Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: 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,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Galassi (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

User_talk:Galassi#Arbitration_enforcement_discretionary_sanction:_Indefinite_topic_ban :

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

1. 31 May 2016 Edit in contravention of topic ban

1. 7 June 2016 Edit in contravention of topic ban

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 7 April 2013 Banned from all Ukraine related edits

1. 10 May 2016 AN/I report that resulted in a closure that said Galassi is already topic-barred from anything related to the Khazars including anything Kahazar theories based on a topic-ban from any Ukranian-related articles from 2013. (User:Ricky81682)
2. here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Galassi has a long history of reverting me at sight without examining the merits of the content reverted, or explaining himself on talk pages. This brought about the A/1 decision barring him from the Khazar-related articles. He was told not to edit any articles relating to Khazars on May 10. In an appeal to User:Sandstein regarding this, Sandstein recommended my taking Galassi to AE if he broke his topic ban. I believe the above 2 diffs violate that ban and repeat the behaviour (no talk page presence, reverting me at sight) that got him banned from those articles a month ago.

Galassi seemed in the prior case which led to his ban to be saying he can revert me anywhere on sight because he is convinced I am part of an antiZionist cabal on Wikipedia.

This is now clarified. here where he now asserts I am engaged in an anti-Zionist jihad

At least this last wild WP:AGF violation (one of dozens) had a tittle of ostensible evidential support, namely my edit here, which he claims is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It happens to refer to an incident regarding the killing of a Palestinian. Perhaps that is not news, such incidents rarely are. By the same token, however, in my regular additions to the same page of harm done to Israelis here,here,or here, for example, I am (a) violating WP:NOTNEWS and engaging in a pro-Zionist jihad (sorry, that's an oxymoron) pro-Zionist hasbara. The simple fact is that I edit that page registering every act of violence done by one party to the other, regardless of the ethnicity of the assailant or victim.

As to the putative disconnect between the Ukraine and the Khazars I answered that exhaustively on the case that led to Galassi’s ban from Khazar articles by showing that it is customary in mainstream works on Ukrainian history to consistently cite the Khazars as part of that nation’s prehistory.

That, with other arguments by other parties, was accepted by the closing admin. Galassi was also informed he could ask for clarification. He did not pursue this, aside from a note to Sandstein, and simply came back to edit where he was clearly topic-banned, whatever the merits of the admin’s call on May 10. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes: your point 3 is, I believe incorrect. Sandstein's advice to Galassi was :'if you continue this discussion with Nishidani, you will be violating your topic ban by doing so'. When I saw him breaking what I took to be his topic ban from Khazars by reverting an IP I too suspected of being a sock, 31 May 2016 with the first infraction, I let it pass. I didn't 'go after him' on a technicality. When he began once more to revert me at sight, repeating the same behavior he was sanctioned for (technically, banning me, by recourse to automatic reverts, from that page), as with the second diff, he forced my hand. I reported him, as Sandstein counseled me to do.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the I/P connection raised, Roland has articulated exactly what I myself think, so I need not repeat it, other than confirming that most editors intervening on these two articles (Khazars, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry) have no interest in the topics other than making rhetorical/political capital out of the spin they put on them. Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor notified here, and here

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

This is preposterous. By the same token I would be banned from the US Constitution because the tripartite government was originally a Ukrainian Idea. See Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk. User Nishidani is simply attempting to remove a voice opposing his tendentious editing.--Galassi (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that Nishidani is engaged in an anti-Zionist jihad, as evidenced by such diffs as [1], in clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS.--Galassi (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: No, it doesn't. There is 500 years of history between the end of Khazars and the beginning of Ukraine.--Galassi (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These edits/diffs are about ancient history of Khazars, a Turkic tribe, and about genetic studies of Jews. This has nothing to do with Ukraine. The page mention people "who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany", however as clear from the diff, Galassi did not change anything about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. There is indeed a historical connection and a territorial overlap between the ancient Khazar Khaganate and modern Ukraine. So, for example, someone with a topic ban on Germany can not edit article Jesus Christ because it is about Jews in the Roman Empire (not to be confused with Holy Roman empire) that has a historical and territorial overlap with modern Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. Why this is an invalid reductio ad absurdum? We are talking about someone who received a topic ban for editing modern-day country X. Should such topic bans be extended to articles about all different and currently non-existent countries A,B,C that were partly overlapped with country X in past and therefore have some kind of historical connection to X? Countries X and A,B,C are populated by very different peoples, different in the territory and different by centuries in time. This is general question and possibly an important precedent for further similar actions on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney. Yes, indeed, the Roman Empire is integral to the history of Europe, Palestine and so on. Every stone in Germany, Armenia and Judaea was some time in the Roman Empire. Does it mean that everyone with sanctions in these subject areas can not edit pages about Roman Empire and Jesus Christ? However, I must tell Khazars and Ukrainians are very different peoples, just as Khazars and Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston. After ANI discussion mentioned by Nishidani above, Galassi asked for clarification from admin who imposed the topic ban and received a clarification that Khazars were not covered by this topic ban - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. Let me clarify what had happen

1. There was an ANI discussion. It was proposed to "ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles" [2]. There were many different opinions.
2. The disussion was closed by admin who said that in his opinion this is covered by the topic ban and suggested that Galassi should appeal his case with admin who issued the ban (" I'm going to take this as Galassi is already topic-barred from anything related to the Khazars including anything Kahazar theories ... so I'll leave it to Galassi to argue on his/her own behalf to cut the topic ban to modern Ukraine or to ask for its removal, either by asking the original admin or ARE or any other methodology to have it reduced and shortened")
3. That is what Galassi did: he asked the appropriate admin and was told that in his opinion Khazar-related articles are not covered by the ban (he talked about one specific page, but this is clear), but that other admins may decide otherwise.

• At the very least, this is a highly confusing situation, when the user was not properly instructed by admins what to do. Moreover, I have no idea if the discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe cover all historical states that existed on the territory, such as Khazar khaganate, Mongol Empire, Ancient Greece, etc. Please instruct. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EDJohnston. I do not know if you have the authority to make a brand-new Khazar ban under WP:ARBEE or this needs a clarification from Arbcom, however if you do, that would be something instructive, so the user was clearly told that he can not edit in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the ancient history of Khazars is related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems that Galassi did not actually edit anything in ARBPIA area during last two months, maybe longer. Yes, a lot of his edits are related to persecution of Jews (like here), but not everything about Jews is related to IP conflict ( Well, if you think that the Khazars are related, then obviously anything about Jews and Arabs should be related as well, but I do not think so ). His comment about Nishidani looks to me as an attempt to discredit contributor who brought a complaint about him on the AE. His comment is highly problematic and perhaps deserves a block for a personal attack, but I do not see how that justify a topic ban from the area of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article Khazar is part of the "History of Ukraine" series, and that the map makes it clear that the Khazar empire covered a significant part of Europe that would become Ukraine, I'm not seeing My very best wishes' claim that the edits had nothing to do with Galassi's Ukraine topic ban, especially since an admin has ruled that the topic ban did cover the Khazars. BMK (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: So far, uninvolved admins don't seem swayed by your arguments; nor am I, since they appear to me to be examples of a straw man argument or an invalid reductio ad absurdum. BMK (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Galassi: "Anti-Zionist jihad"?!?! Two items about Palestinians being harmed by Israelis and one about an Israeli being hurt by Palestinians does not an "Anti-Zionist jihad" make. I would suggest that the block which is coming your way be extended for making a personal attack, since that's what casting aspersions without evidence amounts to. BMK (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) BMK (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual comment by Sandstein, cited by My very best wishes: "[A]t first glance I don't see a link between Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry and Ukraine, and therefore conclude that the article is not covered by the topic ban. However, should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later, I or another admin may come to a different conclusion." (emphasis added) So Sandstein should be good with three admins (at this point) having determined that there is a connection between the two subjects. BMK (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Louisiana Territory is integral to the history of the North America, and the Khazar Empire is integral to the history of Ukrainia. The same stones, the same grass, the same chain of events, and an important genetic line of the Ukrainian populace. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the banning admin stipulated that the ban did not cover the Khazar Empire, that should be sufficient to answer this enforcement proceeding. I disagree with that approach, since it is the same geographic area and much of the same history, but that was the ruling. Nice for the subject to have a strong partisan speaking on his/er behalf. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes writes "I do not see how the ancient history of Khazars is related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict". It is related because the putative origin of European Jews from the Khazar conversion is held by many, on both sides of the dispute, to be germane to Zionist claims to Palestine. It has been argued that, if it can be established that European Jews do not descend from the biblical communities who who lived in the area 2000 years ago, then this would invalidate modern Zionist claims to the land. Therefore, many supporters of Palestinian rights will seize on any scintilla of evidence in an attempt to bolster the thesis. Conversely, many supporters of the Zionist position will attempt to discount and discredit any hint that there is an element of truth in the thesis. Unfortunately, for many people in both camps this ideological imperative outweighs any effort to establish the historical facts and to assess their significance. So the argument over 14th century Khazar history has become to some extent a surrogate for argument over more recent events in the Middle East. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per User:Beyond My Ken the topic ban from Ukraine does cover the Khazars as well. Unless there is an appropriate promise from User:Galassi I think a block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a one-month block for violation of the Ukraine ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the warnings previously delivered, a block appears in order. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein's comment is about a different article, based on a "first glance", and with plenty of caveats ("should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later"). I therefore do not find it particularly instructive. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:My very best wishes -- AE is the right place to be discussing how to interpret the ban, and what should be done about Galassi's recent edits about the Khazars. If people think a Ukraine ban isn't a Khazar ban, they can make that argument here, but we have the authority to make a brand-new Khazar ban under WP:ARBEE is it is judged appropriate. We can even make an entry in the DSLOG that Ukraine bans cover the Khazars in the future. So far, there is nothing from Galassi to respond to Nishidani's original complaint that he was making blind reverts of changes about the Khazars with no actual analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was directed to come here but I don't consider myself involved. As the admin who closed this discussion, I think there is already a topic ban but my secondary concern Galassi's use of the term "Anti-Zionist jihad" against another editor for a benign content addition. We should consider expanding the sanctions to the IP sphere which would then double cover the Khazars issue but that seems to be the actual problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Galassi isn't doing himself any favors with his responses to this complaint. Instead of trying to convince us he is capable of making valuable edits about the Khazars, he continues with diatribes against Nishidani that seem unjustified by the diffs he gives. Although his Ukraine ban dates from 2013, it is worth recalling the statement of User:Sandstein in that AE: "…the general picture I get from Galassi based on this report is that they do not have the understanding or self-discipline required to contribute to highly contested topics in a constructive and collegial manner. They should limit themselves to editing in areas where they are not likely to enter into conflicts with others…" EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's not a good pattern. Support the one month block for topic ban violation and support expanding it to the IP sphere for say two months. The Khazars seem to be a dispute that is a mix of the Jewish influence and Ukraine, so it's like a mix of reasons it's not going well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (I understand Im linking to an RFC here, however that RFC was mandated by ArbCom and is binding through July 9, 2016, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions

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

1. 7 June 2016 Revert in violation of binding RFC

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 March 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a binding RFC on claims to Jerusalem being capital of Israel and Palestine and its location that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). That RFC resulted in the material currently in the lead of the Jerusalem article and per the Arbitration Committee is binding for three years. A user added material to the lead that violated that RFC, was reverted, which was also reverted. This was prior to any talk page discussion. I reverted that final revert and opened a talk page section detailing why (here, with the user I had reverted agreeing that the material shouldnt be included. Debresser then ignores the binding RFC and re-reverts, writing in the talk page Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? When Debresser was reverted he or she posted to that users talkpage that their revert was "hothead revert" (here). Im not quite sure why this user thinks that binding means something other than all users have to follow this, but a reminder is surely in order.

Re the idea that this is a personal issue, no, not at all. Debresser is the only one to have reverted following the explanation that the material violated a binding RFC. And when asked to revert declined to do so. And then complained when somebody reverted him or her. Debresser's comment on the talk page of that article implied that he or she felt that a binding RFC did not apply to him or her. That is what brought me here. nableezy - 00:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Debresser, I guess an edit summary that says the RFC is expiring in a month, a comment on the talk page saying the edit should stand, a comment on the talk page of the person that reverted you calling their revert hotheaded, those things dont lead to the reasonable conclusion that a. you knew that you were prohibited from making said edit due to a binding revert, b. didnt care, and c. wouldnt self-revert. Silly me, where could I have possibly gotten that idea. You know what I find disruptive? Editors thinking the rules that apply to everybody else dont apply to them. Editors who knowingly revert against a consensus (thats what an RFC determines fyi). Basically, you. nableezy - 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OID, I object to that edit on a number of grounds. However, the rule breaking is what is relevant on this board for a topic area that is covered under discretionary sanctions. Bright line rules only work if when somebody breaks them there isnt hand waving about well its only a technicality.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

