Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 238-Gdn (talk | contribs) at 06:23, 5 April 2017 (→Statement by 238-Gdn: added clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:23, 5 April 2017 by 238-Gdn (talk | contribs) (→Statement by 238-Gdn: added clarification)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.


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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    TracyMcClark

    No action taken. Seraphimblade 00:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning TracyMcClark

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TracyMcClark (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 DS, consensus must be reached before reinserting a reverted edit.

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Mar 30 I remove the word "steel coated"
    2. Mar 30 I remove "steel coated"
    3. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the first edit.
    4. Mar 30 TracyMcClark reverts the second edit
    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)
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Sept 27 2016.
    • Was warned on his talk page to self-revert before being reported.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Firstly, the reason why this is a day late is because as an observant Jew I was offline the past day.

    In addition to the diffs above, before filing this complaint, I posted on his talk page that his post violates DS. He refused and said it was a content dispute. I then posted again, that regardless if he feels it's a content dispute, his post still violated DS. He refused and then told me to stay off his page. I didn't want to file this complaint, after all, I do believe we should warn first and then let the editor revert and use the talk page. In this case, that didn't happen. (Should we use rubber coated or just rubber bullets, can indeed be discussed on the talk page. The article I read said that it was a rubber bullet, to claim it in Wiki's voice as rubber coated steel bullet may not be correct. But regardless, we have an egregious violation of the DS, I warned him twice and even gave 25 hours to revert.)

    • Seraphimblade As to why I reverted, if you read the article, the Israeli statement is that it is a rubber bullet. IIRC, I checked one article and I didn't see any mention of steel coated, and in one, it was in the headline, but I didn't see it in the article, but I did see the Israeli mention of rubber bullets. After TMC said it was in the article, I did look more carefully and did see it, but again, he should have used the talk page and pointed it out. We have DS for a reason. I don't care to have anyone blocked and a warning that after a revert, you use the talk page and not reinsert is all that is needed. Sir Joseph 01:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    (Please allow my edit here, it's easier to converse) That could be the whole point of DS. TMC should have gone to the talk page and posted that. I was working on the assumption (as someone who is familiar with firearms) that there are many types of bullets, and that rubber bullets are not the same as rubber coated steel bullets. Had he posted on the talkpage and not reverted, we wouldn't be here. As you pointed out in other AE actions, TMC did not follow procedure. Sir Joseph 03:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning TracyMcClark

    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 TracyMcClark

    Statement by Kingsindian

    This is one of the more silly things to fight over. As this B'Tselem page makes clear, what Israel calls "rubber bullets" are actually "rubber-coated steel bullets". There's no contradiction here between the two positions. To be clear, we should use the actual term rather than the euphemism. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    It would have been better if you tried to address the point of the disagreement rather than concentrate on the procedural matter. It's ok if you didn't read the news article carefully at first, and missed the "rubber-coated" part. The objective should primarily be to get the facts right, not argue about who reverted who, and who broke DS. If you edited it to read something like rubber-coated bullets (which Israel claims are rubber bullets), a compromise could have been reached - assuming nobody pointed out that they are actually the same thing. Nothing is lost if the WP:WRONGVERSION stays up a few hours or days while consensus is reached. Bringing someone to AE over trivial matters is not helpful. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning TracyMcClark

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • So, here's what I'm seeing here. Sir Joseph changed two instances of "rubber-coated steel bullets" to "rubber bullets" in the article, claiming the cited source () didn't contain that wording: . I normally would dismiss this as a content dispute, but after a quick look, I saw that the cited source not only does have the exact wording "rubber-coated steel bullets", and very early on in the article as well. So, @Sir Joseph:, I'm interested to know why you left an edit summary indicating the cited source doesn't say those words, when it clearly does. Misrepresenting references and falsifying edit summaries do go to behavior rather than content issues, so I hope there's a better explanation than that. Seraphimblade 01:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Sir Joseph, thanks for your explanation. I'll take your word for it that missing that in the cited source was accidental. Still, what I see here is where you made a clear error, another editor corrected it (in the process, making a minor error in procedure), and you, rather than telling them "Thanks, missed that", proceed to drag them to AE for a minor breach of protocol made while fixing your mistake. Certainly, we can all make a mistake or miss something, and I get that, but what apparently happened after concerns me a whole lot more than the minor protocol breach, to be quite honest. DS is to stop disruptive behavior, not play "gotcha" if someone misses a step but isn't behaving harmfully. Seraphimblade 05:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
    • And now we move somewhat into the realm of farce, as I note you made a comment in another editor's section, while seeming to indicate you knew you aren't supposed to do that. If you're going to haul another editor to AE for something this minor, I would at least hope you would be scrupulous in following the protocols yourself. Seraphimblade 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

    TheBD2000

    Withdrawn by filing party. Seraphimblade 02:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning TheBD2000

