Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:51, 17 October 2016 editAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,261 edits →Request concerning Volunteer Marek: brief reply to Volunteer Marek← Previous edit Revision as of 07:54, 17 October 2016 edit undoAnythingyouwant (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors91,261 edits →Request concerning Volunteer Marek: incidentally to James LamdenNext edit →
Line 350: Line 350:
:::@], I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus ''at the time it was done'', though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at ''previous times'' (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.] (]) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) :::@], I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus ''at the time it was done'', though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at ''previous times'' (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.] (]) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
:@], you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old; according to ''The Guardian'' newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.] (]) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC) :@], you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old; according to ''The Guardian'' newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.] (]) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
:Incidentally, the stuff in that quote after the semicolon was added by me a few minutes ago, and so the material in the BLP text about the child rape was even briefer when Volunteer Marek jammed it into the lead without consensus.] (]) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Revision as of 07:54, 17 October 2016

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


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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    MShabazz

    No action taken at this time. The Wordsmith 22:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning MShabazz

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    MShabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

    WP:1RR; WP:GAMING; WP:EDITWAR

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 2016-09-23T20:53:03 MShabazz REVERT 1.1 MShabazz raised COPYVIO issue, however, aside from that, he also: 1) deleted RS quote directly from the Tennessee resolution condemning BDS; 2) deleted RS quote from Tennessee resolution reaffirming support for Israel; 3) deleted RS anti-BDS/pro-Israel quotes from Governor Andrew Cuomo regarding NY’s anti-BDS resolution.
    2. 2016-09-23T20:54:23 MShabazz REVERT 1.2 MShabazz 1) deleted RS Jon Bon Jovi anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote; 2) deleted RS Howard Stern anti-BDS/pro-Israel quote
    3. 2016-09-23T20:55:43 MShabazz REVERT 1.3 MShabazz deleted RS Alan Dershowitz’s 10 points why BDS is immoral.
    4. 2016-09-23T20:56:37 MShabazz REVERT 1.4 MShabazz 1) deleted the RS quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S."; 2) deleted RS quote by the UAW executive committee.
    5. 2016-09-24T12:30:35 GHcool reverted M.Shabazz
    6. 2016-09-25T00:27:11 MShabazz REVERT 2.0 Just outside 27 hours.
    7. 2016-09-25T02:02:48 Kamel Tebaast reverted MShabazz
    8. 2016-09-25T04:33:30 MShabazz REVERT 3.0 Four hours after second revert; approximately 31 hours after first revert.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Unaware

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them
    • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    MShabazz made three reverts in the BDS article under WP:1RR. His first edit alluded to two COPYVIOs. Those edits were questionable, at best, not "clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". Regardless, this is not whether or not those edits were WP:COPYVIOs, but whether MShabazz's subsequent reverts violated the 1RR. Does MShabazz, or any editor, have carte blanche to revert at will in a 1RR-protected article while using WP:COPYVIO as a safety net? For the sake of argument, let's assume that both edits were in fact COPYVIOs. MShabazz gamed the system by creating an umbrella with WP:COPYVIO, thus enabling him to delete properly sourced text while violating the WP:1RR in order to push his anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian nationalism POV.

    MShabazz's reverts were clear, and once he was reverted twice, it was he who should have tried to gain consensus in Talk, not those who reverted him. MShabazz used buzzwords like "cleaning fluff", but his cleaning was obviously and pointedly removing only from the Opposition to BDS section. There were many quotes and quantifiers that MShabazz passed over in his zeal to cut fluff from everything pro-Israel. A few examples:

    1. MShabazz "cut the fluff" from the quantifier that the UAW is "one of the largest unions in the U.S.", but he did not cut the fluff that the UK's National Union of Teachers is "the largest teacher's union in the EU" or that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux represents "325,000 in nearly 2,000 unions"
    2. He "cut the fluff" by taking out Governor Cuomo's quote and the Tennessee legislature's anti-BDS quotes, but he left in the African National Congress' pro-BDS quote.

    Even assuming that both edits were WP:COPYVIO, MShabazz still made many POV-pushing reverts, specifically deleting RS quotes from Bon Jovi, Howard Stern, Gov. Cuomo, the Tennessee anti-BDS legislation, and all of Alan Dershowitz's 10 reasons that BDS is immoral.

    If MShabazz was truly concerned about COPYVIOs, then he could have reverted only those edits and not violated the 1RR. He didn't. He added his cut and paste objections with all of his other controversial edits that two editors reverted, then he arrogantly reverted a THIRD time, just four hours following his second revert.

    Following is input by two uninvolved editors who knew nothing about the background or participants, but only based on a hypothetical question regarding WP:1RR and WP:COPYVIO:

    The only clearly stated exception is in WP:3RR, and my opinion (as just another editor) is that the exception only applies to the actual copyrighted content (with possibly some minimal margin around the edges to facilitate a clean excision). Removing other substantial good faith edits in addition to the copyvio seems like something best avoided to me, in general. This advice is provided "as is" and any express or implied warranties are disclaimed.
    "...Of course, that exception only applies to the copyrighted material itself."