Nableezy seems to have a personal issue with me, because of the three editors who made this same edit,[3][4][5] I am the only one he is reporting. Nableezy has a huge POV in the I/P-conflict area, and we have conflicted on many articles already. He is now trying to fight his personal vendetta against me through the editors at WP:AE. I think that is fair reason to dismiss this report. Recently he engaged in an edit wat at Ancient synagogues in Palestine,[6][7][8] for which I decided not to report him. I am disappointed that he should repay me in this way.

As to the actual matter at hand, I think Talk:Jerusalem#addition_to_the_lead is where the discussion is taking place, and where I have made my arguments, and have already stated, that I will not challenge the Rfc, which stands till July 9. At the same time, I think the issue will have to be re-visited in the near future, if only to avoid edit wars, blocks and a lot of bad blood, and the proposed edit is a very good NPOV candidate, summing up the issue well and along the same lines as the Rfc.

In short, I think this report should boomerang back on Nableezy for the blatant personal motives behind this report, as well as his own recent WP:ARBPIA violations on "Ancient synagogues in Palestine".Debresser (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnson The 9 July date comes form counting 3 years after the Rfc reached a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No need to say things you can't possibly know. I didn't refuse to revert. Somebody else reverted my edit even before I read your post on my talkpage. You continue with your bad faith assumptions, viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield, and me as the enemy. I find this attitude of yours disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing I know it is not advised to antagonize editors here, but I don't understand what further "backing down" is needed after I have already stated both here and on the talkpage that I will not challenge the status quo? You did read my posts here and on the talkpage, didn't you? Debresser (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing The Rfc specifically states that the consensus reached in it is binding only for a 3-year period. There is no rule on Wikipedia that an Rfc is needed to establish consensus, including to establish if there has been a change of consensus. A simple talkpage discussion, or even a bold edit that is accepted by the community, per definition can establish a new consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, dates from RFC's are always taken from the closure of an RFC as that is the point at which consensus has been determined by the closer. There would be no point in a fixed for 3 years consensus being valid until the actual consensus was determined. Saying that, it would still be up in a month anyway, so suggest close with trouts for everyone. Nableezy, if you have to rely on technical rule-breaking to revert an edit, rather than addressing the substance of the edit, it tends to get peoples backs up. 'Would this edit be controversial in a months time?' should be the question you ask yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Timoetheus has the right of it here; RfCs do not expire as such. Consensus can change, but the right way to go about changing consensus established in an RfC is a new RfC, not gung-ho edits to the article before the time limit established by the RfC has even expired and especially not in an article as contentious as this one. I suggest User:Debresser backs down and apologises and we let this lie; if not, sanctions are probably appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Consensus is always binding. It doesn't expire. I read the three-year limit in that RfC as essentially the same as a moratorium on further discussion. But however you read it, the essential point is that it hasn't expired. Of course it doesn't take an RfC to establish consensus - but when one has been held, a change made without any discussion whatsoever doesn't cut it. Since you're doubling down on this, I can't see what else to recommend but sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The original Arbcom motion was passed on December 27, 2012. It provided that the ban on changing the lead of Jerusalem 'will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion'. To me, that implies December 27, 2015, so the freeze on changing the lead has already expired. The RfC closers stated that 'this decision is binding for three years' on 9 July, 2013 but I don't see that the closers were given authority to change the date specified in Arbcom's own motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ed makes an interesting point. I do not recall any discussion about it, but then when we passed the appointments motion I don't think any of us expected the process to take half a year to conclude.

  That said, in my view, even after the three-year period ends, the conclusions reached in the RFC remain consensus until and unless the existence of a different consensus is demonstrated, and until then edits that are substantially contrary to those conclusions remain sanctionable under DS for failure to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" (see WP:AC/DS#guide.expect). T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]