necessary given that the edits I was reverting were clear violations of the restrictions.

I decided to stop after the third cycle as it seemed pointless to continue, and because by then there was a report at an ae board that I hoped would resolve this. There was also progress on the talk page towards agreement on keeping the quotes while adding some comments to address 72bikers' original concern.

Unfortunately the (other) ae report was closed too, again with no guidance.

My latest edit was an attempt to restore the quotes 72bikers removed while adding some clarifications to address their concern, following a suggestion from the talk page discussion. I thought this was at least potentially constructive.

It would really have been helpful to have some guidance or even an opinion from an admin, so this didn't have to come to this. But of course I understand everyone is busy or might not want to intervene for various reasons.

Again, apologies for lack of diffs - I hope this is clear enough. I'll log on occasionally in the next days to see if there are specific questions I should address.

ETA - apart from anything else, please ask yourself this question. The talk page says this, at the top:

Consensus required: 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. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

72bikers made an edit on July 19th that I reverted. How is Thomas.W's edit less than 7 hours later reinstating 72bikers' edit not a violation of that restriction? Same question for Mr rnddude's and Afootpluto's reinstatements the following two days. There was no talk page consensus for 72bikers edit at any of those times (nor is there now), as can easily be seen from the talk page history.

User:Springee, the claim that there was the necessary consensus for 72biker's edit when Thomas.W reinstated it is patently false. Their reinstatement came only seven hours after my revert, and there was hardly any discussion at all, let alone consensus, on the article talk page. I suppose you may be referring to the discussion on Thomas.W's talk page, but that is not what is required by the restriction - article talk page consensus is explicitly required. In any case, to call that discussion a consensus, when hardly any of the involved editors were even aware if it, is disingenuous. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not planning on getting involved, but just noting that I've fully protected the article for 1 week because of the last revert/edit by Waleswatcher. Technically, per talk page consensus as mentioned by Mr rnddude, it's on the WP:WRONGVERSION, but oh well. Should this request come to a conclusion one way or another, anyone can drop the protection. Do note, however, that (independently of the proceedings that led to this request) I'd previously semi-protected the article for a while a few days ago because IP socks of User:HughD were active on the page. ansh666 17:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, you're certainly right to say that most of the article generally doesn't overtly have anything to do with gun control. However, almost everything about the gun control debate nowadays is implicit. For example (again, not related to this specific request, but as has been discussed separately on the article talk page), gun control advocates will try to play up the lethality of these guns, for example, while opponents will downplay it - vying for public opinion, emotion, and concern in order to bolster their side without ever saying anything about "gun control". It's a big part of what makes the topic so heated - and so difficult to edit in without disputes. ansh666 20:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be relevant to refer those concerned to [47]. I am not sure that this can be dealt with ion this way as I feel more then one ed is at fault. It might have been nice to have actually received some kind of guidance over the wider issues.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say given that there are at least three other eds who may have breached DS in this one matter I think issuing sanction against one user is wrong. This is why I say this cannot be dealt with within the strictures of AE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: It looks like the restriction was put in place by NeilN here and here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I believe he is on vacation until the 29th.[48] PackMecEng (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has a problematic edit history in this area. The justification for reversion focused on gaming the system rather than explaining the content (quotes inside a citation) contribute to the article. 3 restorations after other editors stepped in shows a failure to listen and poor judgment given the sanctions on the article.

The first reversion of 72biker's edit was not justified by an edit summary or talk discussion but was within the rules of DS RR1. That reversion resulted in objections from two editors, myself and Mr rnddude prior to Thomas.W's reversion. So at the time of the first reversion we have 3 editors + 72biker supporting the change (or objecting to WW's restoration) and only WW supporting the restoration. Even with 4:1 against, WW reverts a second time not arguing the material but rather a lack of consensus. Even after a few days of discussion WW hasn't offered much in the way of reasons why the material should be restored despite now four restorations! Conversely, four different editors have removed the material. This should be a hint.

I suspect there is no love lost between 72biker and WW. 72biker reported WW for edit warring.[[49]] WW encouraged others to assume the worst intentions of 72bikers (see WW's 10 July comment and VQuakr's final comment, end of section [[50]]) Waleswatcher complains about 72biker to an admin [[51]] while generally failing listen to others about their own edits.[[52]] Note that the article is under DS1 in part due to WW's behavior. WW should have known to be careful based on the warning that closed this WP:ARE.[[53]] Note that the events in that WP:ARE are the reason why the article is under 1RR rules.

I think it's easy to assume WW reverted 72biker's edit not based on the edit but the editor and then used wikilawyering to make the change about the sanctions rather than arguments for or against the material itself. This is why I think WP:GAME applies. This same editor argued that rather than the onus being on the editor making a change it was on the editor who wanted to revert the change! (see edit comment [[54]])

As was mentioned above, several editors, myself included warned WW to get consensus before making new changes. This advice was ignored and here we are.

@Dlthewave:, I agree that the previous consensus version included that text and we can view that as simply something that wasn't challenged at a time when there were lots of edits in this area and it was best to pick and choose where to put energies. However, at the time that Thomas.W restored 72biker's edit, the consensus was 4:1 against. Also, consider the comments in the discussion. I pointed out that the quote does not support the article text. If the quote doesn't support the text in the article why is it there? Even if we assume consensus hadn't changed, WW was still edit warring after restoring the material 4 times.

