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 Liz (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 5 September 2019 (OneClickArchiver archived CMTBard to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive255). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:56, 5 September 2019 by Liz (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver archived CMTBard to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive255)(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
    341342343344345346347

    PeterTheFourth

    PeterTheFourth is banned from all pages and edits related to living people, broadly construed, for six months. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (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 PeterTheFourth

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    PeterTheFourth (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 13:54, 28 August 2019 re-added Twitter link to sexual assault allegations
    2. 17:24, 28 August 2019 re-added Twitter link to sexual assault allegations
    3. 03:28, 29 August 2019 posted the Twitter link to their talkpage after being told it's a BLP violation
    4. 04:05, 29 August 2019 WP:IDHT approach to BLP concerns on his talkpage
    5. 15:31, 1 September 2019 WP:IDHT approach to BLP concerns on his talkpage
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 5 October 2018 AE caution: "PeterTheFourth is cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people"
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • alerted on the Gamergate discretionary sanctions last time on 2 October 2018:
    • alerted on BLP discretionary sanctions on 8 April 2019:
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    On August 27, EverGreg mentioned sexual assault and harassment allegations with a direct Twitter link and no reliable source on Talk:Alec Holowka. He almost instantly understood this was wrong because it's a primary source, and later called his attempt "misguided". No complaints about him. An IP, 65.183.99.29, removed the Twitter link and discussion, correctly citing WP:BLPTALK.

    PeterTheFourth, who has been cautioned to be more careful with BLPs, re-added the sexual assault allegation Twitter links twice despite no objection by EverGreg to their removal. Admin Deepfriedokra told PeterTheFourth that BLP-violating content should not be restored on his talkpage (permalink). He then again posted the Twitter link and told Deepfriedokra that You seem to have a poor grasp of BLP. He was told that Twitter is not a reliable source, to which he responded again with hostility, claiming that Deepfriedokra has either a huge gap in understanding or an unwillingness to examine the situation at even the simplest level. Lastly, I explained in simple terms how it is a BLP violation by pointing out that WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:BLPTALK mean we remove contentious claims not supported by reliable sources. He reverted me and told I should go pick a fight in traffic.

    The BLP subject Alec Holowka died on August 31. This is a Gamergate-related dispute because Zoë Quinn, whose blog sparked the Gamergate controversy, made the sexual assault allegations (Polygon). PeterTheFourth has 204 edits in Gamergate controversy. Now we have better sources covering it, but this wasn't the case when these Twitter links were posted. Given his shocking BLP interpretation, refusal to get the point and prior caution, I believe he should not be editing these controversial BLPs. --Pudeo (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Mr Ernie: the whole Twitter account is now deleted. The situation is extremely serious, as although it's not accounced how Holowka died, his sister referenced to the recent allegations and "mood and personality disorders" (PC Gamer). --Pudeo (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    @El C: As for incivility, there is a pattern behind this. PeterTheFourth made a pretty bad personal attack on Salvio giuliano the last time they were involved in AE in Dec 2018 and got away with no boomerang. I suppose some may take that as a license to act that way. --Pudeo (talk) 20:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    The timeline here seems a bit blurry. If you look at the page history of Alec Holowka starting from August 27, there had been only one attempt at covering the allegations with a source (with Wccftech.com - pretty hard to assess whether these kind of tech sites are reliable for more serious issues). Many IPs and one user had just added nasty names and unsourced defamation which have been now rev-deleted. I think it was very unreasonable to add the primary Twitter link without any RS links in this situation. There was emerging coverage, although many of the links later added on the talkpage by WanderingWanda perhaps were not reliable for such serious allegatations. Polygon covered it only on 11 am 29 August. --Pudeo (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning PeterTheFourth

    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 Mr Ernie

    I’m more than a bit concerned by the edit summary in this diff - , which seems to clearly advocate for violence. Peter has been skirting the line for a long time, and it seems a sanction is due. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

    FYI the tweet Peter linked to several times has been deleted for some reason. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Aquillion

    At the time when most of this occurred, that tweet was receiving substantial coverage in secondary sources (there was also some discussion of sources used in the article in the section that was being removed.) That doesn't mean it was necessarily enough to include in the article - I feel the sources in the article at that point weren't quite good enough, though they would be shortly - but talk pages are where we work that sort of question out; removing the entire section (rather than just, at most, the link to the tweet) was well beyond what WP:BLPTALK requires or WP:TPO allows for. When cautiously-worded, "here's a controversial thing about the article's subject that seems like it's likely to be an immediate focus of attention and which people might expect our article to have; does WP:BLP-quality sourcing exist to support it?" is the sort of discussion talk pages are supposed to have (and need to have, if only so we have a unified answer when people start arriving and trying to add that material.) As the policy says, Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Provided it's reasonable to believe appropriate sources may exist, it's appropriate to (carefully) discuss an allegation so we can investigate the sources and determine if there's enough coverage to justify inclusion in the article - and that discussion, note, that seems to have reached a consensus to include little over a day later (even before the subject's suicide, which obviously made things more notable.) Restoring the link to the tweet after people objected to it wasn't ideal (though the sweeping nature of the deletions made it hard to see what the exact objection was at first), but the people repeatedly deleting the entire section (rather than just the link they found objectionable) weren't behaving ideally, either, especially given that as soon as people stopped deleting the section, editors were able to find like six or seven sources - some of which admittedly appeared during discussion, but some of which were already out there. --Aquillion (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by PeterTheFourth

    I didn't call anybody a cunt, so I think I'm well within the established boundaries for civil conduct. I don't take kindly to random people showing up at my talk page to pick fights, and it seems my initial impression that they were itching for conflict was correct given they immediately ran to AE after being booted off my talk page.

