Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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 information

Shortcuts

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,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Plot Spoiler

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs) is strongly cautioned to respect the 1RR and behave with the level of decorum expected of editors in controversial topic areas. There is insufficient evidence and insufficient support among admins for any further action, or for any action against third parties, but this closure is without prejudice to a more detailed complaint being filed against Plot Spoiler in the future nor a complaint about any other party whose conduct bears examination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

14:18, 2 November 2014‎ Removal of Tikkun Olam (previously reverted by this user here
15:09, 2 November 2014‎ 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for 1RR violation on October 10 topic banned for 3 months Sept 2013 Warned for unilateral reverts July 2014

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. (recently, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157#Plot_Spoiler)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Plot Spoiler was previously strongly cautioned that reverting but being unwilling to discuss the revert is unacceptable and disruptive behavior. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119#Plot_Spoiler). This removal, when it was first made October 17, was discussed on the talk page (now archived here). Plot Spoiler never made a single comment to support his initial removal. Since then he has twice reverted today, again without making a single comment on the talk page. He was just blocked for violating the 1RR, where he again did not discuss any revert, on October 10.

In response to PS's comment, as RolandR points out, the first is a partial revert of this. the second a straight revert of this. and the relevant definition would be found at WP:EW nableezy - 03:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, there may well be cause to remove that source, however that cause was never raised. The blog in question, to me, is like any other op-ed, reliable for the author's opinions. The source is not being used for factual material, but Silverstein is a noted commentator, whose opinion pieces can be found in any number of newspapers (Haaretz, The Guardian among others). It is used as an example of a prominent critic's response, no more, and I think it meets the requirements for use, though I admit I may be wrong. But that's something to work out on the talk page, which until after this report PS was completely absent from. As far as tag-teaming, I would think that would require some coordination, of which there is none. But to the point of this, it is not simply that there is a 1RR violation, and there is obviously one. It is additionally that PS continues to revert without discussion, while others vainly request his presence on the talk page. He was warned for this very behavior in the past, and in both this and the last AE he repeatedly reverted without discussing or even feigning interest in coming to a consensus on the talk page. nableezy - 15:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really want to spend a ton of time on this, but this is straightforward, and the hand-waving below doesnt change it. There were 2 reverts, clearly so, and no discussion by PS. The user has been, recently, blocked for violating the 1RR, has brought any number of other users to this board for doing so, and additionally was specifically warned about the now repeated behavior of reverting without discussion. Im sorry this turned into a novel, wish it hadnt, but the basic facts are indisputable and hopefully somebody will deal with that. And with that Im out, nableezy - 18:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

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 Plot Spoiler

That's not a revert according to the definition of WP:revert. Watch the WP:boomerang Nableezy and flattered you're so closely following my edits. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: Roland et al, a "partial revert" is not a "revert" - see WP:REVERT. This triple team looks like it's just trying to game the system to get me banned. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You presented that body of information months ago here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154#Sean.hoyland. It's stale, of no bearing to this frivolous case, non-actionable, and further abuse of the WP:AE system to get those banned with whom you disagree. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: I don't see how this could qualify as 2 reverts. You point to this edit on October 17 [1] (first, how was I supposed to recall an edit from weeks ago?), but I did not remove the same information in my latest edits - I just removed the Silverstein ref. Therefore, it seems clear to me that it would qualify as a partial revert and not a revert as defined under WP:REVERT. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Also consider the fact that Nableezy - who is now barely active on Wikipedia - seems to be focusing much of his remaining efforts on just trying to ban me. He's only made 16 edits in the last month - 8 of them on AE cases against me. He does not seem interested in building this encyclopedia but more in gaming the system. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil: Cailil, it's not clear to me that my edits constituted a 1RR violation -- though I do leave open the possibility that I'm not interpreting the policy correctly. Not sure how my first edit on Nov. 2 is a "direct reflection" of the edit from Oct. 17. I removed an an entire sentence and all corresponding refs on Oct. 17. On Nov. 2, I removed one of three references and no text in the body of the article. WP:REVERT states, "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion." I don't see how my first edit on Nov. 2 was restoring the article to any sort of previous version. This was an entirely new version. And if I was aware that I had violated 1RR, I would not have made the edit in the first place or would have self-reverted if I had made the edit. Nableezy did not give me the opportunity to do so and instead went straight to AE, and blew up a situation that could have been easily resolved without taking to AE. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Would appreciate if you would stop grossly misrepresenting my edits based on your own cherrypicked narrative. Look at your last 500 edits - you are SINGLE-issue IP editor who edits from a very clear ideological stance. I'm proud to contribute broadly to this project and not just in the IP area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RolandR: See WP:Revert - "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion" - my first edit did not restore "a previous version". No version existed which included Avnery and Levy's refs, but not Silverstein's. It is a completely new version. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: You should at minimum WP:AGF (people can misinterpret/misunderstand rules) instead of imagining some sort of silly scheme. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You're crossing the line with your WP:personal attacks by accusing me of outright "deception" and consistently misrepresenting my edits to further your witch hunt[2]. My initial objections had more to do than exclusively the matter of WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Plot Spoiler has long been a major problem, and has been remarkably successful in damaging articles, reporting other editors, and enjoying a certain immunity. I don’t follow his contributions, too busy editing, and only come across him when he reverts me on articles I work, as he has been doing recently. In an earlier case mid this year reporting him, he just disappeared, and 27 June 2014 the case was dropped after he failed to turn up, as promised I pointed out in earlier case this year what the problem is, mass erasure of evidence on spurious policy grounds. He uses WP:RS to wipe out pages dealing with Palestinians, but doesn’t apply the same standards to pages on Israel/is et al. As Sandstein noted at the time, I should have made a separate report, been less discursive (WP:TLDR) and provided time stamps. Fair enough.

That evidence is now, I suppose, 'stale'. For the record here it is. Please note that all of these problematica abuses of policy aim to gut pages on Palestinians, while removing anything critical regarding figures from the other side, and took place within just 2 days of his hyperactive editing life here:

(1) 28 July 2014: WP:Coatrack. This is a pretext. He actually removed articles from the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and The American Conservative. Why? Thane Rosenbaum was criticized for seeming to justify killing children whose parents are loyal to Hamas? Those august magazines and newspapers thought this notable, PS disagreed. It was WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(2) 28 July 2014 Edit summary:'removing some advert.' removed material of a Jewish American critic of Israel policies, Mark Braverman. Details of his life in his wiki bio are not advertising: they are documentation of that life.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(3) 29 July 2014: activist sources do not qualify as WP:RS, Egregious falsification. Gilbert Achcar conceded an interview to Electronic Intifada. The RS is Achcar, not the journal he chose to have his views presented in. Achcar a very moderate scholar, just happened to note what he considered a distorting exaggeration in Zionist historiography.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(4) 28 July 2014: need secondary sources commenting on his opinions ... not just op-eds published by the author Guts a page on a Palestinian political commentator, Ahmed Moor. The pretext is spurious. He removed the Huffington Post (3 times), the Washington Post (two times, Al-Jazeera (3 times), the Los Angeles Times. Op-eds in major newspapers by a scholar are not disputed as appropriate to their wikibios, except by Plot Spoiler.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(5) 28 July 2014: activist source not RS. Scott McConnell is a distinguished journalist, and where he voices his articles is irrelevant. The pretext was to remove material defending a Palestinian human rights activist, Shawan Jabarin.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(6) 28 July 2014 activist sources do not qualify as WP:RS. Nigel Kennedy remarked on apartheid in Israel, and the BBC excised it from their coverage of the concert. As my evidence shows, this is a fact widely reported in mainstream articles. Rather than supply the RS for this, PS simply removed all reference to the controversy.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(7) 28 July 2014: wikify, most of these fail WP:RS, WP:EL. Pretext. He removed several mainstream sources (Ynet (2 articles), Haaretz (2 articles)) while objecting to a few others. ‘Most’ is no excuse for removing known RS, unless proximity to challengeable RS contaminates the reputation of known RS. WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(8) 28 July 2014: remove non-RS. Yehuda Kroizer, a rabbi known to support the views of a terrorist, is the subject. He removed Mondoweiss as RS, but retained Arutz Sheva, a settler tabloid. The principle here is not RS failure, but removing a source that cites RS like Ynet, while not objecting to the presence of a settler POV organ on the same page. Failure to observe WP:NPOV by partisan discrimination of sources.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(9) July 28 2014: WP:Advert, WP:Peacock, Wikify.Object: a Palestinian political analyst, Nadia Hijab. Pretext. Removes RS (Institute of Palestine Studies; The Guardian ; The Nation , together with two of her own articles appearing in [Counterpunch]]), the author’s own articles, if a notable person, are cited all over wiki bios By this criterion, most articles on living rabbis would be gutted because of some (spurious) objection that chabad organs are not mainstream newspapers.WP:IDONTLIKEIT
(10) 28 July 2014: WP:Advert crap, WP:Peacock, wikify.PS again messes with a Palestinian’s wiki bio. Pretext. Reuters, New York Times San Francisco Chronicle etc. are RS. Once again, a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

In those two days, Plot Spoiler was gutting articles on Palestinians even of known RS, while removing material that might reflect critically on Jewish or Israeli figures. The edit summaries are invariably deceptive, and the intensive POV pushing self-evident. Note also that he almost never 'wastes time' justifying his removalist work on talk pages, whereas most editors think in the I/P area this is obligatory. It's hit and run editing. Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. Tagteaming? I didn't even know Nableezy was editing Wikipedia, fa Chrissake, until I saw this report. I'm not responsible for what others do here. I edit independently, and my correspondence with others is extremely rare, mostly limited to three people who dp not edit this area (correction I have corresponded, mainly to obtain and research inaccessible sources with 2 editors) . For several years I didn't even activate wiki gmail, as archives show, precisely to avoid any off-line maneuvering temptations from others. If any arb wants to, I'll give them my home address so they can send some technician to examine my computer and gmail. The last time I had a note, on a purely private matter, from Nableezy was a year and a half ago, if I remember. The other editor I know only from his inquiries on my talk page. I am acutely offended by the innuendo I tag-team, particularly in the I/P where it has long been deplorably frequent. Nableezy and myself in the distant past when he was active reverted each other when we disagreed, as is obligatory.

The gravamen of my point was this: (a) Plot Spoiler uses edit summaries that suggest he's just eliding non-RS, while in fact, when examined closely, he is taking out considerable quantities of mainstream sources, day in day out. (b) In the specific case of Silverstein, PS reverted while the talk page was discussing the section where Silverstein and several others appear. He doesn't appear on talk pages. His edits are often preemptive erasures of material whose RS status is being collegially discussed, i.e., establishing a fait accompli for one side to a dispute. Thirdly, 15 mainly Israeli blogs were on that page, by my count, when I added Silverstein, not as a single source, but one which formed part of four sources making a similar point. It can go of course, if the page decides. But my objection is to a practice of preemptive reverting when the talk page discussion is still active.Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'abuse of the WP:AE system to get those banned with whom you disagree.'

Plot Spoiler. I have been here 8 years. How many times have I personally reported anyone, even the most obnoxious POV pushers we have to edit with? I think once, perhaps twice, with extreme reluctance. Had I wished you to get sanctioned, I would have acted on Sandstein's advice that I make an independent, separate formal complaint against you. I didn't. I'll lay my record for not using A/1 or AE to 'get at' editors against anyone's, especially your own.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WarKoSign. As I have mentioned on the page in discussing this issue, blogs are used throughout this same page. I added Silverstein because of that precedent. On checking, they are used as sources 19 times: Richard Silverstein is the 13th. Extraordinary claims are drawn from an IDF blog, used several times. No one has questioned this, or the use of J.J. Goldberg's blog, or that of Ross Singer or that of Adam Taylor. Plot Spoiler would have an argument were he consistent: he only uses, as far as I can see, the RS challenge on anything that looks 'pro-Palestinian', and leaves all the other blogs untouched. If a principle were at stake he would have removed 19 sources, not one.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. ' this is a forum for enforcement of rules around conduct.' I agree. This is not about a revert of Richard Silverstein, but the correct application of rules, among which is consensual editing, coherence in the application of policy (not using WP:RS to get rid of what you dislike, while ignoring the same stringent reading to retain what you like), not making a preemptive edit while an issue is under discussion. I have no problem with removing Silverstein: I do have a problem with editors who ignore the presence of many blogs, and then object to or instantly revert the one blog source that clashes with their POV. That is what happened there, and my background on his 10 edits earlier illustrate the pattern (in focusing on Silverstein, it is overlooked that in his original revert on October 17, he objected in the edit summary only to Silverstein, but in the actual edit he wiped out Uri Avnery, and Gideon Levy writing for Haaretz, both excellent sources. That is the deception I find objectionable).Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler. Not 'cherrypicked'. 10 samples in just one 2 day period. Can you explain why you consistently erase Haaretz, Ynet, the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and The American Conservative et al. in edits you summarized as failing RS'?

'you are SINGLE-issue IP editor'. That can be verified by looking at the articles I've built substantially at User:Nishidani. I'm semi-retired from wiki. A war broke out in July in an area covered by I/P articles, and I came back and tried to ensure the Palestinian narratives were given due representation, hence my last 500 edits. My POV is simple: I'm interested in anything discursively marginalized by modernity's faith in progress. That means I take a keen interest in Tibetans, or the Barasana, or Aborigines or Palestinians, or Gertrud Kolmar, etc.etc. That is my range of edits indicates.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil. It is overwhelmingly against my practice to cite blogs or minor sites. Silverstein here, and Yeshiva World News which I introduced at 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers because it had details not available in the mainstream press, are the only exceptions I can think of. My rule is, (a) academic books, scholarly articles and monographs. If not available then mainstream press articles. But that assists WP:Systemic bias. At times, we don't have a cut and dried case, therefore. Mainstream Western-language sources don't cover 90% of what you get in the Israeli/Hebrew press, which covers the area meticulously, and much of the latter is cited in what editors dismiss as 'activist' (eye-witness/on-the-ground reportage) news sites (+972 Magazine, Rabbis for Human Rights Mondoweiss, Counterpunch), or even blogs like Richard Silverstein's. These do air material on, or translate, as Silverstein does, what the Hebrew press is discussing or what the New York Times doesn't care to mention. When Silverstein's blog translates directly from a linked article in Hebrew he is not expressing his personal views. If someone like Silverstein: catches out the way a widely circulated (mainstream) article edited out in the English version material that was 'sensitive' to certain rhetorical interests, as an editor I tend to listen and evaluate rather than mechanically block off the source. When what he states is independently confirmed, we should not suffer from reflex anxiety about wiki's reliability being parlously undermined. In short, it is quite easy for any editor with a programmatic attitude to make a laundry list of sites that might be questioned on RS grounds and then regardless of talk page negotiations, or weighing in each case the individual merits of a source, just running through articles to mechanically erase, revert or cancel at sight any 'suspect' on the hunt list. That, and the documented fact that Plot Spoiler habitually removes not only these challenged RS, but eminently mainstream RS in the same edits, is essentially the issue here. When there is reasonable doubt, discuss, and don't edit out stuff that is being collegially addressed on talk pages.Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia. I hope my memory doesn't fail me, but I either drew attention to or directly edited in the blog ref re Ross Singer. The textual and technical problem was as follows. Per NPOV, the opinions (know to be true per Yossi Melman's 2011 article) drawing an analogy between what Hamas did in Gaza and what Israeli patriots did in their war of independence (1948), documentable as a talking point of this particular war, made by Uri Avnery, Gideon Levy, and Richard Silverstein, required a balancing statement, and the only one I could find was by a blogger writing however for an RS (The Times of Israel), namely rabbi Ross Singer. From Cailil's analysis, I could be faulted technically for this, but my purpose or endorsement of adding Singer was to ensure that this talking point did not appear to be a lop-sided POV weighted to one side (Hamas), but had its critics. I regard NPOV as the more fundamental principle. You are right of course that anyone who objected to Silverstein should have, pari passu, taken out Ross Singer for identical reasons.Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HJMitchell. Apropos mens rea, well, I don't think this is quite 'criminal' or even moral 'guilt'! In any case, perhaps this long discussion has been distractive of the issue. A mens rea in the sense that Plot Spoiler knew precisely what he was doing, exists in the record, which I will recapitulate.

Ist revert of this passage 18:13, 17 October 2014‎. I immediately opened a discussion on Plot Spoiler’s revert. Several editors who actually work and build the page, commented, with no clear outcome. Plot Spoiler did not deign to respond. He just ignored the discussion.

2nd revert, cut back to just Silverstein 14:18, 2 November 2014‎ while a discussion was taking place

third revert, 15:09, 2 November 2014‎, which PS did after I reminded him to examine the talk page.

Of course, there is such a thing as amnesia, but 2 weeks separates the Ist from the 2nd and 3rd reverts, involving the same text. It's fair to assume he knew exactly what he was doing, i.e., repeating a revert, twice, of something he objected to just a few weeks earlier.Nishidani (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of 'punishment' either. Anyone can make a slip-up. I added the documentation because, in my experience, this is typical of a pattern in PS's behavior, for which he needs, not some punishing sanction, but merely a stern reminder that (a) reverts are an ultimate resort, not a vexatious right (b) just going through texts to revert stuff is not constructive, esp. on difficult pages where other editors are laboriously trying to write them. (c) It is mere courtesy, if less than obligatory, to participate collegially on talk pages if one's judgement is questioned (d) employing edit summaries which disguise what one is actually doing, i.e., indiscriminately removing impeccable RS while removing less secure sources constitutes deceptive practice, etc. It's the pattern, not just these three edits which illustrate it.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

Of course these are reverts. The first is a partial reversion of this edit by IjonTichyIjonTichy on 18 October, which itself reverted your previous removal of sourced content; the second, less than an hour later, is a repeat of the first reversion. RolandR (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Plot Spoiler really beliueves that "a "partial revert" is not a "revert"", then s/he clearly needs to read the relevant policy page again, since this clearly states that "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". RolandR (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

@Cailil, perhaps you're confusing WP:SPS (which says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") and WP:ABOUTSELF (which says: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves"). In any case, Richard Silverstein's blog is a reliable source for Richard Silverstein's opinion or anything attributed to Richard Silverstein, so Plot Spoiler's stated reason for deletion, interpretted as a belief that the source was not reliable for the information given, was bogus. You mention ArbCom ruling's counsel to editors in this area. Presumably, you're referring to the part about "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions." However, since the statements in the article were attributed to Richard Silverstein, for whose opinion the blog is a reliable source, the issue becomes not one of source reliability but one of whether what Richard Silverstein had to say was worth reporting, a matter depending on consensus for which Plot Spoiler appears to be in the minority. ← ZScarpia 13:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cailil, you wrote: "A new talk page thread was opened by Nableezy (on November 2nd) citing WP:SPS ... ." At best, what you wrote is misleading as Nableezy did not mention WP:SPS. He wrote: "It's a primary source, and reliable for its own views. So the objection on RS grounds is spurious as it is only being used for its own view." In my opinion, that was accurate and also recapitulates a common way in which opinion pieces are used in Wikipedia articles. The editor who actually cited WP:SPS was WarKosign who produced a mishmash description of WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF which fails to describe how the former is applied. You appear to have borrowed the phrase "no claims about third parties" from him. The part of WP:SPS which comes closest to that phrasing says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Note that it mentions "living people" specifically, not "third parties". Presumably, the point is to avoid potential WP:BLP issues. As far as I can see, the Silverstein extract used nowhere mentions any living people. Nor can I see any other way that it falls foul of WP:SPS. ← ZScarpia 22:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Plot Spoiler, you answered RolandR by quoting a sentence from the Lead of the WP:Revert essay. The very next sentence says: "A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." That describes exactly what you did doesn't it? Note that you quoted from an essay rather than Wikipedia policy. See WP:Edit warring for a policy definition of revertion: "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors." From that policy's definition of the 3RR, we can infer the meaning of the 1RR applied to WP:ARBPIA articles: the 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert (that is the undoing of an action of another editor), in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Note the "in part" bit. ← ZScarpia 23:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign: WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." The edits of mine you've listed are consecutive and therefore count as a single revert. You've also not noticed that the editor I reverted was myself rather than "another user". As to your first comment, WP:ABOUTSELF applies when a non-expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source, WP:SPS applies when an expert self-published source is being used as a secondary source. Silverstein is arguably an expert who is quoted by non-self-published reliable sources, in which case the latter rule would be the one which applied. However, Nableezy's argument is that the blog is not being used as a secondary source at all, but as a primary source for Silverstein's opinion, so that neither WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:SPS apply. ← ZScarpia 09:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign, 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC): The 1RR rule does not apply when IP editors are being reverted, which is the case with the second of the two reverts you've listed. ← ZScarpia 10:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A curious feature of the case is that no mention of the reference, directly after those to opinions expressed by Levy, Avnery and Silverstein, to the article by Ross Singer, in which he criticises comparisons made between the IDF and Hamas, has been made. This is curious firstly because the article is a blog piece (albeit a Times of Israel blog). Unlike the three former writers, Ross Singer doesn't appear to be notable (judged by the lack of a Wikipedia article on him), so, on the grounds of removing references to blog pieces, the one to Singer's article should really have been the first to be deleted. The second curiousity is that the article is referred to without mentioning that Singer confirms that Jewish forces did in the 1940s store weapons in the alleged locations and that his objections to comparisons being made between the IDF and Hamas are based on other grounds. ← ZScarpia 14:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Isn't that a bit of a new departure, excusing editors for breaches of policy if they didn't realise that they were breaching policy, either because of ignorance or faulty understanding? And aren't you making a rod for your own back? Perhaps it would be reasonable to give newish editors the benefit of the doubt, but should it be extended to an editor such as Plot Spoiler who has been editing under that name since February 2009 and has in the past been blocked a few times for edit warring, because they've failed to figure out, as in Plot Spoiler's case, that partial reverts count as far as the 1RR restriction on ARBPIA articles is concerned? I understand that blocks are supposed to be preventative and that this case is now a bit old, but when you say, "I don't feel a case has been made yet," do you mean that you don't feel that a case has been made that Plot Spoiler breached the 1RR restriction? ← ZScarpia 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WarKosign

@Cailil and ZScarpia: WP:ABOUTSELF: Bullet #2 says "it does not involve claims about third parties". The statements by Richard Silverstein are 100% about third parties. Bullet #3 says "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". Silverstein was born 4 years after the war of independence so he couldn't have participated in it. “WarKosign ” 15:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity: If a revert is any edit that "undoes another editor's work", any edit can be considered a revert. Replacing a single word could be considered a revert since it removed the old word, correcting a typo would be a revert since it undid another editor's mistake. The only way to define a revert is in term of taking the article to past versions, partially or completely.

@ZScarpia: According to your logic you violated 1RR last week:

25 October 2014 deleted part of the reason ("rather than exertion of pressure for other reasons") in the CN tag
25 October 2014 deleted the whole CN tag.

Defining revert as "undoing another’s work" is unusable. It would cause every correction or attempt at compromise to be seen as a revert war. “WarKosign ” 04:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ZScarpia: Indeed, I couldn't find examples in your recent history - you usually make several rapid edits and then leave the article. But if someone happened to make an unrelated edit between any two of your edits it would become an 1RR violation according to your definition, which I see as absurd.

BTW, these two are obvious reverts of exactly the same content 10 hours apart, without any nit picking. “WarKosign ” 09:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Plotspoiler's notion (it's only a revert if it restores a previous version) would eviscerate the 1RR rule; indeed it would make a mockery of 3RR. Difficult to imagine that even Plotspoiler doesn't understand this; his trying to push the envelope the envelope this way makes it hard to anticipate proper editing in the future. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

As someone who has had multiple run-ins with Plot Spoiler, I dislike this use of a technical violation of 1RR (it is indeed a violation). This could easily have been avoided with a short message on PS's talk page asking him to self-revert. I would suggest no action, or the minimum possible "punishment". More important is a reminder to PS to discuss his edits on the talk page.

For the rest, Cailil's comments are off-mark and not related to the substance of this request. Even if the Cailil is right about the source, that has no bearing on this matter. As Cailil himself said, it is not permissible to edit-war to uphold standards concerning RS. Rule on the conduct and let the content issue be sorted out on the article talk page. There is no evidence of any coordination which is a prerequisite for tag-teaming. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy

I have not coordinated my actions with anyone and I have not engaged in any tag teaming. Cailil appears to be confusing cooperative editing to improve articles with working as a tag team. The accusation of tag teaming has no substance.

I rarely edit in the Israel-Palestine area, especially in the last few months. I edit in a wide range of areas that have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and my total number of edits in the I-P area constitute a very small portion of my total number of edits. However, I do enjoy discussing books and articles on Nishidani's talk page in an effort to place the I-P conflict in a far larger global historical, social, economic and cultural context. I am a native speaker of Hebrew and read several mainstream Israeli newspapers (online) every day, and almost every day I come across some reliable source containing severe criticism of the Israeli government including the IDF as well as prominent, powerful Israeli persons. But only very rarely have I translated (an extremely small portion of) these articles and cited them in Wikipedia articles.

I have spent several hours going over Plot Spoiler's edit history. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind he is gaming the system. His modus operandi is to selectively excise sources and citations that paint the Israeli government (including the IDF) or prominent Israeli figures in a negative light, while leaving intact original research or non-RS-cited or uncited content that paints Palestinians in a negative light, or that paints Israel or Israeli figures in a positive light. His edits make a mockery of the spirit of consensus and Wikipedia policy.

Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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

On first sight this didn't look like a 1RR violation until you look at this diff from October 17th[3] its edit summary is a direct reflection of the first revert on November 2nd[4]. So there is a violation of 1RR and obviously a slow edit-war. The latest sanction against Plot Spoiler is not June 2014 its October[5] where they were blocked for 24 hours for breaching 1RR (this also shows his awareness of the case for the purposes of WP:AE/WP:AC/DS). This is a second breach within a month. I'd suggest a 48 hour block as a minimum.
There is however more to this. Plot Spoiler is raising an WP:RS issue with his first revert in October. Because WP:RS violations are not exempt under WP:EW Plot Spoiler was indeed edit-warring, however in an area under such a high-level probation the repeated insertion of blogs that do not conform to WP:RS is not only unhelpful it ignores the ArbCom ruling's counsel to editors in this area. The fact that this was done by 3 others (Nishidani[6], Nableezy[7] & IjonTichyIjonTichy[8]) is prima facie tag-teaming. Nableezy's revert of Plot Spoiler directs the reader to the talk page archives where a discussion of the content was had in October 2014 - one that ended without consensus[9]. A new talk page thread was opened by Nableezy (on November 2nd) citing WP:SPS, however the material in question isn't talking about itself thus such an assertion is a stretch. This bears discussion as much as Plot Spoiler's actions--Cailil ^talk 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and will not argue the merits of content - this is a forum for enforcement of rules around conduct. I see wikilawyering and I've called it. For clarity WRT WP:SPS, the "about self" exceptions ONLY apply when there are no claims about third parties and the material "does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" - what makes the source in question problematic is the bit following "But imagine if..."[10] that's a supposition, a claim, about third parties and events, it is not about the author. This might be ok in the Tikun Olam (blog) article but not in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict. In this case, the subject of the article is the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict not Richard Silverstein, better sources can be found and should be used for this subject and for other topics like the Jewish insurgency in Palestine. While I understand that it is not 1950 anymore and that blogs are becoming more acceptable as news sources, these are wikipedia's standards for verifiablity and reliability. Trying to find loopholes in policy in order to include questionable material is a bad idea. And group edit warring to keep it in is a worse idea--Cailil ^talk 15:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two edits by Plot Spoiler listed at the top of this report *do* appear to be a 1RR violation so I'd be OK with a block for that. If we were only considering those reverts here, any greater sanction that a short block would be unjustified. It is argued above that the use of blogs and possible tag-teaming could have justified one or more of Plot Spoiler's reverts. I don't find these arguments persuasive. Blogs by qualified experts along with newspaper editorials and the work of opinion columnists are often cited in ARBPIA articles, subject to consensus as to weight and relevance. I don't see how WP:RS can be an argument against the citation of opinion if consensus agrees that the opinion is important enough to be quoted. But the long list of reverts tabulated above by User:Nishidani on November 2 (items 1 through 10) look to be more serious. If someone has time to go through them all carefully they might add up to a case for a topic ban of Plot Spoiler. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with short block for PS (I suggested 48 hours earlier) on this matter and concur that Nishiani's list is worthy of examination. Above I'm not saying the RS issues "justify" PS's actions at all. My point is that the wider issue here is caused by use of (and pushing of) poor sources when better ones can be used.
Self-published blogs (even by experts) are not RS just because consensus says lets ignore/bend policy. Self-published blogs are only acceptable within strict criteria and in this instance those points of policy have been broken (because the material is making an exceptional claims about 3rd parties). I agree that it's too much of a hot-potato to sanction anyone in this case but long term it's bad practice--Cailil ^talk 17:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unclear on whether Silverstein's blog is being used as a source for any matters of fact. There's a lengthy discussion at Talk:2014 Israel–Gaza conflict/Archive 13#Revert on whether the hiding of weapons in synagagues in the 1948 war deserves mention in this article. That's a problem of weight and balance and doesn't seem to depend on who is correct about facts. Nothing short of consensus would be enough to resolve that, and I agree with Cailil that this thread did not reach a conclusion. Opening an WP:RFC would be one option. Reaching NPOV requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This AE thread is not the time or place to settle the 1948 matter, but those engaged in the debate need to behave properly. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what purpose would be served by a block so long after the fact. Is there any evidence that PS knew the first edit was a revert? To take the definition of a revert to absurdity, and removal of content is a revert, but by a sensible definition an editor could come to an article, read content they believed was inappropriate and remove it in good faith without it being considered a revert in the context of a 1RR (or indeed 3RR). To descend into legal terminology for a moment, we've established the actus reus but not (or not obviously) the mens rea. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A week has gone by since this was opened and admins have come down on all possible sides. I think may be time to consider closing this with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Nishidani's post above, I'd be unhappy with a result of 'no action'. I could live with closing with a warning to watch the reverts and engage on talk pages. I'm not saying I wouldn't support tangible sanctions, but I don't feel a case has been made yet (and, as you say, this has been open a week). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trahelliven

Blocked for 48 hours for a 1RR violation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Trahelliven

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Trahelliven (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

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

8:01, 13 November 2014 Partial revert of this edit
8:54, 13 November 2014 Same revert less than an hour later (bizarrely accusing me of violating 1RR when I reverted only once, between these two reverts)