Given WW's failure to listen to others this time and in previous cases I would suggest a formal warning. Springee (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:, would a close indicate this is the wrong venue based on the question if RR1 applies to the article or an opinion that Waleswatcher's actions are acceptable? I would think that multiple reversions after consensus against WW's preferred version should indicate that WW is simply not listening (again). Springee (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, WW's original reversion of 72biker was within 1RR guidelines. However, after WW restored the material there was a 4:1 consensus against the material. At that point we have a change in consensus and the material shouldn't have been restored the second, third or fourth time. That was just WW refusing to listen along with using wikilawyering vs content based reasons to keep the material in the article. Springee (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few things that are worth noting here, the first one is that Waleswatcher in the edit I reverted, where they re-added the contentious and misleading material that 72biker had removed, in their edit summary claimed to be reverting to a "consensus version", a claim that seems to be false since no one else has seen such a consensus, and Waleswatcher hasn't been able to point to it, in spite of being asked to do so by multiple other editors. The second thing to note is that Waleswatcher well knows that they can't re-add contested material without a consensus, as shown by them in a number of edit summaries (sample diffs: "This material has been challenged and cannot be re-added without consensus. You may be blocked from editing if you persist.", "... once an edit has been challenged, the usual procedure is to seek consensus before reinstating it"), 'and the third thing to note is that Waleswatcher has a habit of twisting the rules, and claim the rules say the direct opposite to what they say, whenever it fits their POV, such as "Getting consensus" is not necessary for an edit on wikipedia. Rather, you should get consensus to undo" (as edit summary for an edit where they re-added a large block of contested text), i.e. claiming that editors can add whatever material they want without consensus, but removing it requires consensus. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dlthewave: I can't see any consensus for adding it in that discussion, it's just two editors, you and Springee (you supporting it and Springee opposing it), having a very short discussion about it (a discussion with four short posts, two from each of the participants, that was over in about an hour, with no chance for anyone else to weigh in). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Awilley: There was never a consensus for adding the material (misleading editorialising quotes embedded in references), see my comment above, and since the quotes were visible only in the reflist section, far from the section where the references are, it took a while before anyone noticed it and challenged it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed quotes stem from a discussion held in March regarding whether or not the Armalite AR-15 should be described as an "assault rifle." These quotes were added along with the references to clarify that sources do specifically support the term. The section was stable until July 19 when the quotes were removed by 72Bikers and restored hours later by Waleswatcher. The ensuing discussion (see collapsed section) turned into a chicken-or-egg argument over whether there was existing consensus for the quotes and whether Waleswatcher or 72Bikers was the one who challenged an edit. As I pointed out at the time, this really couldn't be decided without an assessment by an uninvolved admin, and it also begs the question of how All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) is to be followed when both the addition and removal of the content have been challenged. Frankly the best solution would have been for an uninvolved admin to wade in and make a decision so that the discussion could move forward. My take on the matter is that the quotes had implied consensus due to being stable for 3 months, and 72Bikers' removal edit should not have been repeated by Thomas.W, Mr rnddude and Afootpluto. That being said, neither was it appropriate for Waleswatcher to continue reinserting it just outside of the 24-hour 1RR window. In any case, Waleswatcher has added a new version of the quotes which seems to alleviate any concerns about being misleading. I don't see any ongoing disruption that would require sanctions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed the quotes after waleswatcher added them back for the third time is because by that time we had a consensus to either not have them in at all or to have them modified Afootpluto (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely, positively correct: "The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate, as much as anything is these days." 20 years ago it was mostly about semi-auto pistols, but this has radically changed. You may have to be an American to understand how much it has changed. That article and its talk page are unquestionably within the DS scope.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The remedy reads that "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control." Can the complainant please explain how either the article AR-15 style rifle or the edits at issue are related to gun control? I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @PackMecEng: Thanks, I'll leave this to NeilN to decide, then. Personally I don't think this is in scope. The article as such is about the rifle, not about control of its use, and the edits are likewise about how great the rifle is, or not is. Sandstein 18:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I rarely say this, Sandstein, but you're completely wrong. The AR-15 is at the heart of the gun control debate, as much as anything is these days. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly relates to gun crime and mass shootings, that‘s well covered in the article. But there‘s little in the article about actual gun control measures or proposals, only a mention of an apparently now expired ban that the rifle was once subject to. The connection appears remote judging solely by the article. But I won‘t object if other admins see this differently. Sandstein 20:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If there are no comments by other admins, I'll close this without action tomorrow. Sandstein 09:11, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• From what I can see Waleswatcher's interpretation of the "consensus required" sanction was correct, though the slow edit war wasn't ideal. 72bikers made an edit that removed longstanding material, WW challenged that edit with a revert, and then consensus should have then been required to remove the material again. I'm fine closing this with no action. ~Awilley (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Because of the ongoing discussion about who has consensus on their side - pointless because this is not the forum for that - I am closing this request now without action. This is not an endorsement of anybody's position or actions, just a finding that, in my view, the edit at issue is not subject to discretionary sanctions and that therefore normal WP:DR procedures will need to be used to resolve this dispute. Sandstein 18:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Expectant of Light (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:Edit-warring :

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

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User persists in his attempts to insert POV labels and disputed content by edit-warring, despite there's an ongoing discussion in talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

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.

I don't know whether I have violated the 3RR rule or not. I made 3 reverts on 29 July and 3 reverts on 30 July. I don't know how they go together. However the filer mentions the ongoing discussion but he himself continued to push his contested edits without waiting for consensus. That's why I reverted him. And in my last edit summary I explain in detail why I though the version was right. If he cared for consensus building he would have replied to my edit description in the ongoing talk instead of taking me here. He's been blocked several times for edit-warring himself. --Expectant of Light (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ceoil (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/Civility_in_infobox_discussions

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

1. 02:03 15 July 2018 Mentioning Crymeanocean's 179-edit history as reason for reversion and suspicion
2. 04:17 15 July 2018 Doubling down and bringing up rumours of sleeper accounts/sockpuppetry after being called out, but "I won't call for a check user or anything"
3. 05:52 15 July 2018 Again raising suspicions of sockpuppetry
4. 06:00 15 July 2018 Accusation of "faux naive guise"
5. 21:06 21 July 2018 Allusion to sockpuppetry and accounts which "lack enough edit history to earn suffrage" followed by a long off-topic rant about how infobox discussions usually go
6. 08:35 29 July 2018 Raising suspicions about Epinoia's 434-edit history and working knowledge of Arbcom
7. 11:15 29 July 2018 In response to a request to keep the discussion open: "are we advancing towards a solution or is there further canvassing/ signalling/ sock incarnations to be done."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log.

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. 1 April 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In an ongoing infobox discussion at Talk:Ezra Pound, Ceoil has been persistent in their attempts to poison the well and draw the discussion away from content by raising vague accusations of sockpuppetry and sleeper accounts. As I pointed out at Ceoil's talk page 21:06 21 July 2018 and at article talk 22:37 21 July 2018, these accusations, even if well-supported, should be discussed at user talk or the appropriate noticeboard. This ongoing series of accusations only serves to impede the consensus-building process and cast unfounded suspicion on editors with whom they disagree. Please see the talk page permalink for context.

@Ceoil: I'd like to address a few of the links given by Ceoil:

[62] - This is Ceoil's revert of content added to the "Disinfoboxes" essay in 2012, completely unrelated to Ceoil's recent accusations of sockpuppetry.

[63] - This is a list of reasons to oppose an infobox proposal from 2012. Only one item in the list (place of birth) is applicable to the current proposal and, again, not related to the current accusations of sockpuppetry.

[64] - Part of a series of edits made over several hours, which combine to form this quite different version.

Regardless of the nature of the content dispute or conduct of other editors, article talk is not the place to make these repeated accusations, and uninvestigated suspicions of sockpuppetry are not a reason to close a discussion or discount the opinions of other editors. –dlthewave ☎ 21:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: The issue at hand is Ceoil's conduct which is unrelated to and not justified by other editors' conduct, however I do need to address a few parts of the statement.

Part of the discussion did end on July 17, at which time the article contained an infobox added by Victoriaearle on July 16. The box was removed by Ghirlandajo on July 21 with an edit summary of "rmv boxclutter" which is why I reopened the discussion on that day. –dlthewave ☎ 22:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admins: Personal attacks and accusations of sockpuppetry are the sort of thing that's regularly sanctioned at ANI. It's understandable that longtime editors of the article are frustrated by the constant discussion, however I'm not sure how a history of sockpuppetry in this area is supposed to excuse the behavior. This was brought to AE because we have a lower tolerance for this behavior in DS areas. –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[65]

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.

I welcome arb attention to ongoing issues of sock puppetry in infobox discussions, the methods of enabling and signalling, and the ongoing and often successful programmes of targeted baiting.[66][67][68][69][70]

This move by Dlthewave is to distract from the fact that consensus is against him at the the Ezra Pound talk page, and follows a series of attempted baitings effectively to take me out of the game. I stand over my arguments against the inclusion of a template on this article only, which comprise 90% of my recent postings there, while my concerns about sockpuppeting are based on observations of patterns and behaviours. Note in the recent discussion, the incumbent editors are forced to make the same points over and over,[71][72][73][74][75] to multiple deaf ears, in a short span of time, until, it seems we break.[76][77][78].

