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

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:57, 9 February 2017 editSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,679 edits →Result concerning Islington Bloor: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:58, 9 February 2017 edit undoSandstein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,679 edits →Islington Bloor: closedNext edit →
Line 235:		Line 235:

	==Islington Bloor==		==Islington Bloor==
			{{hat\|Disallowed RfC comment struck, user blocked for a week for personal attacks. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)}}
	<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>		<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

Line 296:		Line 297:
	* {{ping\|Islington Bloor}} You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --] ] 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)		* {{ping\|Islington Bloor}} You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --] ] 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
	* The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)		* The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
			{{hab}}

Revision as of 17:58, 9 February 2017

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

v t e 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	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category: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 an editor 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 an editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, 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:

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect 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

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347

RudiLefkowitz

RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned from US politics-related BLPs. Sandstein 08:49, 2 February 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 RudiLefkowitz User who is submitting this request for enforcement MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested RudiLefkowitz (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it (see additional comments by editor filing complaint for additional diffs evincing problematic behavior which occurred prior to the imposition of DS.) 21:03, 28 January 2017 This is well after the DS sanctions had been imposed, and Rudi had been warned by the admin that his editing was disruptive and a BLP policy violation. Note that while he's addressed the first complaints about his edit (that Milo's not a practicing jew) by choosing an ethnicity-oriented category this time, he's still not addressing the fact that most RSes question Milo's claim of having a Jewish grandmother. 21:45, 28 January 2017 Edit warring again. 17:51, 29 January 2017 At this point, he decides to make a pointy edit, removing a category from the page pertaining to Milo's ethnicity. In reverting this, admin Ad Orientem warns Rudi that he's "about one disruptive edit away from a topic ban." Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 03:10, 30 January 2017 Blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring at this article. Rudi's first edit after the block expired (aside from blanking his talk page) was back on the Milo talk page, jumping right back into the subject as if nothing had happened. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Given a DS notice on their talk page 1RR DS notice placed on talk, and a new message explicating this added at the bottom of the page Notified of BLP DS at his talk Additional comments by editor filing complaint Problematic edits prior to the imposition of DS 13:14, 23 January 2017 This was the initial edit which kicked it off. Rudi clearly understood that Milo is accepted to be a practicing Catholic, yet nonetheless took to adding a category reserved for practicing Jews. 13:30, 23 January 2017‎ After being reverted, he proceeded to edit war the category back in (this was prior to the imposition of DS on this page, with Rudi's edits being the reason for their imposition) 13:36, 23 January 2017‎ He then proceeded to edit other parts of the article, replacing attributed claims with the same claims in wikivoice (stated as facts) to support his case. 14:12, 23 January 2017 He then continues to edit war his claims into the article 14:13, 23 January 2017 He also continued to edit war his preferred category back in. Notice the broken category. 15:02, 23 January 2017 Continuing to edit war the broken category back in; accusing other editors of "cherry picking" and "censor"ing him in the edit summary. (Note that by this point, the problems with his edit have been explained to him multiple times at talk.) In addition to the diffs above, Rudi has engaged in forum shopping and canvassing in order to attempt to force the rest of us to accept his views. The source of the problem seems to be a potent case of selective dyslexia. Rudi's tactic throughout this has been to ignore any criticism of his arguments, and simply to repeat those arguments ad nauseum. It has been pointed out to him numerous times that RSes are highly skeptical of Milo's claimed Jewish ancestry, yet Rudi simply presumes that his one source which treats the claims as facts (in a passing mention, no less) must be accurate and ignores the rest. He's never once responded to anyone pointing out that the preponderance of RSes don't take Milo's claim seriously. Instead, he has taken to hinting at antisemitic motives for those of us opposed to his edit. @MjolnirPants:: What you have just said is blatantly false! I never thought or wrote something that would "hint at antisemitic motives"! If you did not concoct up what you just wrote then you have grossly misread. The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of them. On the charge of canvassing, I plead a bit guilty after familiarising myself with what that "charge" meant. Tried getting people on bord to argue against, in my humble view, "politicised editing and censorship" (i.e. WIKIPEDIA:NOTADVOCATE). But throwing in inappropriate words like "dyslexia" is very uncouth and reveal's your true colours. I have never stooped so low with anyone, even with you, and hope for an sincere apology. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, at the talk page, his level of engagement with others is highly questionable, and his editing style is highly disruptive. For example, after Rudi posted this comment, I attempted to respond multiple times for approximately 20 minutes, only to get an edit conflict every single time. Compare the difference between his initial edit and the current (as of now) version: even if I'd gotten my response posted, it would have been a response to an edit which, substantially, no longer exists. This level of difficulty in responding to him has been the rule since this drama started. It is not unusual for Rudi to continue making numerous minor and major edits to his comments for up to 45 minutes after initially posting them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Responses @Shrike:, There are three notices shown, notice of BLP DSes was given at Rudi's talk on the 23rd, and notice of the US politics ds and the 1rr restriction given on the talk page on the 23rd, as well. Considering that Rudi edited the talk page 34 times between then and the DS notice on his user page, claims that he wasn't aware of the DSA sanctions are highly spurious. Nonetheless, I have moved diffs of all edits prior to the imposition of sanctions (which happened at the same time as the notice at the talk page) to this section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC) With all due respect to everyone involved: This is not a content dispute. With respect to the content dispute, there is a fairly obvious consensus at the talk page. This is about the disruption Rudi has been causing to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Update: Now he seems to be threatening to make pointy edits to a large number of other articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: Two things: First, you are completely ignoring the fact that numerous RSes have questioned or expressed skepticism as to his claim of having Jewish ancestry in order to create this false impression of the argument being about whether a BLP subject is a sufficiently reliable source for such claims. That's extremely dishonest. The reason for the current content dispute, which has been explained to both of you before, by more than one editor, is that the RSes question this claim. It's not because it came from the subject. Second, even assuming you were absolutely correct, I'd have to ask you to point me to the part of WP policy which states that it's okay to violate policy if you think you're right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Sandstein: Excluding my responses to other editors here and my signature, and including the list of diffs at the top, the additional comments are only 438 words long. Diff 1 occurred after DS had been imposed, and constituted the 6th problematic edit since Rudi began pushing this issue. There are 6 edits prior to the imposition of DS on this article at the top of this section. I do not consider the first edit to be problematic per se, but useful in establishing the timeline. There is a clear slow edit war going on, here. Furthermore, my comments point out and provide diffs to evidence serious disruption of the talk page, and a threat to make mass pointy edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning RudiLefkowitz 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 RudiLefkowitz Statement by Sir Joseph It's very hard for me to comment without violating guidelines so I'll be brief. There is ample evidence that Milo's mother and grandmother is Jewish. In addition, Milo stated, "I am a gay Jew." As for the categories, there are two categories in question, one was British Jews and one is British of Jewish descent. Even if you don't want to say Milo is Jewish, he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother. Furthermore, Milo self-identified as being Jewish when he said, "I am a gay Jew." Misplaced Pages is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness. I have no comment on the behavior of Rudi other than I took a peek at the userpage and just saw edits and comments, nothing disruptive, he is of course one against many, it's extremely difficult to be right when faced with just so many wrong editors. Sir Joseph 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC) OID, Halacha is irrelevant in this case. Milo said he is a Jew. So we don't need to see what others say or determine. He self-identified as a Jew. And even if he's not a Jew, he is descended by his mother, so he is of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Masem, forgetting that Milo said he's Jewish, wouldn't the fact that his mother is Jewish make him of "Jewish descent?" Again, there are two categories under discussion, one is identifying Milo as a Jew, and one is identifying his as being of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Mpants, but he has a point though. All those on his list that are of "... Jewish descent" how is that different than Milo who is of Jewish descent?Sir Joseph 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Again, there are two Jew stories here, one Milo said he is a Jew and two, Milo has Jewish ancestry. It's also irrelevant why he chose to self-identify. I'm not commenting on the behavior here, I'm just saying that Milo has said he's Jewish and the sources also say that he is of Jewish ancestry. That some people don't like that fact is irrelevant. Sir Joseph 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Masem, no you are so very wrong. We do not require someone of Jewish descent to be of original bloodline from thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Same as how we have "of Italian descent" or of "Muslim descent". His grandmother/mother is Jewish so he is of Jewish descent. He is also of Greek descent from his father. He is of British descent from his mother (I assume, haven't checked the cats). We use basic common sense, if someone is Jewish, their descendants are of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Shrike The notice was given on 29/01 so any edits before it are irrelevant to this request.Is only about 1 diff.--Shrike (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Shrike I placed a 1RR discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis on 23 Jan 2017. A 1RR edit notice was placed on the article on 24 Jan 2017. It is not possible to edit the article w/o seeing this notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by OID This is an ongoing issue due to the dual nature of Jewish religion/ethnicity. Essentially the argument boils down to 'Is Milo an ethinic or religious Jew and should we categorise them as such'. Lets get the religious aspect out of the way: Milo is not a religious Jew as he is a self-professed practicing catholic. Therefore no Jewish-religious categories are appropriate regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Is Milo an ethnic Jew/of Jewish descent? This is the more problematic question, Halakha states he is - assuming his statement about his maternal grandmother is correct - and there is plenty of criticism/doubt about this out here - generally along the lines of 'Milo claims a Jewish relative in order to deflect criticism of anti-semitism'. The local consensus has been (in this situation with this specific biography) not to categorise them as such due to the various issues (we dont write articles deferring to a Jewish Religious Law interpretation - Halakha is not even observed by all modern jews (or historically in some areas), we dont have details on his grandmother who may have been religious but not an ethinic Jew, there is substantial doubt even regarding said claims etc etc) and to include where necessary in the prose of the article. This of course infuriates the Jew-taggers who feel the need to tag every celebrity they can as Jews. Even in the above post by Sir Joseph (someone who if you frequent the BLP noticeboards you can see also has strong views on who is/isnt a Jew) he comments on 'Misplaced Pages is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness.' - well we dont need to. Milo is 100% not a religious Jew. 'he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother.' - this is a common view of those who do not accept the difference between ethnicity and religion. But to sum up - Rudi's arguments have been listened to and taken into account at the talkpage and rejected. And this disruption is still going on. Categories and infoboxs on biographies of living people are for clear and unambiguous facts, not ambiguous issues (which of course can be explored in the prose) - even more so when it enters core contentious areas like religion, ethnicity (and sexuality although not in this case) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Bradv I was asked to contribute here on my talk page. I have no horse in this race—I showed up after a request for a third opinion was posted, which I declined because there were more than two editors involved. That discussion closed (with a consensus not to identify the subject as Jewish), and then RudiLefkowitz promptly opened a new discussion regarding the same/similar thing. I don't think there is a need for ArbCom enforcement here—this is a simple case of one person with a very strong opinion who edits in a ~~slightly~~ disruptive style. We thought we had a consensus a few days ago, but now it seems like it might be more complicated than we initially thought, and it's time to get some more input on this. I would like to ask RudiLefkowitz if he would agree to abide by the result of an RFC. If he agrees to that, this discussion here would probably be unnecessary. Brad v 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC) After seeing this, I think I may need to adjust my position. RudiLefkowitz is basically threatening to go on a rampage just to make his point. Some intervention is clearly needed. Brad v 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Rudi Removed: As User:Sandstein stated that; categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Anew: Rudi's statement @Sandstein: invites me to address WP:POINT, also in the conext of of this I'm just pointing a future course of action I will soon start to remove/add categories* which is contingent on the answer, final outcome and verdict ...you Are What You Say You Are!? What to do? Should we remove the Category:Jewish atheists completely? at the very same time I'm also continuing to ask for a speedy conclusion, so editing can resume in one or another way: Ex: This is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly! If we don't resolve the question of adding/removing category concerning descent, we will have this discussion all over again on another talk page! It will be Déjà vu! We must avoid being totally engulfed in ideological fads and try to find a principle that can be used equally in other articles. Maybe we should soon move to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. Regards, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC) the same logic runs trough all of my statements and is discernible also here : I think a review/recommendation from a few Misplaced Pages administrators would be needed to validate user:MrX claim about what constitutes a "poor" source. Are the above mentioned "poor" sources and does reporting oneself, one's background make it any less valid? I would like to get this confirmed, before I will systematically apply it on all feature Misplaced Pages biographical articles. Thanks, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC) The logical and totally congruent tone of my argument have been in harmony with my statement that: For some reason this biography in question has been targeted for special a overzealous scrutiny to prevent adding a category that would normally be the conventional common practice in Misplaced Pages. In my humble opinion, we should take inspiration from Kant ’s categorical imperative and try to Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.'' I once agin wrote in the altogether familiar logical and responsive spirit, waiting for directives, on Ad Orientem's talk page: We cannot afford anymore a coram non judice situation and urgently need reasoned and authoritative guidance. Maybe Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom or? If things are read in context and in it's totality the style and tone of the replies do not raise questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Arduously working and pushing for good reasoned principles in editing and arriving at them as ASP and then back to the salt mines! Spirited, - so be it. Things should be read in context! We should not sweep this under the rug, but as User Talk:Masem put it, set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this. Nothing can be done if some one want's to draw blood by twisting my one sentence outside context and not reading everything. Please be kind and solve this issue it by creating a general, prospective, coherent, clear, and practicable framework. That's hard, but slapping me on the wrist, will be easy and a just going a bit over the top. Writing and wrenching about the whole issue is misery enough. I give up. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Ad Orientem: The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of this "forums". I hope you have read my arguments above and could entertain the argument that there can be no real "threat", if the intended action is in contingent with asking for a final recommendation and speedy conclusion, and thus being able proceed on that very note in a systematic way. Where is the harm in underlining the urgency of the matter and waiting for a response? Please explain, so I could understand. But please read the mentioned texts above. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC) I end by quoting anonymously a person who participated in the even earlier debates concerning the wilful censoring and removal of references and sources indicating Mr. Yiannopoulos background and descent by a cadre of editors with possible other underlying motives. - And this is why Misplaced Pages is a joke. Do what you want to the article, I'm taking it off my watchlist. As always, bias wins over truth. - So going on a sabbatical. Tired and fed up with the endless use of[REDACTED] for politically charged edits, bad tempered blaming and then snitching. And as always -Thank you. I apologise, if someone felt abrasively confuted. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Ad Orientem Coming Soon: I have been on the road all day and just returned home. My inbox is overflowing. Give me a few to get caught up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Ok. I think I am pretty much up to speed on this. First I want to clarify that my involvement in this dispute has been purely as an Admin trying to put a lid on edit warring and what appeared to be a heated content dispute on an article dealing with one of the more controversial figures in modern politics. I have taken no position on the underlying dispute. Which is to say I am not INVOLVED in the content dispute. That said I wish to make the following points after which I will make some conclusions. On January 23 I placed a Discretionary Sanctions Notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis specifically applying WP:1RR. On January 24th I placed a 1RR Edit Notice on the article itself. It was therefore not possible to edit the article w/o being aware that it was subject to 1RR and other discretionary sanctions. On January 26 the first discussion regarding the question of MY's Jewish identity/ancestry was closed with a strong consensus against identifying him as Jewish. Towards the end of this debate Rudi had changed his position to one of inserting a category identifying MY as being of Jewish Descent, vice actually being Jewish. During the course of this dispute and after being warned about his obsessive editing, Rudi launched multiple appeals in different venues in what has been described, accurately I believe, as FORUMSHOPPING. Subsequently Rudi opened another discussion concerning the claim of MY's Jewish descent. During this period I cautioned Rudi on his talk page that his editing was becoming tendentious and appeared to be agenda oriented to the point of being an obsession. He was reminded by myself and others that discretionary sanctions were in effect. On January 28 Rudi reinserted the disputed category claiming MY's Jewish descent. This was subsequently reverted by Bradv. There followed a very short edit war in which both parties violated 1RR. After issuing cautions to both, Bradv admitted his lapse and self reverted and I then restored the last pre-edit war version. I decided in my edit summary to treat the matter as good faith editing if lacking in good judgement and chose not to impose any sanctions. On January 29 Rudi made an edit, already discussed by other parties, that was clearly a violation of WP:POINT and in my opinion was disruptive. I immediately reverted the edit and warned Rudi that he was courting a topic ban. On January 30 Rudi was blocked for 48hrs for the January 28 edit warring following a complaint filed by Bradv. I was not involved in this. Today on 1 February Rudi left a notice on my talk page, already discussed by other involved parties above, threatening a series of edits that are in my opinion both POINTY and DISRUPTIVE. Conclusions We have reached the point where Rudi's editing has crossed the line from aggressive advocacy for a position in a content dispute to tendentious editing and now disruptive edtiting and threats of more disruptive editing in an effort to make a WP:POINT. Although I am technically not involved in the underlying dispute, out of an abundance of caution I am going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here myself. That said... I propose that Rudi be topic banned from Milo Yiannopoulis and any categories or discussion of categories relating to persons who are, or who are suspected of being, either Jewish or of Jewish descent. I would leave open the possibility of requesting a review of the topic ban after two years, conditional on his strictly abiding by it. It is clear that Rudi is obsessed with this subject and his editing has become disruptive. I further propose that Rudi be blocked for a period of not less than two weeks for posting threats of disruptive editing on my talk page. If the AE request had not been posted, I would simply do all this myself based on his threats left on my talk page. But again, out of extreme caution I will let another admin deal with this as they see fit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by MrX RudiLefkowitz's unhealthy obsession with the need to describe Yiannopoulos as Jewish has become very disruptive. He has ignored policy-based argument from multiple editors, cited weak-to-poor sources, misrepresented sources, used original research, repeated arguments ad nauseum, threatened to disrupt other articles, edit warred, and forum shopped. Based on my limited involvement with the article, I believe a topic ban of some sort is in order.- Mr X 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Result concerning RudiLefkowitz This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Only commenting to affirm a key point in OID's statement: there is a long-standing Wiki-wide issue of differentiating the term "Jewish" between bloodline/genetics-related meaning, and the faith-based meaning, in conjunction with how Jewish practice can seem to conflate the terms, which often gets into long-winded battles. I think a separate RFC is needed to have some wiki-consistent policy about making sure the difference between these terms is 100% crystal clear for purposes of writing an encyclopedia. This specific case seems the latest argument over the terminology issue. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Sir Joseph: The problem that I know we've discussed before is the meaning of the phrase "Jewish descent" in a context-less manner. This implies, in every normal context outside the Jewish religion, that it is bloodline-related to the original Jewish tribes from the Middle East. It is complicated by the aspect of Jewish religion that says that regardless of ancestry a child of a practicing member of the Jewish faith can call themselves of Jewish descent. It is yet further complicated that there were discrete Jewish tribes that were not created by the Diaspora (eg Ethopian Jews). Hence the need for a discussion to set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this, while both respecting the Jewish faith definitions but without sacrificing our own clarity. There's behavioral problems at play at this AE, but this fundamentally rests on a standing content problem that needs to be solved. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Whether certain categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. We only address violations of conduct rules. The diffs submitted as evidence in the complaint do not all establish such violations. As to diff 1, adding "Category:British people of Jewish descent" to an article is, in and of itself, merely a content issue, and the complaint does not make clear how it violates conduct policy (such as WP:BLP). As to diff 2, a single (apparent) revert is not sufficient to constitute edit-warring; and in any case the user was apparently blocked for such after the edit at issue, which makes it moot for sanctioning at this time. Diff 3 is the only one that could be actionable per WP:POINT, also in the light of this, and I invite RudiLefkowitz to address this. (I have not read all of the additional comments by MPants at work because they by far exceed the 500 words limit.) Sandstein 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC) The also overlong reply by RudiLefkowitz is unhelpful. They go on and on and in a confusing manner about the content dispute, which as explained is irrelevant here, and to the extent they address the WP:POINT issues, they do not do so convincingly; indeed, the style and tone of their reply raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Based on this, I think a topic ban from US politics BLPs might be appropriate. I'd like to hear from Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) first, though, who has been following this as an admin. Sandstein 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC) This (and the similar posting above) suggests that some sort of restriction is necessary. That reads to me like threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Taking into account the contributions in this discussion, including those by Ad Orientem in their capacity as an admin, it appears clear that there is a conduct problem with RudiLefkowitz at least insofar as they have threatened to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, and have not addressed or recognized this problem in their somewhat ... disjointed reply (which they have edited multiple times). The overly excited tone and tenor of RudiLefkowitz's reply also leads me to believe that they are temperamentally not well suited to collaborative editing in a politically charged environment. Accordingly, RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from editing anything related to biographies of living persons (BLPs) closely related to the post-1932 politics of the United States (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Milo Yiannopoulos). They are invited to appeal this ban after six months by showing evidence of productive, collegial collaboration in other BLP-related articles. Sandstein 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned from US politics-related BLPs. Sandstein 08:49, 2 February 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 RudiLefkowitz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: RudiLefkowitz (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#Discretionary_sanctions_.281932_cutoff.29 :

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

(see additional comments by editor filing complaint for additional diffs evincing problematic behavior which occurred prior to the imposition of DS.)

21:03, 28 January 2017 This is well after the DS sanctions had been imposed, and Rudi had been warned by the admin that his editing was disruptive and a BLP policy violation. Note that while he's addressed the first complaints about his edit (that Milo's not a practicing jew) by choosing an ethnicity-oriented category this time, he's still not addressing the fact that most RSes question Milo's claim of having a Jewish grandmother.
21:45, 28 January 2017 Edit warring again.
17:51, 29 January 2017 At this point, he decides to make a pointy edit, removing a category from the page pertaining to Milo's ethnicity. In reverting this, admin Ad Orientem warns Rudi that he's "about one disruptive edit away from a topic ban."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

03:10, 30 January 2017 Blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring at this article. Rudi's first edit after the block expired (aside from blanking his talk page) was back on the Milo talk page, jumping right back into the subject as if nothing had happened.

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

Problematic edits prior to the imposition of DS

13:14, 23 January 2017 This was the initial edit which kicked it off. Rudi clearly understood that Milo is accepted to be a practicing Catholic, yet nonetheless took to adding a category reserved for practicing Jews.
13:30, 23 January 2017‎ After being reverted, he proceeded to edit war the category back in (this was prior to the imposition of DS on this page, with Rudi's edits being the reason for their imposition)
13:36, 23 January 2017‎ He then proceeded to edit other parts of the article, replacing attributed claims with the same claims in wikivoice (stated as facts) to support his case.
14:12, 23 January 2017 He then continues to edit war his claims into the article
14:13, 23 January 2017 He also continued to edit war his preferred category back in. Notice the broken category.
15:02, 23 January 2017 Continuing to edit war the broken category back in; accusing other editors of "cherry picking" and "censor"ing him in the edit summary. (Note that by this point, the problems with his edit have been explained to him multiple times at talk.)

In addition to the diffs above, Rudi has engaged in forum shopping and canvassing in order to attempt to force the rest of us to accept his views.

The source of the problem seems to be a potent case of selective dyslexia. Rudi's tactic throughout this has been to ignore any criticism of his arguments, and simply to repeat those arguments ad nauseum. It has been pointed out to him numerous times that RSes are highly skeptical of Milo's claimed Jewish ancestry, yet Rudi simply presumes that his one source which treats the claims as facts (in a passing mention, no less) must be accurate and ignores the rest. He's never once responded to anyone pointing out that the preponderance of RSes don't take Milo's claim seriously. Instead, he has taken to hinting at antisemitic motives for those of us opposed to his edit.

@MjolnirPants:: What you have just said is blatantly false! I never thought or wrote something that would "hint at antisemitic motives"! If you did not concoct up what you just wrote then you have grossly misread. The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of them. On the charge of canvassing, I plead a bit guilty after familiarising myself with what that "charge" meant. Tried getting people on bord to argue against, in my humble view, "politicised editing and censorship" (i.e. WIKIPEDIA:NOTADVOCATE). But throwing in inappropriate words like "dyslexia" is very uncouth and reveal's your true colours. I have never stooped so low with anyone, even with you, and hope for an sincere apology. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, at the talk page, his level of engagement with others is highly questionable, and his editing style is highly disruptive. For example, after Rudi posted this comment, I attempted to respond multiple times for approximately 20 minutes, only to get an edit conflict every single time. Compare the difference between his initial edit and the current (as of now) version: even if I'd gotten my response posted, it would have been a response to an edit which, substantially, no longer exists. This level of difficulty in responding to him has been the rule since this drama started. It is not unusual for Rudi to continue making numerous minor and major edits to his comments for up to 45 minutes after initially posting them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Responses

@Shrike:, There are three notices shown, notice of BLP DSes was given at Rudi's talk on the 23rd, and notice of the US politics ds and the 1rr restriction given on the talk page on the 23rd, as well. Considering that Rudi edited the talk page 34 times between then and the DS notice on his user page, claims that he wasn't aware of the DSA sanctions are highly spurious. Nonetheless, I have moved diffs of all edits prior to the imposition of sanctions (which happened at the same time as the notice at the talk page) to this section. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to everyone involved: This is not a content dispute. With respect to the content dispute, there is a fairly obvious consensus at the talk page. This is about the disruption Rudi has been causing to the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: Now he seems to be threatening to make pointy edits to a large number of other articles. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Two things: First, you are completely ignoring the fact that numerous RSes have questioned or expressed skepticism as to his claim of having Jewish ancestry in order to create this false impression of the argument being about whether a BLP subject is a sufficiently reliable source for such claims. That's extremely dishonest. The reason for the current content dispute, which has been explained to both of you before, by more than one editor, is that the RSes question this claim. It's not because it came from the subject. Second, even assuming you were absolutely correct, I'd have to ask you to point me to the part of WP policy which states that it's okay to violate policy if you think you're right. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Excluding my responses to other editors here and my signature, and including the list of diffs at the top, the additional comments are only 438 words long. Diff 1 occurred after DS had been imposed, and constituted the 6th problematic edit since Rudi began pushing this issue. There are 6 edits prior to the imposition of DS on this article at the top of this section. I do not consider the first edit to be problematic per se, but useful in establishing the timeline. There is a clear slow edit war going on, here. Furthermore, my comments point out and provide diffs to evidence serious disruption of the talk page, and a threat to make mass pointy edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning RudiLefkowitz

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 RudiLefkowitz

Statement by Sir Joseph

It's very hard for me to comment without violating guidelines so I'll be brief. There is ample evidence that Milo's mother and grandmother is Jewish. In addition, Milo stated, "I am a gay Jew." As for the categories, there are two categories in question, one was British Jews and one is British of Jewish descent. Even if you don't want to say Milo is Jewish, he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother. Furthermore, Milo self-identified as being Jewish when he said, "I am a gay Jew." Misplaced Pages is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness. I have no comment on the behavior of Rudi other than I took a peek at the userpage and just saw edits and comments, nothing disruptive, he is of course one against many, it's extremely difficult to be right when faced with just so many wrong editors. Sir Joseph 16:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

OID, Halacha is irrelevant in this case. Milo said he is a Jew. So we don't need to see what others say or determine. He self-identified as a Jew. And even if he's not a Jew, he is descended by his mother, so he is of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Masem, forgetting that Milo said he's Jewish, wouldn't the fact that his mother is Jewish make him of "Jewish descent?" Again, there are two categories under discussion, one is identifying Milo as a Jew, and one is identifying his as being of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mpants, but he has a point though. All those on his list that are of "... Jewish descent" how is that different than Milo who is of Jewish descent?Sir Joseph 19:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, there are two Jew stories here, one Milo said he is a Jew and two, Milo has Jewish ancestry. It's also irrelevant why he chose to self-identify. I'm not commenting on the behavior here, I'm just saying that Milo has said he's Jewish and the sources also say that he is of Jewish ancestry. That some people don't like that fact is irrelevant. Sir Joseph 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Masem, no you are so very wrong. We do not require someone of Jewish descent to be of original bloodline from thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Same as how we have "of Italian descent" or of "Muslim descent". His grandmother/mother is Jewish so he is of Jewish descent. He is also of Greek descent from his father. He is of British descent from his mother (I assume, haven't checked the cats). We use basic common sense, if someone is Jewish, their descendants are of Jewish descent. Sir Joseph 20:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

The notice was given on 29/01 so any edits before it are irrelevant to this request.Is only about 1 diff.--Shrike (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shrike I placed a 1RR discretionary sanctions notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis on 23 Jan 2017. A 1RR edit notice was placed on the article on 24 Jan 2017. It is not possible to edit the article w/o seeing this notice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by OID

This is an ongoing issue due to the dual nature of Jewish religion/ethnicity. Essentially the argument boils down to 'Is Milo an ethinic or religious Jew and should we categorise them as such'. Lets get the religious aspect out of the way: Milo is not a religious Jew as he is a self-professed practicing catholic. Therefore no Jewish-religious categories are appropriate regardless of how anyone else feels about it. Is Milo an ethnic Jew/of Jewish descent? This is the more problematic question, Halakha states he is - assuming his statement about his maternal grandmother is correct - and there is plenty of criticism/doubt about this out here - generally along the lines of 'Milo claims a Jewish relative in order to deflect criticism of anti-semitism'. The local consensus has been (in this situation with this specific biography) not to categorise them as such due to the various issues (we dont write articles deferring to a Jewish Religious Law interpretation - Halakha is not even observed by all modern jews (or historically in some areas), we dont have details on his grandmother who may have been religious but not an ethinic Jew, there is substantial doubt even regarding said claims etc etc) and to include where necessary in the prose of the article. This of course infuriates the Jew-taggers who feel the need to tag every celebrity they can as Jews. Even in the above post by Sir Joseph (someone who if you frequent the BLP noticeboards you can see also has strong views on who is/isnt a Jew) he comments on 'Misplaced Pages is not the place to judge someone's level of religiousness.' - well we dont need to. Milo is 100% not a religious Jew. 'he is clearly of Jewish descent since he is descended by his mother.' - this is a common view of those who do not accept the difference between ethnicity and religion. But to sum up - Rudi's arguments have been listened to and taken into account at the talkpage and rejected. And this disruption is still going on. Categories and infoboxs on biographies of living people are for clear and unambiguous facts, not ambiguous issues (which of course can be explored in the prose) - even more so when it enters core contentious areas like religion, ethnicity (and sexuality although not in this case) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Bradv

I was asked to contribute here on my talk page. I have no horse in this race—I showed up after a request for a third opinion was posted, which I declined because there were more than two editors involved. That discussion closed (with a consensus not to identify the subject as Jewish), and then RudiLefkowitz promptly opened a new discussion regarding the same/similar thing. I don't think there is a need for ArbCom enforcement here—this is a simple case of one person with a very strong opinion who edits in a ~~slightly~~ disruptive style. We thought we had a consensus a few days ago, but now it seems like it might be more complicated than we initially thought, and it's time to get some more input on this.

I would like to ask RudiLefkowitz if he would agree to abide by the result of an RFC. If he agrees to that, this discussion here would probably be unnecessary. Brad v 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

After seeing this, I think I may need to adjust my position. RudiLefkowitz is basically threatening to go on a rampage just to make his point. Some intervention is clearly needed. Brad v 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Rudi

Removed: As User:Sandstein stated that; categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. RudiLefkowitz (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Anew: Rudi's statement

*@Sandstein: invites me to address WP:POINT, also in the conext of of this

I'm just pointing a future course of action I will soon start to remove/add categories which is contingent on the answer, final outcome and verdict ...you Are What You Say You Are!? What to do? Should we remove the Category:Jewish atheists completely?

at the very same time I'm also continuing to ask for a speedy conclusion, so editing can resume in one or another way: Ex: This is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly! If we don't resolve the question of adding/removing category concerning descent, we will have this discussion all over again on another talk page! It will be Déjà vu! We must avoid being totally engulfed in ideological fads and try to find a principle that can be used equally in other articles. Maybe we should soon move to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom. Regards, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

the same logic runs trough all of my statements and is discernible also here : I think a review/recommendation from a few Misplaced Pages administrators would be needed to validate user:MrX claim about what constitutes a "poor" source. Are the above mentioned "poor" sources and does reporting oneself, one's background make it any less valid? I would like to get this confirmed, before I will systematically apply it on all feature Misplaced Pages biographical articles. Thanks, RudiLefkowitz - RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The logical and totally congruent tone of my argument have been in harmony with my statement that: For some reason this biography in question has been targeted for special a overzealous scrutiny to prevent adding a category that would normally be the conventional common practice in Misplaced Pages. In my humble opinion, we should take inspiration from Kant ’s categorical imperative and try to Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.''

I once agin wrote in the altogether familiar logical and responsive spirit, waiting for directives, on Ad Orientem's talk page: We cannot afford anymore a coram non judice situation and urgently need reasoned and authoritative guidance. Maybe Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution requests/ArbCom or?