    Somebody on BLPN was complaining that an IP deleted a talk page section. Please note that they provided reliable sources for the allegations having taken place. I restored the talk page section. The talk page section did not violate BLP. People saying it did are wrong. The section I restored (here and here, the second of which has more comments) talks about abuse allegations. These allegations happened, and were covered in reliable sources. Whether or not this content was due for inclusion on the article itself is a matter for discussion, which is why we have the talk page.

    Please note the wording at WP:BLPTALK, from which I will quote- "For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"". PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Pudeo mentions a pattern of incivility. Pudeo has displayed a pattern of trying to get me banned from Misplaced Pages. Forgive me for not having much patience for his continued efforts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry Liz, you're right. Here's an earlier thread against me by Pudeo at ANI. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I'm not asking for a boomerang or something like that. The only wrong that Pudeo has done is seriously frustrate me and waste my time. I intended to explain what I see as the context of my attitude toward them. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint

    • @PeterTheFourth: - bringing up Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive994#Calls for executions by firing squad in edit summaries seems like an own goal. It seems to me that it was reasonable for Pudeo to have opened that request. By my own judgment of reading that discussion, it seems that eight other editors at that discussion agreed (Bilorv, Snow Rise, Black Kite, Dlohcierekim, Masem, Diannaa, zchrykng and the closer 28bytes), compared to four against (Simonm223, MPants, NorthBySouthBaranof and WaltCip). If Pudeo was unreasonable in opening that ANI thread, the discussion should have trended towards a BOOMERANG, which didn't happen. It is even more of an own goal as that ANI thread is regarding edit summaries by PeterTheFourth that certainly could be construed as intending violence to occur against other editors, which the same as one of the issues in this very request. starship.paint (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Simonm223

    I think the point in bringing up that previous case in AnI is that this isn't the first time that Pudeo has used... minimal misconduct... as an attempt to get the ban-hammer brought down against a perceived opponent. It's pretty evident that PetertheForth and Pudeo have tangled regularly as demonstrated here and I think this is an attempt to arbitrate a personal dispute by way of Arbcom. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bringing a source to article talk for discussion of whether it warrants inclusion is actually something encouraged at WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N while refactoring other editors' comments in a manner such as this is, while not prohibited by WP:RTP certainly not encouraged. I believe the quote is Be aware that not every editor will agree with your refactoring or even of the refactoring concept in general. Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said..

    Furthermore, per Aquilion, it appears that there was secondary coverage of the quote which makes the discussion at article talk largely around WP:DUE and WP:RS. And while a high standard is required for BLPs on both, it's something of a chilling effect to try and get a person sanctioned by arbitration for trying to have the conversation. In short, I'd suggest this enforcement request should be closed promptly with no admin action taken against Peter or Pudeo. Simonm223 (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Deepfriedokra: I agree entirely that this could be a valuable object lesson in getting sourcing right before introducing controversial statements for BLP protected individuals. I just feel that arbcom sanctions over this unfortunate dispute would be excessive. Simonm223 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by -- Deeepfriedokra

    Perhaps my understanding of BLP is better than one might suppose. I don't mind being corrected when I'm wrong, but what I find concerning is the insistence on adding negative BLP on a talk page that seemed to me to be clearly inadequately sourced. I think it's great if PTF goes a little overboard in removing negative BLP (as is evidenced by some of the links above). I think he should be more circumspect about adding it. I don't see a need for a BLP T-BAN. I just see a need to be more thoughtful and less passionate when he disagrees with others or feels content must be removed.-- Deepfriedokra 19:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    @MastCell and Haukurth: I agree saying people should be lined up and shot is over the top. I do think this is fixable without sanctions. He's working in a stressful part of the 'pedia and at the same time trying to maintain his own dignity and aplomb while trying to clear away the rubbish. I also think Pudeo could lighten up a little-- be a little less confrontational and forceful.-- Deepfriedokra 21:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Simonm223: And if the talk page post had been RS'd instead of to Twitter, I would not have removed it and this latest contré temps between Pudeo and PTF not occurred. -- Deepfriedokra 21:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Starship.paint: Re: "intending violence to occur," I think that's a stretch, and at the time I believe I likened it to hyperbole. -- Deepfriedokra 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with what Dumuzid says about "taking a flying leap", etc. It's been so long, I'd forgotten those charming little turns of phrase. Yeah, calling those calls for/threats of harm is way beyond the intended meaning.-- Deepfriedokra

    Statement by Dumuzid

    So, I hesitated before weighing in here, as Peter is someone I like and admire, and someone with whom I have interacted with occasionally here. All that being said, I agree he was in the wrong here. Things really did look like Gamergate 2.0 was in the offing (still might be, for all I know), and I agree he went too far. That being said, I pretty consistently argue for leniency, second chances, and well, WP:ROPE (though I know it doesn't directly apply here, the principal does). I think it is absolutely deserved here. As already observed, this user edits in some stressful topics and we all make mistakes. Furthermore, I have sort of tried to avoid directly expressing this, but the language issue rankles me. The "to the wall" language strikes me as beyond the pale and I think Peter and the encyclopedia would both be well served if he ceased with that (as it seems he has, for a year or so?). But "go pick a fight in traffic" is, to me (and those of a certain age, I suspect), such an anodyne schoolyard taunt that I don't quite know what to make of it being seen as an exhortation or encouragement of violence. It and its cousins are generally understood to mean, simply, go away. Now, perhaps the idiom is no longer current and should not be used. That's fine. But to castigate for this would be akin to heaping opprobrium upon me if I said "take a flying leap, as though I were encouraging self-harm. Whatever the great and good of Misplaced Pages decide is fine by me, but I do think mercy is pretty much always warranted, and more in this case than most. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


    Statement by Masem

    I can't treat myself as uninvolved here (both from the past GG case, as well as having commented on this at BLP/N and having edited Holowka's article). That said:

    • I don't think we can do anything directly about repeating the Twitter reported here. Peterthefourth did not make the original post, and given that we're talking about Quinn, a person that has been a target of harassment, even knowing the tweet existed was a good warning to keep an eye out for offsite meat puppetry. It probably didn't need to be re-added since we'd never use the Tweet itself (BLPSPS and all that) - the main point could have been added back with a (redacted) and note that one can look for Quinn's twitter account for details, but knowledge of its existence helps in terms of watching out for potential nonsense hitting certain articles. Let's call that a lesson learned. (Given that the point has since gotten wide coverage to no longer make it an issue).
    • That said, the edit summaries, not only from this report, but the one referenced by PeterTheFourth themselves in response to Liz, are troublesome. I know they're meant to be rhetorical but that's just a bit too hostile for any talk page that aligns along the Gamergate area. That's something to ask Peter to keep in check. Whether that needs admin action I don't know. --Masem (t) 21:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning PeterTheFourth

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @PeterTheFourth: civility is not about namecalling, per se., and you are, in fact, well outside established boundaries for civil conduct. Telling someone to Go pick a fight in traffic conveys imagery far worse than namecalling someone a "cunt," as far as I'm concerned.El_C 19:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. I'm one of them. But more generally, I don't think it's worthwhile to start ranking degrees of incivility. To the extent that Peter is making the point that we're wildly inconsistent in our approach to civility, he's undeniably correct. MastCell  19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Not sure about sanctions; I'm on the fence. But I agree with El C, and I seriously can't give PeterTheFourth any plus points for bringing in Eric Corbett here. Bishonen | talk 19:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC).
    • Peter, if you are going to make claims that Pudeo has been trying to get you blocked, you have to supply some diffs to support that claim, like previous complaints at AE or ANI regarding you. And it doesn't help your case that you are so dismissive towards this serious charge. Pudeo's claims, along with your conduct here, are being scrutinized. Liz 03:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Linking to sexual assault claims made on twitter is clearly unacceptable. The section of BLPTALK that PTF refers to presupposes that there is the possibility that the link might be used in the article; since there is no chance whatsoever that we would ever source such an allegation to twitter, bringing up such a link on the talk page is not something that BLPTALK allows. I also find the "go pick a fight in traffic" edit summary very concerning. I'm inclined to a BLP topic ban but would value others' thoughts. GoldenRing (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Some sanctions do seem warranted and a BLP topic ban would not be unreasonable. And please, Peter, refrain from violent imagery in edit summaries. Haukur (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I guess I see this as a pretty minor sin. The talk-page thread seemed to be a good-faith effort to discuss a controversy that had already led to extensive edit-warring on the associated article. In an ideal world, yes, the thread should have included links to reliable sources discussing the allegation (which did exist, even then). I think Peter could have de-escalated the issue relatively easily—as could have Pudeo. Peter could have simply added reliable sources when restoring the thread, and Pudeo could have accepted that the topic is covered by reliable sources, rather than playing gotcha (which I think is a reasonable interpretation of this request). I probably wouldn't sanction anyone for this incident, but I do recognize that Peter has been warned in the past to be more careful... so I understand why sanctions are being considered for him, and I'll go along with the group consensus.

      But "clearly advocat for violence"... "violent imagery"... come on now. Telling someone to go play in traffic is a very rude way of telling them to leave you alone, but it's not a violent threat, and it's really silly to pretend that it is. MastCell  19:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

      I was thinking of his "to the wall" comments as well. No, it's not exactly a threat but it is ugly nevertheless. Haukur (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm implementing a six-month ban from living persons. I don't think this quite rises to the level of an indefinite ban, taking MastCell's thinking into account. GoldenRing (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz

    Moot. The appealed block has expired. Sandstein 11:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    block - diff for IBAN violation (Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision# Interaction ban)
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    - bradv notified by starship.paint

    Statement by Icewhiz

    The block was logged as an AE action. This appeal is in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications.

    timeline/facts:

    1. 03:23, 1 September 2019 - Piotrus, involved in EEML and present case, posts on my user page saying "I think it might be prudent if you self-reverted"
    2. 03:31, 1 September 2019 - 8 minutes later Bradv blocked for IBAN infraction - claiming this 06:20, 31 August 2019 edit was an IBAN violation in relation to this edit - 16:18, 27 June 2018 - a blanket revert/rollback from over a year ago.
    3. The offending edit is currently 55 revisions back in the editing history, and is not visible in default history view.
    4. The most recent addition of this material is by 14:28, 9 July 2018 Piotrus.
    5. The material was also tagged by Francois Robere - 11:50, 19 June 2019. It is sourced to the "official mouthpiece" (per Grabowski, Jan. "Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective: The Recent Publications of the Institute of National Remembrance." Yad Vashem Studies 36 (2008)) of an institution that promotes " historical revisionism" and generally described in scientific literature as a "Ministry of Memory" or an institution involved in "memory games".

    I am appealing this sanction on the following grounds:

    1. I would've self-reverted (and stated so) if given the chance (more than 8 minutes), as I believe in better safe than sorry and self-revert in any situation with the slightest ambiguity.
    2. The arbitration enforcement action, beyond being selective and unfair, is not in accordance with the WP:IBAN policy and its usual interpretation per community norms and past enforcement. Users subject to an IBAN are generally supposed to avoid undoing (or editing) each other edits and/or comment on one another. They are also expected not to follow one another - usually the community has placed this at 30 days. A block for an alleged interaction - some 50 revisions (beyond default article history) and over a year ago - with many intervening edits on the same content flies in the face of standard IBAN provisions.
    3. Bradv's enforcement action is tantamount to a site ban (with an exception for creating new articles). which is not the proscribed remedy. Without a reasonable limit of past revisions to inspect (e.g. verifying not interaction/undo of IBAN party, not in past 30 days) - checking an arbitrary (and totally undetermined - so entire article history) - on every single article - is a Sisyphean task for any article with an extensive history.

    Additional comments

    The block has run its course, so this appeal is probably moot in any event at this point.

    In retrospect - this was far from a wise edit given the past dispute on the page (one of dozens), however I do want to say this is not what drew me to the page (which were the actions of an unconnected user on the talk page + tags there). Should I have known better? Probably. I made 2,621 edits in August (1,331 mainspace, 447 talk, and 567 to wiki space (mainly AfDs - which I need to ponder whether they can also be construed to fit within an IBAN) - in all of which there was a chance I could've screwed up). I am happy I fixed a rather major conspiracy theory in Holocaust articles + got a number of Polish articles (Islamophobia related, LGBT rights relates, Jew with a coin) through DYK + created a few additional articles on the Islamophobia/LGBT and related offshoots.

    In the foreseeable future I probably intend to curtail my editing to this website, I am tying up loose ends over Warsaw concentration camp (where a conspiracy theory, was present (as fact) in English Misplaced Pages main space for 15 years - and not just in this obscure article, but also in German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, Extermination camp, and a bunch of other articles - par the course for this topic area, though extreme in scope this time). Thank you for your time spent processing (and commenting on) this appeal. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Bradv

    I'm not sure this matters, but I would like to clarify that Piotrus' warning to Icewhiz came while I was investigating this and preparing the block notice, and I did not see it until afterward.

    The intent of the temporary interaction ban was to stop the disruptive editing and edit warring that was happening between these two editors. There is plenty of evidence that this article is a locus of that dispute in the history, on the talk page, and in the talk page archives. Icewhiz is taking advantage of the IBAN to rehash these disputes at a time when their partner in the dispute cannot respond.

    I'm not aware of any sort of time limit on what counts as a "undo" for the purposes of an interaction ban. If there was a conversation that established this at some point in the past I would appreciate it if someone could point me to it. As we can see by the events here, such a time limit, whether adopted by policy or convention, can be easily gamed.

    It's also worth pointing out that this block is not designated as a clerk action, even though I likely wouldn't have investigated or acted here if I were not a clerk. This is subject to the usual standard provisions and therefore a review here is appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    • Sir Joseph, Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek are not prohibited from editing this article, they are prohibited from undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. This is established in the banning policy. To claim that this is somehow exempt because it was just a "random rollback" by Volunteer Marek doesn't really hold up considering the lengthy talk page discussions that accompanied this dispute. – bradv🍁 16:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • RexxS, I don't agree that Icewhiz didn't get a warning. The IBAN itself was a sharp behavioural warning from Arbcom, and L235 issued a warning with respect to this IBAN less than 2 weeks ago. I'll acknowledge that 72 hours is on the long side for a first block, but disruption of this nature during an active arbitration case is not an ordinary occurrence. – bradv🍁 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Piotrus