At the very least, as an ip wrote today, we should respect WP:Don't bludgeon the process, which seems to be a long standing technique. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, your replies miss several points and fail, again, to recognise core issues of sockpuppeting and signaling behaviour. I don't buy this placing of this "discussion event", and the individual diffs presented, as disconnected from the turning wiki world, out of the blue, and lacking any larger narrative or context. I am so tired of this, endless explaining, made worse of all these "hello world, shucks, I don't know much about anything, just an average reader, but nevertheless am an expert on the finer points of WP:OWN and at extracting selective readings from previous arb findings going back to 2010; can you explain all the previous arguments to me re this specific articles from the top again please :)" new accounts, that seem magnetically attracted to humanities infobox after a few months of 3 edits every few weeks, and then after, for some reason then expire in to the either from whence they came. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, a main author of Ezra Pound, appears not to have received a DS alert, and nothing he has said rises to the level of a sanction. Pound is one of the articles that have attracted pro-box discussions several times; the argument against is that he led a complex life that would be hard to summarize accurately. The current discussion has been ongoing since 15 July; two pro-box editors have been fairly aggressive and a third was clearly baiting. Ceoil is not alone in wondering about sockpuppetry. I have too, particularly Epinoia (talk · contribs · count) (436 edits in nine years). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, it would be extraordinarily unfair if Ceoil were topic-banned from Pound. He's been editing it since 2007 and helping to shape it on article talk and other talk pages. He was also one of the FA nominators. There is nothing here that rises to the level of a sanction. What would be extremely helpful is if an admin were to add an infobox-discussion restriction of the kind added here to Talk:Stanley Kubrick. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion came to an end, then four days later Dlthewave inexplicably opened a new thread. What's happening there is excruciating, there's an insidious and systematic push to add a box, although consensus for a box hasn't been established in in eight years, despite many long discussions. There has been bad behavior all around, some more civil than others, (I think reopening a thread when a contentious discussions fades, is the definition of inciviliy) and yet Dlthewave chooses to report only Ceoil. If one editor is reported and sanctioned, then we should open reports on the behavior of the editors throughout. It would be even better for a trusted wiki elder or administrator to have the courage to close the discussion. What's happening there isn't healthy, neither for the editors involved or for the project as a whole. Should Ceoil be sanctioned, then I'd be happy to add diffs regarding Gerda's blatant canvassing, CurlyTurkey's comments to me that were far from the definition of civil, the edits from new editors, and the ongoing bludgeoning. Per FoF 2 of the original 2013 case, a box isn't required and the baiting there (which frankly has been ongoing for years) falls squarely into FoF 6 of the 2018 case. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dlthewave, I never had any intention of keep that particular box. As an experiment I added it at 12:13, July 16, against consensus. Three edits were added in quick succession, I lost a bunch of work, in frustration I reverted myself at 12:24 and decided to try to sandbox it, then thought I'd give it another shot, put it back at 12:25, then another edit conflict and I took it down and decided to work on it in my sandbox or off wiki because I had to go offline. Later that night, after reading this comments, I put it back. Then someone else reverted removed it after lots of other intermediary edits all of which require discussion. Then, less than one hour later, you opened a new thread on the talk page. Which the brought us here. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Outriggr, as I explained, here, here, and here the caption is an issue. The subsequent suggestion to replace the free image with a non-free one is worrying. And indicative. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Tuckerresearch: I've never done what I've about to do (but I've never posted here either). Please take a look at this page. Given those stats, I believed this comment directed at me. Regardless of who you meant, it wasn't a good way to begin to a thread. You might believe Ceoil deserves a block and sanctions, but equally so do I given the heat in the discussion which has distressed me at a time when I really am not able to cope with it, yet I believe strongly in the comments I've posted there. That said, I'd not mind a block simply to get out from under the accusations. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: Would an administrator please add an infobox discussion restriction to the Ezra Pound article of the type that Bishonen added to Talk:Stanley Kubrick in May. While such a restriction may feel a bit paternal[istic] [eh, pick a word], it's a very healthy and practical response to the worst of the infobox debates. I had planned to request this when the discussion was closed (which itself may have needed a request), but we're here now.
• Observation: Infobox debates seem to be rarer now, mostly as a result of long-term editors on both sides chilling out a bit, or more than a bit. (Including me. I shifted my position as a proposal on that page, probably ruining my relationship with a few people ;-), while internally still Not Getting Why Anyone Cares So Much About Adding A Box With Two Dates That Are In The Lead And Reiterating "Occupation".) This particular debate shows that they do still exist, however, and that they can still be surprisingly damaging, personal, and time-consuming. Going forward, any further debate of this type is almost certain to happen on pages that have already had the debate at least once, which itself poisons the new discussion as seen here. I believe the discussion-prevention remedy should be used as liberally as needed. Because the malignant discussions are so infrequent, localised and repetitious of themselves, it is less damaging to freeze a few discussions than it is to sanction editors of any stripe. Outriggr (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Victoria, I think you took the opposite meaning of what I intended to say. I intended to say that the minimal infobox, which I supported with amendment, adds very little to the article!—and I don't know why having it added is seen as such a positive outcome by some editors—as the minimal IB is highly repetitious of the article's opening lines. Sorry. Outriggr (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was not a participant in the discussion currently being discussed; I am a long standing editor on the Ezra Pound article and I have participated in countless discussions regarding whether or not to include an infobox in the Pound article. Pound's complicated life as pointed out by Victoriaearle and others make including an infobox a difficult proposition. I have worked with Ceoil and others on the article and in my opinion Ceoil is an important, knowledgeable and informed editor who has successfully brought the Ezra Pound article to Featured status. Everything that I observed Ceoil add regarding the current discussion seemed both reasonable and intelligent. In my opinion the discussion should be closed, and no infobox added...Modernist (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(1) User:Ceoil shows clear ownership behavior on this article, even his allies note that he is a "main author of Ezra Pound." (2) But what is worse, I think, is his sheer incivility to editors he disagrees with about having an infobox on this page. Much evidence can be found on archived versions of the talkpage, such as Talk:Ezra Pound/Archive 2 (I don't have the time to go back and pick out diffs there). But here I offer some diffs from the current Talk:Ezra Pound page to illustrate Ceoil's untoward behavior to fellow editors, and his complete failure to assume good faith in his fellow editors:

• Ceoil says someone with 179 edits should not edit the page.
• Ceoil accusing someone of edit warring.
• Ceoil calling someone's arguments "shallow, and wholly lacking any reading or understanding of previous debates on this talk."
• Ceoil accusing people who disagree with him of being sockpuppets.
• Ceoil accusing people of being bad at creating sockpuppets.
• Ceoil says someone who is trying to discuss things is merely "stoking the fires."
• Ceoil calling someone he disagrees with, someone who wants to further the discussion, an "agitator."
• Ceoil calls that user's tactics "cheap."
• Ceoil accuses more people of sockpuppetry and threatens them with investigations.
• Ceoil says people who disagree with him do so with "utter nonsense."
• Ceoil deletes a talkpage comment he doesn't like with the comment "prick"! That's right: Ceoil deleted a talkpage comment by a user he doesn't like or agree with and called him a "prick" in the process!
• Ceoil accuses an editor he disagrees with of being a sockpuppet, again, and anyone that wants an infobox must be "passive aggressive" who can't grasp his "subtle reasons."
• Ceoil has the gall to say that he gets to decide when people have a right to vote on an infobox for this article, saying that the people he disagrees with: "Typically they lack enough edit history to earn suffrage."
• Ceoil's first attack on me, calling me a "drive by" editor with a "non-thinking for 'whatever reason' line of thinking." He also condescendingly tells me to "read up before casting 'openion.'" [sic]
• Ceoil fails to assume good faith in his fellow editors claiming they haven't read the article, that they are merely "agitating," and are thus not "aware of how complex... this bio is."
• Ceoil fails to assume good faith in his fellow editors, saying his detractors are just "encroaching" and displaying "irresponsible intent."
• Ceoil's second attack on me. Since he can't say I'm a sockpuppet, instead he says I am so dumb I am "missing the point, and not for the first time" and I am merely "professing knowledge in areas which you clearly have none."
• Ceoil says someone with just 434 edits must be a sockpuppet for someone else. This is not the first time Ceoil accuses people of being a sockpuppet just because they disagree with him.
• Ceoil's third attack on me. He says my opinions, on a subjective matter of Wikipedia editing (not, say an objective matter of facts, like a date of birth) are "are weak, ill informed, and don't stack up." Furthermore, he says I have not performed a requisite, his requisite, amount of "due diligence before wading in" to this topic. He concludes that I "lack both the depth of knowledge and any intellectual curiosity to have credibility in this discussion." In essence, since he can't dismiss me as a sockpuppet (I've been an editor for 12 years, 10 months and 22 days), he just says I'm too stupid to comment.
• Ceoil says people who disagree with his position on an infobox for this page are just "angled towards baiting and blocks."
• Ceoil, after all of his belligerence, has the temerity to call for closing the discussion on an infobox because of "increasing belligerence." He furthermore accuses everyone else of "baiting and nonsense" and again attributes much of the opposition to his views to "activity from sleeper accounts."
• Ceoil rudely tells an editor to "put up or shut up now."
• Ceoil says another editor "has blood on his hands."
• Ceoil accuses an editor of lacking "conviction and character."
• Ceoil claims again that "newcomers" should not have a say on the infobox, or, I'm assuming, the Pound page.
• Ceoil calls someone a sockpuppet again.