    MShabazz should be sanctioned for gaming the system, two reverts just after the 24-hour period, and a third revert just four hours later, totaling three reverts in about 30 hours. KamelTebaast 15:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    • @Nableezy: Per MShabazz, the possible COPYVIO was not Dershowitz, but only what was stated previously. But again, the COPYVIO is not the issue. And thank you for your clarity: "Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted..." KamelTebaast 16:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. My 500th edit celebration is old news. Too bad you missed my 1,000 edit party!
    2. Yes, since MShabazz was schooling me on COPYVIOs, I wanted to learn from the master himself. And whaddaya know, I found MShabazz's edits with equal or more copying and pasting than the ones he cited as COPYVIOs. Can't blame an editor for wanting to learn.
    3. Isn't Nableezy past his word limit, yet? KamelTebaast 20:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Debresser: With much respect to you, I disagree completely with your comment that MShabazz's reverts "of material that violated WP:COPYVIO" may have been "unintended". It seems clear that you did not review his reverts or his aggressive attitude that laced his summaries. Or MShabazz's sarcastic edit here. For an ex-admin with more than 100,000 edits who lives by reverting primarily pro-Israel editors (with less than 30/500), his were not "good faith mistakes". Giving MShabazz a warning is laughable. He should be severely sanctioned. KamelTebaast 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Debresser: You filed a complaint above for Nishididani being uncivil by, among other things, saying to stop "drifting", but MShabazz calling me a "genius" is not sarcastic? And that I'm "cancer on Misplaced Pages" is a compliment? Please, speak to his three reverts OUTSIDE of the COPYVIOs. KamelTebaast 02:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Copyright violations?
      • Malik Shabazz: In 2002, Prime Minister Said Musa of Belize asked Shabazz to serve as Ambassador-at-Large to represent Belize internationally in perpetuity.
      • Source: In 2002, he appointed her as the Ambassador-at-Large representing the country of Belize internationally and in perpetuity.
    Is there much difference between the edits below, as pointed out by MShabazz as being COPYVIOs, and his edit above from the Attallah Shabazz page? KamelTebaast 00:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Admins, please note: I knew the attacks against me would be fierce. But I had little idea...I wasn't even prepared... and I'm actually stunned, that the usual suspects would not utter one word in defense of MShabazz's 1RR violation, other than attacking me. As I already discussed, begin with the assumption that my edits were COPYVIOs. That does not negate any of MShabazz's many violations. KamelTebaast 01:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Wordsmith: This "reeks" of partisan bias at the highest level. Pointedly, discrimination against anything pro-Israel. This complaint is NOT connected in any manner to the prior complaint; it should not be unilaterally entombed. If the "1RR issue is technically correct", then you should technically sanction MShabazz.
    MShabazz expands great effort threatening others and even taunting editors to file complaints against him. Here are just a few examples (one, ironically, concerning 1RR and COPYVIO!!!):
    On this very issue MShabazz who violated the 1RR threatened user:GHcool
    "If either of you two geniuses would like to try your novel interpretation of 1RR at WP:ANEW or WP:AE, please be my guest."
    "...report me or kindly shut the fuck up."
    "keep up the POV pushing and you'll get a one-way trip to WP:AE"
    MShabazz got exactly what he asked for.
    With regard to your statement connecting to Nishidani's irrelevant argument that there have been a lot of great contributions, do you really want to open that can? This isn't about the positive. Stop the Wikiwashing! This is about MShabazz clearly and "technically" violating the 1RR. He should be sanctioned.
    Because of Shabbat / Shabbos / Sabbath, I won't be able to respond for another day. KamelTebaast 22:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani: @Zero0000: @Kingsindian: @IjonTichyIjonTichy: Thank you for joining the chorus of obfuscators. That each of you made this a POV issue rather than writing one word regarding Malik Shabazz's policy violation strengthens the complaint.

    • @Lankiveil: Most everyone who weighed in on the 1RR (opposed to obfuscating the issue) actually concurred that only COPYVIO content can be reverted. Even Wordsmith wrote: "The 1RR issue is technically correct..." Maybe the wall of text "appears" to be a settling of scores, but the 1RR violation should not be negated. KamelTebaast 01:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification


    Discussion concerning MShabazz

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

    Statement by MShabazz

    I will prepare a more complete response later, when I have access to my computer (I'm currently editing on my phone). For all his bluster, Kemal Tebaast is belly-aching because (1) he copied and pasted two paragraphs from his sources and got caught (no, I'm not referring to the excessive quotation of the sources, but copying and pasting unattributed text) and (2) I pay closer attention to new additions to an article than material that's already there. Diffs and links to follow. — MShabazz /Stalk 16:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Copyright violations
      • Kamel Tebaast: In April 2015, with bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly became the first state in the United States to pass a resolution condemning BDS.
      • Source: With strong bi-partisan support, the Tennessee General Assembly has passed a resolution condemning the boycott, disinvestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel and the worldwide increase in anti-Semitism.
      • Kamel Tebaast: In June 2016, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, ordered his agencies to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with the "Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel".
      • Source: Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.
      • These are in addition to his excessive quotation. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    I recommend that this nonsense be closed quickly with a WP:BOOMERANG against the filer, who has been harassing me. I removed nothing of any substance from Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, and he cannot claim I did. He is casting aspersions, making baseless (and untrue) accusations about my political views, and this is the second time in two months he has made an unfounded complaint against me on this page. Enough is enough. He is a cancer on Misplaced Pages, and the sooner he is removed the better. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 00:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    I don't have any evidence in this case so I can't comment on this specific case, but Malik Shabazz and his alternate account is one of the reasons why I am starting to stay away from the IP area. He needs to be warned to be less aggressive and less of a WP:OWN. His usual first line of conversation is to threaten AE or AN/I action. He is extremely uncivil and it does need to stop.

