Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive241

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, edit-warring :

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

IP (and his new user account) keep restoring disputed, POV, speculative content based on unreliable sources. This is ARBPIA-related so he shouldn't be able to edit there in the first place. But even if it wasn't, he already broke 3RR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I blocked the IP for WP:3RR for 31h.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I also extended-confirmed protected Labour Friends of Israel, will log it tomorrow if I do not forget.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

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

• Closing, already blocked. Sandstein 08:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBPIA: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

• Revert 1 on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel
• Revert 2 on the same article

• Note that User:ThurnerRupert also has two matching reverts, and is also in breach.

• Whilst looking at this, I noted that יניב הורון had also reverted twice today here;
• Revert 1 on Palestinian Jews
• Revert 2 on the same article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previously blocked twice for arbitration enforcement in the ARBPIA area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: I removed a report by User:ThurnerRupert to WP:AIV earlier, where he was complaining about the reaction of User:יניב הורון who swore in an edit summary after being templated for vandalism. Since the templating was completely wrong, I felt that the reaction by יניב הורון was reasonable. However, this dispute has led to a small edit-war on that article, covered by ARBPIA, where both editors have broken 1RR. יניב הורון also appears to have broken 1RR on another article obviously related to ARBPIA, although that article does not have the ARBPIA DS notice (see above). I note along with this report that יניב הורון was unblocked (correctly) at 13:49 UTC today, since when they have reverted edits on twenty-three other articles, mostly in the ARBPIA area, many controversial, including seven in the first five minutes of today's editing (and I ignored the ones that were obviously typo fixes or vandalism reverts). I do start to wonder if this editor is a net positive in this area of editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Debresser:: What would you suggest I do instead? Ask someone else to file it? Ignore it? Anyway, you should be glad, as since you seem to appear I am biased at AE (yes, I saw what you removed ) you'll be glad to know that I can't act as a responding admin on this report, because I filed it. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Icewhiz:: I'm not an expert on ARBPIA, but if I see the ARBPIA notice on a page, I assume it's under the sanctions. How else are we to know, as admins? Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

ThurnerRupert יניב הורון

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

I just wanted to make a procedural note, that I am not happy with an editor who regularly comments on WP:AE reports as an uninvolved admin, starting to report editors himself. Debresser (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Poorly crafted report. Neither are ARBPIA violations. ARCA has ruled that Iran/Israel is not part of ARBPIA which makes the first set of diffs moot as it is entirely about the Iranian's PM comments on Israel. The second set of diffs is an enforcement of the general prohibition against an IP editor which is explicitely exempt from ARBPIA 1RR. Most of Yaniv's reverts are vandalism or reversion of extreme POV related. ThurnerRupert questioning the reliability of long standing content sourced to WaPo, Reuters, ABC, and no lack of additional sources being rather extreme. One should note Yaniv has been the subject of frivilous reports at AE and a SPI complaint (form a long dormant editor) which was false - he was unblocked after being blocked for false reasons.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

1RR doesn't apply to IP/non-extended-confirmed users - WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction - "Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion". Iran/Israel is out of scope of ARBPIA per May 2018 ARCA.Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: any user may place an ARBPIA notice on the talk page (e.g. - in this case - it was placed in 2012 by Shrike, who is not an admin). In many Iran/Israel pages it is there by mistake (or does not reflect the current ARCA/AE consensus) - and it has been causing some confusion. The talk page notice, however, has no relevance to enforcement of DS beyond saying that a user should be aware of its presence if editing - but one can apply DS also when it isn't there, and if it is there in error then it doesn't "bless" an article with ARBPIAness. The place an admin is supposed to look at is the DS log, or alternatively (as ARBPIA is framed broadly and doesn't require article level DS logging) judging whether the article is related. In any case - this particular article (and even more specifically the reverted content of Ahmadinejad calling to "eliminate the Zionist regime") is not ARBPIA per ARCA - as it is Iran vs. Israel without an Arab/Palestinian component.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

1. 16:31, August 23, 2018 and 17:33, August 23, 2018 Content is first added by Activist in a series of two edits
2. 17:44, August 23, 2018 and 17:47, August 23, 2018 I remove it and start a discussion on the talk page per the consensus required restriction on the article
3. 08:39, August 24, 2018 Restoration of the content
4. 22:52, August 26, 2018 Different content is removed by an IP editor per a previous consensus on the talk page
5. 04:12, August 27, 2018 Restored by Activist without discussion

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)

• Received DS alert on user talk page 13:33, August 27, 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is a consensus required restriction on this article. After the first violation, I informed the editor about the editing restrictions on the article on 19:57, August 24, 2018. This was followed by a second violation on August 27th in which the editor restored content that was removed after discussion. I asked the editor to self-revert a second time on August 27, but the editor has not self-reverted or responded. I am filing here because I would like the editor to self-revert - I don't want to confuse the situation further with back and forth reverts. There are discussions open for both of these edits on the article talk page.

The fact that Activist has still not self-reverted despite the talk page discussion is troubling. In the response to this complain he says without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence even though he was notified that the text removed by the IP I left a message on his talk page linking him to the discussion and asking him to self-revert several days before filing this complaint . He has made several comments on the talk page defending the edit since this complaint was filed but still has not self-reverted.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be pretty much resolved at this point. An ip has removed the non-consensus content and Activist has returned to the talk page to discuss the jogging edits where there is rough consensus for a new proposal made by Icewhiz subsequent to this complaint being filed. I don't see any harm in closing this complaint, provided Activist understands the consensus required restriction on the article and does not continue to restore the disputed content. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I haven't been through this AE process before, so please understand that I'm trying to figure it out and try to bear with me.

I made a few reverts to this article without having gone back and looked at older edits and reverts and was unaware of their existence. In one case, I edited a statement about some trivia that I thought shouldn't be included in the article at all, but tried to preserve them despite my disagreement with their inclusion. I was trying to accommodate whatever editors had posted the existing text. The subject of the article, Brett Kavanaugh, was described as a "runner," and an "avid marathoner." and as having "ran" the Boston Marathon. In fact, Kavanaugh is a jogger as defined by Wikipedia*, rather than a "runner." In order to be allowed to run in that marathon, he would normally be required to post a maximum time for a qualifying race, 3 hours and 30 minutes for both the 2010 and 2015 races. That's a fairly slow pace. His actual finishing time in 2010 was "3:59:45," {a pace of nine minutes and nine seconds per mile, really a fast walk) which was described in the same sentence as, "under four hours," a redundancy. I eliminated the redundancy and provided some context to give typical Wikipedia readers a grasp on what the times actually indicated, including his age at the time of the 2010 race. (Runners typically begin to run gradually slower as they age, after their mid-30s.) Since I'd given his age for the 2010 race (always held on the third Monday in April, the Massachusetts holiday, "Patriots Day"), there was no need for me to include his age for 2015. His time there was "4:08.38," nine minutes and 29 seconds per mile/ six miles per hour, a slightly slower jog than five years earlier.) My edit has been accepted by other editors, it appears. Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Suggested two alternate renderings. One restored the redundancy (3:59:45) plus "under four hours." That sentence was followed by a sentence fragment.

I*(From Wikipedia)The definition of jogging as compared with running is not standard. One definition describes jogging as running slower than 6 miles per hour (10 km/h). Running is sometimes defined as requiring a moment of no contact to the ground, whereas jogging often sustains the contact. (In other words, the jogger always has one foot on the ground.)'m terribly jammed for time. If it's okay, I'll add Statement 2 & 3 to address the other edits. Is there a time deadline for completing my response? Activist (talk)

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

• I recommend that the complainant ping the admin who enacted the restriction at issue, because other admins (such as myself) do not appear interested in enforcing it. Sandstein 16:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• If the complainant says it has been resolved I think we should close without any action taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Closing accordingly. Sandstein 12:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Seraphim System (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

1. 18:23, July 3, 2018 He has added this content previously
2. 21:13, August 30, 2018 Restores content, technically a 1RR violation but so close to the cutoff I don't report it because a self-revert would be pointless and the goal is to try to reach a stable consensus not to get editors blocked on technicalities
3. 11:31, August 31, 2018 Here he restores only the piping. This is a second 1RR violation. In this case there is an open talk page discussion that Yaniv has ignored while continuing to revert, so I have decided to file a complaint because I think AE is needed at this point.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:00, March 13, 2018 He was blocked a few months ago for 30/500 violations in the topic area after warnings.

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

• 17:00, March 13, 2018 He has been sanctioned in the topic area within the past year

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

יניב הורון's first edit to this article was to change 1973 Arab-Israeli War to surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur. He started editing the article after I started this RFC on the main article. His only involvement with the article has been to pipe this link and to restore non-reliable sources like a workshop page from a University that does not even verify the content it is cited for. He has removed content that is supported by a reliable source in the process (like the embargo against Rhodesia, South Africa, etc.) Restoring unsourced information this way after it has been discussed on the talk page is basically a form of subtle vandalism of the article. He does not seem to be worried that DS may apply to him.

He has previously said his edits were about content about Soviet support and said he added a reliable source after the talk page discussion. In my last round of edits I left that content in and merged the two versions based on that discussion, restoring the links to Bar Lev Line and the sourced content that his edit had replaced with content that was not supported by a reliable source. He reverted again with a false edit summary - this revert technically violated 1RR because it was within 24 hours of a revert of content he had added, but I didn't report it. The edit summary is false because it has been discussed on the talk page already and it was explained again in an edit summary.

I restored the reliably sourced content and link to Bar Lev line again, but self-reverted because I thought the page might be covered by 1RR and added an ARBPIA notice to the article talk headers (if the article is not within ARBPIA this notice should be removed). My next edit copied stable consensus content from the second paragraph of the lede of the Yom Kippur War article. My hope was that this would be consensus content and end the dispute. (This technically fell within 1RR by 4 minutes.) Yaniv left this message on my talk page. I was not expecting the consensus content from the main article to be controversial but I started a talk page discussion asking Yaniv to explain his objection to the content.

Yaniv's last edit to the article was only to restore this piping. It was done without replying to the talk page discussion and also violates 1RR on the article.

@Icewhiz: I restored surprise attack here . This is the correct link to the article before I started working on it . I wanted to restore a vital article to GA status by addressing the issues raised at GAR. Yaniv's edit have restored content that is not supported by sources and changed the piping to an 8 word pipe for a duplicate link (wikilinks are not highlighters, btw). He has not made any further contributions to the article. He has removed critical links like Bar Lev line, which no one should support, on either side of the conflict area. And then, he has denied removing any content. When does good faith run out? I stopped editing the article for a month to see if he wanted to actually work on the article, but all he has done is continue reverting to restore the piping when I started editing again. This is just one step up from common vandalism. He has also stopped replying on the talk page, which is why it now has to be escalated to a complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Anybody can take a look at this and see who is edit-warring. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of reporting Seraphim System for breaking 1RR (1st revert, 2nd revert), so I left her a warning. But apparently she didn't think it was a 1RR violation (although she reported ME for some strange reason). In my opinion, a WP:Boomerang was never more deserving than now.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Poorly crafted report. Yaniv is not the original author of diff1 (from 3 July) - in fact it seems to appears in 21 June, and for the most part in the stable version of the article, prior to Seraphim System's editing. Diff2 is thus not a 1RR original author violation (which applies to the first revert of originally authored content). diff3 is different content all together, and seems to be mainly fixing a missing wikilink. One should also note that no request for a self-revert or warning was posted on Yaniv's talk page (which is not required, but is generally a common courtesy in the area - particularly for non straightforward interpretations of reverts).Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

By Seraphim System's standard of interpretations of reverts, they broke 1RR with 22:09, 29 August 2018 (which is a revert back to a version they preferred in 3 July), following by another revert - 21:25, 30 August 2018, which they self-reverted recognizing this was ARBPIA - 21:54, 30 August 2018, followed by - 22:05, 30 August 2018 which is a partial revert that removes "surprise attack" - within 23 hours and 56 minutes of their previous revert (not counting the revert and self-revert in the middle).Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The reported user has certainly violated the remedy by performing more than ONE revert in less than 24hrs:

• 21:13, 30 August 2018: First revert (it's the revert of this edit)
• 11:31, 31 August 2018: Second revert (it's the revert of this edit), which came less than 24hrs from the former one.

Admins need to take care of it urgently.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. This might be noteworthy for you as you aimed to watch his edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• I am closing this without action because the request does not make clear what the specific sanction or remedy is that is to be enforced. "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION" is not an existing Arbitration Committee decision. Sandstein 15:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Galobtter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

HappyWaldo (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/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

1. 13:38, 2 September 2018 First revert
2. 15:03, 2 September 2018 Second revert, in violation of 1RR restriction on article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 29 August 2018 Blocked for violating the same restriction on the same article 4 days ago

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I even gave him a chance to self revert his violation, see Special:PermaLink/857715872#August_2018, and he refused.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• @Swarm: this is your 1RR restriction, could you please evaluate this request? Sandstein 15:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked for 1 week. Straightforward 1RR vio. Awareness criteria above and beyond satisfied. Swarm ♠ 00:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Block converted to personal 1RR editing restriction for three months, per off-wiki exchange with user. Swarm ♠ 02:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב הורון (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 or General 1RR restriction : "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

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

It seems that there was a dispute over linking the phrase to an article and the reported user kept on reverting the other user.

• 21:13, 30 August 2018: First revert (it's the revert of this edit)
• 11:31, 31 August 2018: Second revert (it's the revert of this edit), which came less than 24hrs from the former one.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:00, March 13, 2018

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The former request was closed without action only because it did not "make clear what the specific sanction or remedy" was to be enforced. This new request has fixed this issue and focuses on 1RR instead of the original author bullet. The user has clear issues with regards to this area of IP articles. Despite many warnings and two blocks, he continues his behavior, just as before. Just see their talk page. Let him go without action and he's here again, soon or late. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that would be useful if he gets prohibited from editing the articles in this area, for a while. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz: He's revert includes inserting "Yom Kippur War" to the article. It seems that there was a dispute over linking the phrase to an article and the reported user kept on reverting the other user. His very act of 'revertionism' behavior should be taken care of. He performs his reverts very recklessly. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• Hi Seraphim System. I understand what you said. The link to the article talk discussion certainly helps. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
• A personal editing restriction can also be considered. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• Hi regentspark: There were two reverts in 24 hrs by יניב הורון. See the following (I have inserted a new diff which can't be seen in my original request):

Seraphim System made this edit and he was reverted by יניב הורון in this edit. So, יניב הורון's first revert occurred at 21:13, 30 August 2018. Then, Seraphim System inserted the term "Israeli-occupied territories" which was reverted back by יניב הורון at 11:31, 31 August 2018.

As you see, the second revert occurred in just 14hrs and 18mins after the first revert, hence 1RR restriction was violated. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He's aware of it. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Anybody can take a look at this and see who is edit-warring. As a matter of fact, I was thinking of reporting Seraphim System for breaking 1RR (1st revert, 2nd revert), so I left her a warning. But apparently she didn't think it was a 1RR violation (although she reported ME for some strange reason). In addition, as Sandstein said above, it's not clear the article in question is part of ARBPIA. It's not the first time Mhhossein starts an AE for spurious reasons. In my opinion, a WP:Boomerang was never more deserving than now.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:: As far as this edit remains, I have no intention of reverting anymore. I don't object that version of the article. And if I did an infraction in that article (which is not part of ARBPIA as Sandstein said in the previous report), then Seraphim System did the same before (1st revert, 2nd revert in less than 24 hours), despite I warned him and he didn't care. Therefore you should block both of us or none. That would be fair.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: No, actually if you pay attention Seraphim System self-reverted, but then he made a second revert in less than 24 hours.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

On a different note, I apologize, since I did not realize that edifying Yom Kipur War was a revert, though now I do and I would self-revert if I had the chance to (I notified Seraphim System of a possible 1RR, so he did a partial revert afterwards, while I got reported straight away without warning).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Diff2 is not a revert - it adds a wikilink to the existing text, and the previous edit did not change the wikilink. It should be noted that the previous, closed report, was filed after Yaniv asked Seraphim System to self-revert for a 1RR vio on the page (which they did).

Mhhossein has filed quite a few reports against Yaniv which has been closed without action, e.g.:AE on 17 Aug - on an article clearly out of scope of ARBPIA, which Mhhossein should have been aware of since he was involved in the recent May 2018 ARCA that determined this, and EW warring on 2 August.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty fed up with this, including the number of "good faith editor" warnings Yaniv has been given. What Icewhiz says above is not accurate. The edit is not fixing a missing wikilink. And I did not self-revert the second edit. The 1RR violation was within 4 minutes of 24 hours. Most likely I will end up being sanctioned for it, but whatever, it happened. By the time Yaniv had pointed it out around 45 minutes later, it was too late for me to self-revert. What I ended up doing was restoring the article to exactly how I found it before the edit warring started - there have not been any significant contributions between then and now except those that I have made, so technically was a self-revert. I am willing to accept a sanction for the 1RR violation just to remove my own content from the article and not have to continue pretending this editor is doing something other then vandalizing this article that he followed me to. I'm through working on it. Goodnight. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see also this discussion on the main article talk page where several editors recently discussed similar removals with Yaniv: Talk:Yom_Kippur_War#Recent_weakly-justified_revert Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: It isn't just changing the name to Yom Kippur War. In subsequent attempts to reach a stable version I modified this. In his last revert he removed the stable consensus content I copied from the lede of the main article. Yaniv himself participated in the discussion on the main article's talk page and my 1RR violation was to add consensus content he has already agreed to. During that discussion Yaniv said Also it's already specified that the Golan and Sinai were territories taken by Israel in 1967, so your addition was also redundant and meaningless. Other editors in that discussion note that the line The war began when the Arab coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israeli positions in the Israeli-occupied territories is the minimum required, a consensus I agree with, and that Yaniv seems to understand. Yaniv's last revert was to remove this consensus content and change it to "launched a joint surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur". He continues edit warring over the "subtle" POV removal without talk page discussion and he has a battleground approach to editing in this topic area. He should be topic banned, but this project currently seems to be more interested in sanctioning editors for not having infinite patience with these SPAs, a transgression I must admit I am guilty of at this point.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@יניב הורון: Can you explain why you continued to revert instead of responding to this ping on the talk page? Did I spell your username wrong? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Also his last comment on the talk page is And I will keep reverting it. - indicating that he intends to continue edit warring. Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• Though it isn't clear to me why inserting the link is contentious, its reinsertion does look like a clear violation. --regentspark (comment) 23:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

  Since the reversal is a clear infraction, and since the editor has promised to continue doing so regardless, I'm proposing a one week AE block (the previous block was for 4 days). Unless some other admin chimes in, I'll do that later today. --regentspark (comment) 14:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  @יניב הורון: Seraphim System self reverted so that doesn't count as a violation. --regentspark (comment) 20:12, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  @יניב הורון: Though possibly made in good faith, unfortunately your apology is too late. From what I can see, you've tried to deflect the issue by labeling Seraphim System's edits as a violation (which they are not), by claiming that it is not clear that the page is covered by ARBPIA (which it is clearly stated as being so on the talk page), and even trying to obfuscate by claiming that Seraphim System has said it isn't part of ARBPIA (they were talking about a different article). From what I can see, you edit heavily in the area and so have no excuses. I'm blocking you for a week.--regentspark (comment) 22:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Veritycheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 00:28, 6 September 2018 First edit
2. 01:07, 6 September 2018 Edit was reverted by myself and then reinserted by Wolfman12405
3. 16:47, 5 September 2018 Same violation on another article - First edit
4. 00:19, 6 September 2018 Reinserts the same edit after having been reverted by Nableezy
5. 03:55, 6 September 2018 And now a 3rd infraction that was clearly made after the alert had been posted on his page at 02:22, 6 September 2018
6. 06:08, 7 September 2018 Begins edit-warring again
7. 09:29, 7 September 2018 Breaks 24-hour revert rule 1st
8. 10:17, 7 September 2018 Breaks 24-hour revert rule again 2nd
9. 14:20, 7 September 2018 Breaks 24-hour revert rule again 3rd
10. 06:14, 7 September 2018 And begins once again here on another page
11. 14:19, 7 September 2018 Breaks 24-hour revert rule 1st

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor was notified on his talk page of the following restriction, "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit". He was requested to self-revert his violation which he refused to do. He was informed of the rule and still refused to self-revert at which time this complaint was made.

NOTE: Since this was originally submitted, Wolfman12405 has made a 3rd violation clearly after having read the Alert on his talk page which he responded to. See the 5th diff above.

UPDATE: On September 7, Wolfman12405 has reverted 4 other editors, so far, by reinserting his edit in a period less than 24 hours breaking the revert rule three times in one article. Diffs provided above (6-9). And once on another article (10-11).

His Talk Page shows that no block has been instated yet. When can we expect one? This is getting out of hand and requiring too much time just reporting it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wolfman12405&diff=prev&oldid=858279040 Diffs provided above.

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

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

• I don't think this is actionable. Wolfman was noticed of the DS in the PI area in April 2017, but before the revised 1RR rule (not allowing any revert within 24 hr of removal) was made in May 2017; as the DS was stated in April 2017, they are limited to 1RR (which this is). (Were all people on the DS log notified of this change? I don't see anything on Wolfman's page to note this DS change after May 2017). The new notice came after the 1RR edit, so that's not really valid to post-facto say they broke a DS they might not be aware of. So for all purposes, barring anything I'm not seeing off their talk page or immediate contributions, Wolfman appears to not have been notified of this change. (This in no way validates the content of the change made, just that I'm not sure on actionability here). --Masem (t) 02:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On continued action after the DS notice today, this is now clearly in violation. --Masem (t) 04:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed. This is a definite (and egregious after the notification) violation and should result in some sort of sanction. --regentspark (comment) 00:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Today, we have a clear violation of 1RR in Timeline of the name "Palestine", which is sanctionable. Since the user was previously blocked for 48h, I would think smth like a 2-week block is appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Godotskimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

MPants at work (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

Discretionary sanctions

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

1. 14 March 2018 Mpants argues that the journal Intelligence is not a reliable source because he considers it racist. Looking up information about this journal suggests that his comment is a gross perversion of reliable source policy, as the journal appears to be a reputable psychology journal published by Elsevier. See also the last paragraph of Jbhunley's comment here:
2. 14 May 2018 The background of this diff is that user:Deleet posted a comment describing the current state of research about race and intelligence, including citations to two textbooks published by Cambridge University Press: Earl Hunt's Human Intelligence and Richard Haier's The Neuroscience of Intelligence. Mpants' response is a mixture of personal attacks, such as "I'm sick of dealing with racist bullshit like the comment above yours" (that is, Deleet's comment) and attacks on the credibility of the sources being cited, such as "Look at how cheap those 'textbooks' are (ever seen a college textbook under $180?)"
3. Essay created on 1 September 2018, a fairly clear violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. In an earlier version of the essay, the opinion that races differ in average intelligence was described as a "core belief uniting the various types of nazis".
4. 5 September 2018 Mpants says that Deleet's being harassed by sockpuppets is good for the project. I understand this topic area has had problems with sockpuppetry in the past, so encouraging more of it is disruptive.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 6 September 2018. (I am not sure whether this qualifies; admins can determine whether it does.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While reporting a recent case of sockpuppetry by Anglo Pyramidologist, my attention was drawn to user:MjolnirPants / user:MPants at work, who seemed to be acting as an apologist for the sockpuppeteer in the above diff from 5 September. After looking into this user's history, I believe there to be a serious problem with his behavior, and it should receive admin attention.

Race and intelligence is a lively topic of debate in psychology, with sources such as Cognitive Capitalism arguing for a genetic component to group differences in IQ (with an emphasis on differences between nations but also discussing race/ethnicity), and sources such as Intelligence: New Findings and Theoretical Developments arguing for an entirely environmental cause. Reasonable people may differ on the correct balance between these viewpoints in Wikipedia articles, and it is essential to assume good faith about those who have a different perspective on what that balance should be. However, the essay in Mpants' userspace suggests he is not capable of doing that, as its original version made no distinction between individuals who disagree with him in this area and actual Nazis. (He eventually changed "nazis" to "racists" after others suggested this change on the essay's talk page.)

This attitude is borne out in his conduct towards other editors, which has included inventing spurious reasons for rejecting sources that he disagrees with, as in the first and second diff above, and directing profanity-laced tirades or encouragement of harassment against them, as in the second and fourth diff. This pattern of behavior creates a toxic editing environment on the articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I think my defense has already been made for me, so I have little to add. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This compliant looks completely baseless from the diffs provided. Yes, MPants at work is open about not being welcoming to nazis and other racists. That's to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I hope the filer catches a WP:BOOMERANG for this. Simonm223 (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching AE because of the case above, so I saw this report, and I have edited with MPants many times, so I feel like I have some familiarity, even though I wouldn't, myself, touch race and intelligence with a ten-foot pole. I've read the evidence above, and I do not think that MPants is seriously endorsing sockpuppetry or harassment; rather, those were comments to be understood figuratively. Purely as a procedural matter, a comment at the fringe theories noticeboard does not satisfy the requirement for DS awareness. A significant amount of this complaint is a matter of a content dispute, about how much due weight to assign to sources that advocate an environmental aspect, versus how much to assign to sources that argue for some degree of genetic influence, versus how much to assign to sources that carry the genetic argument to the extent of claiming differences between races. The first two of those are outside the role of AE. As for the third, I'm personally no fan of cussing, but if there is a topic where it can be understood, this is it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that this is a content dispute. It also appears to me that Godotskimp needs to be indefinitely blocked as WP:NOTHERE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Four edits selected over a six month period? O3000 (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This Arbitration request is all nonsense. The real issue is the filer. The user MPants at work is a decent editor who has done nothing wrong.

Godotskimp is a sock-puppet of the white supremacist Emil Kirkegaard who has been advertising on his personal twitter for his friends to help him on Wikipedia. If you check Godotskimp's editing history he was inactive on Wikipedia for months, he turned up to file a sock-puppet request last week after someone turned attention to Emil's conflict of interest on the London Conference on Intelligence article. Godotskimp repeatedly claims this was 'harassment', if you check the talk-page of the London Conference on Intelligence article (Godotskimp has deleted users comments) you will see the user was merely quoting a news source that described Kirkegaard as a racist.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Richard Lynn is a white supremacist and Emil Kirkegaard hold's racist views who works for Lynn's controversial institute , . This user should not be editing articles on race and intelligence.

The intelligence (journal) is edited by white supremacists . The editorial board past and present has included Richard Lynn, Gerhard Meisenberg, Arthur R. Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton etc. Godotskimp has no case and this should be closed. 89.163.221.47 (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Justifying harassment by a long-term sockmaster (diff) who has made over 100 socks is 100 % WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, although probably not actionable alone. The topic area is very controversial and that's why you have to behave well - it's definitely not an excuse not to. --Pudeo (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• Content dispute, not actionable. That the request was made by a 52-edit account makes it look additionally sketchy. Sandstein 18:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• I do not see any relation to discretionary sanctions and/or arbitration enforcement. Suggest closing as non-actionable.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure what the OP is seeking with this random collection of edits. I am concerned though, that OP's own contributions, the ones that haven't been deleted that is, largely consist of aggressive tagging or aggressive talk page posts. --regentspark (comment) 18:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Netoholic (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

Discretionary Sanctions, American Politics 2.

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

• September 5, 2018 Please see the edit summary: "rvt disingenuous editing and inaccurate edit summaries."

This is a revert of these two edits by me: and , made with no follow-up comments in talk. There are underlying content/POV issues here, but my concern for this report is specifically about describing my two edits as "disingenuous editing" and having "inaccurate edit summaries". I think that it is clearly a personal attack, made in a battleground-y way, that does not accurately describe the edits or edit summaries that I made, and is at a level that should not occur under DS. Had the edit summary simply been about a concern over NPOV, I would not be raising this here, but instead would be discussing it in talk. The page is Political views of American academics, so it is entirely within the scope of post-1932 US politics.

It is important to consider, also, that there have recently been two community RfCs that were held at Netoholic's request, in which the community strongly rejected his views about page content: 1 and 2, so it is not like my edits were contrary to talk page consensus or his revert was consistent with consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous recent AE block for battleground behavior: June, 2018.

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

May 21, 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@EdJohnston and other interested admins: I appreciate that part of AE is getting fresh eyes on a complaint, and I of course have been deeply involved. But to some extent, I think this report goes to what I said at WT:AE#A broader issue, about how AP2 needs more decisive action at AE. Do you think I edited disingenuously? Do you think that my two edit summaries were misleading? Also, to some extent, please consider as a thought experiment how you would feel if I, in turn, were to figure "Well, they say it's OK at AE" and go and revert the revert with an edit summary of "rvt disingenuous editing and insulting edit summaries. NPOV means giving due weight not equal weight". Do you really want DS to mean that's all OK?

Of course I'm not arguing edit warring based on one revert of my edits. I reported a single diff, but if you want to see an ongoing pattern of battleground against broad consensus by Netoholic at that page: , , , , , , , , , , , . It's a pattern, and it's not like it's just a two-editor disagreement between Netoholic and me. It's pretty much all the other editors active at the page disagreeing with Netoholic – and I started having RfCs in the hope of resolving the multiple issues, and the community very strongly rejected Netoholic's views each time. It's getting close to where anyone who makes a non-gnomish edit gets reverted right away by Netoholic, with a WP:1AM fight over every detail. It's becoming an unproductive time-sink for the rest of us. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I've had past experience with premature closing, so I'll make note of this: . --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ed: Well, it's obviously your call and not mine. In the past, Netoholic has always stopped editing during any AE discussion about him, and then resumed as soon as the discussion is closed and archived. It's true that the page has been very quiet of late, but that has been because there have been two successive RfCs during which pretty much no one wanted to edit the page until there was a result, and I think that there has also been a lot of fatigue over it. Let me propose the following: I will go now and revert the revert (with a polite edit summary, and with a subsequent edit making a good faith effort at compromise), and let's see what follows after that. If a day goes by with crickets, please feel free to close this with no action. If after you do that trouble erupts again, please be prepared for me to say I told you so. Deal? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made these three edits, the first of which is the revert: , , and . I trust that these edits were not disingenuous and that my edit summaries were not inaccurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• There is no 1RR on this article, and I don't think Tryptofish is making a complaint of edit warring. Rather, this ia a claim about battleground editing. The complaint is about the edit summary in this single edit of Netoholic. This is actually Netoholic's first edit of the article since June 16. The summary to which you object is (in its entirety): Rvt disingenuous editing and inaccurate edit summaries. Contradictory viewpoints deserve equal standing per NPOV. The claim of disingenuous editing is hinting at dishonesty, which is a bit much. But it seems overkill to want to sanction for this. I'm sympathetic to the difficulty in reaching agreement, and in fact the two RfCs look to have been reasonable steps. But this one edit summary doesn't seem to be a big deal considering the bitter disputes we see in the area of American politics. Netoholic is mentioned in DSLOG and was blocked in June at AE for battleground editing and misuse of admin boards. The June block seems justified. Unclear if this current complaint, when added to the past record, amounts to a pattern requiring a new sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• So far there is just one person requesting action (Tryptofish), one responding admin (me) and no comment from the person named in the complaint (Netoholic). The article we are discussing was the subject of hot dispute in the past, especially in May and June. But with an article that is currently very quiet, and with such a low rate of activity by Netoholic on the article, it is hard to see this as being a large problem. Can a guy who only edits the article once in two months really be holding up all progress? Above, you have added some diffs to show battleground editing by Netoholic but they are all from the month of May, which seems like a long time ago. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• After reading Tryptofish's new comment, I'm closing this with no action against User:Netoholic. If the problem continues, open a new complaint and link to this one. It's my guess that the existence of this article is more welcome to editors on the conservative side of the political spectrum, in US politics. When we consider editors' personal views, such people may not be in a majority here. The net effect may not be much zeal for article improvement. But if efforts do continue, we expect people to work in good faith to reach agreement. There is also the usual puzzle, that when an article survives AfD (as this one did in May) there is no guarantee that anyone who supports the article's existence will actually work on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Let Me Help 2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff)

Brett Kavanaugh was placed under Discretionary Sanctions on August 4, 2018 for Post 1932 American politics.

I suggest Let Me Help 2018 be topic banned from Brett Kavanaugh for a period of anywhere from 1 month to 6 months.

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

Let Me Help 2018 keeps trying to force in WP:PROMO to the WP:LEDE of Brett Kavanaugh through edit-war, in violation of WP:1RR and without any discussion on the talk page.

1. 06:35, 7 September 2018 1st addition
2. 06:49, 7 September 2018 2nd addition / revert / Fails WP:BRD
3. 11:09, 7 September 2018 3rd addition / revert / WP:1RR violation
4. 08:23, 10 September 2018 4th addition / revert / disregard of WP:BRD

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

Galobtter warned the editor three times talk page from about this behavior.

Let Me Help 2018 is well aware of these warnings, because he/she individually deleted each of the the three warnings.

I also warned the editor at the talk page of the article here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice: Revised Notice.

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.

Well, Tornheim, thanks--I was halfway through filing for the same thing. Let me Help is just being tirritating and I'd block them myself if I hadn't been friendly enough to revert them first. They're uncommunicative, they removed warnings and sage advice from their talk page, and that's disruptive. A block is warranted, given they've been warned before. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The reverts continue beyond what is identified above, making 3 times in approximately 18 hours. I don't know whether I'm supposed to edit/add to David Tornheim's list above, so I'll just add the new ones here:

5. 01:59, 11 September 2018 5th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

6. 02:16, 11 September 2018 6th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

Jdaloner (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• Let Me Help 2018 has violated two restrictions on this article, both 1RR (on multiple occasions) and the requirement to discuss disputed edits on the talk page and gain consensus before making them again, also on multiple occasions. My suggestion, with them being a relatively new editor, is a six-month topic ban from Kavanaugh and the process of his nomination, broadly construed (after which time, hopefully, the matter will have been settled), with a clear understanding that any more trouble will lead to the ban being broadened and/or lengthened. Since the disruption is ongoing, unless anyone very shortly objects, I will implement that remedy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Can't happen too soon. Let Me Help 2018 just did it again, and I can't revert it this time, having already made my 1 revert per 24-hour period.

7. 03:46, 11 September 2018 7th addition / revert / WP:1RR violation

Jdaloner (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Born2cycle_warned

and, more importantly

This AE case, section "Request concerning Born2cycle"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Born2cycle (B2C) is an editor whose entire focus at Wikipedia is about page naming and page moving. They have made 26,000 edits here, yet only 3,000 to mainspace (and most of those have been edits related to page moves). Over the last five years, fewer than 10% of their edits have been to mainspace (and again, mostly page move related).
• In the original AC case referred to above, B2C was warned that "(they are) warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors".
• Given a number of problematic issues, an AE case was opened by User:TonyBallioni on 6 March this year. The case can be seen at this link, section "Born2cycle". As you can see, there was a clear consensus to topic ban B2C from article naming discussions due to their disruption. It is worth reading the discussion there - consensus was quite clear. However, before the case could be closed, User:Dennis Brown stepped in and blocked B2C indefinitely, quoting remedy 4.2 of the aforementioned ArbCom case.
• On 4 June 2018, User:wbm1058 unilaterally unblocked B2C, with the unblock summary "a nearly 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block for tendentious editing". I disputed this unblock with wbm1058 - here's the "discussion" that ensued.
• However, B2C, despite the unblock, did not edit again until early August. Then he started his previous modus operandi as follows

• 18 edits at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation
• 6 edits at an RM discussion at Talk:Nosedive
• 9 edits at an RM discussion at Talk:Freston, Suffolk

• Then, he started closing RM discussions

• The discussion at Talk:The_Late_Show_(franchise) was immediately challenged as a supervote.
• This one - Talk:Michael_McCormack_(Australian_politician) is a shocker - he moved the page despite 80% of the !votes being against. An admin reversed it.
• At Talk:DiDi, there was an RM on whether to move Didi (company) to Didi Chuxing. B2C ignored most of the discussion (one editor did suggest this) and unilaterally moved it to Didi (where it still is).
• See also conversation with User:SmokeyJoe at User_talk:Born2cycle#RM Supervotes

After the original AE and block, B2C should never have been able to return to his standard of disruption on move requests and article namings. I hope that this AE will reach the coinclusion that the previous one did, before it was (in good faith) short-circuited by the block. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Hi Tony, yes I considered that, however I brought it here because it concerns an AE discussion that was not completed due to the block; the majority of the evidence is at AE rather than the ArbCom case. However I'll let others decide what the best venue is; it's 01:00 here so I won't be active for a few hours now.

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

I've been careful to not comment too much in any one RM discussion. Though many other editors do this all the time, I've been told when I do it it's Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing, so I've refrained from engaging in such behavior. But what's "too much"? For example, Black Kite notes I have 6 edits at Talk:Nosedive, accurately, but Crouch, Swale has 7, SmokeyJoe has 19, Diego Moya has 30... why am I singled out? Similarly, at Talk:Freston, Suffolk, while I do have 7 edits, Crouch, Swale has 30. At Talk:Disambiguation where I have 18 recent edits, Widefox has 25 and Diego Moya has 49. Are these other more prolific editors in violation of Tendentious Editing or disruption? I certainly don't think so. Do you? Then why am I? I'm not aware of any other policy or guideline that anyone is even alleging I'm violating.

As my user page and FAQ has long explained, my primary interest at WP is stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy), so of course I don't have much main space editing. Why is this even considered a violation of some kind? It's certainly not a documented one. In each of the two cases where I've been accused of super voting in my closes, only one person has objected. Normally, challenged RMs are taken to RM Review. But not me. Straight to Enforcement I go. I don't think it's fair to enforce imaginary rules, but that's exactly what seems to be going on here. What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it. I would be happy to comply. Simply disagreeing with me about titles should not suffice as a reason to support banning me from RM discussions. Right? --В²C ☎ 00:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite claims "B2C ignored most of the discussion ... and unilaterally moved it to Didi (where it still is)", while RegentsPark sees what actually happened: "b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo". Indeed, rather than ignoring "most of the discussion", I read it carefully, and found consensus favoring DiDi over the current title, and not just by numbers. I have a history of similar differences in perspective/understanding with SmokeyJoe, Dick Lyon, and others. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I endorse a TBAN on Born2cycle closing RM discussions based on the diffs provided (the close at Talk:DiDi also appears to be a supervote), but I'm not convinced yet anything more is necessary. The Nosedive discussion (which I participated in) was a clusterfuck for reasons other than this editor. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the procedural comments that this should be re-filed at WP:ARCA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Black Kite, it is my suggestion that this be taken to ARCA. The DS only apply to policy discussions and for violating the warning, we could block but not TBAN as it is outside of DS. I don’t think ANI would work well here as it’s been tried before to little avail. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Also noting I’ve notified Juliancolton of this on his talk since he’s involved in one of the incidents and was mentioned indirectly. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058, just to clarify, I suggested he be banned from policy pages last time, which is within the scope (see the DS authorization, which is distinct from the standard enforcement), and it would have been appropriate in my view given the blatant forumshopping and bludgeoning of policy talks instead of actually asking for a move review. I can’t speak to his behavior in that way since the ban, but given the closure that JC had to overturn (correctly IMO since it was so far off base as to not need a MRV), I think having the committee take a closer look at this is probably needed rather than DS on policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support a ban on Born2cycle (talk · contribs) closing discussions, especially RM discussions, and from editing any titling policy or guideline. His understanding of "compromise" in consensus is not there, instead he invokes black and white thinking, discarding others views that conflict with his bias for his long held titling theory objective. His objective he states as "stabilizing titles (and, thus, title policy)", but it is better described as "Title Minimalism" and "Algorithmic titling decisions", the second being inconsistent with consensus decision-making, and the net effect is disruption.

Weak opposition to banning from RM discussions or policy talk discussion on titling, but:

Support "contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors"

or

A prohoibition from engaging in lengthy threaded discussions, in favour of only making his own point in his own dot point without naming others.

My longer opinion was expressed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement 23:47, 7 March 2018. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Not clear to me what b2c is doing wrong here. I looked at the closes mentioned above, and they aren't unreasonable. Even the DiDi case presented as a particularly egregious example is not really that outré. Rather, b2c seems to have actually read the discussion, discovered that three editors (not one) are fine with DiDi because that's the name used internationally and by several reliable sources. Seems reasonable to close it that way, imo. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Support at least a ban on closing RM discussions and on editing any policy or guideline page; SmokeyJoe says it well, so I don't need to repeat. Discussion is OK, but some reasonable limits might still be in order. I think we've had a solid 10 years of this nonsense, with some breaks now and then. Dicklyon (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Given Born2Cycle's antics at Talk:Bend, where he tries to declare as invalid a move request that was his idea originally and promptly went against him, ArbCom -- here or elsewhere -- should go ahead and make topic ban official. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Born2Cycle:: What I'd like to see is a clear explanation, from someone, anyone, of what written/published policy I'm accused of violating, and how they believe I'm in violation of it.

You appear to have confused Wikipedia with a legal proceeding or a video game. But here you go, if you missed it the first time. --Calton | Talk 00:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur with TonyBallioni that the better venue for this may be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The sanction proposed for enforcement is "Born2cycle is warned that his contributions to discussion must reflect a better receptiveness to compromise and a higher tolerance for the views of other editors." and the remedy is "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year." My understanding is that Dennis Brown rejected the previous request for enforcement as out-of-scope, which is why he did not take a WP:AE action, but rather "a normal admin action". Bans on closing requested moves or participating in policy discussions are beyond the scope of remedies which is limited to blocks. The ~3-month block which resulted from the previous AE discussion on this matter was three times longer than the initial restriction called for by the Arbitration Committee. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• There is no authority under the arbitration case to topic ban B2C (or anyone) from requested moves. The only enforceable remedy explicitly states that it applies only to MOS pages themselves, not to requested moves or anything else. If sanctions are going to be placed here, they need to be placed either by the community, or by ArbCom. "Warned" remedies are just informational, they aren't enforceable (at least not by admins, ArbCom can choose to further sanction an editor who was previously warned). So, this discussion really needs to be taking place either at AN, or at an arbitration request/amendment request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Crawford88 (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:ARBIPA : specifically, a topic-ban from "all pages related to India, broadly construed".

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

1. 12 September 2018. The user's first and only edit since coming off a 3-day block for another topic-ban adds material about an Indian professor writing in an Indian newspaper about an event organized be and attended primarily by the Indian diaspora, to a page in which at least half the material is related to India.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

One previous block for violating the same topic ban.

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

• Topic-ban and block for violating this ban were all within the last 4 months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• User seems unable or unwilling to comprehend what a topic-ban is, and that they are required to abide by it. Virtually all of their edits since the ban have been violations. Vanamonde (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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

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

{{hat|1=No action, at least not in this thread. Other admins remain free to take action. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)}} — Re-opened by Drmies on 20:55, 18 September 2018. AGK 17:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting aspersions :

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

1. May 2016 KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder
2. Jan 2017 Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign.
3. September 2017 I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto?, If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased. among others at that talk page.
4. Oct 2017 there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between.
5. Aug 2018 May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication.
6. Sept 2018 You appear to be wanting to sanitize the coverage here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. June 2016 Warned by admin for violating aspersions principle.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Petrarchan47 has been around since the original GMO ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. with arbs stating Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct., but the behavior has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of sporadic presence until recently. That's still going on and getting to be a chronic issue now though even though we passed a principle at ArbCom because of exactly this kind of behavior: This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Previous AE are linked within this case for exactly this kind of stuff.

There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. that's very similar to Monsanto must be pleased comments we dealt with before David Tornheim was topic banned. I already linked one of the aspersions that came post-notification about me wanting to "sanitize" the content, but this comment still gets into the battleground behavior. They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015+), but the accusatory tone continued towards me. It's getting both petty and incoherent at this point that even I've run out of patience to ignore.

The links above show just some of the sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it looks like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll also reiterate that what Tryptofish says below rings very true about why we needed the aspersions principle. Before that, it got so bad that editors felt like they needed to save diffs as proof of when they made "anti" Monsanto edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Admins, with editors starting to come out of the woodwork, this is starting to mirror this AE case where multiple editors had to be sanctioned for supporting veiled aspersions as part of battleground behavior. I won’t try to debunk all the stuff about me below due to space unless asked (nor is this case about me). It really looks like we need a topic ban at a minimum now, especially after Petrarchan's warning. What you're seeing here for direct or veiled aspersions is the kind of stuff ArbCom really wanted tamped down, so this should be a straightforward enforcement of the aspersions principle as has been done previously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

KingofAces43 seems a conflicted editor who accuses others of what he is doing. He has admitted a COI (his specialty is pest management) on his userpage, and his edits seem to always favor the industry, although he claims he can be a neutral editor. He is engaging in bad faith editing by misusing WP:MEDRS.

In his above complaint, he refers to the wrong edit.

"They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015 or newer), but the accusatory tone continued towards me."

• This is the edit where he uses an old source.
• This is where I confront him about using old sources
• Seraphim System also warned him about the importance of using recent sources.

I've asked if he looked for newer sources, he has never responded, but instead he brings me here. In this edit Kings adds reference to the source SERA 2003. However, this source has been updated to SERA 2011.

If he'd done his due diligence, he'd have found it. By relying on the older source, he minimizes concerns scientists are raising about the “inert” adjuvants and surfactants. But the science has been changing (,,,), and he's not including that in his edits, because he relies on the older sources. MEDRS requires him to refer to updated sources.

• Here is where I first questioned him about this
• Here on September 5, I asked him if he'd checked for updates or newer sources

Sera 2011 *:

Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate and surfactants appear to be agents of concern

Monsanto/Bayer and Wikipedia articles try to conflate Glyphosate with Roundup. KingofAces43 most recently did that here, misrepresenting the science (see Sera 2011). I confront him here. His misrepresentation follows talking points coming from Bayer, new owner of Roundup.

Wikipedia should not allow this to continue. Bayer is facing over 8K lawsuits worth billions, similar to the one in California. The jury heard ”Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer” Reuters; ”Glyphosate” and ”Roundup” aren't synonymous. Wikipedia must stay fact-based especially regarding contentious issues. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies, please take a look at my interactions on the talk pages I've recently edited: Glyphosate, Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides. I have not caused disturbance. Things were 'calm' before I arrived... because important updates weren't being made*.

Additionally:

• KingofAces43 is a SPA: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Kingofaces43

• Tryptophish casts aspersions when accusing me of SPA. Only one of my top pages involves Monsanto: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Petrarchan47

• KingofAces43 misuses "Fringe" to delete information about Roundup cancer case whilst guidelines and consensus support me.

• KoA43 misuses WP:DUE to keep negative information out

• Misusing WP:FRINGE to disallow World Health Organization's IARC response to criticism after calling Glyphosate "probably carcinogenic"

• KoA43 reinserts outdated language to bolster safety claim (addressed here)

@Drmies, please revert the reopening if indeed your actions violated this policy (see https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Dismissing_an_enforcement_request_(alternate)). If not, never mind. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the filing statement makes the problem sufficiently clear, but I want admins to know that the problem here is a very serious one.

As I see it, the central issue is this conclusion from ArbCom: Casting aspersions. For admins unfamiliar with the history, the GMO topic area was plagued with aspersions of editors supposedly editing on behalf of Monsanto. (It's fine to say something like For NPOV the page should have more criticism of Monsanto, but it's unacceptable to say You are suppressing information on this page because you are editing on Monsanto's behalf, unless there is solid evidence presented at the proper venues.) And, just since the time of the most recent DS notice on her talk page, here are edits where Petrarchan does exactly that: , , , (see also: and , never answered). That's just recent stuff; she has long advocated that editors are editing on behalf of the company: "Monsanto mafia". She also considers the community consensus at WP:GMORFC to be invalid: . (At that RfC, she submitted a WP:POINTy un-serious proposal: , .)

The other thing I want admins to know is that Petrarchan is essentially a single-purpose account, whose purpose is to crusade against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth. If you look at her talk page, she considers herself retired from editing content, and if you look at her contributions, you will see that all she does is show up from time to time to cast these kinds of aspersions. Except for her, the GMO topic area has been blessedly quiet for over a year, but she is disrupting it. You need to understand that she is not going to change her mind about any of this. Give progressively increasing blocks, and she'll just come back after each one with the same agenda. At a minimum, you need to topic ban her from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

And in case anyone is wondering about me: . --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that Petrarchan has responded here, it seems to me that her response substantiates what I said above about how she is not going to change her mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

After some additional editors have commented here (some of whom should have known better), I will clarify some of my previous comments.

• I did not say that Petrarchan is a single-purpose account with respect to GMOs. I said that she is one with respect to crusading "against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth."
• If anyone thinks that I was baiting her (good grief!), they should look at the indenting in the thread from which I provided diffs. Her comments ("Your suggestion...") were directed at me.
• We are not here to relitigate the ArbCom GMO case, and there is nothing unclear about the decision about aspersions. To say that users one is disagreeing with in a particular discussion are editing on behalf of Monsanto, but without saying which editors by username, and then wikilawyering that it cannot be an aspersion because it supposedly wasn't directed at anyone in particular, is utterly dishonest. If there is a case for including negative content about Monsanto, make the case on grounds of content, not on grounds of editor motivations or the supposed inadequacy of the community. Describing me, or anyone else, (added: or whomever he was referring to) as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck) or as "diting with the goal of protecting Monsanto" (said by Petrarchan and questioned by MPS1992) should either be backed up with Checkuser evidence or should be grounds for sanctions. And wikilawyering over maybe it was OK because Petrarchan was right on POV grounds (essentially what Atsme and Seraphim System are arguing) is wrong, because being "right" (WP:RGW) is never an excuse for misconduct (and also the community settled the major POV-related content issue at WP:GMORFC).

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Added. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Just now: , calling other editors "WP:NOTHERE". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Content significantly in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 08:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the project would be better off if Petrarchan were separated from this area, where xhe has very strong opinions that constantly run up against NPOV and RS. Guy (Help!)

From an uninvolved editor who follows this page and does not know any of the editors. Not one DIFF presented here singles out any editor on the receiving end of aspersions.Tryptofish does offer two DIFFS and which try to bait Petrarchan47 to make aspersions by attempting to put words into his/her mouth. This attempt on Tryptofish's part certainly doesn't make a case. On the contrary, what is far more telling is that they both go 'unanswered' showing that Petrarchan47 does not engage in aspersions.

What is expressed in these DIFFS is that there may be self-interests groups at work, as is true throughout Wikipedia. Let’s not be naïve. WP:GOODFAITH faith is a philosophy not a guarantee. But bringing this back to the accusation, how about providing something more concrete if you have it. Otherwise, not only is it smoke and mirrors, but also a rather sad attempt to squelch what appears to be an important contributor who brings NPOV to the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

NOTE @Tryptofish Here is the (deleted) response to your comment above concerning me. You said, "Describing me or anyone else as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck)"...

You're putting words in my mouth. What part of my statement above names you, or any other editor for that matter, a member of a "self-interest group"? It's a false allegation. There are already too many of those floating about. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• The judgement whether to enforce sanctions is based on the DIFFS presented that either confirm or refute infractions. Allusions to “a lot of history” only muddies the waters. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Casting aspersions says, "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations"

In which DIFF does Petrarchan47 accuse Kingofaces43 of working for, or having an association with Monsanto? In none. Petrarchan47's statement, "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto", suggests a stance. Having an association or being paid by Monsanto is clearly not indicated . Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• CANVASSING Admin shopping. Kingofaces43 requests, "I’d be glad if you want to review the case to get more admins involved". Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As another uninvolved editor, I would like to know if the statement "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban" -- part of a diff provided above which is being used as evidence for a topic ban now -- is something I would not be allowed to say on Wikipedia. And if so, why. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

No-one has provided an explanation, so I will take the liberty of expressing this opinion wherever and whenever I see fit. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Sanitize the coverage" casts aspersions -- well, no it does not. It's part of a discussion in which the editor argues that "Using MEDRS to support that idea is a gross misunderstanding" and so forth, and therefore it is a comment on the edits, not on who is paid by whom or any other nasty insinuations. This really needs to be kept in context. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies: if the effect of the edits is to sanitize the coverage, then yes that's a perfectly reasonable (neutral or however you wish to describe it) way to describe edits or proposed edits. That's an entirely reasonable argument for an editor to make in a discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't edit in this topic area but I am familiar with some of the history. The diffs presented against Petrarchan47 are innocuous, and certainly nothing deserving of a t-ban. Petrar is not a SPA and has made significant contributions to controversial articles in the past without incident, including BP, Corexit, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill to name a few. I do hope that the points she brought up in her statement are carefully reviewed because her editing contributions over the years are evidence that she adheres strictly to NPOV and closely follows RS guidelines. The accusations against her are meritless, and if anything, a boomerang may be in order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• In the clarification of aspersions, it would prove helpful if the committee would expand and clarify aspersions in general by adding “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence that clearly supports the allegation ....and in cases where the diffs do not support the allegations, a boomerang will be implemented or something more formal along those lines. Clarification will help reduce the complaints that are filed against editors simply because their POV doesn’t align with that of the filer, which tends to happen when the filer lacks a valid argument to support their position during consensus discussions, especially in highly controversial articles that have DS 1RR/consensus required restrictions. It would not surprise me if the thought process in such cases is something along the line of Why argue and lose consensus when it’s easier to file a case at AE, create the illusion of disruption with aspersions and innocuous diffs, and just get rid of the opposition? Clarification will also help put an end to editors presenting multiple innocuous diffs prepended by aspersions when there is no smoking gun that unambiguously proves disruption or misbehavior. Such complaints are gaming the system, plain and simple, and such actions justify a boomerang. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• To arbs & admins alike - in response to this recently added/modified comment, specifically the aspersions directed at Petrar including "...but has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of sporadic presence until recently" - usually been ignored? ^{KoA modified his statement since I posted this so see my modified statement below dated today. 18:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)} How much more disrespectful can one be to a productive editor who has given freely of her time to help build this encyclopedia, and who has done commendable work over the years? Unfortunately, the insults didn't stop there - the filer then disparaged other editors who happen to disagree that any of the evidence presented in this case is worthy of a t-ban, referring to us as "editors starting to come out of the woodwork". There is no ambiguity about what that comment implies when stated by an entomologist. Based on the manner in which this case was presented and the most recent disparaging comments, it appears the filer is the one with the behavioral issues, and appears to harbor ill-will toward and a sense of superiority over Petrar and anyone else who disagrees with a certain POV. Such behavior is unacceptable, and since misconduct is the crux of why we're here, it deserves serious consideration. One last observation regarding this diff which was included above - it demonstrates Petrar's use of RS in an effort to support the inclusion/exclusion/clarity of information. How is that misbehavior or incivility? If it is, we all may as well call it quits. The correct approach to inclusion/exclusion of material is to call an RfC and let consensus decide instead of filing vexatious litigation at AE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Content significantly in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 08:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I left the GMO sanctions alert notice for Petrarchan47 on August 17, 2018. All but the most recent 2 diffs submitted by Kingofaces43 predate this warning.

In answering this request, a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment may be in order. I suggest arbcom clarify what falls into the category of actionable aspersions. The specific language in the GMO case principles is singular, and targeted - “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence” etc. Some difs presented by Kingofaces43 are general and do not call out any specific editors - statements like “there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto”. Dialectric (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Some brief comments - my understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with other editors here, this comment Admins, with editors starting to come out of the woodwork, this is starting to mirror this AE case where multiple editors had to be sanctioned for supporting veiled aspersions as part of battleground behavior. is troubling. As one of the editors starting to come out of the woodwork, I think it's absurd to suggest we are supporting veiled aspersions. This comment was directed at me and I'm not defending Petra's actions but what I see going on between KoA and Petra is part of an ongoing content dispute on the article, and KoA's hands are far from clean. I'm also more concerned that KoA has several times represented his preferred version as consensus as happened here - that to me is an indication of more serious misconduct, especially since it happens again here while this complaint is open and the discussion on the talk page is ongoing - I don't see Petra's behavior on the article as currently rising to the level that requires a topic ban - I think there is a possibility of that in the future, but this complaint is premature. I say this even though I was on the receiving end of some of Petra's comments that are cited in this complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I don't support topic banning a good faith editor for getting heated during a particularly difficult and controversial discussion, but if Petra still does not understand which of his comments were a problem, then perhaps I will change my mind about supporting a sanction. For example, I don't think there is evidence to support the comment he made against you here and I think he should retract it. My goal with the article has been to keep it neutral, without it tilting too far in one direction or the other, and in my opinion, a review of the article's history will show that your own editing has been neutral and geared towards building a consensus. If Petra continues to lash out at editors who are in good faith trying to engage him in the consensus process, then I think we are just going to end up back here sooner or later anyway, so some indication that he understands this would go a long way.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. Minor4th 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been an involved editor in the GMO topic area for quite a few years. My point of view very much aligns with Tryptofish when it come to the science around safety and other aspects in this area. I have clashed with Petrachen in the past, particularly over the WP:GMORFC. The current dispute essentially stems from the Round-up/Glyphosate articles and while I am only tangentially interested in them, the discussions and participants are similar to what was occurring at the GMO pages when it was at its most intense. It has thankfully settled down now and as a result the articles are getting much needed improvements.

There is a lot of history here that may be lost on some new editors just looking at the individual diffs presented. Edits that are viewed to favour GMOs have long been labeled as pro Monsanto and those that don't part of an anti GM agenda. I have apparently been working for Monsanto since 2010, although I am also an anti GM activist. The accusations got so persistent and nasty that the inevitable ARB case made a point about casting aspersions. It should have been clear to anyone involved in it that this was not to be tolerated anymore.

Some stray thoughts

• These discussions have a tendency to be side tracked by going after the filer. I am not always a fan of KOA's editing style, but he has not to my knowledge insinuated that editors opposed to his POV are part of an activist group or something similar. There was a period were he conflated them with climate change deniers, but I have not seen that happen recently. If editors want to bring an AE case against him they should, but I feel this one should concentrate on whether Petrachan has violated the casting aspersion principle or not.
• Making edits that are pro Monsanto and pro science is not mutually exclusive.
• Saying that you are not casting aspirations does not mean you can then cast one.
• Saying someone is a SPA is not casting an aspiration as our contribution history is available for everyone to see. Personally I would not label either Petrachen or KOA as SPAs, but I can see why someone might.
• Coming out of the woodwork is a common phrase.
• There is no need to clarify anything about having a boomerang against the filer for unsubstantiated complaints as this already occurs.
• Making general claims about editors motivations, especially given the history at these pages, is not much different than specifying which editor the claim is targeted at
• I don't believe Petrachan was baited at Jimbos Talk page. Given the context and history, saying Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban. can easily be read as casting an aspersion on an editor and clarifying that statement can only be to their benefit. AIRcorn (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Commenting on this because it appears to have been reopened, based on the talk page post I saw in petrarchan's talk page. I am acquainted with her, and have edited some of these GMO articles but not in a very long time. I think that the diffs presented here are innocuous, and do not rise to the level that they justify a sanction under https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions . In fact, considering the high level of abuse and insult that I see thrown around Wikipedia constantly, sometimes by administrators, I find myself amazed that they are introduced as evidence to throw the book at this editor. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Adding link. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• I find Tryptofish's comment and diffs, and their argument for a GMO topic ban, convincing. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• I don't. The reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now. @Drmies: This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted. Sandstein 19:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Sandstein, I wonder if that really should be "unlike I"; I invite grammarians to take up this point separately in some other forum. I'm not happy with how this went and how you closed this--if I had been you, I'd have someone else close it. Still, you have a point. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies and Sandstein: Perhaps sleeping dogs should lie, and feel free to hat/hab this postscript. However, I agree with Drmies and I see concerning conduct in the two most recent diffs. The remaining diffs are rather older and reviewing them may be stretching too far back. By way of context, I note the respondent was a named party to the original case. AGK 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• AGK, I've looked at all the diffs again. "Sanitize the coverage" casts aspersions ], "sanitize" isn't really neutral]. "Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information...editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto..." does likewise, and puts words in other editors' mouths that they never said (though, it should be noted, Tryptofish's comment just above also accuses others of having an agenda). "NOTHERE" is really a ridiculous charge, thus a personal attack. "May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page?"--no you may not; Seraphim System had been glysophating for a week already. I believe these violate the "no casting aspersions" part. These are four recent edits. So, AGK, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Drmies and AGK: If either of you believe that action is warranted, then please take action rather than just talk about it. This is not a discussion board, and we do not need or care about consensus. I note that this thread was reopened by Drmies, which is fine by me, but only if actual action is now taken promptly. Sandstein 08:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm with you, Sandstein, and have dropped AGK a line via email, hoping we can bring this to a conclusion soon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: In my view, we are obliged not to unilaterally overrule your decision. Dismissing an enforcement request is done with a "consensus of uninvolved administrators" (AC/DS), so to a degree we need to talk about it. However, as you have now deferred on this matter I shall proceed. Thanks for the prompt follow-up. AGK 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Decided: The conduct in evidence, and particularly the most recent instances, were clear breaches of the behavioural standards required in this unstable topic area. In my judgment, a sanction on Petrarchan47 is required. I have considered a short-term sanction, eg limited to 3 months, but in all likelihood this would simply postpone the problem. Such an outcome is unsatisfactory for this type of topic area. I have also considered a limited-scope sanction, eg a topic ban of the most recently affected article. However, the conduct in evidence is obviously related to the topic area more broadly. Therefore, I am topic banning Petrarchan47 from editing anything relating to genetically modified organisms etc., interpreted broadly and under the original case scope. I have notified Petrarchan47 to this effect, and also thank my colleagues above for their input. AGK 18:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

יניב הורון (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#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_(2011) :

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

1. 22:36, 17 September 2018 Falsifying sources
2. 22:10, 19 September 2018‎ Falsifying sources while seeing see talk, where his one single comment is this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked for 1 week

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.

Icewhiz that is a. not the source cited, b. not attributed, and c. not even what Karsh says. nableezy - 05:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Icewhiz, I directly say Yaniv is lying about sources and about having read them. Exactly as he did here when directed another user to "read the damn sources". Here Yaniv seemingly acknowledged that the material that they repeatedly reverted to insert was not reliably sourced, saying they would find other sources for the material. You know what never happened? That. Yaniv routinely lies about material being sourced, for the simple fact that he is reverting without actually checking the sources. And the users who have checked them, and removed the material that was sourced, shouldnt have to deal with such mindless reverting. Or your attempts to retain a revert on your side for that matter. nableezy - 06:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, it is very kind of you to play lawyer for Yaniv, however when a user reverts an edit they are taking responsibility for the content of that edit. When Yaniv includes a passage, attributed to no one, and cited to the NYTimes, and that source does not contain that material, and despite having been told about this on both the article talk page and his user talk page, and then they do it again, they are taking responsibility for that content. And again, the Karsh cite doesnt even contain the, again, ludicrous NPOV violation that you are trying to hand wave around, making that entire argument moot. nableezy - 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

On a second look NYT might be an accidental miss-citation, but Karsh is cited at the end of the passage and definitely supports it. In any case, there's currently a discussion in the talk page of that article involving several editors from both sides. All the complains, arguments and whining belong there, not here. I would appreciate that next time someone fills a spurious report based on "I don't like his edits" instead of specific violations of Wikipedia policy, be sanctioned per WP:Boomerang. The problem is that garbage reports to censor someone you don't like have no consequences for reporters, which leads to more nonsense reports by people who don't think twice before wasting everybody's time, including the administrators'. I recognize I have made mistakes in the past, for which I have paid and learned, but this report is simply rubbish. Also Nableezy has been threatening me on my personal talk page, as well as other editors who don't agree with his viewpoint (see WP:OWN). This user's lack of basic WP:Civility is astonishing, but even more surprising is the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it so far.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This editor continually engages in edit-warring towards a strong nationalist POV, with knee-jerk reverts and false claims about consensus being specialties. Admins who have previously issued warnings include: NeilN and Black Kite. User:Black Kite closed this AE case with "יניב_הורון is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." But, if it is possible, his behavior is worse than before.

Perusal of his talk page shows an exceptional number of complaints from other editors. "Hello, first of all could you please stop being so trigger happy with reverts" and so on and on.

Here we see a typical Yaniv edit. The edit summary says "(per Hebrew, see talk page)" but the sources don't support the text and the talk page shows a strong consensus against the edit. Problems like this are so common with Yaniv's edits that every one has to be reviewed closely at the cost of good editors' time.

Here is another perfectly typical Yaniv edit. Claiming to "restore source" he puts back a dead link to an article than doesn't mention the subject.

The worst recent revert was this one with the summary "see talk page, no consensus for this". The revert put back dead links, sources that don't contain the material cited to them, a copyvio, and lots of similar trash which had been exposed on the talk page. Needless to say, and true to form, Yaniv had not contributed to the talk page discussion at all. Zero^talk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I hardly started but I have to run. Probably I'll revise the above later. Zero^talk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another spurious complaint against Yaniv. The stmt is attributed to Efraim Karsh - a well known historian. While it does seem that there is an errant citation to NYT mid-passage, Karsh clearly says this (in this, clearly cited at the end of the passage) -

Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to "cleanse" a neighbouring ethnic community. ...... The desertion of the elites had a stampede effect on the middle classes and the peasantry. But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.

I will further note that Karsh isn't saying anything extraordinary - Arab evacuation orders are well documented in some cases, the implication of evac orders is a long standing claim, and this is attributed to Karsh regardless.

Conversely - stating on the article talk page that a user was 19:22, 19 September 2018 (Nableezy) - I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported., 01:25, 20 September 2018 (Zero0000) -- "Restoring discredited lies...", and by Nableezy in the AE complaint - "the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited."(Nableezy), - would seem to be accusing an editor of being a liar (as noted above, this assertion seems to be incorrect, as the content is supported by Karsh) - which would be a WP:PA vs. Yaniv, and a WP:BLP violation towards Karsh. I will note that in 15:30, 18 September 2018 Nableezy directly accuses Yaniv of "lying" - If you continue to make reverts that blatantly misrepresent the sources cited and continue to claim that the material is reliably sourced I will ask that you be banned for repeated disruptive editing and lying about sources. You can certainly continue reverting once a day, apparently nobody wants to stop that tendentious editing, but if you do so while blatantly making things up about sources you clearly have not read I will ask for a topic ban. - which beyond being quite personal, certainly discourages civil discourse in response.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that NYT was inserted into this decade+ old passage in 22:00, 26 January 2008 to support "Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion" - subsequent modifications - 01:42, 21 June 2009 left the citation dangling in the middle of the passage. Instead of axing a very established and notable position outright (and furthermore stating that it is "lies"/"lying") - a better course of editing would be to rectify the citation usage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's start from the main point: Karsh does not say that the Palestinian flight was "predominantly voluntary", or anything even remotely like this. Indeed, I doubt you can find a single serious historian who would make such a ludicrous claim. Here's what Karsh actually says:

Why did such vast numbers of Palestinians take to the road? There were the obvious reasons commonly associated with war: fear, disorientation, economic privation. But to these must be added the local Palestinians’ disillusionment with their own leadership.

The edit by Yaniv is deficient in multiple respects. First, it is not supported by the reference provided (NYTimes article). Let's WP:AGF for the moment and assume that Yaniv meant to cite Karsh instead of the NYT source. Even then, the edit is deficient because firstly, Karsh doesn't say anything like that, and secondly, the edit doesn't attribute the claims to Karsh, but presents it as a matter-of-fact view -- which is completely backwards. Karsh is, in that article, arguing against the general view -- namely the "New Historians" view.

I don't know how Yaniv edits in general, so I have no comment on what action to take. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• The request has merit. The contested text is not supported by the cited New York Times article. The text primarily reflects the position of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict ("Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary") and, as such, if it is to be reproduced in Wikipedia's voice as it was here, rather than attributed to somebody, it would need excellent sourcing. That is not the case here. By repeatedly restoring this text without appropriate sourcing and/or with misleading sourcing, יניב הורון has violated the core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV in their conduct aspect ("Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another".). In determining the appropriate sanction, significant aggravating factors are the prior warnings by NeilN as cited by Zero0000, the very recent block by RegentsPark for similar problems, and the exceedingly confrontative response by יניב הורון to this complaint, in which יניב הורון does not address their own conduct but levies accusations at others. I conclude that under these circumstances, יניב הורון's editing in this topic area is a risk to the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I am topic-banning יניב הורון from the topic area. Sandstein 07:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Veritycheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 23:38, 6 July 2017 GHcool is the original author
2. 20:22, 7 September 2018 GHcool's restores his edit
3. 19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert
4. 22:44, 20 September 2018 After the revert, GHcool restores his edit less than 3 hours later

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19:31, 2 June 2016 Blocked: 1RR violation at Tourism in the Palestinian territories
2. 20:26, 9 June 2016 Blocked: Contentious edits
3. 14:48, 10 January 2011 Blocked: 1RR violation at at Hezbollah
4. 21:35, 13 August 2009 Blocked: 3RR block at Kafr Saba
5. 23:23, 2 April 2009 Blocked: 3RR on Israeli–Palestinian conflict
6. 01:13, 24 April 2008 Blocked: 3RR on Camp David Accords

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

GHcool has a history of blocks, no less than six now, in the area of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Apparently, blocks are meaningless to him as is shown with his complete disregard of respecting Active Arbitration Remedies that spans a decade.

His userpage includes an almost 4000 word article, including 14 sections, that expounds his strong, unashamedly POV, views on Israel. The very style and format may violate WP:FAKEARTICLE as it resembles an article with section headings, links and sources. What is certain is the overwhelming bias he has that is so clearly written in his words concerning the conflict.

These views combined with half a dozen blocks, all in the same area, show that he is unsuitable for participating in this topic.

• @Icewhiz: I added a diff to help follow events clearly. The complaint was not modified. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your claim of canvassing is false and has already been responded to here. My answer was complete. Anyone interested can see for themselves. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have a different interpretation of, “If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit”, and specifically the word, “FIRST”.

FIRST means (my reverting his content earlier today - the 'first revert' within "24 hours"). It seems that at least one other editor here, Kingsindian, confirms my interpretation. If the interpretation is incorrect, then I withdraw the complaint. But I expect that is not the case.

The word 'First' does not mean the first revert to an edit ever in the history of an article. That would be virtually impossible for wiki editors to determine, and is not the correct interpretation. A couple of editors, here, have used this fallacy to defend GHcool. I do believe strongly that there has been an infringement, and accordingly, I expect sanctions to go ahead taking into full consideration the blocks and history already mentioned. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Your clarification on the meaning of "first" in this context would be most welcome. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He has been notified.

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

I appreciate what Icewhiz, Shrike, Kingsindian, and Sir Joseph said on my behalf. I have nothing to add at this time, but am available to answer any questions if clarification is needed. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Spurious report - "original author" a year+ back. This provision applies to the first revert of content. This has been previously removed - e.g. by Veritycheck on 7 Sep - making the set of diffs (removal+revert) from 20 Sep moot.

I would point out the filer has been using edit summaries to convey aggressive messages - or make conduct remarks - . Formulating a RfC question in a non-neutral manner and canvassing (namely 15 users on their talk pages + "bumps") at is also instructive. Veritycheck also GAMEed 1RR reverting 24 hours + 4 minutes apart on Israel - 16:42, 12 September 201816:46, 13 September 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also note that the text at WP:ARBPIA3 (to which Veritycheck links) is out of date (and misplaced - the motion (link) should have been on WP:ARBPIA where 1RR resides and to which the motion refers to) - it reflects a 19 May 2017 motion, however there is a 4 January 2018 motion that supersedes this - here - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. which explicitly spells out "first revert made to their edit" - this has been updated in WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, but the out of date and misplaced provision in ARBPIA3 remains.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, GHCool reverted once on 20 Sep - the other diff is by Veritycheck (The one titled 19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert is Veritycheck). Note Veritycheck modified his complaint after I posted here. Veritycheck is claiming an original author vio of the 20 Sep revert in relation to originally authoring this in July 2017. Beyond being vexatious (a 1+ year diff) - Veritycheck reverted the same content on 7 Sep - so this content has already been reverted once.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The latest motion on this provision ih . The rule was intended to prevent - editor A inserts new content, editor B reverts, editor A reverts => new content remains in the article for 24 hours, self revert by A, or editor C coming along. Therefore the motion uses the term "original author", and first revert. And in any event filing an "original author" complaint on content older than a year is .... quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: There are no two reverts by Ghcool one of the reverts is by Veritycheck.Please check this. The only relevant revert is the 20 september but its not a violation as it not first restoration of his edit.So it doesn't violate the rule. --Shrike (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the remedy is to make the editor wait 24 hours after the other guy reverts. The revert violates the remedy, clearly.

But it is an extremely stupid remedy, because nowhere except in ARBPIA does one find this interpretation of 1RR. I warned ArbCom at the time that this would happen (and Icewhiz didn't believe me). Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request.

I suggest no sanctions. GHCool should be warned to discuss the matter on the talk page in this section. I see no real discussion by them, except simply saying that their edit is self-evidently correct. Discussion doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content, not the person removing it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that absolutely nobody understands the remedy, which is not surprising. The 2017 edit is irrelevant. The edit on 7 September (diff2) is the reason why the revert on 20 Sep (diff4) is a violation. The first revert made to diff2 was on 20 Sep (diff3). Obviously, I do not support any action based on this stupid remedy, but it was clearly violated. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here. VC is claiming that a 2017 edit should be the original edit and then hides in the list of reverts that the revert was done by VC and not GHcool. I see this as a bad faith request. Using this logic, nobody would ever be able to revert. VC made an edit and GHcool reverted, that is what happened here and that is allowed. Using his months back prior editing is ludicrous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

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

• @Icewhiz: Can you clarify something here? If I'm parsing what you say correctly, you are saying that the two (unambiguous) reverts within 3 hours on 20 September - which under any other circumstances would have been a violation - somehow don't count because that particular edit has been reverted more than 24 hours previously (i.e. in this case, on 7 September?). In that case, are you saying that the restriction says anyone can edit-war on an ARBPIA page as much as they like, as long as there had been a previous edit and reversion more than 24 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz and Shrike: Ah, gotcha. I looked at the history, saw GHCool's two edits and didn't link them to the ones here correctly. Yeah, there's not a violation here. I did think that would have been a ludicrous idea and I'd just misread something, and I was right. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks @Kingsindian:. So - there actually is a violation here. But FFS, I'm generally considered to be a pretty intelligent person and this remedy is - as Kingsindian says - stupid. If anyone wants to sanction GHCool for it, I won't object, but I'm certainly not going to do it myself. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• This is just to note that I will not take action here because I find anything involving xRR too complicated to understand and apply with a reasonable amount of time and effort. I leave this to smarter admins and editors. Sandstein 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Sandstein, I am totally with you, and I appreciate Black Kite looking into this. Or how about this: GHcool, don't do it again. I will close this, with a kind request to ArbCom (historically a fine body of editors with the occasional nogoodnik) to consider our considerations, and the comment by Kingsindian. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)