The guy may be a good editor. In fact, I think the Ezra Pound article is pretty good. But User:Ceoil's uncivil behavior towards editors who disagree with him on the infobox issue should not go unnoticed. It is off-putting to both rookie and experienced editors and, I believe, violates Wikipedia policy. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: that diff you pointed out above was not directed at you. It was merely a warning to some of the people on the talkpage and those who were pinged (like me). You are a good editor, and you are quite civil on the talk page. (I'll admit that I am not always so civil.) But this is about Ceoil, who obviously has a pattern of such incivility: Block log-User:Ceoil. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: 'sure, one shouldn't "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it' is difficult to distinguish from 'sure, one shouldn't be seen to "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it, so we should quietly let them own pages and pretend we're not'. And 'some of these editors ... have, we can surmise, some expertise' is irrelevant. They could be the world's foremost authority on the topic of the article and this would have no bearing on a layout/formatting question like infoboxes. I'm glad you agree with Masem on at least some of the basic issue. The problem with assuming that a new editor is a sock is that every editor is new, when they're new, yet only a tiny fraction of them are socks. Given the frequency with which people use the information in infoboxes (they're called that for a reason), one going missing, or simply being seen as missing when similar articles have one, is a fairly likely impetus for someone to newly become an editor, especially if they don't feel they have much to contribute to verifiable article content yet. Even an eight-year-old can put together an argument for why this article should have the same feature as that other article they were reading a minute ago.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Ah, okay. "Expertise" is still a weird word to use for this; it can seem to imply that having been through previous i-box threads at the page gives one some kind of vested/supervote position. It's just a fact we deal with that incoming editors will re-raise old matters; they do this about everything, including a lot of content issues. Anyway, I'm also (in case my own view isn't clear) not trying to suggest that i-box disputes be perpetuated; it's why below I support SarahSV's i-box restrictions at the page in question. At some point it's just a discussion we don't need to have again there, any time soon. I have no position on whether the article in question would be better with/without one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SarahSV's "What would be extremely helpful is if an admin were to add an infobox-discussion restriction of the kind added ... to Talk:Stanley Kubrick". Even if it's not a bunch of socking, it's tedious, and WP:CCC doesn't mean "keep pushing argumentum ad nauseam until you WP:WIN through attrition". What I don't agree with is the notion that any sanction would be unfair. That's a false dichotomy. It's not like every sanction has to be a year-long topic-ban or block.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The evidence provided in the complaint and by Tuckerresearch does indicate a pattern of WP:OWNership and battleground-like behavior by Ceoil. I am considering a ban from editing the article Ezra Pound and its talk page, and welcome the input of other administrators. Sandstein 09:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm looking through the talk page and looking at the diffs indicated and their context. There's definitely a need to caution Ceoil on presuming bad faith against newer accounts, though history of infoboxes have shown that they do tent to get socks in other situations, so it is fair to be aware of the broad issue, just not appropriate to accuse others directly w/o evidence. I also agree there's a bit of OWNership here. But if we consider Cassianto's behavior reviewed by the Infobox Arbcom case as the point where the line needs to be drawn, I'm not seeing that line being crossed, just getting close to it. Civility wise, I'm just not seeing something needed admin action, yet. A firm caution to avoid OWNership (their !vote has no special weight over any other even if they contributed 90% to the article) and to avoid bad faith assumptions towards editors. Everything else seems to be just inherent problems of the infobox wars that the community hasn't resolved yet, so nothing that one can pin to one editor in one specific situation. I would likely also support a short-term block if others feel stronger action is needed, but context doesn't seem to suggest a full topic ban is needed yet. --Masem (t) 14:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• That I would agree with Masem sure is something. False or as yet unfounded accusations of socking are a violation of AGF, sure (as are snide and uncivil remarks), and OWNership should be discouraged, but this is frequently the kind of issue that our content editors run into: editors with a low count and few contributions either to the article(s) at hand or to the general business of infoboxes. A perusal of the three archived talk pages shows there certainly is no consensus whatsoever to include one, and the more substantive of those discussions indicate to me that there is consensus to not have one. So, if a "new" editor comes by and scratches the scab off it should not be surprised that some of the old-timers, who've danced this dance before (on this and other articles) and are probably dead-tired of it, are miffed: sure, one shouldn't "own" articles, but some of these editors have devoted significant time and energy to it and have, we can surmise, some expertise.

  In short, I do not see any reason for a sanction under these guidelines, though other aspects of editorial behavior may warrant some comments--but there also I see nothing really extraordinary. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • SMcCandlish, without wanting to get in too deeply right now, by "expertise" I mean a bunch of things, including a knowledge of the history of the article--if a new editor would take the time to research the talk page archives (like, du moment they see or realize that this isn't the first time it's brought up) they would gain some of that expertise. I do not endorse the idea that new editors should be accused of socking merely because they're new or are treading on possibly thin ice. I hope that clarifies things a bit? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "expertise" is the right word here, and to me doesn't suggest "vested"--it rather suggests "expertise", though in this case that's not just content knowledge but also some institutional knowledge. Wikipedia values expertise: if someone comes to me with some question about pool or the MOS, I'll send them to you, and I'll value your opinion over that of someone who has no proven experience in that area. And if that experience and expertise keeps being questioned and the expert loses their cool, I will sympathize with them. BTW I also don't have much of an opinion on infoboxes in general; it's a matter I prefer to stay away from. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• In reference to Masem's comment, Cassianto's behavior basically triggered an Arbcom case so the line needs to be drawn before another editor reaches that point. I've added an editing restriction to the article [79] so hopefully things will settle down after the current discussion is closed. My preference is a caution to Ceoil as Masem suggested as well as a reminder to all editors that approaching an admin about adding restrictions aimed at limiting repeated unproductive infobox arguments is a more constructive path to take. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that I agree. I still think Ceoil's behavior is sufficient far enough away from where Cassianto was behavior, or where the line should be drawn before another editor gets there, but Ceoil's behavior is leading that way, so the warnings/etc. all are appropriate at this point. --Masem (t) 16:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

פֿינצטערניש (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 + incivility

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

1. 12:50, 4 August 2018 Conflict related edit to conflict related page.
2. 18:38, 4 August 2018 user apprised of general prohibition and its applicability to their edits, which they acknowledged - 19:22, 4 August 2018.
3. 19:26, 4 August 2018 Conflict related edit to conflict related page.
4. 22:20, 4 August 2018 Personal attack

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)

08:08, 3 August 2018 notified.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that the user changed their username from Finsternish to פֿינצטערניש on 11:47, 3 August 2018 - the DS alert was issued to Finsternish prior to this.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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.