    Statement by Masem

    Only commenting on the COPYVIO aspect: I don't see the removal as being within COPYVIO - text is quoted and attributed to a proper inline source. There may be issues with the amount of text used which falls under other policy considerations, as well as editoral consensus if the quoted material adds that much to the article, but none of those reasons would fall under a 1RR exemption. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, there is a difference between what COPYVIO calls for - which is primarily of unattributed text is used directly and which should be removed on sight - compared to WP:COPYQUOTE - which does warn about took much "fair use" copytaking and requires a more careful discourse but does not require immediate removal barring blatent problems (100% copy-taking for example). COPYVIO allows for 1RR exemptions, COPYQUOTE doesn't (this is because COPYQUOTE issues can be smoothed out readily with editorial consensus). I do agree that restoring information removed under a wrongly applied COPYVIO edit summary is also not an exemption to 1RR (eg if MShabazz first removed and Kamel restored, any further action on the text in question by either would violate 1RR, and instead talk page discussion should occur). --MASEM (t) 16:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Something should really be done about "editors" who restore things that are specifically prohibited by Misplaced Pages policy (copyright violations, BLP violations). WP:COPYVIO: Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warning may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. @Masem: the amount of material copied is what potentially makes it a copyright violation. And even if it is not a copyright violation, there was clearly a good faith concern about it being so, and that should stop people from simply restoring it, as here. The material from Alan Dershowitz in a copyrighted publication (Haaretz) has nearly one fifth of its content copied here word for word. Attribution does not in any way alleviate that issue. Now Malik should not have reverted the rest of the edit, claiming the revert exception means he should limit the revert to what is excepted, but Kamel Tebaast routinely disregards prohibitions on restoring material that open Misplaced Pages up to legal action. And that should be dealt with. Not to mention the generally low quality and blatant POV-pushing in his or her edits, but that can be discussed another time. nableezy - 16:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    It actually is the issue that Malik raised in his edit summary, and you, with your typical belligerence, ignored to restore. That should be sanctioned. nableezy - 17:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Yes, he should not have reverted everything else, even if your reverts were improper. A warning to limit revert rule exceptions to what is excepted could be issued in my view. You on the other hand, your edits in this topic area have been uniformly bad. They have been POV-pushes so extreme that they should make most editors ashamed at an encyclopedia article containing such nonsense, they have restored copyright violations, and in your short time here you have become one of the more annoying wikilawyers. I just havent had the time or inclination to go through all of the things that should cause an administrator serious about having encyclopedia articles that adhere to the core policies of this website to topic ban you. This little bit of bad faith exercise however may have changed my mind on the inclination part of it. nableezy - 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Masem: I am not a lawyer and will, and have, step aside on the topic of what is or is not a copyright violation to the experts on that topic that we have here (Moonriddengirl being one). But WP:COPYVIO says this: However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Misplaced Pages's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Misplaced Pages's redistributability, but also create legal issues. The amount copied in the diff that Malik removed was not a "brief quotation", all of the material was copyrighted, and at the very least he raised a good faith concern on the material being a copyright violation. He should have raised that issue on various noticeboards, but when somebody gives a good faith concern about whether or not material can legally be hosted on our webpages that should end the reverts to include it until it established that it is not a copyright violation. Kamel Tebaast focused on oh I havent reverted in 24 hours and he has so I can push this back into the article and he cant stop me, despite a good faith objection of a copyright violation. That shouldnt go unanswered. nableezy - 18:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    And here is an example of bad faith editing. Kamel Tebaast complains about being reverted on copying 20% of a copyrighted source and then restores it. So what does Kamel Tebaast do? Hound Malik to a a page with one minor edit by anybody not the person he is in a conflict with to try to turn the tables on Malik. That is exactly the type of bad faith lawyering Kamel Tebaast has been involved in throughout his or her short stint since celebrating their 500th edit that allowed them to edit in this topic area. These are not the editors that create NPOV, RS based encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 19:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    I collapsed the rest of the section because Kamel Tebaast's last statement should really be examined. There have been a number of accounts that have recently made clear their objective to make articles here "pro-Israel". Not "NPOV", but "pro-Israel". Anything that does not adhere to a fairly right-wing Israeli viewpoint is "anti-Israel". And to be completely blunt, there are nearly no "pro-Palestinian" editors in the way that there are "pro-Israel" ones. There very much are editors that do not edit with a "pro-Israel" POV, and I count myself as one of them, but if we are being fair here those editors' POV is an international one if anything. One that reflects an international consensus, among states and reliable sources, on certain topics, eg that the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory, that the Golan Heights is in Syria, that an Israeli settlement is an Israeli settlement and not simply an Israeli town. Editors such as Kamel will take including these super-majority views in articles as evidence of "supporting Palestinian nationalism and attack anything pro-Israel". No, Im sorry, but thats bs. The opposing POV to Kamel's quite clear one is one that would edit that Tel Aviv is in occupied Palestine. We have editors that will in the narrative voice of Misplaced Pages include things cited to the views of extremist settler groups. We have nothing like that on the opposing side. Nobody will take a statement from some Hamas official and include it as anything other than a Hamas official, but to the editors like Kamel that itself is "attacking anything pro-Israel". These editors are not here to create an encyclopedia. They are here to turn these pages in to propaganda. They make their intention as clear as day to anybody willing to pay even the littlest bit of attention. And yall should really do something about it. Kamel Tebaast has repeatedly announced his intention to propagandize on these pages, loudly and clearly. If ever there were a more blatant example of somebody waving a WP:NOTHERE sign I surely have not seen it. He or she is here to antagonize editors he or she identifies as "anti-Israel" and to slant articles to a "pro-Israel" POV. nableezy - 23:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I just want to raise the possibility that the removal of additional material, exceeding the revert of material that violated WP:COPYVIO, was unintended. Sometimes a revert catches too much. No need to slam him with (another) WP:AE for such minor things, which can easily be seen as good faith mistakes. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Kamel Tebaast I see no "aggressive attitude" from Malik, and his so-called "sarcastic" commentary was not only sarcastic but also correct per standing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I did see that he admitted to removing "fluff and bloat", which is something I can only appreciate. All in all I stand by my opinion that Malik's edits were good faith improvements. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kablammo

    Attribution does not correct a copyright violation. Where material is quoted verbatim, it must be clear from the text that the words are those of another. Without quote marks or similar indicia that the text is the words of another, verbatim or near-verbatim text is a copyright violation, and should be removed. And the editor who inserted the text should be the one to separate the copyrighted material from the rest of the edit. Kablammo (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Nishidani

    The recent surge in reports here is troublesome. We are supposed to be constructing articles, not bickering. Shabazz recently gave us a neat page on Attallah Shabazz; Nableezy brought the Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality etc. It's about time, I think, that one begin to look into the contribs of plaintiffs, while assessing these complaints, to see whether they have a constructive interest in building Misplaced Pages, or are just here on a mission, or for entertainment, or drama, whatever. No one can work quietly on if every edit is contested by swarming, and everything one does is parsed for a fatal whiff of sanctionable error, ending up in arbitration every other day. Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

    KT. As to your notification to me to respond to your post accusing me of teaming up with the 'obfuscators', no reply.
    NMMGG. There are actually quite a few editors on all sides who get things done whatever our differences, and don't just sit on pages carping to exhaustion, trying to extract more and more 'concessions' after two reasonable compromises have been made on one word. Nishidani (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    And making just one more attack list of my putative endemic malpractices as an editor is again the umpteenth use of a talk page to sneer at or disniss my bona fides. Document it or drop it. It might help if you examined your contribs for the last 3 years to see if you are actually doing anything constructive here, other than reverting and bickering.Nishidani (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Nothing any of us say, NMMGG, is 'the truth' in absolute terms. WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:Due, WP:SYNTH are waved and flagged over most contested edits, a discussion emerges, the niceties examined. No one has papal infallibility here, neither you nor I, since discussion shows how labile many of our otherwise competent judgements can be when subject to wider external review. If as you have repeatedly been saying for at least four years, all of my editing in the I/P is personally informed by intellectual dishonesty and, though I can't recall the diff, you think one of your purposes here is to keep me 'honest' then those editors who do not find my editing particularly problematical are either intellectually dishonest by association or are being duped by me. Remember, 99% of the reverts of my edits are made exclusively here, and, since my procedure is overwhelmingly to introduce academic citations that pass the highest RS high bar, the problem may not my editing, fallible as it may be at times, but distaste for what those sources state.Nishidani (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for the other diff, NMMGG. I would underwrite every word I wrote there. I derive my knowledge of the Middle East from Israeli or diaspora scholarship, predominantly. Nothing I say on a talk page, has not been more eloquently or eruditely put than what I find in those sources, and, if citing it means some in here, unfamiliar with this tradition of scholarship, taunt me as an anti-Semite (a goy who hates Jews) then it's a paradox, but one I can live with. Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    Unfortunately, Nableezy's description of the state of editing in the I/P area is quite correct. Zero 00:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    I concur with Nableezy's statement. And I am not totally happy with TheWordsmith's comment in the last case about "civility". The problem is not "incivility", the problem is (some) people trying to push POV in an unreasonable manner. Everyone has a POV, but some are willing to be fair about the actual facts of the matter, while others are simply there to push propaganda.

    In my view, a lot of what goes on in this area is unavoidable. Long, interminable political discussion inevitably leads to (some) bad faith and incivility. I get angry at even my friends and relatives during discussions involving religion and politics; internet discussion with strangers are even worse. People who are committed to improving the encyclopedia manage to find a way in spite of this. The way to handle it from the outside is to look at the totality of the discussion and see whether the parties are making a good faith and knowledgeable effort at a solution which remains close to the facts. Incivility is a red herring.