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    TheBD2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

    1RR and no reinstatement of challenged material without consensus on Protests against Donald Trump

    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 2 April Edited article lede to include disputed material, specifically, "multiple cities" which puts undue weight/influence on the statement.
    2. 2 April Reinstated that material after it was removed by revert and without engaging in talk page discussion to create consensus.
    3. 2 April Again reinstated challenged material without discussion, and has refused request to self-revert.
    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)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I challenged the edit by reversion and opened a talk page discussion, and TheBD2000 has simply ignored it; the user here has violated both 1RR and the requirement not to reinstate challenged edits without talk page consensus. They have refused to engage in discussion and refused a request to self-revert. I acknowledge that I (inadvertently) violated 1RR as well, and accept any sanctions resulting from that, but I was attempting to work in good faith with the editor and got nothing but blind reverts for my trouble. Refusing to engage in good-faith discussion and consensus-building is not conducive to editing sensitive topics such as this one.

    This can be closed - TheBD2000 has agreed to self-revert and begin discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning TheBD2000

    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 TheBD2000

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning TheBD2000

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

    238-Gdn

    User is warned that further violations of 1RR in the topic area or the general prohibition will result in a block. The article in question has been 500/30 protected, addressing the concerns of admins who believed the editor may not abide by the restriction on that article in the future. ~ Rob13 05:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning 238-Gdn

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    238-Gdn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, and 30/500 rule re new editors
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 4 April Removes RS tag (added here) placed re source used to support a statement connected to a violent incident in the West Bank
    2. 4 April violates 1RR -- material subject to 1RR in part by virtue of restoring a statement (deleted here) about the above incident ("Ginsburgh published a letter in The Jewish Press stating that the case in Kifl Haris was dismissed by an Israeli court when the villagers failed to produce a corpse.")


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 31 March
    • Editor discusses talk-page ARBPIA notice:


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In addition to the 1RR violation: the editor is not eligible to edit in connection with the Arab/Israeli conflict, per the 30/500 rule (also notified about this one: . As the "Controversy" section of the article makes clear, Ginsburgh is notable in large part for his profile as the rabbi of a radical settlement in the West Bank and for his statements about the violent actions of settlers against Palestinians there. We don't have to "broadly construe" the relevance -- it's quite direct.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified:

    Discussion concerning 238-Gdn

    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 238-Gdn

    The initial deleted statement (from a week or two ago) was indeed unsourced, however I have now posted a published claim that the incident had been dismissed by Israeli courts when the villagers failed to produce a corpse. The editor who is challenging me deleted my addition with the claim that this was not a reliable source. After discussion on the talk page, I reverted his deletion (as abovementioned editor was obviously hoping that I would do in order to post here). There was no good reason why the statement should be deleted, other than the editor's obviously biased view.

    I will add that the page under discussion has been poorly sourced and lain stagnant for some years. In the past few weeks I have been making changes and adding substantial new material that challenges the previous view adopted by the page. The challenging editor has obviously taken aversion to these new facts and is having trouble digesting them. I am doing my best to improve the page with new information and also improving the style, however this editor has been constantly thwarting my efforts, hanging on to the previous version as if his life was dependent upon it and showing little tolerance in his remarks. Another editor has chastized him for his forceful actions against my edits, but he continues using the same tactics.

    The page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts (as clear to anyone who has seen the court hearings, which I understand are not considered by Misplaced Pages to be a reliable source). I am searching for more reliable sources that uphold the statement under discussion. The one I cited is the first.

    I am a relatively new editor to Misplaced Pages, so I'm sure there are many rules that I have yet to learn, but I am doing my best to conform to the rules as I learn them. 238-Gdn (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    I would like to add that I have now familiarized myself more fully with the rules of ARBPIA. I understand the sound reasoning behind the rules and have no wish to violate them. My intentions for editing on Misplaced Pages are to present the facts with reliable sources, as I have been attempting to do on the page under discussion. It takes time to learn which sources are acceptable and which may be challenged. I have obviously jumped in at the deep end of Misplaced Pages, and I'm trying my best to learn to swim. 238-Gdn (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrike

    I am not sure that article belong to WP:ARBPIA.The arbitrators specifically didn't want to extend the sanctions on "any edit" on any article even it doesn't belong--Shrike (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    The user has self-reverted.So I think the matter is moot.--Shrike (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Kingsindian

    Since 238-Gdn appears to be a new editor, they should be given a bit of slack. For their part, 238-Gdn need to read WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. The responsibility for gaining consensus is on the person making the edit, not the person reverting it. Thus the edit summary here makes no sense. In general, 238-Gdn has made a lot of changes to the article, which has changed the tone of the article a lot. Some of the edits have been challenged; so they need to go slow, and not edit-war. Not everyone needs to agree on every change, but there should be a "rough consensus" on the edits. If you cannot get a local consensus because some of the people watching the article don't agree with you, it's better to get outside input to settle the matter one way or another. See WP:DR for details. RfCs and posting on noticeboards like WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN and WP:RSN are decent ways to get outside input, as is WP:3O.

    As a content matter, I think it is reasonable for Ginzburg to be given some space to respond to the criticism made just before the sentence in question. The source given is just a letter by Ginzburg to The Jewish Press. One needs to attribute the statement to Ginzburg, and phrase the claim carefully so that it doesn't assert things which cannot be checked. And the fact of what happened to the court case should be determined one way or another. Court documents are primary sources, so they should be avoided in the article. But they can be discussed on the talkpage to argue for Ginzburg's position. If some secondary coverage exists, it should be given preference. But this discussion should be on the talkpage, not here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    A large part of the article topic is devoted to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I find arguments to the contrary quite bizarre. To see the weight of the argument against, compare the article before 238-Gdn started major surgery with the article now. Here's a diff: though the changes are so vast that they are hard to follow. A lot of 238-Gdn's effort has been to remove focus from the Israel-Palestine conflict and replace it by hagiographic text that frankly reads like some sort of adoration of this extremely controversial person. A lot of it is truly cringe-worthy and I strongly suspect that 238-Gdn has a personal connection to the subject. Regardless of that, 238-Gdn is certainly on a mission to turn this into a Ginsburg fan page and has never edited any other page except some minor edits. It is very hard to counteract this concerted pov-push by the usual means because a lot of 238-Gdn's sources are obscure Hebrew texts. This shouldn't be allowed and I propose that 238-Gdn be topic-banned from any articles related to Yitzhak Ginsburgh and his yeshivas and students. In any case, Nomo is quite correct that the 30/500 rule forbids him from editing here anyway; edits which remove IP-related information are just as forbidden as edits which add it. Zero 14:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by uninvolved Dweller

    I think this user can be forgiven some lack of knowledge. ARBPIA rules are not easy for a newbie to follow, this article is not classic ARBPIA material and the talk page was only relatively recently tagged for ARBPIA.

    On top of all of that, it's arguable whether or not the restrictions should apply to this particular article. It's about a rabbi who is notable for educating people about religion who happens to have 'interesting' political views. If we applied ARBPIA to everyone like that, we'd have a mushrooming pile of articles for Arbcom to police.

    That said, edit-warring and OWN issues are bad - but they are better dealt with at venues less nuclear than this one. I'd be encouraging the newbie to get deeper into Misplaced Pages and our norms. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning 238-Gdn

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I think that there is more than enough of an overlap for the 30/500 rule to apply. Given that 238-Gdn also appears to be exclusively interested in this one article, that they have edited for a while, and that they have been notified of the sanctions in place, the naive new user argument also appears to be a stretch. At the minimum, 238-Gdn should be asked to wait till they satisfy the 30/500 rule but I'm open to the idea of additional restrictions as well. Will wait for other opinions though. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dweller: I'm all for giving new users a bit of slack in general, but: (i) 238-Gdn was told he wasn't eligible to edit I/P topics ( ); (ii) He participated in a discussion that explained why other editors believed the article feel within the I/P topic area (Talk:Yitzchak Ginsburgh#Kifl Haris and the Israel-Palestine conflict?); (iii) His comment above that "the page under discussion has little relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict in general, except for this one incident, which has been been misrepresented until now with half-truths and deliberate distortion of the facts" shows that he aware that (at the very least) "this one incident" (i.e. the one his edits related to) is relevant to the conflict; and (iv) isn't the whole point of the 30/500 rule that ArbCom have found the edits of new users in this topic area to be disruptive? The point is that people need to make their 500 edits away from the disputed topic area to establish their bona fides. I'd support a 24 hr block and a warning not to edit Yitzchak Ginsburgh until 238-Gdn meets the requirements of 30/500 (on the basis that no edits to Yitzchak Ginsburgh count towards the 500 edit requirement). WJBscribe (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with User:WJBscribe. In his reply to this AE, User:238-Gdn reveals poor understanding of Misplaced Pages policy and certainly gives us no confidence that he will follow the 30/500 rule in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I also agree with WJBScribe, except that I'm not sure that a block is necessary this time around. I think an unambiguous warning that any further edits in violation of the 30/500 restriction will result in an immediate block will be sufficient. Seraphimblade 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I concur with Seraphimblade; a final warning and a block next time the user makes an "innocent mistake" straying into this area seems like a good idea. The editor does appear to be acting in good faith, which makes me optimistic they'll be able to prove they can contribute usefully in another area before taking the plunge in the I/P topic area. Lankiveil 02:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC).
    • This does not call for large hammer. I think the policy is relevant but let's just make that clear and let them know to edit somewhere else for a while, then they can return there (nondisruptively / following ARBPIA / etc). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)