If things are read in context and in it's totality the style and tone of the replies do not raise questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Arduously working and pushing for good reasoned principles in editing and arriving at them as ASP and then back to the salt mines! Spirited, - so be it. Things should be read in context! We should not sweep this under the rug, but as User Talk:Masem put it, set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this. Nothing can be done if some one want's to draw blood by twisting my one sentence outside context and not reading everything. Please be kind and solve this issue it by creating a general, prospective, coherent, clear, and practicable framework. That's hard, but slapping me on the wrist, will be easy and a just going a bit over the top. Writing and wrenching about the whole issue is misery enough. I give up. Thank you. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: The accusation of "forum shopping" is only correct in that I was erroneously trying venues that I thought could be relevant without knowing them, (no harm intended). Have not been in severe arguments before, so no need of this "forums". I hope you have read my arguments above and could entertain the argument that there can be no real "threat", if the intended action is in contingent with asking for a final recommendation and speedy conclusion, and thus being able proceed on that very note in a systematic way. Where is the harm in underlining the urgency of the matter and waiting for a response? Please explain, so I could understand. But please read the mentioned texts above. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I end by quoting anonymously a person who participated in the even earlier debates concerning the wilful censoring and removal of references and sources indicating Mr. Yiannopoulos background and descent by a cadre of editors with possible other underlying motives. - And this is why Misplaced Pages is a joke. Do what you want to the article, I'm taking it off my watchlist. As always, bias wins over truth. - So going on a sabbatical. Tired and fed up with the endless use of[REDACTED] for politically charged edits, bad tempered blaming and then snitching. And as always -Thank you. I apologise, if someone felt abrasively confuted. Regards, RudiLefkowitz (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Ad Orientem

Coming Soon: I have been on the road all day and just returned home. My inbox is overflowing. Give me a few to get caught up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I think I am pretty much up to speed on this. First I want to clarify that my involvement in this dispute has been purely as an Admin trying to put a lid on edit warring and what appeared to be a heated content dispute on an article dealing with one of the more controversial figures in modern politics. I have taken no position on the underlying dispute. Which is to say I am not INVOLVED in the content dispute. That said I wish to make the following points after which I will make some conclusions.
- On January 23 I placed a Discretionary Sanctions Notice on the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulis specifically applying WP:1RR.
- On January 24th I placed a 1RR Edit Notice on the article itself. It was therefore not possible to edit the article w/o being aware that it was subject to 1RR and other discretionary sanctions.
- On January 26 the first discussion regarding the question of MY's Jewish identity/ancestry was closed with a strong consensus against identifying him as Jewish. Towards the end of this debate Rudi had changed his position to one of inserting a category identifying MY as being of Jewish Descent, vice actually being Jewish.
- During the course of this dispute and after being warned about his obsessive editing, Rudi launched multiple appeals in different venues in what has been described, accurately I believe, as FORUMSHOPPING.
- Subsequently Rudi opened another discussion concerning the claim of MY's Jewish descent.
- During this period I cautioned Rudi on his talk page that his editing was becoming tendentious and appeared to be agenda oriented to the point of being an obsession. He was reminded by myself and others that discretionary sanctions were in effect.
- On January 28 Rudi reinserted the disputed category claiming MY's Jewish descent. This was subsequently reverted by Bradv. There followed a very short edit war in which both parties violated 1RR. After issuing cautions to both, Bradv admitted his lapse and self reverted and I then restored the last pre-edit war version. I decided in my edit summary to treat the matter as good faith editing if lacking in good judgement and chose not to impose any sanctions.
- On January 29 Rudi made an edit, already discussed by other parties, that was clearly a violation of WP:POINT and in my opinion was disruptive. I immediately reverted the edit and warned Rudi that he was courting a topic ban.
- On January 30 Rudi was blocked for 48hrs for the January 28 edit warring following a complaint filed by Bradv. I was not involved in this.
- Today on 1 February Rudi left a notice on my talk page, already discussed by other involved parties above, threatening a series of edits that are in my opinion both POINTY and DISRUPTIVE.

Conclusions We have reached the point where Rudi's editing has crossed the line from aggressive advocacy for a position in a content dispute to tendentious editing and now disruptive edtiting and threats of more disruptive editing in an effort to make a WP:POINT. Although I am technically not involved in the underlying dispute, out of an abundance of caution I am going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here myself. That said...

I propose that Rudi be topic banned from Milo Yiannopoulis and any categories or discussion of categories relating to persons who are, or who are suspected of being, either Jewish or of Jewish descent. I would leave open the possibility of requesting a review of the topic ban after two years, conditional on his strictly abiding by it. It is clear that Rudi is obsessed with this subject and his editing has become disruptive.

I further propose that Rudi be blocked for a period of not less than two weeks for posting threats of disruptive editing on my talk page. If the AE request had not been posted, I would simply do all this myself based on his threats left on my talk page. But again, out of extreme caution I will let another admin deal with this as they see fit.

-Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

RudiLefkowitz's unhealthy obsession with the need to describe Yiannopoulos as Jewish has become very disruptive. He has ignored policy-based argument from multiple editors, cited weak-to-poor sources, misrepresented sources, used original research, repeated arguments ad nauseum, threatened to disrupt other articles, edit warred, and forum shopped. Based on my limited involvement with the article, I believe a topic ban of some sort is in order.- Mr X 04:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Result concerning RudiLefkowitz

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

Only commenting to affirm a key point in OID's statement: there is a long-standing Wiki-wide issue of differentiating the term "Jewish" between bloodline/genetics-related meaning, and the faith-based meaning, in conjunction with how Jewish practice can seem to conflate the terms, which often gets into long-winded battles. I think a separate RFC is needed to have some wiki-consistent policy about making sure the difference between these terms is 100% crystal clear for purposes of writing an encyclopedia. This specific case seems the latest argument over the terminology issue. --MASEM (t) 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: The problem that I know we've discussed before is the meaning of the phrase "Jewish descent" in a context-less manner. This implies, in every normal context outside the Jewish religion, that it is bloodline-related to the original Jewish tribes from the Middle East. It is complicated by the aspect of Jewish religion that says that regardless of ancestry a child of a practicing member of the Jewish faith can call themselves of Jewish descent. It is yet further complicated that there were discrete Jewish tribes that were not created by the Diaspora (eg Ethopian Jews). Hence the need for a discussion to set a framework to how to properly use these various terms in a manner that avoids disputes like this, while both respecting the Jewish faith definitions but without sacrificing our own clarity. There's behavioral problems at play at this AE, but this fundamentally rests on a standing content problem that needs to be solved. --MASEM (t) 20:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Whether certain categories concerning ethnicity or religion should be applied to a certain article or not is a content dispute. Arbitration, and by extension arbitration enforcement, does not decide content disputes. We only address violations of conduct rules. The diffs submitted as evidence in the complaint do not all establish such violations. As to diff 1, adding "Category:British people of Jewish descent" to an article is, in and of itself, merely a content issue, and the complaint does not make clear how it violates conduct policy (such as WP:BLP). As to diff 2, a single (apparent) revert is not sufficient to constitute edit-warring; and in any case the user was apparently blocked for such after the edit at issue, which makes it moot for sanctioning at this time. Diff 3 is the only one that could be actionable per WP:POINT, also in the light of this, and I invite RudiLefkowitz to address this. (I have not read all of the additional comments by MPants at work because they by far exceed the 500 words limit.) Sandstein 20:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The also overlong reply by RudiLefkowitz is unhelpful. They go on and on and in a confusing manner about the content dispute, which as explained is irrelevant here, and to the extent they address the WP:POINT issues, they do not do so convincingly; indeed, the style and tone of their reply raises questions of WP:COMPETENCE. Based on this, I think a topic ban from US politics BLPs might be appropriate. I'd like to hear from Ad Orientem (talk · contribs) first, though, who has been following this as an admin. Sandstein 21:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This (and the similar posting above) suggests that some sort of restriction is necessary. That reads to me like threatening to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking into account the contributions in this discussion, including those by Ad Orientem in their capacity as an admin, it appears clear that there is a conduct problem with RudiLefkowitz at least insofar as they have threatened to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point, and have not addressed or recognized this problem in their somewhat ... disjointed reply (which they have edited multiple times). The overly excited tone and tenor of RudiLefkowitz's reply also leads me to believe that they are temperamentally not well suited to collaborative editing in a politically charged environment. Accordingly, RudiLefkowitz is topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from editing anything related to biographies of living persons (BLPs) closely related to the post-1932 politics of the United States (including, for the avoidance of doubt, Milo Yiannopoulos). They are invited to appeal this ban after six months by showing evidence of productive, collegial collaboration in other BLP-related articles. Sandstein 08:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Kuioooooo

No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 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 Kuioooooo User who is submitting this request for enforcement Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kuioooooo (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 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Feb 5 20:53 I removed the claim that his loan from an Israeli bank is a government connection. Feb 6 16:12 He then reverts, violating DS by not seeking consensus for a challenged edit. I then revert back to the way it was prior to his violation of DS, (using my 1revert in the process). Feb 6 16:14 He then reverts me violating his 1RR and DS for not seeking consensus. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Date Explanation Date Explanation If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) In the talk page. In edit notice on page when editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764063225 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel." seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection. I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda. On the talk page, he is doubling down, with this, "Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 4:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)" Clearly someone has an agenda, when they are pushing government regulation as a source to be government connection. Just to add, disregarding everything else, the claim that Kushner has a loan from Hapaolim is unsourced. (Which would possibly make it a BLP violation since it would insinuate that Kushner is beholden to a foreign government.) Sandstein, I apologize, I fixed the diffs. Also, the edit notice only mentions BLP, but all the diffs I brought were after I posted the DS to his talk page. There were prior reverts, but he was not properly notified before, even though the talk page specifies. (Also, I am not sure why the claim that someone has a loan with a bank means they have contact with a government. I have an account with a US bank, does that mean I have connections with the US?) Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet. Georgewilliamherbert, his first revert was a violation of ds, not 1rr. His second revert was a violation of 1rr (and ds) And as for your claim of clubbing, please note I gave several courtesy warnings. Sir Joseph 02:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119 Discussion concerning Kuioooooo 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 Kuioooooo I only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox That editor was reverted by Jim1138 . I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Kuioooooo This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Sir Joseph, please format your request such that all diffs are identified by date and time. Also, tell us why you think that Kuioooooo was aware of the 1RR restriction at the time of their last revert. It doesn't seem to show up in the edit notice. Sandstein 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Kuioooooo, please tell us why you should not be sanctioned for re-adding obviously contentious material about a WP:BLP (a) that is based only on a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and (b) is based on a source that does even not name the person at issue and seems therefore unsuited as a basis for the statement you sought to add? Sandstein 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC) I think we can overlook the issues given that everyone backed off to the talk page. I suspect the removal by Ryk72 is correct but it's not all so obviously wrong or unsourced that zero tolerance is needed. Sir Joseph, your timeline accuses him of a problem on his first revert, which is not how it works unless 0RR is applied (and it is not for this article). AE is not a club to beat disagreeing editors with. Kuioooooo, you need to pay attention to the content criticisms in the talk page. Try and move beyond going back and forth with Sir Joseph and discuss with others there. I would close no action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Agree with closing as no action, but on different grounds. Even as amended the complaint does not make clear that Kuioooooo was properly notified of the applicable sanctions before the edits at issue. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

No action taken. Sandstein 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Kuioooooo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kuioooooo (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 :

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

Feb 5 20:53 I removed the claim that his loan from an Israeli bank is a government connection.
Feb 6 16:12 He then reverts, violating DS by not seeking consensus for a challenged edit.
I then revert back to the way it was prior to his violation of DS, (using my 1revert in the process).
Feb 6 16:14 He then reverts me violating his 1RR and DS for not seeking consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

In the talk page.
In edit notice on page when editing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764063225

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Even before my alert, he has been reverting other users without gaining consensus. Furthermore, this sentence of his, "He has received multiple loans from Israel’s largest bank, Bank Hapoalim, a publicly held banking corporation organized and operating under Israeli law, and subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel-owned Bank of Israel."

seems to me to be just a weasley way to include that Kushner has a loan from Bank Hapoalim. Every bank in the world is under comprehensive supervision of the government of the country they are in. Bank Hapoalim is not a government bank and merely having a loan outstanding from that bank is not a government connection.

I have also given the editor a courtesy notice to revert and discuss but that went unheeded. User is a new editor and perhaps doesn't know the rules, but I have tried to engage and judging from his recent posts seems to be pushing an agenda.

On the talk page, he is doubling down, with this, "Bank Hapoalim is not only merely regulated under Israeli law, it's also subject to comprehensive supervision by the Government of Israel.--Kuioooooo (talk) 4:44 pm, Today (UTC−5)" Clearly someone has an agenda, when they are pushing government regulation as a source to be government connection.
Just to add, disregarding everything else, the claim that Kushner has a loan from Hapaolim is unsourced. (Which would possibly make it a BLP violation since it would insinuate that Kushner is beholden to a foreign government.)
Sandstein, I apologize, I fixed the diffs. Also, the edit notice only mentions BLP, but all the diffs I brought were after I posted the DS to his talk page. There were prior reverts, but he was not properly notified before, even though the talk page specifies. (Also, I am not sure why the claim that someone has a loan with a bank means they have contact with a government. I have an account with a US bank, does that mean I have connections with the US?)

Also, the NYTimes source was not in the edit, it was added recently. In addition, I don't appreciate being called a sockpuppet.

Georgewilliamherbert, his first revert was a violation of ds, not 1rr. His second revert was a violation of 1rr (and ds) And as for your claim of clubbing, please note I gave several courtesy warnings. Sir Joseph 02:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Kuioooooo&oldid=764067119

Discussion concerning Kuioooooo

Statement by Kuioooooo

I only revert once in 24 hrs, as allowed by the discretionary sanctions, and only reverted Sir Joseph once ever.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That said, Sir Joseph removed well-sourced relevant content that have been in the article for sometime, and after getting reverted, they are supposed to get consensus before attempting to remove the extant version again.--Kuioooooo (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The whole section was removed earlier by a new account with 17 edits to date, the first 10 being on their own Sandbox That editor was reverted by Jim1138 . I strongly believe some kind of sockpuppetry is going on here.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Also see Talk:Jared Kushner (Government relations section), user Sir Joseph first pretended that they couldn't find the NYTimes source that's been in the article for sometime, then claiming that stating relevant facts as they are, under relevant section, is not right.--Kuioooooo (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kuioooooo

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

Sir Joseph, please format your request such that all diffs are identified by date and time. Also, tell us why you think that Kuioooooo was aware of the 1RR restriction at the time of their last revert. It doesn't seem to show up in the edit notice. Sandstein 22:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Kuioooooo, please tell us why you should not be sanctioned for re-adding obviously contentious material about a WP:BLP (a) that is based only on a primary source, in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, and (b) is based on a source that does even not name the person at issue and seems therefore unsuited as a basis for the statement you sought to add? Sandstein 22:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I think we can overlook the issues given that everyone backed off to the talk page. I suspect the removal by Ryk72 is correct but it's not all so obviously wrong or unsourced that zero tolerance is needed. Sir Joseph, your timeline accuses him of a problem on his first revert, which is not how it works unless 0RR is applied (and it is not for this article). AE is not a club to beat disagreeing editors with. Kuioooooo, you need to pay attention to the content criticisms in the talk page. Try and move beyond going back and forth with Sir Joseph and discuss with others there.

I would close no action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with closing as no action, but on different grounds. Even as amended the complaint does not make clear that Kuioooooo was properly notified of the applicable sanctions before the edits at issue. Closing accordingly. Sandstein 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Islington Bloor

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Islington Bloor User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Islington Bloor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate. 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 Additional comments by editor filing complaint I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc." Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Islington Bloor 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 Islington Bloor As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with. (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Misplaced Pages is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Misplaced Pages Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Misplaced Pages. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Iazyges I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC) @Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC) I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Statement by Exemplo347 This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through. Statement by (username) Result concerning Islington Bloor This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC) The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. Sandstein 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Request concerning Islington Bloor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_3#500.2F30 :

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

09/02/2017 Participating in RFC that new users shouldn't participate.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I probably don't think any sanction is warranted against a user(though some of the comments of the user raise the question if the user is really new) but I ask that EC protection should be applied on a Talk:Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy till the end of the RFC as new users can't participate in it per language of the restriction " This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Islington Bloor

Statement by Islington Bloor

As I said when I restored the comment it's improper for an involved editor to remove someone else's comment. The closing admin can decide for themselves whether to accord my comment less weight becauee I'm a new editor. It's not for Shrike to, using a technicality as a pretext, ynilaterally remove a comment he coincidentally happens to disagree with.

- (responding to Laser brain's comment) I didn't edit the article. I contributed an opinion to the discussion on the talk page. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: The absurdity of your position here is I would be able to comment on a deletion discussion but not in a name change discussion. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  - @Laser brain: I guess I could take the easy route and say that I actually am an established user who lost his password a few weeks ago and opened a new account but I see that you've actually gone to the extent of crossing out my comments in the Talk page of the article. That act is such a magnificent monument to bureaucratic stupidity and officiousness that it would be a shame to remove it and, in any case, I don't have the patience and can't be bothered to jump through whatever bureaucratic hoops are required to prove that I had a previous account and besides, even though the other account has not been accessed in weeks and cannot be accessed and this new account was opened subsequently and has not edited concurrently with any other account I'm sure you or some other bureaucratic idiot would say oh, it's a sockpuppet and then I'd have to go through some tedious lengthy procedure to prove that no, I'm not a sockpuppet. So how about this laser brain. You can let it sink in that you are a manifestation of all the worst bureaucratic stupidity of wikipedia, part of the reason why so many editors give up and leave in frustration and why the number of active editors is on the decline and why Misplaced Pages is becoming more and more sclerotic and I'll simply disable my account and go off and do something more productive with my time like watch paint dry. Congratulations. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: Schroedinger's Misplaced Pages Account? First you argue that I"m probably not a new user "suspicious for a new user" and now you argue that I obviously am a new user "your seeming lack of knowledge... seems to go against your claims"? Somehow, by your argument, I simultaneously am a new user and am not. Again, this is the sort of culture of bureaucratic stupidity and sophistry that drives people away from Misplaced Pages. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I've scrambled my password and am now logging off in order to do something useful instead of this nonsense. Islington Bloor (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Iazyges

I don't think this breaks any DS, but I do think it should get sent to either SPI, or ANI. That they commented in an RFC (or even found one) is suspicious for a new user, considering they commented before even creating their own user page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Islington Bloor: please move your comment to your own section, per instructions on the top. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have not commented already in that "vote" under any other name or edited the article but feel free to run an analysis. Islington Bloor (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, please comment in your own section. I would also say that regardless of if your claim of being a new account of an old user is true, you are REQUIRED to say so, unless you are taking a fresh start, which you obviously aren't given you outed yourself (which clean starters aren't supposed to do). Your seeming lack of knowledge in certain areas seems to go against your claims as well. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't think any action is warranted, at this point. We can just strike the comment at the RFC. If the editor continues to unstrike or reinsert the comment, then further action can be taken. Sir Joseph 15:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Why not simply mark the comment as a new comment? The comment is civil and constructive, the content is not at all objectionable, is it? Islington Bloor (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Exemplo347

This is the 3rd or 4th time I've seen an attempt by someone to get an Arb. Sanction widened because they're having a dispute with someone else. The standard methods of resolving disputes are more than sufficient to deal with comments in an RfC discussion - Dispute Resolution, AIV, SPI, even AN/I - those processes all work very well. Arb Sanctions aren't some secret weapon that can be deployed to shut users down, bypassing the usual processes that the vast majority of editors have to go through.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Islington Bloor

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

@Islington Bloor: You're not allowed to edit pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict until you reach 30 days and 500 article edits, per the banner on that Talk page. Consider this a final warning to that effect. I've applied EC protection to that page through the end of the RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The disallowed comment by Islington Bloor has been struck. The statement by Islington Bloor above contains personal attacks. For that, I am blocking Islington Bloor for a week. I think we can close this now, as further discussion is unlikely to yield something productive. Sandstein 17:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)