    I think Misplaced Pages's civility policy is broken in general. Nobody is opposed to civility in general, the issue is how it is used to take out opponents. But that's a rant for another time and venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Malik should strike the "cancer" comment. Kamel Tebaast in wrong on everything else. The issue is not WP:1RR because content which is removed on a good-faith basis of copyvio is exempt from 1RR. There should ideally be some discussion on the talk page and some rephrasing to fix it. The insistence of Kamel Tebaast to see everything through a "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" lens is the main problem. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ijon Tichy

    Regretfully, Nableezy's statement is very accurate. Ijon Tichy (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    Also regretfully, Nishidani's statements are correct. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Malik Shabazz that this is a case of Boomerang against Kamel Tabaast (KT). In my view, a (short-term, temporary) topic ban on KT would be good for the project, as well as good for KT's future prospects on WP (given that KT is a relative newcomer to the project).
    I think Malik is a great editor who works tirelessly to ensure that content, contributed by Malik himself and others, always complies with WP policies. I strongly support Malik in his good work. However, in my view describing KT as 'cancer' is far too strong, and Malik should strike it out - from my perspective it appears to be a PA on KT, and does not help in moving the discussion forward towards a resolution. Ijon Tichy (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

    I'm really enjoying the group of like minded editors congratulating themselves on their neutrality while lamenting the POV pushing of the people they disagree with. The lack of introspection could be amusing, if I didn't think they were serious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani, unfortunately everything I said in that diff you posted is true, and I'd be happy to document it if the need arises. On that very page you deliberately misquoted policy as you were wikilawyering to keep UNDUE material in the article. I know you are very proud of the fact you write content, and think that should give you special status. Unfortunately you are very much emotionally invested in the topics you write about, and regularly violate NPOV. For this encyclopedia to be neutral, it needs editors to find where neutrality is violated. That's what I like to do. It's allowed. Get over it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nishidani, thanks for reminding me that you think that "editors like tend to be opposed as goyim beyond the pale". I completely forgot about that little gem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning MShabazz

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The 1RR issue is technically correct, but we shouldn't be restoring a potential copyvio anyway until there has been discussion about whether it is or is not a violation. This reeks of people attempting to have their ideological opponents sanctioned (like most ARBPIA requests seem to be). That doesn't make me happy. Since this request was filed before I closed the one above as a warning to all parties, I'd be inclined to roll it into that warning. I'll leave this case open for a few days to solicit additional input, but I'm not inclined to take strong action here. As some have pointed out, a lot of you have great contributions to the project. I strongly advise you to continue contributing and stop trying to have each other banned. The Wordsmith 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I haven't read this entire wall of text, but the WP:3RR policy makes an allowance for additional reverts to "Removal of clear copyright violations". If the text in question was a copyvio that was being restored to the article, there is no real problem here. This whole report to me appears to be an ideologically motivated settling of scores, which is not what this place is for. Lankiveil 13:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

    Simert Ove

    Two editors blocked for 1RR violation; EC protection applied to Israel Shahak by another admin. No other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Request concerning Simert Ove

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Simert Ove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:14, 6 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    2. 01:02, 7 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    3. 05:23, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    4. 22:20, 9 October 2016 New editor not permitted to edit this article
    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

    Despite a notification about the discretionary sanctions, this editor persists in edit-warring to make a POV addition to an article on a controversial person. Edit summaries and knowledge of Misplaced Pages suggest very strongly that this is not actually a new account but a sock (possibly of a blocked user).

    In response to Ryk72, when attempting to edit this page a big arbitration notice appears, setting out who is allowed to edit the page. It could hardly be more obvious! In addition, anyone editing in this area will know immediately that Israel Shahak was a contentious character, and that dispute over his writings is inexorably linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict. It should also be obvious that Simert Ove is not a new editor, but a (probably block-evading) sock of someone already involved in editing here.
    The merits of edits by Chas. Caltrop are not at issue here. Whether they are good or bad can be discussed in the article talk page; but this editor is permitted to edit here, and Simert Ove's repeated claim to the contrary is untrue. Simert Ove is an edit-warring editor excluded from this page, likely a sock of a blocked user, and shows no sign of stopping this disruptive behaviour. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Simert Ove

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

    Statement by Simert Ove

    Despite your selective bias, Chas. Caltrop (talk) is not allowed to edit those articles either, let alone violating NPOV policy every time.--Simert Ove (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Malik Shabazz

    On 9 October, Simert Ove reverted three times at Israel Shahak — an article she/he is not permitted to edit at all. Request a block or protection of the article to prevent ongoing and future disruption. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 03:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Ryk72

    Overall, this request is better handled by requesting page protection at WP:RFPP than by reporting users editing in good faith to this noticeboard.

    On initial inspection, it is not immediately obvious that the biographical article Israel Shahak is covered by the WP:ARBPIA ruling. It is immediately obvious that there has been no Talk page discussion of the significant changes made to that article by Chas. Caltrop, and that their edits appear troubling. See: Example 1 which re-reverts to include changes that fail WP:NPOV@WP:YESPOV & WP:LABEL at even a cursory inspection. - Ryk72 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    @RolandR: There is an excellent technical implementation of Extended Confirmed Protection (500/30), which provides the best method for ensuring compliance with the ARBPIA ruling. Editors were better to avail themselves of it than file requests about individual editors here. This is not an indictment on this filing; rather a recommendation for improved resolution of future issues. I note that Malik Shabazz has made such a request, thank them for it, and note that ECP has been implemented.
    Edit notices are largely not worth the pixels they are printed on; their service mostly in providing evidence of malfeasance in the absence of their being followed; the vast majority of editors scroll down to the edit box and carry on blithely.
    As to the edits of Chas. Caltrop on that page: if any editor is more concerned about another editor's edit count, and compliance with ARBPIA, than they are concerned to ensure compliance with core content policy, NPOV, then they should have a long, hard look at themselves. - Ryk72 13:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I completely agree with Ryk72. This can be handled in a simpler way. WP:AE should be a last resort. Debresser (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Simert Ove

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Can you explain where Chas. Caltrop breached 1RR here? I understood that reversion of IPs or non-permitted editors was exempt from the 1RR rule. RolandR (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