If you look on the edit history of the page about Dareen Tatour you will see that my edits were removing several clear attempts to push the reporting user's POV, which the user was blatantly re-adding. They were even working to make the article conform more to their POV by removing statements that were previously in the lead, such as the condemnation of Tatour's arrest, imprisonment, and conviction at the hands of the Israeli police and justice system, despite this international condemnation being the sole reason for her notability (after all, not all of the thousands of people convicted of terrorism charges in Israel for social media posts has a Wikipedia page).

The user responded by threatening to report me for editing an article despite having less than 500 edits. I responded by insulting them, because it was clear to me that they had no concern whatsoever for the quality of Wikipedia and were only there to make Israel look good. In their eyes, Wikipedia should toe the Israeli government's party line and make excuses for it, rather than reporting on all the facts. And they are willing to go to any means necessary - including abuse of systems such as this one - to ensure that their POV is represented.

See also the discussion on the talk page for Human Rights on Israel - a page that, unlike the one on Dareen Tatour, is protected against me editing it, which is the reasonable way to enforce such an arbitration decision - where I ask that something be added to the article and the user responds by parroting the Israeli government's party line instead of agreeing to edit the article to point out the controversy over Israel's suppression of poets, and its condemnation at the hands of one of the oldest free speech advocacy organizations in the world with a long history of condemning injustice everywhere, not just Israel.

I stand by all of this. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add that if Israel wants Wikipedia to make them look good, it should stop doing things that are indefensible instead of getting other people to control the facts that end up in encyclopedias about it. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the point about protecting the article being the reasonable method of enforcement: The reporting user could have simply asked an administrator to protect the page, so why did they instead leave a message on my talk page telling me that I'm not allowed to edit it? The former method is a fool-proof way of making sure that contributors with less than 500 edits to the English Wikipedia can't edit; the latter only informs one user. So what was the reason? Because they are a bumbler with no conception of how Wikipedia works? Or was there some ulterior motive? It doesn't look like it's the former. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @פֿינצטערניש: The problem is not with what you write, but that you are prohibited from editing pages that are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until you meet the criteria in WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. You have disregarded a notification to that effect. In enforcement of the restriction, you are therefore blocked for a week. In addition, you are treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground, with statements such as "it's entirely possible you're being paid for this, because I know not every IDF soldier is physically fit enough to go toe-to-toe with Palestinian babies" and "I don't think you have Wikipedia in mind; I think you have Israel in mind". This is prohibited, see WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND. We cannot let people with such an attitude edit high-tension, controversial topics. Consequently, you are topic-banned from anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I will lift this ban after you have had six months of experience of editing Wikipedia productively and without conflict in other topic areas. Sandstein 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 July 2018, ArbCom indefinitely topic banned User:Philip Cross from edits relating to post-1978 British politics, broadly construed.

On 3 August 2018, Cross made a series of five consecutive edits to the BLP of British journalist Decca Aitkenhead. According to our BLP, Aitkenhead in 2009 won Interviewer of the Year at the British Press Awards, having "particularly impressed the judges with her remarkable encounter" with Alistair Darling, a Labour Party politician who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 2007–2010. Before moving this month to The Sunday Times, Decca Aitkenhead wrote for The Guardian, where she most recently (27 Jul 2018) interviewed Salisbury MP John Glen, an incumbent British Conservative Party politician. Such professional activity puts Aitkenhead squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

On 5 August 2018, Cross made a series of fifteen consecutive edits to the BLP of British actor and politician Andrew Faulds. According to our BLP, Faulds entered British politics in 1963. His obituary in The Telegraph, cited in our BLP, reports that as a Labour MP, Faulds twice served as front-bench arts spokesman in the British House of Commons. He held that post until sacked in May 1982. Such professional activity puts Faulds squarely within the scope of Philip Cross's topic ban relating to post-1978 British politics.

This ANI discussion request for enforcement is not about the content of Cross's edits but solely about his flouting of ArbCom's indefinite topic ban just nine days after it was imposed. KalHolmann (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update as of 7 August 2018. At another page, one of the drafting arbitrators of ArbCom's sanctions against Philip Cross has clarified this issue. "We definitely did not intend the topic ban to be construed to not apply to some edits to pages about the topic area," writes User:BU Rob13. "All topic bans apply to such edits. We chose the wording of 'all edits' rather than 'all pages' to emphasize that even edits that cover the topic on pages that do not typically cover the topic are covered, which is the standard meaning of a topic ban. If we intended to place a restriction other than a topic ban, we would not have called it such. I think even the admins at AE occasionally need a reminder not to wikilawyer - a topic ban is a topic ban. If it helps, we can strike 'all edits about' and just say Philip Cross is topic banned from the topic area." (Emphasis added.) I urge the closing administrator of this request for enforcement to give BU Rob13's clarification the full weight it deserves and to not be misled by the uninvolved administrators' unanimity below—which happens to be unanimously wrong. This infraction by Philip Cross is fully actionable. KalHolmann (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decca Aitkenhead is a journalist specialising in interviews of prominent people rather than a political journalist except for occasionally interviewing politicians. The changes to this article are here and do not contain any mention of politics. The edits to the article about Andrew Faulds I made earlier today are here. It can be seen that I made no edit about Faulds post-1978 career. The topic ban does not include post-1978 sources, unless "broadly construed" includes post-1978 journalism about pre-1978 events too. Philip Cross (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my recent edits to the Aitkenhead, Faulds and Colin Jordan articles. Philip Cross (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What [PC was] doing [above] is called Wikilawyering. It never works. Your topic ban scope is unambiguous, and the Faulds article is unambiguously within that scope. We can do without KalHolmann's creative interpretations of scope, which are unnecessary here. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommendation: Close as no action base don the self-revert, and counsel KalHolmann not to engage in creative interpretations of scope as part of his ongoing campaign against PC. That only weakens his case and reduces the chances of decisive action when an unambiguous breach does happen. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Philip Cross has self reverted, my 2 cents is that he should be let of the hook, for now...BUT with a stern warning that any new infractions will be sternly dealt with. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cross is a highly experienced, long term editor. He is, beyond any shadow of doubt, fully aware of the boundaries of his Topic Ban; post 1978 British Politics broadly construed. Both Andrew Faulds and Colin Jordan fall within that scope. The content of the edits themselves are irrelevant. He is pushing the boundaries.

Broadly construed "Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak.... If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first". Don't be fooled by claims of misconstrual, he is too well versed in the system for that. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see clarification from the case drafting Arbitrator. Clarification: BLP issues on British politics articles

A Topic Ban is a Topic Ban, irrespective of the mental gymnastics used to turn it into a Topic Ban Lite. Cross' edits, self-reverted after the fact, fall within that reach and should be recognised for what they are. --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have a question around self-reverting. The implication here appears to be that Cross can edit wherever and, as long as he self-reverts when his edits are flagged up as potentially problematic, that's fine? Yes or na? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the authoritative statement below specifying the scope of the topic ban, much of the earlier discussion here, including my censored contributions, is no longer relevant. The edits themselves have been reverted and were in any case innocuous, problematic only in that they violated the ban.

I suggest that this enforcement request should therefore be closed forthwith, because there is nothing that needs to be done. The ban violation, which must now be recognised as a fact, can be appropriately taken into account later, when and if any appeal by Philip Cross is received and considered. 121.72.182.89 (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that passes it will be a good clarificaion and one that I'm sure Phillip will take on board from now on, there won't be any need for admin actions on this report.Govindaharihari (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would close this as not actionable. The wording of the remedy is in relevant part: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from edits relating to post-1978 British politics". This is more restrictive than a usual topic ban per WP:TBAN: while a usual topic ban covers both pages related to the topic and edits related to the topic, the unusual wording of the remedy ("banned from edits relating to ...") indicates that this ban is intended to cover only edits related to the topic. The normal wording would have been something like "banned from anything related to ...". In this case, the edits as such were not related to politics, and the remedy was therefore not violated. Sandstein 06:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Anything related to” is not the standard wording. A topic ban is defined in the wikilink included in the remedy. Any edit to a page relating to post-1978 British politics is covered. This is a standard topic ban. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @BU Rob13: Thanks for the feedback, but the remedy as written appears to contradict itself. While it links to WP:TBAN, which defines a standard topic ban that includes both topic-related edits and other edits to topic-related pages, the clause "edits relating to" has, as I read it, a limiting effect such that only topic-related edits are prohibited, not other edits to topic-related pages. To avoid such uncertainty, I recommend that future remedies are worded to only make reference to WP:TBAN without additional clauses, e.g., "... is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from British politics". Based on the current wording, I myself would take no action here, although of course other admins are free to interpret the remedy differently and take action. Sandstein 13:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Sandstein, the TBAN specifies edits relating to post-1978 politics, not a ban from editing pages containing content relating to post-1978 politics. And so no action should be taken. That being said, 99.9% of Wikipedia articles contain no link whatsoever to post-1978 British politics, and it would probably be sensible for Mr Cross to stick to those, as eventually this testing of the waters will result in a collective cessation of patience. Fish+Karate 13:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest closing as no action based on the self-revert. Given Sandstein’s reading I would also suggest interested parties take this to ARCA because I have a suspicion that the committee intended a standard TBAN. (@JzG: you may be the best to do it, since you’re familiar with both the case and how ArbCom works.) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TENFOOTPOLE, mate. The partisans (other than PC, who seems quite sanguine about the whole thing) don't accept me as an honest broker. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too, would close this as not actionable. While this diff gave me pause, reading through it carefully shows that Philip Cross followed the his restriction as written. Were that not enough, he self-reverted, suggesting an abundance of caution. Now had the restriction been worded the normal way this would have been a violation, so I, too, recommend ARCA if this is in doubt. Since there is no support for a sanction here, I will close this as "not actionable" shortly if no further comments come in. Vanamonde (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• No admins seem to be interested in taking action at this time, particularly in view of the self-reverts. I'm therefore closing this. The scope of the topic ban is likely to be clarified in the WP:ARCA thread. Sandstein 19:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]