    I wasn't going to comment until I've noticed that this appeal seems to be framed significantly with regards to my edits (and also a 10 year old arbitration case that some people seem to be dredging up every now and then to poison the well, sigh). (I also wasn't going to present evidence in the ArbCom case until my name was called out in a similar fashion, but clearly, some people don't learn...). Anyway, I'll leave it to others to decide whether the violation indeed occurred and whether the penalty was correctly applied. I will just note that I gave a friendly notice to Icewhiz when this popped up on my watchlist and I recommend that he (and his interaction ban 'partner', User:Volunteer Marek, who likely cannot even comment here) ask for clarification with regards to articles they jointly edited (and often, edit warred on) in the past. The edits on Bielski partisans are only one of several articles that they both disagreed on in the past that Icewhiz has edited since their mutual interaction ban was implemented few days ago (others include: Institute of National Remembrance, Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and Jew with a coin). I do not have time and will to see if he indeed did remove or restore any content that VM had disagreed on in the past, but this being a fourth article in the series I find the implication of the interaction ban restriction on the affected parties not being allowed to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" problematic, and this needs a clarification ASAP. Namely: 1) can the parties remove or readd content they disagreed on in the 'distant' past, like six month ago, or a year, or two years ago? 2) how big such an edit has to be to trigger a sanction? Word, sentence, paragraph? 3) Does it effectively mean that once one of them makes an edit to an article, they "own" it? I mean, in the case of Bielski partisans, VM and Icewhiz disagreed about numerous issues, big and small. Few days after the iban, Icewhiz revisits this, with edits that VM would almost certainly find problematic. But as the 'first mover, post-iban, he effectively locks VM from this article, doesn't he? Particularly if his edits are extensive. And if his wording is a bit different from edits of the past, who can judge if this is really a revert? Interaction ban is not the same as topic ban, but the practical aspects of this seem rather murky. In other words, we have to consider to what degree one can game the system by exploiting interaction ban to enforce a one-way topic ban on their iban partner? (Note: I am not saying iban was gamed in this particular case, it may be an honest mistake, I leave this for others to judge, but the scope for abuse of the policy as worded currently is imho rather big). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by François Robere

    Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", Volunteer Marek, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ( → ), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ( → ). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. François Robere (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    @Winged Blades of Godric: Too late - it's the Rule of the Bureaucrats. Per Sandstein I-Banned editors should "Wikiblame" every single edit, lest they accidentally override some ancient edit they weren't even aware of. Per Hut 8.5 "edit wars" should now be considered not a speedy and intense affair as in WP:3RR, but a life-long, one-edit-a-year vendetta: I will revert you even if it's the last thing I do!... <cough>. Indeed, they are afraid that one editor would be able to revert any edits made by more than 14 months ago with impunity, to which I say: get a hobby. Seriously. Do you really think people keep a To Do list with 2 year old edits they want to revert? We have things to do. If we wanted to keep fantasy vendettas against people we never met, we would join World of Warcraft, not Misplaced Pages. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    @TonyBallioni: Tony, what interaction exactly was there between the two? "Interaction" by definition is "reciprocal" and "direct"; here there was nothing reciprocal nor direct. It's like a book being left on a library shelf - VM put it there, and 14 months and 55 readers later Icewhiz picked it up. How is that "interaction"? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    @GoldenRing: Riddle me this: the length of an "evidence" page is 157,779 bytes, or roughly 12,000 words, of which perhaps a third concerns Icewhiz - 4,000 words. The case has been open for three months, though it was supposed to be concluded in less than a month and a half. Question: What size of a briefcase should Mr. Whiz buy at the office supplies store to keep track of all the articles he's not supposed to touch? François Robere (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    @GoldenRing: Wherein you make my point: Misplaced Pages isn't a career, it's a hobby (and see Mr Ernie's comment above). An editor shouldn't be forced to carry around this things for months at a time because of a dysfunctional ArbCom and overzealous admins. Here you have a pretty clear case of "admins vs. the community", where editors from all shades say "this wrong", and all but two of the admins say the opposite, often with ridiculous justifications (a "slow-moving edit war"?). You folks really ought to listen more. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by WBG

    What SoWhy says. Pathetic to be mild and I hope we don't have another Sandstein in the making. ∯WBG 15:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Now TonyBallioni considers that editors shall wiki-blame every edit, if they are in an IBan. As usual, people who contribute shit-nothing to main-space over months, indulging in a trigger-happy bout of farcical officialese to throw off prolific content-creators. ∯WBG 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Sir Joseph

    1. Even if Icewhiz deserves a block, being the first time, it should have been a 24 hour block, not a 72 and I would like clarification from @Bradv: why a first time offender got a 72 hour block which is not the norm. 2. I do find it troubling that Bradv just swooped it and blocked, especially in this area, especially when Icewhiz was asked to revert and Icewhiz is known for reverting when asked, as is the custom. 3. I do want to point out, that the only other time Bradv, to the best of my recollection, made an AE action, is when he brought me to AE for something that was already resolved and it ended up causing much drama. (as someone pointed out at his RFA) This should be promptly overturned, you can't expect someone to go through a year of history to check to see if they are clear to edit, especially if they were going to revert anyway and Bradv should be warned to not be so triggerhappy, we know where that leads to. Sir Joseph 15:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    • More importantly, according to @Bradv: and @Sandstein: interpretation, Icewhiz and VM are now prohibited from EVER editing this article. Look at the history and diffs, Icewhiz interacted with Piotrus - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bielski_partisans&diff=849513039&oldid=849363724 and Francois Robere - https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bielski_partisans&diff=902519813&oldid=902514158. None of the material, in the article that Icewhiz edited, was added by VM. VM performed a random rollback - in between other editor - and followed by reverts by other editors. But according to Bradv, since VM and Icewhize both edited this page at one point in time, they are now both forbidden from editing the page if they at one point in time reverted the page. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me, but that is what it seems like. How much of an edit is considered enough for someone to be locked out? I know we have exceptions for vandalism, but clearly you can't expect someone to go back years. This is ludicrous. Sir Joseph 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @Bradv:, so will you be then blocking VM, as per @François Robere:'s section's evidence of IBAN violations? Seems to me pretty clear cut and more egregious than a year old reversion. Seems to be a pretty big double standard. @Hut 8.5: look at that section where you see a clear edit by Icewhiz and then VM reverts, why hasn't Bradv blocked? In your opinion, that should also be actionable, yet only Icewhiz is blocked and only for a one year revert. Seems odd to me. Sir Joseph 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @Hut 8.5:Sorry, but I think that's an excuse. Nobody brought Icewhiz to AE, Bradv blocked him on his own, just like Bradv brought me to AE, the only other time I've seen him doing an AE action. That's why I mentioned it. And that's the point, we don't need to bring it to AE to resolve, we could bring it to the talk page if it's an issue and ask to revert and not make it into an issue. Sir Joseph 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Levivich

    • @Bradv: Yes, time limits for undoing each others' edits under IBANs have been discussed before. A couple I found:
      • In 2018, a thread was closed with consensus for 30 days.
      • In 2015 BMK sagely wrote:

        I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan.

    • I wonder: is the gap here–14 months and 55 edits–unprecedented for an IBAN violation?
    • The links FR provides above show that VM did the same thing by "undoing" Icewhiz's edits at Racism in Poland (in that case, changing the order of sections from "Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans, Ethnic Poles" to "Ethnic Poles, Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans"), yet VM isn't warned or blocked for it, even though the gap there was only a month.
    • Similarly, Icewhiz was warned for commenting in the same thread that VM had previously commented in, but as FR's links show, VM did the same thing, but didn't get warned.
    • I'm not saying VM should be warned or blocked. But this appeal should be granted and the block overturned because to do otherwise would, as BMK lucidly explained four years ago, lead to an unreasonable result and an effective TBAN for both editors. A year and 55 edits is too long ago to reasonably be called an "undo" or "revert".
    • Responding to Hut 8.5's point: Icewhiz did say in his statement he would have self-reverted had he been given the chance (which he is known for doing), which I see as an "oops". But look at the Editor Interaction Analyzer between IW and VM , there is so much mainspace overlap, and so many disputes on almost all of those articles, that to say "don't edit anything you've had a dispute about before" is basically saying "don't edit any article you've ever edited before" – a functional TBAN from every area you've ever edited before is like a site ban. There's got to be a time limit put on it.
    • If 14 months and 55 edits is deemed "in bounds", I think both editors should at least receive a warning or be otherwise informed of that before anyone is blocked for it. – Levivich 17:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

    Here's my refutation of the suggestion that Icewhiz was trying to game the system: Icewhiz was blocked for this edit, removing content. It had been most recently added, not by VM, but by Piotr. Before Piotr added it, it had been removed, not by Icewhiz, but by another editor ("Editor X"). The content was originally added, not by VM, but by yet another editor ("Editor Y"). Piotr's addition happened a year ago. Icewhiz had a whole year to take Piotr's addition out. It makes no sense to think that Icewhiz intentionally waited until he was under an IBAN with VM to take out that content. First of all, he knows that Piotr could have reverted–so it doesn't matter that VM was under an IBAN (this is what kills the entire "but they could game with first mover advantage" theory – no, they couldn't, because there are other editors, not subject to an IBAN, who would make such an attempt ineffective). Secondly, never has Icewhiz's editing been under more scrutiny than it is now (as proven by bradv independently monitoring his editing and blocking him). This is the worst possible time for Icewhiz or VM to misstep (as proven by the fact that we're even here right now having this conversation).

    Icewhiz's edit was a revert of Piotr, not of VM. The IBAN says they can't undo–that means a direct undo–it doesn't say they can't edit any article that the other editor has edited, or add/remove any content that the other editor has ever added/removed. Yes, there was a dispute between Icewhiz and VM at that article, but it wasn't a dispute just between them, it was between two groups of editors. And Icewhiz may be in a dispute with other editors over the content now (like Piotr or Editor Y), but that doesn't make it a "continuation of a dispute with VM", but rather "a dispute in which VM was involved along with many others".

    @L235: You've made my point exactly: in the 2018 AN thread, the IBAN was amended to put in the 30-day no-editing-each-others-articles restriction, because a regular IBAN doesn't cover that (just as this IBAN doesn't cover it). There was plenty of discussion in that thread about what a reasonable time period would be. 30 days is reasonable; a year is not. It's not binding precedent, but it's precedent.

    @Hut 8.5: do you really think that me filing an AE against VM would be a better outcome than, say, what Rexx is suggesting below? Better for me, better for VM, better for admin, better for the community as a whole? De-escalation, right? Even if you don't agree with me about the interpretation of the IBAN, there is still that irrefutable point that there was no reason for a block, because a warning about not editing each other's articles even it's been a year and 50+ intervening edits, would have had the same effect. (Note the warning he received was for posting in a talk page thread, whereas the block was for something quite different–and the one year/50+ edits-interim thing is unusual enough that it should have been explained clearly in a warning before anyone was blocked).

    Requesting more words for this post–I'm not planning to post further, I know you're sick of hearing from me :-). Thanks. – Levivich 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr Ernie

    It is really frustrating to see such one-sided dispute resolution. There's been clear (on further examination I find those diffs to be as hard to follow as the ones Icewhiz was blocked over) evidence presented that VM has also violated the IBAN, removing content added more recently than Icewhiz did. Editing Misplaced Pages is a hobby, not a chore, and it is an unreasonable burden to go back and check further than a couple months in the history. Icewhiz and VM are both experienced, productive editors, and the first step with such people really needs to be discussion. They are both quite reasonable and shouldn't be treated like vandals. Bradv really erred with this block, Icewhiz's first, when discussion would have lead to a much more calming resolution without any of this disruption. User:Bradv, please go ahead and do the right thing here, unblock Icewhiz, and apologize for your hasty actions. We don't need more trigger happy cops eager to flex their status. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Icewhiz

    Result of the appeal by Icewhiz

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I admit I'm confused. Official policy is that blocks should not be punitive. It also says: "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved." Thus I fail to see how blocking someone for something they did over a year ago, whether they were right to make that edit or not, is justifiable under the blocking policy. Same goes for the banning policy which also contains no exception to the blocking policy when enforcing IBANs. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @SoWhy: The diff listed in the block notice is this edit (August 31, 2019). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
        • @L235: Thanks! I had only seen the other date and missed that one. I stand corrected but not less confused. Maybe you or someone else can also explain to me how it qualifies as an "interaction" if a year and 50+ edits passed between addition and revert. I am not unsympathetic to Icewhiz's allegation that an IBAN doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) should be forced to check more than 50 diffs over a year to see whether some content might have been added by the IBAN partner. Piotrus raises a good point that this is easily open to gaming the system and also not really covered by the WP:IBAN wording that they serve to stop disruption, often caused by edit-warring or hounding, not to effectively bar one of the editors from ever editing a certain article again. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I would decline the appeal. The enforcement action was appropriate. By removing content added by the other editor, for any reason and under any circumstances, Icewhiz violated WP:IBAN, which prohibits, among other things, "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". Whether Icewhiz was aware that Piotrus added the material is not relevant according to the policy. The 72 h block is very short, so quibbling about the length is pointless, because this discussion will almost certainly not resolve before its expiration. Sandstein 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • These edits are not the sort of thing that should be permitted by the interaction ban. This content was the subject of an extensive dispute between Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek at the time, e.g. after VM added the material IceWhiz removed it days later. It isn't fair to allow Icewhiz to reopen this old dispute between the two because VM cannot respond without blatantly breaching the interaction ban. Complying with an interaction ban may well involve avoiding articles where you've had extensive disputes with the other editor in the past, equating that to a site ban is hyperbole. I could understand an appeal along the lines of "oops, I forgot about that", but that doesn't seem to be what Icewhiz is going for and given the extent of the dispute between them on this article it does strain credibility a bit. 72 hours does seem on the long side for a first offence though. Hut 8.5 17:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Sir Joseph: there's nothing stopping you (or anybody else) filing an arbitration enforcement request against Volunteer Marek. Tu quoque isn't much of an argument though.
    @Levivich: what you're advocating doesn't have any support in WP:IBAN and, more importantly, doesn't make sense. Icewhiz would be able to revert any edits made by VM more than 14 months ago with impunity and reopen any content disputes which are that old. VM would not be able to make any response to Icewhiz's reverts without being blocked for breach of the interaction ban. Al least not until 14 months passes, at which point VM could revert Icewhiz. All we would have done is create a massive loophole in the interaction ban which allows very slow motion edit wars. Hut 8.5 18:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'm happy with reducing the block to time served at this point. Hut 8.5 06:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Levivich: It seems to me that you're misconstruing the ANI closure. It imposed both a standard interaction ban (which straight-up prohibits reverts) and a ban from editing any page that the other had edited in the last 30 days. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It seems to me that there is some merit in action being taken because there was a breach of the I-Ban. The problem of the length of time between the edit and the revert has to be seen against Hut 8.5's analysis that implies that no action could lead to a slow edit war, testing the bounds of what admins were prepared to accept. The best solution would always be to warn and ask for a self-revert in the first instance, and I'm disappointed that Icewhiz didn't have time to take that course. I also feel that 72 hours is too long for a first offence, effectively without warning and on a clean block log. I'd strongly recommend reducing the block to time served and drawing a line under the matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      @Bradv: I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Of course Icewhiz had been warned about their behaviour, but what I was looking for – given the length of time between VM's edit and IW's revert – was a warning that the particular edit constituted a breach of the I-Ban. That is because of the real possibility that IW was unaware of the previous edit by VM, so far back in the edit history. Assuming good faith, I would always prefer to give the opportunity to self-revert in these sort of circumstances. The purpose of the I-Ban is to prevent further disruption, not to be weaponised for one side to beat the other with. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I endorse RexxS's analysis and would favor reducing the block to time served. Haukur (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Endorse block and length as within admin discretion— standard for an IBAN violation on the first violation is anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, and while this is a bit on the long end, I don’t think it was so outside the norm as to merit “reducing to time served.” The point of an IBAN is that two people don’t interact with one another. Icewhiz had already been warned, and I very strongly disagree that a warning is needed for every time someone violates a sanction: in the cases of IBANs in particular, this would defeat the point as someone can still very much send an “I’m watching you” message even if they revert for every violation. 72 hours isn’t that long, and we shouldn’t be in the business of overturning discretionary actions that aren’t abusive even if we wouldn’t have gone for it ourselves. If we did so, the AE system would become unworkable precisely because it was designed to deal with disruption from long-term contributors where ordinary community sanctions wouldn’t work and individual actions should be taken. Unblocking here would set a bad precedent, and I’m opposed to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with TonyBallioni. If Icewhiz honestly didn't realise they were reverting VM then it was extremely careless of them; not only is this a locus of a previous dispute between these editors, it has also been entered into evidence in the current arbitration case between them. This is not requiring editors to wikiblame every edit they make; this is requiring editors to be aware of the evidence in arbitration cases to which they are parties. That is not unreasonable. In short, I would decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
      @François Robere: Are you suggesting that editors shouldn't be familiar with evidence used against them in current arbitration cases? I wish you well in your future career. GoldenRing (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm just wondering if it would be better simply to impose WP:ARBPIA type restrictions/sanctions on articles covering this subject. Otherwise I suspect we are going to end up with a pile of topic bans (more than two), which even given the huge issues on these articles certainly wouldn't be conducive to actually improving them. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Accept It seems silly to me to call something a Revert for an i-ban violation that would never be counted as a Revert at AN3 for 1RR or 3RR violations or here for a "Consensus Required" violation. Looking at the actual diffs, Icewiz removed a paragraph that VM added as part of a huge edit over a year ago. And VM wasn't even the last person the add the paragraph, so technically Icewiz would have been reverting Piotrus. We talk about making people use WikiBlame before editing. I just spent 5 minutes trying to find the addition with Wikiblame and failed. Here's a link to my search (just pasted the first sentence of the paragraph) and here's the diff that Wikiblame returned 19:26 9 August 2018 (It's the wrong diff.) The alternate blame tool returned no results. I just tried again with Wikiblame using a different query and it now blames the paragraph on Nihil novi. ~Awilley (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Bill Josephs

    Blocked for two weeks by Bishonen. Any repetition on Bill Josephs' return is likely to be met with an indefinite block. GoldenRing (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2019 (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 Bill Josephs

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Frood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Bill Josephs (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 :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Special:Diff/913703054 - after making similar edits multiple times, Oshwah imposed a three-month ban on edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the same thing the ban was placed for.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    N/A

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Notification of DS
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I'm inclined to think that he's WP:NOTHERE. His edits seem SPA-like, and keeps continuing despite numerous warnings and editing restrictions. I wasn't sure whether this would be better for AE or ANI, so I apologize if this isn't the best place.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff


    Discussion concerning Bill Josephs

    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 Bill Josephs

    Statement by Cullen328

    Before delving into the I/P area in a counterproductive way, this editor tried to add some unacceptable original research to Ernie Kovacs, the biography of a comedian killed in a 1962 car crash. In other words, they have yet to contribute anything of value to this encylopedia. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Bill Josephs

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

    Benjamin M.L Peters

    User indef-blocked by GoldenRing as a normal admin action ~Awilley (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2019 (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 Benjamin M.L Peters

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Benjamin M.L Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBAPDS :
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 21:51 2 September 2019 adding ideology explicitly contradicted by article
    2. 10:10 30 August 2019 re-adding "far left" to antifa and misleading edit summary
    3. 10:31 28 August 2019 changing fundamental info
    4. 21:05 27 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism"
    5. 20:53 27 August 2019 re-adding "far left" to antifa
    6. 20:42 27 August 2019 adding "far left" to antifa
    7. 9:13 26 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism"
    8. (3 consecutive edits) 21:49 24 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism" and removing mentions of Lenin
    9. (3 consecutive edits) 21:40 24 August 2019 adding "far left" to antifa
    10. 22:50 1 July 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    11. 22:49 1 July 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    12. 20:43 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    13. 20:41 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    14. 18:28 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    15. 18:25 18 May 2019 blanking, POV edit summary, and unsourced change to political ideology/position
    16. 18:00 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. None
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:44, 27 August 2019


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    User persistently changes information about political alignments without discussion or sources. This user has been repeatedly warned about this behavior but will not communicate. Of this user's 61 edits, none are on talk pages.

    I am bringing this here, instead of ANI, as I don't think the user is NOTHERE, but the user is certainly not being constructive in the area of politics.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    4:29 3 September 2019

    Discussion concerning Benjamin M.L Peters

    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 Benjamin M.L Peters

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Benjamin M.L Peters

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