    Kamel Tebaast

    Editor indefinitely blocked and indefinitely topic banned from PIA. The Wordsmith 22:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Kamel Tebaast

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Kamel Tebaast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 19:12, 10 October 2016 See below
    2. 19:17, 10 October 2016 See below
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    30 day topic ban on 13 August 2016

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Opened an enforcement request still on this page
    • Given a topic ban by Lord Roem on 13 August 2016
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I wrote above in the enforcement request that Kamel Tebaast opened about how this user has been waving a WP:NOTHERE flag since they got here. This example should make that crystal clear. In a dispute about a comparison between the Hamas charter and the Likud part platform (Hamas being a Palestinian group and Likud an Israeli political party), Kamel Tebaast has flagrantly disrupted Misplaced Pages in an attempt to prove a point (I say attempt because the two things are so dissimilar in terms of sourcing). He or she has vandalized the article on Bill Clinton to include his or her own view that a law signed by Clinton is similar to what the Nazis did and then bragged about it on the Hamas talk page. Maybe that will get yalls attention here. This is a violation of the standard discretionary sanctions included in WP:ARBPIA, specifically the requirements that editors adhere to the purposes of Misplaced Pages and comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. I have been here a long time, and I have never seen a more blatant example of bad faith editing among anything other than an IP or throw-away account.

    NMMNG, you should read those sources. The ACLU paper mentions the words Nazi and Germany once, no where does it come anywhere close to saying a US president signed a Nazi like law. Im trying to find where the second source supposedly supports that and am not seeing it. And, oh by the way, neither of those were in the edit he made. Kamel Tebaast wrote in an encyclopedia article that a US president signed a law that was similar to what the Nazis did. He did it out of spite. He violated two arbitration cases doing so. How surprising that like minded editors in one of those topics are defending that. nableezy - 20:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Look at the edit and the sources cited. He cited the law, and he cited a US Holocaust Museum page on the Nazi party, one that never mentions the law or Clinton. KI is responding to the after the fact justification, a justification that is completely hollow. Look at the edit made, and look at why it was made. It was specifically in response to the Likud Hamas comparison, and it shows a blatant disregard for both our policies here and basic common sense. nableezy - 21:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Kamel Tebaast

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

    Statement by Kamel Tebaast

    No vandalism. No bragging. Simply a well-sourced legitimate edit. KamelTebaast 16:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    One of my sources is a think that connects between the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and post WWI (and modern-day) Germany. Here is an ACLU post that explicitly connects the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and Nazi Germany. Here is a Boston University paper that connects between some points in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and "Germany and other Nazi-occupied territories prior to WWII". I am truly baffled that (1) someone wants to ban me for a legitimately sourced edit that, at most, should have been discussed in Talk; and (2) topic ban me in a topic area that doesn't even include the article in question. This seems rather punitive. KamelTebaast 19:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, your characterization that my edit implied that Clinton "signed a Nazi like law" is inflammatory, misleading, and disingenuous--similar to your complaint that it was vandalism. One point in that bill was similar to one of the points of the 1932 Nazi platform. I'll respond to the others after Yom Kippur. KamelTebaast 22:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    I think Kamel Tebaast is not long for this world. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    I thought Kamel Tebaast was trying for a suicide by admin, but apparently they are seriously defending the edit. So let me help them on their way.

    It's not clear to me how this source originally cited by Kamel Tebaast supports the statement that the 1996 act is similar to the one in the 1932 Nazi platform. Indeed, the only reference to the 1996 act I found in the entire document is this: Every state in the United States legally bars non-citizens from voting in national or state elections. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton, made it a crime for any non-citizen to vote in a federal election. Indeed, the association of voting with citizenship is such settled doctrine in American political culture that it is part of the only major nationwide civics test given to American students.

    The two other sources which Kamel Tebaast mentions above are post-September 11, 2001; which argue against creating a National ID system in such a political atmosphere. For instance, here is the only allusion to Nazi Germany I could find in the ACLU source: A national ID system would violate the freedom Americans take the most for granted and the one that most defines our liberty: the right to be left alone. Unlike workers in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, apartheid South Africa, and Castro's Cuba, no American need fear the demand, "Papers, please." Note that the same document by the ACLU notes that the national ID card provision was rejected in the 1996 act: Most dramatically, in 1996 the House of Representatives rejected national ID cards during the consideration of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (HR 2202, 104th Congress).

    The Boston University law journal does say that there are some aspects of the 1996 act -- but not only that act, it lists 4 other acts in conjuction, (p. 1) -- which move towards a national ID system. This national ID system is dangerous according to the author and he brings up Nazi Germany in this context. The paper even mentions the Social Security act in this context (p. 20) Again, there is nothing comparing the 1996 act to the 1932 Nazi platform.

    It looks to me like Kamel Tebaast has simply Googled "1996 immigration act Nazi" and dumped it all here. Even if the sources cited supported the text added (which they don't), the phrasing is so ridiculous that it would automatically fail WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:POINT at the very least. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Debresser

    I think this should be closed summarily. Enough reporting each other back and forth! As to the two edits that were reported here: the article edit is sourced, and the talkpage post is worded neutrally (no bragging, which is the subjective way Nishidani prefers to read that talkpage post). Debresser (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    No More Mr Nice Guy

    The ACLU and an academic paper made the same point KT should be topic banned for putting (sourced) in an article? How remarkable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Nableezy, I don't necessarily think it was a great edit (mostly because I think it should have been attributed rather than stated as fact), but if KI needs 4-5 paragraphs just to explain why the edit is wrong, that would seem like a content dispute. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrike

    Kingsindian of course right but that edit is not in WP:ARBPIA area--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Result concerning Kamel Tebaast

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

    Volunteer Marek

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

    Request concerning Volunteer Marek

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Template:2016_US_Election_AE, "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit."
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. In this edit at 16 October, 22:08, Volunteer Marek edited the lead of the Donald Trump article, and in particular he edited the last part of the lead dealing with sexual allegations. He replaced a text of 15 words with a text of 67 words (more than quadrupling its size). He added much of the material by reinstating verbatim from a prior version, including the last sentence, and his edit also reinstated various other parts of the prior version. When Volunteer Marek made this edit, there was an RFC ongoing at the article talk page about whether this material should exceed 15 words. Here is the talk page as edited by Volunteer Marek one minute after his big edit to the lead, showing that the RFC (section 23) includes three no's, one yes, and a maybe, and thus there was obviously no consensus for going beyond 15 words in the lead regarding the sex allegations (incidentally, Trump's denial of the allegations could be easily included while staying under 15 words, though editors such as User:MrX have tried to exclude the denial from the lead even though WP:BLP says, "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported").
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Prior notification of discretionary sanctions at article

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I don't like filing complaints and such at Misplaced Pages, and rarely do so. I think the system is all fucked up, and that Misplaced Pages should use a rules-based jury-like system instead of a centralized hierarchical system. I'm sticking my neck out when I file a complaint here, and have little confidence in a reasonable or fair outcome. 'Nuf said?

    @User:SPECIFICO, I disagree with just about every word you wrote. If anyone wants me to elaborate on any particular point, please let me know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    @User:Volunteer Marek, calling something a consensus version does not make it so. I have already described (above) the consensus in the ongoing RFC, at the time you made the edit, and that RFC is even more against your edit right now. Check it out. If you revert soon, I'd be glad to withdraw this AE action.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    @User:Volunteer Marek, the RFC asks whether 15 words is insufficient in the lead to cover the sex allegations; calling such a simple question nonsensical is itself nonsensical, no matter how many people said so (or continue to say so). You say that the relevant discussion is in a talk page section titled "Removal of sexual misconduct accusations" but, actually, opposition to removal of the sex material from the lead obviously does not equate to supporting more than 15 words of it in the lead (my first comment in that talk page section makes clear that I was proposing removal of the 15-word version rather than removal of your later 67-word version). I have not analyzed whether this edit that you mention was done with consensus or not, and it's irrelevant anyway, because the question here at AE is whether you had consensus when you returned to a 67-word version (not at some previous time). As for your accusation that this edit of mine was somehow "POV", my edit summary clearly justifies the edit, and explicitly quotes WP:BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    @User:Volunteer Marek, I have corrected the inadvertent formatting faux pas that you pointed out, thanks. You also said below "you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus." Absolute nonsense. I know it was done without consensus at the time it was done, though I do not know whether it would have had consensus at previous times (such as at the time when the text was originally inserted by someone else). I cannot make it any clearer than that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    @User:James J. Lambden, you mentioned below that "The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act". Indeed, the allegations inserted into the lead include "rape, child rape". None of the former are mentioned in the article body (due perhaps to retraction), and the latter (child rape) is now described in the article body as follows: "A 'Jane Doe' had charges brought forward in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on October 10, 2016, for alleged forcible and statutory rape in 1994, when Doe was thirteen years old; according to The Guardian newspaper, lawsuits by this 'Jane Doe' against Trump 'appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.'" So thanks for helping me convey that we're talking about jamming stuff into the lead that is about as sensitive as can possibly be in a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Incidentally, the stuff in that quote after the semicolon was added by me a few minutes ago, and so the material in the BLP text about the child rape was even briefer when Volunteer Marek jammed it into the lead without consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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

    Statement by Volunteer Marek

    Huh? I restored the consensus version. I didn't edit war or revert or anything. This is ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    That RfC you started makes no sense, as several commentators have noted. It's not clear what the point is. The relevant discussion (which you started in addition to the RfC for some reason) does indicate a consensus for inclusion. Furthermore it's clear from the discussion, particularly your proposal for removal, that the text was there initially, having consensus, and then it was removed without consensus. The removal was here. You didn't go running to WP:AE all out raged and self righteous when that was done. No, instead you even POV-ed that already POV sentence even more. And I didn't go running to WP:AE when that was done either. Please stop treating Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    James Lambden, my comment (so far) is succinct so I have no idea what you're going on about. You, on the other hand, are bringing up the same ol' crap that you've brought up several times already, so long that you have to hat it, that didn't work the first three or four times you dragged it out. Might as well point out that you are in fact the editor who removed the consensus text here without discussion that Anythingyouwant DIDN'T file an AE report about. If I was following your and Anything's script I would've filed an AE report right there. But I didn't because, unlike you and Anything, I don't treat Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

    Anythingyouwant, please don't change your comments after I've replied to them as that makes it seem like I'm replying to something I'm not, as you did here. Make a separate comment please. Anyway, when you state "I have not analyzed whether that you mention was done with consensus or not" you are very clearly stating that at the very least you DO NOT KNOW whether my edit, which restored the text, was done with or without consensus. I mean, if editor 1 makes revert X and then editor 2 undoes that revert, and you have no idea whether editor 1's edit had consensus then you clearly have no idea whether undoing of that edit had consensus. So you are admitting that this report you filed is spurious and just opportunistic "let me file another report against VM as soon as he makes an edit on a Donald Trump article". It's meritless and just shows that you are playing games, trying to abuse the DS/AE process (as Specifico above mentions) and treating Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND.