Trahelliven is clearly aware of the sanctions given his summary in the second revert (breach of rule of no two reverts in 24 hours)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I don't usually bother filing AE requests on violations, but this one was particularly concerning because Trahelliven seems to think that it's acceptable to violate 1RR if you are reverting another editor who you think (rightly or wrongly) has also violated it. I'm also concerned by the untrue edit summary in the second revert accusing me of violating 1RR - my first edit was a normal edit (this is the summary of changes in Trahelliven's first two edits, and this was my one that followed. As hopefully anyone can see, there is no reversion of anything there). Number 5 7 17:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He has just broken 1RR again:

11:20, 14 November 2014 (revert of this edit by Ykantor)
01:59, 15 November 2014 (revert details in the edit summary)

Number 5 7 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WarKosign and HJ Mitchell: The edit that I supposedly reverted is from March 2012, over two and a half years ago. Number 5 7 13:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Trahelliven

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 Trahelliven

Statement by WarKosign

Number 57 changed "Eretz Israel" to "Mandatory Palestine" and then repeated the same edit after 13 hours. Seems to me that Trahelliven is correct in accusing Number 57 of 1RR violation. Of course it does not justify 1RR violation by Trahelliven. “WarKosign ” 05:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Here it is. “WarKosign ” 12:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I believe you were not aware that your first edit was a revert. Technically every edit that removes or replaces even a single letter is a revert, since some editor wrote that letter and the edit undoes their work.

Even if you considered it it just a WP:BOLD edit, after Trahelliven reverted you, per WP:BRD you should have discussed it and not try to push the same edit for the second time. “WarKosign ” 16:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: IMO, this interpretation goes against the spirit of 1RR and BRD. This way editor A can make a controversial edit, editor B will revert it, editor A will re-do the controversial edit and editor B will have to choose between violating 1RR and leaving the edit in. “WarKosign ” 17:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Number 57's report seems to me quite proper, and I should add that I have some history of otherwise disagreeing with his judgement, but not on this. It's disconcerting to see such confusion over the IR rule. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trahelliven

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

I didn't look much into the first set of diffs but they do appear to be reverts; the second pair are quite blatantly reverts and only about 14 hours apart. Thus, I've blocked Trahelliven for 48 hours (I would normally go for 24 for a first offence, but two violations in quick succession while accusing another editor of a 1RR violation [as if that were a legitimate reason to revert in the first place] strikes me as requiring a longer block). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WarKosign: Yes I saw that, but the first appears to be a distinct change rather than a revert, thus no vio; happy to be corrected if you can provide a diff for the edit it was reverting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WarKosign: Yes, okay, point taken, it is technically a revert (how long did it take you to find that, by the way?). Still, for Number 57 to have known that would have taken far more than just due diligence—the last 200 edits to that page only go back as far as April 2012. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that an editor look that far back. I'd expect them to look through the last 50 (the number shown by default unless you change your preferences to display more or fewer), but not 200+. You are correct that reverting a revert goes against the principle of BRD, but BRD is sadly not policy; I'd be quite happy to see the 1RR tightened to prohibit reverts of reverts, but admins can only enforce the rules as they are, not as we think they should be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @WarKosign: I didn't say the 1RR was perfect. The same argument could be made for any restriction to an odd number of reverts, and a restriction to an even number of reverts would lead to endless claims of ownership. ArbCom give us latitude with the phrase "broadly construed", but I'd be over-ruled on appeal if I started construing things that broadly. To give an example close to my own heart that some people get very het up about, if I was to write an article that said "Manchester is a city in England", and somebody changed that to "in the United Kingdom" and that stuck for two and a half years and through >200 edits before somebody changed it back to "in England", I can't see that it would be reasonable to consider that last edit a revert for the purposes of enforcement. While Number 57's conduct might have been sub-par, it doesn't rise to the level of being sanctionable in my opinion (other admins, feel free to weigh in if you think I'm wrong). While I'm very happy to discuss the pros and cons of the 1RR with you, may I respectfully suggest we take the conversation to one of our talk pages or an appropriate page in the Wikipedia talk namespace? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keramiton

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 Keramiton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZScarpia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Keramiton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction :

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

14:29, 16 November 2014 Straight revert of a revert performed by me 22 hours previously. The edit comment left misses the point of my previous reversion.
16:34, 16 November 2014 Further revert performed about an hour and a half after the previous one.

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. Alert given by Malik Shabazz on 9 November 2014.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification given. ← ZScarpia 17:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Keramiton

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 Keramiton

I didn't know that Max Blumenthal, an American journalist, is considered to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area (therefore included in the 1RR). If that's the case, I apologise.--Keramiton (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Keramiton

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

[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.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards