Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:30, 15 November 2015

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Nocturnalnow

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nocturnalnow

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nocturnalnow (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

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions : Biographies of Living Persons discretionary sanctions with regard to the biography of Huma Abedin.

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

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

Edit-wars the {{NPOV}} tag into the article despite clear consensus that it doesn't apply:

1. 00:15, 23 October 2015
2. 20:08, 22 October 2015
3. 03:28, 22 October 2015
4. 18:56, 21 October 2015
5. 02:23, 19 October 2015
6. 21:59, 7 October 2015
7. 20:41, 7 October 2015
8. 01:54, 7 October 2015

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

Notified of the sanctions by Gamaliel here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

I would also note that this user is a brand-new account which recently showed up to edit Abedin's biography in a negative manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Nocturnalnow

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by D.Creish

Based on edits since my involvement in this article I question the filer's neutrality.

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

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

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

"Well, no. The reliable sources on this matter are unanimous in describing these allegations as scurrilous, unfounded conspiracy theories." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2014

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

"I suggest you read the reliable sources which universally declare the claims to be baseless, scurrilous partisan personal attacks." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @EdJohnston: Why exactly do you feel I deserve a restriction? I haven't edit warred, I haven't added objectively contentious material. Just today I made the following post to the article talk page:

Commenters on the Arbitration page expressed concerns with neutrality. I echo their concerns - this section title strikes me as particularly non-neutral, specifically WRT WP:LABEL. The majority of reliable non-opinion pieces do not describe the letter as a "partisan attack." Such wording would be inappropriate, unattributed, in the body of the section and doubly so in the title.
I hope to avoid a repeat of the earlier edit wars and establish consensus here before any controversial edits. D.Creish (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

whereas NorthBySouthBaranoff (the editor you feel should not be restricted) swooped in without talk page discussion to revert against consensus. I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. D.Creish (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As for a general restriction on the article, the edit warring mostly concerned the section heading which is settled for now. I'd consult the editors involved but I don't foresee any issues. Re: 0RR, it seems like it could easily be abused: negative or questionable material could be added but not reverted (if I understand the restriction correctly.) D.Creish (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nocturnalnow

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

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

I am absolutely willing to stop editing the Abedin BLP, however, when I announced such an intention awhile back, an Editor who in my view has been also trying to improve the content expressed his disappointment with my leaving the BLP. That, plus my own reluctance to abandon what I thought is a non-NPOV BLP, led me to conclude I should continue editing Huma Abedin.

However, I also am accepting the constructive comments here by Gamaliel and others about me needing to read more about and practice more of our editing process and policies re: BLPs; so, I will be doing that regardless of the outcome of this enforcement request. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu

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

Statement by Johnuniq

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

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

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

Statement by Gamaliel

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

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

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

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

Statement by Rhoark

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

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

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

I had intended not to further argue content issues with @NorthBySouthBaranof: on this page, since there seems to be a loose consensus on where things stand with Nocturnalnow. In light of @EdJohnston:'s comments however, I need to speak to the content issues that bear upon the conduct of all parties. We should not tolerate anyone wishing the article to read more negatively, no matter how patiently they negotiate. That is what we call civil POV pushing. We shouldn't tolerate that from any point of view. Per NPOV, Misplaced Pages should describe disputes but not engage in them. If reliable sources substantiate the claim that a POV is factually wrong, that's still describing. That's not the state of sourcing in this matter, though. I don't think you will find a reliable source contesting any of the following:

• That Huma Abedin has a high degree of access to the Clintons
• That Abedin can be connected at several degrees of separation to the Muslim Brotherhood by way of various family members
• That family members with foreign entanglements are a major area of concern in a clearance background check

The mainstream point of view is that worrying about these things is paranoid, vicious, ignorant, Islamophobic, McCarthyist, regressive, and generally unworthy of consideration. That's my take as well. It is not, however, objectively verifiable or falsifiable. The majority opinion is still an opinion, and to express it through the form of a section heading is engaging in the dispute. All the disparaging things the media has said about Bachmann should be put to use in describing the level of acceptance of her views, but not the views themselves. I highlighted the fact that these concerns were raised by a group of congressional representatives - not because I'm so naive as to suppose elected officials are reliable sources, but because the closest thing there is to a bright-line test of fringiness in non-academic topics is a lack of prominent adherents. Congress is fairly prominent, which is why I said this issue has the profile of a non-fringe minority view. Were it fringe, though, the only prescription would be to leave it out of the article. If it's in the article, it has to be described impartially. Avoiding false balance is a matter of weight, not a call to endorse the majority. There is no hybrid or middle ground of NPOV and FRINGE that allows Misplaced Pages to take the gloves off. Rhoark (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by Cla68

After looking at the diffs, it appears that both NorthbySouthBaranoff's and Nocturnalnow's edits are partisan. Both editors could be interpreted as engaging in BATTLEFIELD behavior. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, saying something like this could be interpreted as not being a very welcoming or congenial reception to a new editor. Cla68 (talk) 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Professor JR

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

Statement by Ryk72

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nocturnalnow

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

• Noting that I've fully protected the article. Also Johnuniq if you wish to submit evidence regarding other (ie not Nocturnalnow) could you please submit a separate AE request, thanks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• The full protection seems like a good idea. What to do when protection expires is a harder question. Editors might be required to get approval from an RfC for any further negative material. But it's not easy to word such a restriction. *If* this article were under a 500/30 restriction like the Gamergate controversy article, neither Nocturnalnow (talk · contribs) nor D.Creish (talk · contribs) would be allowed to edit (neither user has reached 500 edits). For now, I'd suggest that User:Callanecc extend the full protection for another three weeks. If we see any useful discussion on the talk page during that time it may give some ideas for what to do in the future. When protection expires, if there is a steady stream of people wanting this article to be more negative (who aren't willing to negotiate patiently over the wording) then article bans or a 500/30 restriction might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'd actually be tempted to put them both (or at least Nocturnalnow) under 0RR on this article and see what happens then. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Alternatively 0RR on the article (with normal exceptions so vandalism and obvious BLP stuff can be removed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• After reading Rhoark's interpretation of 0RR I am tempted to agree with User:Callanecc. I would put Nocturnalnow and D.Creish under 0RR restrictions on the article but give a warning to User:NorthBySouthBaranof. (I would make no exception to the 0RR for vandalism or BLP because some of the warriors believe they are defending BLP). But if this article becomes a political football during the campaign my guess is that long-term full protection may be the only option. EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• After checking the history of the article in the last few days, I'd favor closing this with no action. Though the edits by User:Nocturnalnow don't inspire confidence, they are not yet enough (in my opinion) to justify an editing restriction. And there are too many editors to pick out one or two who are doing a conspicuously bad job on BLP. If the article gets into trouble again, a longer period of full protection could be the best option. That has the virtue of forcing a discussion before changes can get made (via edit request). Of all the above comments, I draw attention to the neutral tone of User:Rhoark's assessment. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanction topic ban violation block of HughD

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

Onefortyone

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Onefortyone

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Excelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Onefortyone (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

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation :

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

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

This all comes from last 9 days. If we were to talk about his decade of editing, there have been many complaints and they can be pointed too. Excelse (talk) 06:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Onefortyone

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Onefortyone

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Onefortyone

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

• See:
  

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone (Nov 2005)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone (Nov. 2005)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis (Nov. 2006)

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

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

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

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

Lvivske

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Yossiea~enwiki

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Yossiea~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Yossiea 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

48 hour block for https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:List_of_military_occupations&diff=690173133&oldid=690166858

Administrator imposing the sanction

Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

(None needed). Swarm ♠ 05:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Yossiea~enwiki

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

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

Statement by Swarm

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

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

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

Indefinite?

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

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

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

Proposal

This is pretty much an aberration on the part of Yossiea the evidence suggests. It relates to a specific topic area. They as far as I understand admit this on their talk page. A ten day block isn't necessary to end the disruption. Blocks and bans are not intended to be a punishment. A simple topic ban will do. Considering that they have suggested that they are aware that this was caused by stress of operating in this area and that they are not interested in operating in this area at this time it seems that the disruption has ended and you could simply take no action and just give them the rope. Any I would propose that you either give them a topic ban or take no other action but simply unblocking hem as soon as the first block is scheduled to end or right away.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Swarm: I do feel that this a acknowledgement that they know the comment is unacceptable, though it does seem they try to justify it to some extent. As I understand they seem to be concerned that a ban on the Arab and Israel conflict will ban them from subjects related solely to Israel such as ]. I think this concern should be genuinely considered. There's probably enough justification for a topic ban. I could point out a number of things even the 1RR that you mention as a justification for the topic ban but there concern does seem reasonable as well. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment of franp9am

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

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

Comment by RolandR

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki

Result of the appeal by Yossiea~enwiki

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

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

@Franp9am:, I'm sorry not to have moved your comments. I came back to the page to repost them in the editors' section when I saw that you reposted them yourselves. Thank you for doing so. Liz 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal to redefine sanction

I support the indef as an appropriate response to an egregious personal attack which he proceeded to defend as if it were justified. We would not be in the wrong for leaving the block in place, IMO. That being said, I think a reduced, clearly defined sanction would provide the project with the same protection, without an indef. I would support Callanecc's suggestion for an indefinite topic ban for ARBPIA articles and an AE block with the length reset for 10 days. This seems like a sufficiently strong enforcement action and one that would provide ample preventative measures. Jpgordon and any others, objections? Swarm ♠ 05:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But the deal is off if the editor insists on being able to call other users terrorists. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't pay any particular attention to the original AE unblock request; when I'm patrolling CAT:RFU, I generally stay away from AE issues, as other people seem to be doing fine with that particular process. I'm amenable to whatever you decide here; my block might have been a bit harsh, but then, the incivility was particularly egregious. I hesitated for a moment because of the AE stuff; I wouldn't have hesitated otherwise, given the nature of the language used. --jpgordon 06:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Agreed. I'm trying to help them out here because they've been around for a long time and for the most part have not had any issues aside from a 1rr vio and are begging for another chance. But it appears they don't see a problem with their comments and don't feel any sanction is necessary. They're pushing it. Swarm ♠ 22:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Swarm's idea. This seems the best for all concerned. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaakobou

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Jaakobou

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaakobou (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

Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 01:05, 13 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict
2. 12:13, 12 November 2015 Discussing the real world conflict

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 04:16, 8 March 2012 banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed across all namespaces

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Didn't feel like adding every diff, but pretty much every edit made by the user since October 30th has been a violation of the topic ban. And add the stealth canvassing to a discussion opened in violation of the ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Jaakobou

This complaint is with no merit and should be quickly dismissed. I requested a review of a flaw in how policy is implemented. Following that suggestion to go to WP:UP, I prepared text and pinged multiple admins. I Listened to feedback as well. Discussion on UP was very slow and with little participation, thus I contacted French, who have some recent knowledge on militancy. I have no special reason to think they support Israel or my preferred addition to the polemics policy -- which you can see does not mention Israel:

• " Poetic militancy in support of or promoting violent acts, quotes and paraphrases to raise the spirit of fight and other forms of political militant activism are not permitted." (on user-pages)

I did mention that there are a lot of stabbing attacks in Israel and changing the policy is not going to hurt the project. If there is real belief on Arbcom that by mentioning real-world casualties of terrorism in Israel I have crossed the line, I apologize. I've made a considerable effort to make the matter general.

Side note: Nableezy (talk · contribs) has a bit of a history of grinding axes with those "he is disallowed from naming". I actually believe he's in violation of WP:POLEMIC as well, keeping a list of wiki-enemies on his user-page. I hope that others who comment on this request will disclose any COI which they might have. Jaakobou 00:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho 2

This falls outside of ARBPIA. While the language used is nonsensical it does nothing to specially target the Israel Arab topic area. Poetic Militancy could just as easily target the Ukraine insurgency and it's supporters.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by nableezy

He's using examples specifically within the topic area. this is a direct reference to Tiamut's user page (the Incitement to "sharpen the weapons" against Jews, albeit masqueraded as a paraphrase on Shakespeare (quoted from an Arab newspaper) and whatnot), a user Jaak has an interaction ban with. That same diff discusses "Arab 'mukawama'" (which despite what the user thinks isnt an Arab doctrine of conflict enhancement whatever that is supposed to mean, it's the Arabic word for resistance). And pretty much every article he links to in for example this, this, and this is about ongoing attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The user is banned from discussing the conflict anywhere on Misplaced Pages, so I disagree that this falls outside of ARBPIA. He could have worded it so that it did, but he has not. nableezy - 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaakobou

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