    And that's giving your statement a generous interpretation - that you had no idea whether my edit had consensus or not but chose to file this spurious AE report anyway - and assuming good faith. A less generous, though more common sense, interpretation would be that you knew damn well that James Lambden's edit had NO consensus but supported him (by tweaking it to POV it even further) because it accorded with your POV then ran over here the minute someone tried to restore consensus (also in the meantime filed a nonsensical RfC that nobody can understand as a way of "protecting" the non-consensus version - sorry, filing an RfC isn't some magic pixie dust that you can sprinkle on an article talk page to protect POV non-consensus edits).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Uh, Anythingyouwant - "None of the former are mentioned in the article body" - that is clearly false if you are referring to the version at the time I made the edit . Now since then you have made edits to the article, so that later it was changed. Seriously, this is blatantly dishonest: "the text Marek restored to the lede did not summarize article text... because I changed it later so that it wouldn't, even though at the time he made the edit, it did". What the hell???? But please, keep on digging.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Hell, in fact, you JUST NOW (as in a few minutes ago) ran to the article to alter the text and then ran straight over here to claim "oh look! That text doesn't summarize the article!". No shit. You. Just. Changed. It.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by SPECIFICO

    Yet again a battleground Trumpside POV editor files a specious AE against Volunteer Marek. Anythingyouwant is almost laughably tendentious in her contortions to contrive what she can plausibly pitch as content- and policy-based rationalizations of her POV edits across the range of American Politics related articles. I have stated previously that much of this appears to be an extension of her rabid pro-life editing for which she was TBANned. In my opinion the TBAN should be extended to American Politics because the two subjects are inseparable given the current Supreme Court vacancy with more expected to come. Anythingyouwant has repeatedly violated 1RR on American Politics related articles. There are many such warnings on her talk page.

    In the present case, the Trump article has been hog-tied with convoluted confused and counterproductive hair-splitting that has come down to a minority theory that word count must be used to resolve content disputes. Within the last several hours, Marek sought to clear this colossal roadblock by reinstating the widely supported, succinct and innocuous version of some lede text that had been in the article. This enforcement request is an escalation of Anythingyouwant's tendentious refusal to accept reasoned, policy-based arguments and move on to other areas of this article that we all could work on improving. \ TBAN for Anythingyouwant and thanks to Marek for being the calm steady grown-up in the room on this occasion. SPECIFICO talk 02:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by James J. Lambden

    Once again we see Marek's successful strategy: throw enough words with enough denial and misdirection into a paragraph and outside observers won't have the energy to sift through it; or if they do, the waters will be muddied enough they're reluctant to sanction. The final act is an appearance by My Very Best Wishes to defend his frequent accomplice.

    The meat of this enforcement request is this, and don't let misdirection and equivocation obscure it:

    • The article is subject to Discretionary Sanctions under BLP and American Politics
    • Marek's edit summary indicates he was aware the content had been removed
    • At the time of his edit there were two active discussions concerning the content, neither showing consensus for restoration: 1 2
    • The text Marek restored, without consensus, alleges a criminal act

    At the last AE Marek was involved in just over a week ago I made this statement:

    Statement by James J. Lambden

    In almost every political article our editing intersects Marek's turned the article into a battleground. This is simply a continuation.

    Recent examples:

    Both instances involved blatant misrepresentation.

    Another example comes from a 3RR report against Marek only 3 days ago. I comment that previous reports against him "show a number of established, apparently non-partisan editors concerned about behavior." He responds: "they show nothing of the kind", forcing me to link the actual comments:

    1. "Marek's behavior was sub-par" –Vanamonde93 (admin)
    2. "My suggestion would be for a 'topic ban for MVBW for Eastern Europe and post-1932 American Politics, and a 0RR restriction for Volunteer Marek for American Politics." –The Wordsmith (admin)
    3. "you've not been subject to, or privy to, the frequent drama that surrounds these two editors. I believe the community is tired of it and that it needs to stop." –Softlavender
    4. "The evidence I've looked through so far is damning. I hope Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes can explain why they've clearly tag-teamed articles during edit wars for years, and why they continue to do so to this day." –Coffee (admin)
    5. "I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it." –LjL
    6. "I'd like to hear any justification/explanation Volunteer Marek can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning." –Spartaz (admin)

    It's either that he's forgotten the number of cautions from administrators (in which case he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles) or he hasn't and was aware the claim "they show nothing of the kind" was untrue when he made it (in which case again he shouldn't be editing sensitive articles.)

    As I said in that same request: How many different editors have to complain and how many reports showing the same behavior across multiple articles have to be submitted before an admin takes action? This disruption is long-term and ongoing. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

    That request was archived without comment. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    @Volunteer Marek:'s well aware consensus is not required to remove text on BLP grounds. I immediately offered to remove the text added in my removal, but left it as a good-faith compromise between those who wanted no mention in the lede and those who wanted the paragraph Marek restored. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Volunteer Marek

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic