Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:47, 9 August 2017 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,167 edits →Statement by François Robere← Previous edit Revision as of 17:51, 9 August 2017 edit undoGoldenRing (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,924 edits →Nishidani: close - ppNext edit →
Line 261: Line 261:


==Nishidani== ==Nishidani==
{{hat|Page protected for three days to give the talk page a chance. If disruption continues once protection express, please let me know or bring it back here. ] (]) 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>


Line 383: Line 384:
:{{re|François Robere}} 1RR is ''intended'' to reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces. If you think its application to you is a needless extensions of bureaucracy, you are going to find out otherwise pretty quickly. And if you want to be left to edit in peace, this is not the space to do it in. In this space, you have to edit collaboratively, with editors with whom you disagree. You might be new to this topic, but you are not new to Misplaced Pages, and you ought to understand all this. It's very generous of NMMNG to only bring a complaint against Nishidani, but I don't think I'd be happy with sanctions on only one side of this dispute. ] (]) 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC) :{{re|François Robere}} 1RR is ''intended'' to reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces. If you think its application to you is a needless extensions of bureaucracy, you are going to find out otherwise pretty quickly. And if you want to be left to edit in peace, this is not the space to do it in. In this space, you have to edit collaboratively, with editors with whom you disagree. You might be new to this topic, but you are not new to Misplaced Pages, and you ought to understand all this. It's very generous of NMMNG to only bring a complaint against Nishidani, but I don't think I'd be happy with sanctions on only one side of this dispute. ] (]) 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|François Robere}} You don't get to decide the scope of exceptions to 1RR. If you keep breaking 1RR over content and style, you're going to get blocked for it. And sure, it'd be lovely if Misplaced Pages was always a pleasant working environment. But there are subjects where people genuinely have very deep-seated disagreements and this is one of them. People are not going to just agree on everything. You don't get to decide how other people approach you, only how you react to them. ] (]) 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC) :{{re|François Robere}} You don't get to decide the scope of exceptions to 1RR. If you keep breaking 1RR over content and style, you're going to get blocked for it. And sure, it'd be lovely if Misplaced Pages was always a pleasant working environment. But there are subjects where people genuinely have very deep-seated disagreements and this is one of them. People are not going to just agree on everything. You don't get to decide how other people approach you, only how you react to them. ] (]) 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Wickey-nl== ==Wickey-nl==

Revision as of 17:51, 9 August 2017

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. 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:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

    Appeal declined. All admins who commented made clear that they would support an unblock only if Debresser understood and agreed to abide by their topic ban, but if anything, we've seen statements to the contrary. ~ Rob13 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    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
    Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Debresser (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    3-day block
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    I sent him an email, which is all I can do in my current blocked state. Debresser (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I was apparently blocked for this edit, making a note on my talkpage regarding an article I can not edit, however, and as I said very clearly in the edit summary of that edit "I am not commenting on anything specific", rather made a note that there are various (technical) issues with that article, so there should be no reason to block me. In general, I think this block is taking bureaucracy too far.

    If need be, I am perfectly willing to do what User:Nishidani always threatens with but never delivers, and stop editing Misplaced Pages in my tenth year of editing. I have fun editing (as you can see from my active editing even when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area), and I think I made valuable contributions, but this witch-hunt bureaucracy type of attitude towards me is really ruining the fun for me. I never saw any justice on Misplaced Pages, starting with the first time I reported an editor for using the f-word and received a few more on WP:ANI, and things have never become any better. If admins do not want to deliver justice, at least they should not deliver injustice! And to those who will say that these kinds of "arguments" do not help, or even may be detrimental to my main argument, I say: I will say the truth as I see it. I see no reason why your opinion about Misplaced Pages is more true than mine, just because you are an admin. I have edited here almost ten years and have almost 100,000 edits on my name, and am entitled to my opinion, and to express it. Now you do whatever you think is right. At most you will disappoint me once more. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

    My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Misplaced Pages. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. For me, Misplaced Pages is an on-Misplaced Pages thing. I am not leading a double life. Debresser (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by GoldenRing

    I'm very happy to have my enforcement action reviewed here and to reverse it if there is significant opinion that I have erred.

    I'm on a tablet at present so this will be quick notes to which I will add diffs tomorrow morning.

    Debresser was topic-banned for two months, by me, which he appealed unsuccessfully. He started collecting notes on his talk page for things to do once the ban was over (). Someone pointed out that this was a ban violation, so Debresser asked me for clarification. I think I was unambiguous in my response that such edits are not allowed. He continued making his list, including an article that very clearly falls within the scope of his ban, so I blocked him for 72 hours to enforce the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

    @Huldra: Let's not relitigate the topic-ban here. It was appealed and the appeal was declined. GoldenRing (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Sir Joseph: That may be your opinion of topic bans, but policy is quite clear: topic bans include "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Misplaced Pages, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist, but also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages (including sandboxes)." The idea is the user is supposed to be taking a break from the topic. GoldenRing (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    As those below, I'd be very happy for Debresser to be unblocked early if anyone was convinced that he was planning to abide by the topic ban. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Huldra

    Debresser writes "when I am topic-banned for no good reason from a certain area".

    I strongly disagree with this statement. Debresser was topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine for calling me "anti-Jewish", without any proof whatsoever. That Debresser still doesn't see that his behaviour is troublesome, is very worrying. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    Just a comment that I think bans should never apply to a user talk page. It's not disruptive and nobody is forcing anyone to read it.

    @GoldenRing:, I understand the policy, I was just saying what I believe. The purpose of a TBAN is to stop disruptions to a page or talk pages. There is no disruption to Misplaced Pages on the whole when a user posts on his talk page. In many cases, it's good for a user to be allowed to vent and cool down, etc. Sir Joseph 15:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    Debresser in his unblock request challenged my bona fides, as if I were aiming to get him off Misplaced Pages, when I warned him 3 times not to violate his Tban, without recourse to AE. When he sought to take this to AE I advised Debresser not to do so. He reverted that advice, as is his right.

    Just for the record, this is not about just 1 infraction, but several.

    Statement by Capitals00

    I think Debresser should be unblocked since its the first violation of recent topic ban. Capitals00 (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    I suggested on Debresser's talk page that he just make his notes on his computer, as he is presumably using a computer to make the notes on his talk page he could just as easily open up notepad or an equivalent program and make notes to his heart's desire. The response is My reply to the argument that I should makes notes on my computer and not on Misplaced Pages. That is going too far. I will make notes wherever I please. That right there is the problem, the belief that he is entitled to do whatever he wishes whenever and wherever he wishes. He got off light with a time-limited topic ban, seeing as at least one admin was going to make it indef, and he had been warned against making notes on the topic area prior to the block. But the need to keep pushing the limit, to prove that he is entitled to do what he wishes where he wishes, that is the same attitude that led to the past topic bans. Debresser, all you have to do is say I understand I may not comment on the topic area and I will refrain from doing so, in any way, anywhere on Misplaced Pages for the duration of the topic ban. And boom, block lifted. But you want to assert your right to ignore the parts of the ban you dislike. That's your choice obviously, but I cant imagine that its going to be successful. nableezy - 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Debresser wrote on his talk page @Nableezy Although I am not sure you are not, in fact, anti-Semitic. He modified that to remove that bit, but the tendency to attack others, to make such claims publicly without evidence, demonstrates how little use this topic ban has done for the user. I'd support an indef ban at this point. Debresser has to internalize the point that he may not attack other editors without any evidence for his incendiary charges. Full stop. nableezy - 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (editor)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser

    Result of the appeal by Debresser

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • GoldenRing's block was clearly valid. Editing or commenting anywhere on the site about a page within the topic area, including in userspace or on user talk pages, is a topic ban violation. However, I'd be willing to support unblocking early if Debresser clearly stated that they understand they cannot comment (generally or specifically) about any page falling within the topic area or any edit related to the topic area anywhere on Misplaced Pages until the topic ban is lifted. ~ Rob13 23:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Given Debresser's recent comment stating he intends to take notes "wherever I please" (copied above), I'm both inclined to not lift the block and inclined to issue a warning that doing this in the future will lead to a block that lasts the duration of the topic ban with talk page access removed. Thoughts, Dennis Brown and SoWhy? ~ Rob13 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I would simply echo Rob here, GoldenRing was within his authority to block. Qualifying a violation doesn't prevent sanctioning for it. If you can show you understand that, then unblocking would be fine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Debresser, You are topic banned from anything related to "Arab-Israeli conflict", broadly construed. This means anything, anywhere, anytime, so long as the ban exists. You can say "I will make notes wherever I please.", if you please, but you should expect escalating blocks or extensions of the topic ban. This is the same as any other tban. You aren't special. This is the same as would be expected of any tbanned editor: no mentioning or skirting the topic on ANY page. Let me remind you that if you are brought here again, the likelihood of your tban being expanded from two months to 6 months is very high. I would strongly suggest you don't even take notes at home, and instead, go focus on something completely unrelated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    • As GoldenRing correctly points out, WP:TBAN explicitly includes talk pages in its scope. One can disagree that this is reasonable, as Sir Joseph does, but that does not make the policy disappear. Such bans are meant to deter the editor from doing anything related to the topic to avoid further problems and we all know how user talk pages can sometimes turn into content discussion pages. That said, echoing my colleagues above, if Debresser demonstrates they understand this, I see no reason not to unblock early. Regards SoWhy 10:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @BU Rob13: As I noted above, my agreeing to an unblock was conditional on Debresser understanding that writing about a topic anywhere on this project can potentially lead to more conflict, since even notes in userspace might cause others to start a discussion on Debresser's talk page or somewhere else, thus creating more conflict even without Debresser's direct involvement. WP:TBANs serve to prevent any such potential disruption. If they cannot understand that, the policy is clear on how to handle it. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
      • @Debresser: It's not about "leading a double-life", it's about understanding that anything you write on these pages might be seen by others and thus might lead to further problems as described above. There are soo many online services that allow you to take notes outside Misplaced Pages without having to save them on your PC and there are many that are completely anonymous and without needing registration. I see no reason that forces you to make notes on Misplaced Pages. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    JFG

    Article not under 1RR. ~ Rob13 19:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 JFG

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Casprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    JFG (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/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 10:57 3 AUG 2017 1rr
    2. 11:06 3 AUG 2017 2rr
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JFG/Archive_Drama#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JFG/Archive_Drama#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    1rr violation after previous 1rr violations on Russian interference articles.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJFG&type=revision&diff=793741494&oldid=792848831

    Discussion concerning JFG

    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 JFG

    Unfounded complaint: this article is not under 1RR. Editors are discussing the content issue on the talk page. — JFG 17:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning JFG

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

    E.M.Gregory

    E.M.Gregory is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from editing anything related both to living persons and the politics of Venezuela for three months.  Sandstein  07:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 E.M.Gregory

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBBLP, WP:ACDS :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 3 August 22:28 E.M.Gregory adds a section to a BLP alleging subject is "noted for her fulsome praise of Venezuelan dictator"; he cites only an op-ed column from the Los Angeles Times
    2. 4 August 11:01 After I deleted the new section with an edit summary that indicated it was a BLP violation ("'known for' that? read BLP much?"), an IP editor restored it. In this edit, E.M.Gregory expanded it using two more op-ed columns as sources.
    3. 4 August 12:08 After I again deleted the section with an edit summary that indicated it was still a BLP violation ("when did opinion columns become reliable sources for facts, especially for a BLP?") and left him a message about the sourcing problem and the sanctions that apply to BLPs, E.M.Gregory reverted me with an edit summary of "expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement"
    4. 4 August 12:16 After I deleted the section once again with an edit summary that indicated it was still a BLP violation ("where In WP:BLP is the exception to use crappy sources because the authors are well known columnists?") and left him a final warning, E.M.Gregory reverted me with an edit summary of "as I said before, enhancing sourcing now"
    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)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on August 4
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    After his and my third reversions, I left a third message for E.M.Gregory, explaining that one does not add or restore poorly sourced garbage to BLPs and then "improve the sourcing"; one fixes the sourcing and then adds or restores the material. I also asked that he self-revert to avoid this filing. Obviously, he refused to do so.

    Although he will argue that he is a new editor who wasn't aware of the rules, E.M.Gregory has been editing Misplaced Pages for nearly three years and has made more than 25,000 edits, of which roughly 14% have been to BLPs. No, he is not unaware of the rules, he is willfully ignorant of the rules. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 04:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning E.M.Gregory

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

    Statement by E.M.Gregory

    Context here is that Malik Shabazz and I disagree and have interacted about I/P, Islamist terrorism, and many other political issues. Recently, we have locked horns in a series of AfD discussions regarding terrorist attacks.

    Another bit of context is that Klein had made defending and admiring Hugo Chavez's and his program for Venezuela as a new path to a bright future a major part of her career. Commentators such as Terence Corcoran who have disagreed with Klein on Venezuela since she spoke glowingly of his repression of the media in 2003 have been beating up on her all year as the Venezuelan economy collapses. Corcoran's January 2017 article "Terence Corcoran: Chavez’s Canadian fan club is awfully quiet about Venezuela’s utter meltdown", which ran over a photo of Klein, is one of many articles I could have added to support the assertion that I had started with, then removed, that Klein's praise of Chavez has been "fulsome" and that it is noteworthy.

    I was shocked when Malik Shabazz responded to my first, brief addition to to Naomi Klein. The edit was sourced to an by James Kirchick entitled " "Remember all those left-wing pundits who drooled over Venezuela?"" using Klein as his leading example and quoting her statements in detail.

    I responded on my talk page:

    "Sourcing a section to bluelinked commentators citing direct quotes from Klein is not POV-pushing. Here: is the edit: . However, I will enhance the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

    "For the curious, this is an editor objecting to adding a section to Naomi Klein discussing her long-standing promotion of Venezuela (a country where the economy has collapsed, the government is close to collapse, and the conditions of life are plummeting to appalling depths,) as a shining model of the great success of a new model 21st century socialism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

    and next made a rapid series of edits improving section on Venezuela that I had added ot her page, a section that I had placed in chronological order between sections on Klein's opinions about the Iraq War and Israel. My edit notes read:

    (Undid revision 793862330 by MShabazz (talk) expanding sourcing, but these are well-known columnists giving direct quotes, also one of the sources is Klein's own statement) (Undid revision 793864118 by MShabazz (talk) as I said before, enhancing sourcing now.) (→‎Venezuela: expand, source), (→‎Venezuela: tidy up), (→‎Venezuela: expand, tweak, source), (→‎Venezuela: 2nd source, Robert Fulford (journalist) book review), (→‎Venezuela: tweak), (→‎Venezuela: tweak), (→‎Venezuela: grammar), (→‎Venezuela: typo).

    I then returned ot my talk page and responded to Shabazz: "*Venezuela section cleaned-up, sourced. Certainly a significant part of her ouvre and a useful addtion to her page. Feel free to expand or tweak.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)"

    I believed that with this last edit I was signalling to Malik Shabazz that I was finished editing the Naomi Klein page.

    Then he started this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

    I do acknowledge that I lost my cool here. I made a careless, hasty edit, lost it when my hasty edit was immediately pounced upon by Malik Shabazz, then totally lost my cool when he was seconded by GracefulSlick, and Nishidani. And as I said, I lost it in my first two responses here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

    Responding to comments by GracefulSlick

    • The Graceful Slick, an experienced editor who appears not to have often entered discussions on terrorism0-related pages in the past, recently entered and also started a series of AfD pages on terrorism with very strong opinions, vigourously upheld but, often, with apparent unfamiliarity with unfamiliarity not only with the topic, but with guidelines often used on tthese pages, such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. The 1st. page she references is Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson. The previous AfD had closed as keep on 9 July. She opened a new AFD on 16 July. This was a convoluted case in which suspect was acquitted of arson by a court, but after the acquittal I started the page - not about an individual, about an arson attack on a Shiite mosque/community center - when the arson made international headlines because new evidence emerged in Germany. Suspect, who had been acquitted for lack of evidence, was transferred immediately form police to security services where his is being investigated for possible deportation. This is NOT your "usual" arson case. Nor is it your "usual" AfD. At one point Graceful slick closed the AfD, as withdrawn by nom, then reopened it after an editor had iVoted to delete - I still don't quite understand how that vote happened after a discussion was closed. But the point here is that the article was being edited during the AfD by several editors who repeatedly misstated the evidence that had emerged post-trail from the German prosecutor's office. For the short course, look at the talk page Talk:2016 Malmö Muslim community centre arson#ISIS involvement. Only after the AfD closes ad keep does one of the editors who had been arguing delete appear to actually read the post-verdict material about an ISIS operative in Germany who has been in touch with the arsonist before the fire was set.
    • 2.) GracefulSlick's assertion on that filmmaker. The Malmo articlehas a small "Response" section because Trump brought this arson attack back into the news cycle last winter by listing it as an unreported terror attack. The coverage the brought to these attacks certainly brought a new round of news coverage to some events. On this micro-topic, I read the Salon article being discussed, and made one comment: .
    • 3.) in re: Lard Vilks there are similarities ot the Malmo case. Vilks is a Swedish cartoonist who drew Mohammad cartoons. He was scheduled to appear at an art opening in Gothenburg. An article about this had existed for years. Salman Rusdie-like sutuaiton, placed on Al Qaeda hit list, Al Qaeda publicly calls upon Muslims to kill him, police approach arts center shadowing 3 suspects already known to police, suspects enter art galley asking attendees which one is Vilks, police arrest the thee - all of whom were carrying knives. Coverage has been ongoing for years as new material (like, after one of the acquitted men went off to Syria to fight with ISIS), large round of coverage in later years because Vilks is thought by police to have been the target of the 2015 Copenhagen shootings. Article abut the apparent failed attack in Gothenberg in 2011 was deleted, but given the massive amount of coverage over many years, I copy pasted a section of the article to Lars Vilks. Graceful Slick deleted it. I walked away from the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

    This seems a pretty clear-cut issue; while opinion columns may be reliable sources for attributed opinions of the columnist, if relevant, they are absolutely not to be used for encyclopedia-voice statements of fact about living people. To the extent E.M. Gregory has violated this rule (and it can hardly be said to be an accidental mistake), they need to be, at the least, admonished about their use of sourcing in a biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    This probably reflects poor practice rather than anything else. One can separate out two things. Klein has made favorable statements about Chavez. This is not in doubt. How one should describe the matter, should be decided by NPOV. Clearly, the original phrasing "noted for her fulsome praise of the Venezuelan dictator" rather badly fails NPOV.

    The current phrasing in the article is a bit better, but basically all it's doing is to take the statements from the op-ed piece, softening them a bit, and then Googling for supporting evidence. This kind of stuff is actually bad practice for NPOV: one is supposed to look at a broad array of sources and summarize it, not simply Google for things which one wants to add into Misplaced Pages.

    But I see this all the time, and I doubt it can be cured, or if it is even desirable. Perhaps I'm too cynical. I don't think this is a BLP issue as such. I would treat it like an NPOV issue. As such I don't think any sanctions are warranted. Perhaps a warning. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by MarkBernstein

    Though @NorthBySouthBaranof: is correct that opinion pieces can be useful and reliable sources for the opinion expressed by their author, it is my understanding that they may also be used as a source for an assertion of fact. For example, if a New Yorker Talk of the Town quoted a cab driver as saying, “LaGuardia is a bum!” that’s not a reliable source for stating that LaGuardia is a bum; it's just an opinion. But if the same piece asserted that midtown cabdrivers typically worked 48 hours a week and that many were members of Teamsters’ Local 666, these would be reliably sourced since (a) they are facts, not partisan opinions, and (b) they can be checked, and the reputation of The New Yorker assures us that they would have been checked.

    It is increasingly common for newly-recruited editors (and sock puppets) to claim that all current mainstream sources are inherently biased, and that all bylined reporters are partisan, and therefore cannot be used even for sourcing facts. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

    Nishidani

    I'm only commenting because I thought, after Colin Powell was roasted for using the word 'fulsome' not in its primary sense of 'offensive to good taste' but in its more recent sense of 'abundant', journos would be more careful. The edits reversed are of course attack dumping by opening up sections to list badmouthing comments about any ('leftist') controversialist. On an encyclopedia, and BLPs, one should spend energy on (a) outlining precisely what the person thinks, and then (b) what intelligent critics say in response. This is usually not done: one trawls for 'fulsome' praise or 'dirt' so that readers are swamped with haphazard 'opinions' that are as useless as tits on a bull. This is getting characteristic of too much editing on bios, Gregory. The next logical move would be to go sequentially to the pages on Ken Livingstone, Ken Loach, Jesse Jackson, Howard Zinn, Dennis Kucinich, Perry Anderson, Tony Benn, Eric Hobsbawm, Alexander Cockburn, Tariq Ali, Oliver Stone, Harold Pinter etc., etc., and note some commentator abhorring the fact that each 'praised' Chavez (or his programmes) or on one of his presidential bids. ('dictator' is opinionable: he was elected etc.) So what? What were they praising about Chavez's programme? Futile, irresponsible and uninformative. Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by TheGracefulSlick

    I wanted to present to this case more incidents of Gregory violating BLP and POV to avoid the misconception that this is a secluded incident. Here at this discussion Gregory advocated for a version of an article that uses WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to seemingly attempt to override a ruling of not guilty by a Swedish court of law, regarding a BLP subject. Further below he supported the inclusion of the opinion from a filmmaker, despite concerns about its authenticity and the fact the video interview (where the quotes originated from) never actually addressed the incident in question. At this AfD Gregory, again, wanted to retain an article and use sources to insinuate the guilt of innocent men. Worse still, when the AfD was not going in his favor, he included the material with WP:UNDUE weight at the Lars Vilks article (twice), knowing consensus at the AfD was the incident was not terror related, and any mention of the non-plot needed to be brief as well as neutrally phrased.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

    @GoldenRing: I do not think that ANI addressed anything. That thread was filed by Gregory as a result of my admittively improper reopening of an AfD and Pincrete's edits that sought to remove some of his BLP violations. We resolved the issue away from the discussion before any of the diffs I provided here (and more) could be presented which would have resulted in a discussion strikingly similar to this one.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Jytdog

    Am bummed to see this. E.M.Gregory you are probably correct that there is a hole where content about Chavez should be in the Klein article, but the initial edit, sourcing it on an op-ed piece attacking her is just... not good.... And then the expansion using more content from the same source and adding an additional opinion piece that was also critical of her --Venezuela’s collapse and the ‘useful idiots’ of the Canadian left -- just dug that hole deeper.. especially when your editing had already been flagged as a BLP issue.

    Granted from someone you have had past disputes with, but you have no leg here. Even more so because of the immediate clash, which should have caused you to rethink.

    If you were aiming for NPOV content based on strong sourcing you would have taken a very different approach. One would have been to to very clearly WP:ATTRIBUTE and use the Kirchick and Macleans opinion pieces to describe criticism, and cite... oh Socialist Review and Daily Kos to provide content and refs for further reading for how people on her "side" view her support for Chavez. And cite something from her maybe, like this Nation piece.

    Best of all would have been to avoid either kind of partisan source and look for high quality reporting (not opinion) discussing Klein's views. Which is hard to find (not in NYT, New Yorker, or Atlantic for example). this book reveiw is not terrible and probably would not have drawn the initial revert... it also provides enough discussion of how Chavez fits into the rest of her thinking about the world, that you could have written some more nuanced content instead of just sticking an inflammatory factoid into the article.

    But please step back and consider that your initial approach as well as your subsequent restorations were coming at this the wrong way. It is hard to write about this stuff and the BLP DS are there for a reason. Please.

    If you cannot see this and acknowledge it I can only support some action being taken. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning E.M.Gregory

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The request has merit. Opinion pieces, such as those used by E.M.Gregory here, are "questionable sources" because they lack editorial oversight. They must therefore not be used as a basis for statements about living persons (WP:BLPSOURCES). The response by E.M.Gregory does not recognize or address this, but instead goes on about Venezuelan politics, which are irrelevant here. Their comment about using "blue-linked commentators" as reliable sources is also concerning; merely because a person has an article does not mean that what they self-publish is a reliable source. This indicates that E.M.Gregory cannot be relied upon to competently edit WP:BLP topics. I would therefore ban E.M.Gregory from editing BLP-related material, initially for one month.  Sandstein  16:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Yes, the sources are not great; yes, E. M. Gregory should be more careful about their sourcing. On the other hand, the facts those sources are used to support are pretty easily sourced so I'm not seeing outrageous BLP violations here. The evidence offered by TheGracefulSlick is more troubling, though I think this was all dealt with at AN/I. Still mulling over what's an appropriate response to this. GoldenRing (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I find this difficult: the case itself is pretty clear-cut--using opinion pieces to build the voice of Misplaced Pages is unacceptable, and few editors are as experienced as E.M. Gregory. I agree with Sandstein, on the whole, though I don't know if I'd say "cannot be relied upon to competently edit BLP topics"--I would replace "competently" with "neutrally". My difficulty is in the remedy. I don't really think a month-long topic ban is very useful; I rather think that a block for a next infraction is more suitable. Sandstein, however, has more experience here than I do and I am happy to follow them. Unlike GoldenRing I am not happy to just dismiss this. I'm still puzzled that E.M. Gregory made these edits; I've known them for quite a while, usually as a careful editor. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I wasn't suggesting dismissing this; just saying it's not in the stupid-libel-redact-it-quickly category of violations. The Misplaced Pages-voice statements sourced to op-ed pieces are clearly unacceptable, however I don't think that inclusion of some material re Venezuela in this BLP is particularly out of place, so long as the sourcing is sorted out. I'm rather disappointed with Gregory's response here, too, which does not seem to acknowledge the problems. As you, though, I'm struggling to frame a response that's adequate. Your suggestion seems to amount to, "Now don't do it again," which seems unsatisfactory, but I still think a ban from all BLPs is over the top. GoldenRing (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
        • I broadly agree with this assessment, but I thing we don't need to concern ourselves with whether mentioning Venezuela in this article is appropriate: this is a content issue, which does not concern us here.

          Taking in consideration the above admin comments, notably that they believe that an all-BLP ban is excessive, I am instead closing this with a three-month ban from all Venezuelan politics-related BLPs.  Sandstein  07:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

    Nishidani

    Page protected for three days to give the talk page a chance. If disruption continues once protection express, please let me know or bring it back here. GoldenRing (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 Nishidani

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    No More Mr Nice Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Nishidani (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/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 07:56, 3 August 2017 1st revert
    2. 09:43, 4 August 2017 2nd revert 24 + less than 2 hours later
    3. 10:01, 7 August 2017 1st revert
    4. 13:14, 8 August 2017 2nd revert 24 + a little over 3 hours later
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Nishidani has multiple blocks for edit warring, most recently for violating 1RR in March , and has recently returned from this month long topic ban.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
    • Etc
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    It has long been established that waiting 24 hours + a couple more does not put an editor outside the 1RR restriction, particularly if done multiple times on the same page. It's an obvious attempt to game the system. Nishidani has been blocked many times for edit warring and has recently returned from a one month topic ban. He is fully aware of this restriction and violates it repeatedly. I was going to give him a chance to self-revert, but then noticed he did the same thing a couple of days prior (not to mention I was not awarded the courtesy of a warning and still got blocked for 1RR, so it's obviously no longer considered part of the informal etiquette here).

    There are two other editors who participated in this edit war who I'm not reporting here:

    1. Huldra who appeared on a page she has never edited before, made a revert with the same false summary Nishidani used in a previous revert and did not participate on the talk page before or since. This is obvious tag teaming but I don't think AE is equipped to deal with it.
    2. François Robere is new to the topic area and only received the notice a few days ago. From his talk page it would seem he doesn't understand 1RR. In the spirit of BITE I plan to explain it to him, so I'm not reporting him here at the moment.
    @Huldra: I made my first edit to that article in October 2009, and made several edits since. You on the other hand made one edit ever, to tag team in an edit war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    @KI: Clearly Nishidani was trying to game 1RR, twice in 4 days. In fact, between the last two reverts he actually made another edit a few hours earlier , which was within the 24 hours restriction, then came back a few hours later to make the revert. Obvious gaming is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    @Goldenring: Are you saying 24+2 hours (twice in a few days) is not a 1RR violation? Because people with waaaay cleaner records than Nishidani have received lengthy topic bans for exactly that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Nishidani

    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 Nishidani

    Nice morning greeting on my page. I can't see how I broke 1R- I noted to the edit-warrior they had, but didn't report it, trying to reason. If I have broken 1R I'll revert of course, but at a glance, NMMGG is looking at the page edit conflict purely in terms of what I do, not the context, nor the, to me, incomprehensible edit behavior of the other party. I must to breakfast, and will examine this later.Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    I know the 2000 Ramallah Lynching case fairly thoroughly, but have never been able to help ironing out the many defects there because it is one of those I/P pages where, if you touch it, you get edit-warring by people who read one or two sources, and try to 'fix' the lead according to their preferred POV. At first I noticed just a grammatical flaw in François Robere’s edit. Since doing the edits on aborigines requires huge amounts of close background reading, I didn’t have much time to do anything but elementary fixes here.

    • This copy-edit had therefore an egregious error in fundamental English grammar (Consecutio temporum), so I fixed it, while taking the opportunity to add details already in the given sources.
    • On the talk page the editor was told he broke IR, but was not reported. Intelligent discretion seemed the proper move. Ignoring what Huldra and myself said, the editor continued to restore the erratic grammar in the lead. I had tipped off the editor on their talk page 5 days ago, a warning Huldra also confirmed here 20:04, 4 August 2017

    NMMGG’s 3 edits to the page when he stepped in on the 8th, did not alter the grammar ce I had introduced, so I took this version of the page as he left it, as indicating his acceptance that the consecutio temporum issue I fixed had a 3 to 1 consensus. Notwithstanding that, Robere insisted on reverting to his preferred ungrammatical version, reverting even NMMGG on this (to me, crucial point), adding that the PA police role is still disputed (well, no source was given for this, just as NMMGG gave no source, indeed contradicted the article, in plunking into the lead the unacceptable:

    Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching

    • I notified the page why this unsourced assertion, ambiguously implying the police were to blame, which is a caricature of the evidence lower down on the page, was unacceptable and had to be removed, providing 3 sources to show why, and then restored the page, with that emendment, which represented what I, Huldra and NMMGG appeared to accept, asking Revere and all, to set forth proposals on the talk page for discussion before just trying to get one’s own way.

    NMMGG’s response was to accuse me of being the edit-warrior and threatening AE action if I didn’t revert, while acknowledging technically I hadn’t broken 1R (as had François Robere) (23:41, 8 August 2017)

    NMMGG over several years has a quasi professional interest in anylysing the minutiae of every edit I make since he is convinced I am a major disgrace to wikipedia. He should know after several years that we are on different time zones and that when he made that warning I had been inactive for 2 hours, and when he made this AE complaint, there was no trace of my being online. I was sleeping.

    He waited 2 hours and then 01:25, 9 August 2017‎ notified me he had reported me. Please note that NMMGG then, a few minutes later, notified Robere that he had broken 1R unambiguously 5 days earlier, offering assistance. Very very odd, since, as noted above, NMMGG had stepped into the fray, fully aware that Robere had been notified 5 days earlier by myself and Huldra, both of us taking no action against him. In short, double standards. NMMGG has a very low wiki profile, except to step in to disputes, esp. when I am present. Look at his contributions. Nishidani (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    GoldenRing. You are singling me out for for precisely what Robere did at the very outset, not accepting a small correction of his grammar, and reverting together with that, a notably large set of changes.Nishidani (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    And you are saying NMMGG was very 'generous' in not bringing the IR complaint against Robere but only me, implying that my restraint in not bringing that complaint 5 days earlier was not 'generous', an example of restraint not particularly evident in NMMGG's vexatious use of this page? Nishidani (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    Robere, re ' it's the holy zeal of some, and the redundant rules of others'. The rules are not the private property of 'others'. They are institutional rules, above us all. You surely realize the profound irony that I am threatened with a sanction for not having broken the rule which you infringed and refused subsequently to respect by undertaking the obligatory revert? Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    NMMGG. If you have the 1R to heart, to the point of saying no one has a right to revert even after 24 hours, a peculiar reading, then why, when, examining that page before editing it, did you not drop a note to Robere for a day. It was, after all, his refusal to acknowledge the force of the strict 24 hour 1 revert rule which created diffidence. How can one edit or even discuss issues, was the reasonable deduction, when an editor refuses to acknowledge the fundamental rule of I/P editing? Worse still, he called request to be rule-obedient a technique of lawfare. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Huldra

    I reverted François Robere after discussing with him on his talk page, telling him that he broke the 1RR rule. See User talk:François Robere. He refused to self revert, it didn't look as if he believed me, when qouted the rules. I reverted instead of taking the bother to report him. I promise: in the future I will just report him to AE instead.

    Note that No More Mr Nice Guy appeared on the article in question, the 2000 Ramallah lynching after both Nishisdni and myself had edited it, and No More Mr Nice Guy had never edited the article before. Huldra (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Oops, my apologies, No More Mr Nice Guy has indeed edited the 2000 Ramallah lynching article before (I have no idea as to how I missed that.)

    For me the choice was either to

    I chose the second, as I hate all the bureaucracy of reporting other users. Apparently I should just have reported him. Noted. Huldra (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    Clearly, there was no 1RR violation by Nishidani. There is some edit-warring by various sides going on. There is a long discussion going on at the talkpage where people are arguing various points. It's a bit heated, but no more than other discussions in this area. There have been compromises by people: for instance, see this edit by Nishidani which uses "accidentally" with attribution in the body. On the other side, after NMMNG made this wrong edit, Francois Robere rephrased it here.

    I suggest full protection for a few days while the matter is sorted out on the talkpage. No other action is necessary. Francois Robere broke 1RR and refused to revert, but they're new in this area, so they should be warned and not sanctioned. Francois Robere thinks that invoking the 1RR rule is "lawfare"; it's not, it's simply one of the rules in this area to slow down edit wars and make people discuss on the talkpage. Indeed, Robere only started discussion on the talkpage after Huldra reverted them.

    NMMNG's actions here are deeply cynical. They claim that they reported Nishidani to AE because giving people a chance to self-revert is no longer considered part of informal etiquette here; this claim in a situation where it was Nishidani and Huldra asked Francois Robere to self-revert but they refused, is rather baffling. NMMNG is just importing a dispute with another editor into this one for reasons best known to themselves.

    I hope the norm in this area of people warning other people who break 1RR is maintained. Most people working in this area are "old hands". We don't need silly wars of attrition here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrike

    • Just a note about François Robere his made only one revert as his first was regular edit.Its already long established practice that if you not removing newly added text this is not considering a revert but rather edit.
    • Nishidani clearly gamed the system my own topic ban for six months several years ago was exactly for that.Though I didn't broke 1RR I was sanctioned nevertheless.--Shrike (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by François Robere

    1. In this context, I consider it lawfare to invoke Misplaced Pages policies in order to enforce editorial/behavioral changes that are outside of those policies' intended effects. In this case the 1RR rule was invoked to suppress editorial changes that had nothing to with ideological differences between editors, which is what I assume 1RR was meant to address. This and other needless extensions of bureaucracy are a common complaint on Misplaced Pages and similar community-driven websites (see eg. ).
    2. I'm generally content discussing any edit on the relevant talk page, but it's been my experience with the editor in question that they tend to rely on "how come" arguments rather than sources or domain knowledge, and care little for answering questions that are presented to them. They have thus reverted my changes multiple times without addressing pertinent issues that were raised in the talk page.
    3. As a sidenote, I should stress my objection to and annoyance with wholesale reversion of an edit when one's only disagreement is with 1-2 small changes. Both Huldra and Nishidani have done so, and I've found myself needing to re-incorporate my otherwise-consensual changes into later revisions of the article (which were now reverted again), which was both excessive and needless.
    4. I have no opinion regarding sanctions against any of the other editors as long as they let me edit in peace, and bring to the relevant talk page in a civil and appropriate manner any objection that they might have. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC),

    GoldenRing:

    • "reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces" which are presumably such due to differences in ideology, perceptions etc. As you well know, there are exceptions to that rule as well (vandalism being one), which means its drafters knew it should not apply in all cases; I'll argue that it shouldn't apply to edits that have little to do with factual or representational aspects of the article, but to grammar and style.
    • "this is not the space to do it in": With the vast majority of my edits I encountered no objections; on many I collaborated or received assistance from other editors; with a few I found myself entangled in pointless discussions, long explanations on the machinations of common sense, and edit wars, that more often than not ended persisting my edits. Misplaced Pages can and should be a pleasant working environment and community for Wikipedians; it's the holy zeal of some, and the redundant rules of others, that occasionally prevent it from being one. François Robere (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    It was not "generous" of NMMNG to not report Francois Robere, it was calculated. Calculated to advance his editorial goals. There is exactly one person who violated the 1RR here, and it isnt Nishidani. That said, full protection seems the way to go here, with the version prior to any edit-warring locked in place and the "edit-warriors" locked on the talk page to achieve some sort of consensus. nableezy - 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Result concerning Nishidani

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm leaning towards Kingsindian's solution here, though I'm not impressed with an editor who twice reverts a large edit over one word because it's "never been established," then three days later reverts twice to reintroduce that same word into the body of the article "but not in lead", and objects to the sentence, "Palestinian policemen did not prevent, and in some cases actually took part in the lynching," because it "ain't grammastical" - as far as I can tell because it is missing a comma. I have a lot of sympathy for the complaint of François Robere at the talk page, if you object that one word ("accidentally"), you can edit it out instead of undoing the entire revision. I'll wait for input from others, though. GoldenRing (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    @François Robere: 1RR is intended to reduce edit warring in controversial topic-spaces. If you think its application to you is a needless extensions of bureaucracy, you are going to find out otherwise pretty quickly. And if you want to be left to edit in peace, this is not the space to do it in. In this space, you have to edit collaboratively, with editors with whom you disagree. You might be new to this topic, but you are not new to Misplaced Pages, and you ought to understand all this. It's very generous of NMMNG to only bring a complaint against Nishidani, but I don't think I'd be happy with sanctions on only one side of this dispute. GoldenRing (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    @François Robere: You don't get to decide the scope of exceptions to 1RR. If you keep breaking 1RR over content and style, you're going to get blocked for it. And sure, it'd be lovely if Misplaced Pages was always a pleasant working environment. But there are subjects where people genuinely have very deep-seated disagreements and this is one of them. People are not going to just agree on everything. You don't get to decide how other people approach you, only how you react to them. GoldenRing (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

    Wickey-nl

    Blocked for three months for TBAN violations. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 Wickey-nl

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    DarkKing Rayleigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Wickey-nl (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 : Topic ban violations
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    User who was indefinitely topic banned from ARBPIA and insulted the administrator who imposed the sanction with antisemitic and racist slurs has violated his ban (despite it doesn't say in his talk page that it was lifted):

    1. Here
    2. Here
    3. Here
    4. Here
    5. Here
    6. Here
    7. Here
    8. and many other places
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Wickey-nl

    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 Wickey-nl

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Wickey-nl

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