Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:31, 13 October 2019

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 information

Shortcuts

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.

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

ClarinoI

No action taken because the disruption is no longer ongoing. Clarinol, you must not edit-war to label living people as terrorists (even if justified) without citing reliable sources and obtaining consensus if challenged. If you do this again you may be blocked or banned. Sandstein 09:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 ClarinoI

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ClarinoI (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 arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019):

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

14:01, 24 September 2019‎ Calling a living person a terrorist
20:19, 26 September 2019 Same as above
15:12, 27 September 2019 Same as above
22:53, 28 September 2019 Same as above

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Also see here, as I do not know how the system log works but I cannot see my notification.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 15:51, 27 September 2019 I explained to the editor why their edit was incorrect and suggested they discuss it on the article's talk page. This was ignored and the editor reverted again.

@Pudeo: The sentence being edited already ends with "best known for planting a bomb in the Brighton Grand Hotel targeting Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, which killed five people". I would think most people reading that would form their own opinion of Patrick Magee, without the need to apply a contentious unattributed label to a living person. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I had no wish for ClarinoI to use my talk page as a soapbox for their views. I had previously directed them to use the article's talk page here. Also in that diff I refuted their point that the term "volunteer" suggests he "were helping set up seats for his local church's fund raising concert". Even after I pointed out the article links to Volunteer (Irish republican) not to Volunteer ClarinoI still claimed it did here, so it is hardly fair to claim I am failing to discuss when ClarinoI does not read the article or my comments properly and makes the same incorrect assertion. I don't care what, if any, sanction is applied, providing it stops the edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning ClarinoI

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 ClarinoI

Statement by Pudeo

This person is described as "terrorist", "former terrorist" or having committed a terrorist attack in some sources: [2][3][4] though he himself objects to being labeled as such: [5]. MOS:TERRORIST does not mean the word can't be used to describe a BLP in Wikipedia. For instance, the stable version of Anders Behring Breivik has called him a terrorist since 2011.

So that's not an outrageous BLP violation itself. The problem is that he didn't use sources or communicate when questioned. Maybe he's new. But he needs to do that when doing these kind of contentious edits. --Pudeo (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

I personally take a very dim view of those who target and intentionally slaughter innocents for political purposes. By definition, he's a terrorist and one convicted of his crimes. Describing him otherwise is inappropriate and an attempt to push WP:NPOV beyond the lines of credulity. That said, I think an RfC and discussion should resolve this and I'll happily take whatever consensus comes about.

This seems like a relatively new user doing noob things and should be handled accordingly. I endorse a short block for edit warring, but we should work to engage with this editor, not expunge them; I'm not seeing any violation of WP:BLP. This is a SIMPLE content dispute that doesn't need to be here. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ClarinoI

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

This is actionable. A discussion could well be had about whether this man should be described as a terrorist: He set a bomb that killed five people, and that article, Brighton hotel bombing, is part of the category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1984. But this label would need reliable sources. And so far, all ClarinoI has been doing is to edit-war about this. I think an indef WP:NOTHERE normal admin block is indicated. Sandstein 09:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think an indef would be harsh here. Inserting the word "terrorist" into a paragraph which otherwise describes him as a member of a terrorist organisation, responsible for a terrorist attack and gives him the nickname "Brighton bomber" is hardly on the long end of BLP violations. FDW777's response to ClarinoI's attempt to discuss it smacks rather of WP:CRYBLP. ClarinoI does need to respond here and indicate that they are aware of the need to source information and to refrain from edit-warring, though. GoldenRing (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I, also, am more on the GoldenRing than the Sandstein end of the proposed resolution. Let's see if the user responds. El_C 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See this story. This is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Whether to call him a terrorist in Wiki-voice or not is a question for the Talk page, it is not a violation of any policy. Guy (help!) 20:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Guy. Whether to call a BLP subject a terrorist in Wikipedia's voice is not a legitimate content dispute. Per the MOS, invoking the label at all requires widespread usage to describe the person in sources, and only then can it be used with in-text attribution. But this is not even that situation. This is not a user here to improve an article with sourced content. This is pure and straightforward POV-pushing to make an article make a negative claim about a subject without a source. They edit warred over it and ignored warnings. Preventing this sort of SPA POV-pushing is exactly why we have these sanctions. I'm all for avoiding biting and AGF, but if there is a refusal to be accountable here and try to learn going forward (or continued disruption), a straight Troubles TBAN would make sense. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Per MOS:TERRORIST "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinions and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." ~Awilley (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when we are talking about the Troubles, and this person being associated with the IRA, replacing the accurate (if not questionable term) Volunteer (Irish republican) with "terrorist", without adding attribution, is definitely wrong. We can let readers make their own determination if IRA members should be called terrorists, but WP should be avoiding that direct association in wikivoice like the plague, and this is definitely an actionable report within the Troubles confines. --Masem (t) 00:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the merits of this case, the user has made seven edits in total and none since Sunday. I suspect we have seen the last of them. GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a relatively new user that lacks an understanding of our policies. A pointer to them, along with a short block for edit-warring—as a regular admin action, not an AE action—would be appropriate under normal circumstances. However, I would close this matter as stale since, as GR points out, the editor has made seven edits altogether and none in the last five days or so. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese

The reported edits were not violations. Slugger O'Toole is banned from making any reports about Roscelese at any administrative noticeboard, including but not limited to AE and ANI. Both parties are advised that one or two way interaction bans and/or blocks will be imposed if the interpersonal disruption continues. All editors are reminded that the purpose of the sanctions is to bring stability to the topic area and facilitate collegial improvement to the encyclopaedia, they are not there to remove or hinder those you disagree with. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (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:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :

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

Roscelese has three restrictions, including being "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." The difs below show instances where she did not. It's true that she did give explanations in her edit summaries. However, in a previous AE case she made a similar argument. The argument was not persuasive as the restrction clearly states explanations must be made on the talk page.

23:03, September 6, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
20:44, September 28, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
11:55, September 24, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
11:54, September 24, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Roscelese blocked for one week per AE report. 4 April 2019
Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report. 26 April 2019
Roscelese blocked for four weeks per AE report. 10 June 2019

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I used WP:REVERT as a basis for my report. I could not find a limit there on how soon the reverting edit had to be made. All it says is that a revert "reverses a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits." In other actions that have resulted in a block, the offending reverts were not immediate but went back several weeks. I believe her edits here are similar. If I am wrong in this, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

It is true that I do occasionally check Roscelese's activity, as she checks mine. I don't consider that hounding in either direction. If I am wrong about that, I sincerely apologize. More to the point, as we have no ongoing disputes, I can assure you that this was in no way an attempt to silence her.@Binksternet: I think you may be a bit confused. In our last dispute, and in several others, it was Roscelese, not me, who was attempting to portray the Church in a more conservative light. We often disagree, but I think the articles we both work on are in reasonably good shape now, partly as a result of this give and take. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Roscelese

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 Roscelese

Slugger clearly needs to be reminded that my restriction prohibits reverting, not any editing. I obviously concur that his repeated frivolous reports to AE constitute harassment by this point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query: will this remedy be entered as part of the arb case?

@GoldenRing: other users have been one-way ibanned for harassing me before and it's easy enough to confirm that I didn't abuse the situation! After Badmintonhist was ibanned (and eventually indeffed for continued violations of the ban) I believe my only attempts to engage him were, well, filing SPIs for his socks that continued stalking me.

@Awilley: This is not the first or, I think, even the second time that Slugger, who is not in any way a new user, has has to be chided for jumping the gun about things that are not violations.

@Pudeo: this is not the first report from Slugger that's being dismissed as not a violation, and it's happened more recently than the diff you provided...?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Thank you, Aquillion! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

Looks like hounding to me, with Slugger O'Toole trying once again to silence Roscelese who represents a voice in opposition to Slugger's political advocacy. In real life, Slugger is a pro-life activist, a member of the Knights of Columbus, and connected to the Catholic University of America (CUA). Starting out with the name Briancua, Slugger has been trying for four years to shut down Roscelese who continues to write about Catholicism and homosexuality in a way that upsets Slugger's plan to show the most conservative aspect of the Catholic Church. I would suggest an interaction ban placed on Slugger. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

This is a poor filing, as those indeed are not reverts (except one), and even if they were, it would be too much of a "gotcha" to gather them from completely unrelated articles without edit conflicts. There are no personal parole officers, though this also means editors with restrictions will get away with some instances. Although Binksternet's comment above was not outing, do we really assess the real life memberships of editors at AE? Seems like that is very close to what is described in the second bullet point of What is considered to be a personal attack?

I hope that Roscelese's description of his repeated frivolous reports to AE constitute harassment by this point did not include the three AE reports that actually resulted in blocks for violations. Lastly, @Thryduulf: I've not seen any evidence of Roscelese's engaging in unwarranted behaviour towards Slugger, this edit from the first AE report would be a pretty good example of that. Suppose that there is a reason why Roscelese has a 1RR and personalization restiction in the first place. --Pudeo (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Given that Slugger O'Toole is patiently hounding Roscelese here over things that are not reverts, and given that all three of the previous reports O'Toole references were made by him (which is more than a little excessive), I strongly urge a WP:BOOMERANG restriction barring O'Toole from bringing any more administrative or AE requests against Roscelese in the future, possibly even more broadly against filing WP:AE requests at all. The topic area is highly active, and if Roscelese is actually a problem there should be plenty of other people bringing reports - at this point it is hard to interpret the situation as anything but O'Toole trying to game the system to remove someone they disagree with. I would also suggest reconsidering Roscelese's restrictions - while, yes, some of the other reports were genuine violations, they don't seem to have caused much disruption, and the fact that O'Toole was able to so easily find unrelated minor infractions and get Roscelese repeatedly blocked with them suggests that the restriction may not be reasonable or workable, especially given that at a quick glance nobody else seems to have had any problem with Roscelese's conduct in the four years since the restrictions were placed. The fact that Roscelese had a clean block log for four years and was then blocked three times in rapid succession when O'Toole started targeting them implies, to me, that the problem is with the overly-broad restrictions and not with Roscelese. EDIT: Also, by my reading none of O'Toole's previous reports came with any sort of warning or request to self-revert - I believe that's normal for revert-limit-based restrictions, since it's so easy to violate them by accident. If Roscelese's restrictions aren't relaxed entirely, I would suggest at least a requirement for some sort of warning of that sort - the purpose of the restrictions is to ensure article stability, not to enable games of gotcha like this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

Those look like regular edits that happen to remove content. That is different than a revert. The only one where I could find a corresponding "edit" that had been "reverted" was this which removed a paragraph that had been added 5 months earlier. ~Awilley (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RE Vanamonde's options, I would support the TBAN on Slugger pursuing arbitration enforcement against Roscelese but oppose an IBAN. I have seen evidence that Slugger is misusing the AE process, but I haven't seen evidence that their interactions at the intersection of Catholicism and Homosexuality have been problematic enough to warrant a messy IBAN. It is also my opinion that it is good for our articles when people with different viewpoints are able to talk to each other. Finally I don't want to punish Slugger too hard for not knowing that we don't enforce every removal of content as a revert. It's a very common misconception, and Help:Reverting is not clear on that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Awilley that the edits in question don't appear to violate the letter—much less the spirit—of Roscelese's editing restrictions. It doesn't appear that Slugger O'Toole has edited the articles in question. In other words, it appears that Slugger O'Toole is combing through Roscelese's contribution history looking for ways to get her in trouble, in this case on pretty flimsy grounds. That's hounding—an inappropriate behavior—and if it continues I would strongly suggest a sanction against Slugger O'Toole. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Something similar took place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive254#Roscelese in July 2019. We should now consider sanctioning Slugger O'Toole, perhaps with an interaction ban. Sandstein 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding that report, Sandstein—I had looked briefly but didn't turn up the link. In light of this continued concern, I agree that some sort of sanction for Slugger O'Toole, aimed at preventing further hounding, would be appropriate. It's one thing if he organically observes a violation from Roscelese on an article they co-edit, but in this case the only plausible explanation is that he's hunting through her contribution history with the express goal of finding grounds to file a report. I will defer to admin consensus as to what form, if any, a sanction should take. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues. The distinction between a revert and a removal can be subtle, but the edits in this case are obviously removals, not reverts; and a smell test suggests this is an attempt to clear the decks of opposition, rather than to address disruption. In order of preference, I would recommend a one-way IBAN (Slugger is banned from interacting with Roscelese), or a TBAN on Slugger from making reports to administrator noticeboards about Roscelese, or a two-way IBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with everyone above, and my first two preferences align exactly with Vanamonde93's. I don't support a two-way IBAN at this point as I've not seen any evidence of Roscelese's engaging in unwarranted behaviour towards Slugger. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pudeo: Ok, I'll rephrase that to "recent evidence" - February is not recent and if they made that edit today it would be covered by their existing restrictions. Unless there are any objections from other admins I'll go ahead and implement a 1-way iban in a few hours. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Thryduulf: My only qualm - it's not quite an objection - is that, where there is a long history of antagonism between two editors, a one-way IBAN is very easily weaponised, and even more so when that antagonism is focused on a particular topic. I would opt for the no-fault two-way IBAN here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @GoldenRing: I can see the logic in that, although if a one-way iban is imposed then it would come with a reminder that if it is weaponised or misused it will be converted to a two-way iban PDQ. The need to do so would not look good if/when Roscelese comes to appeal their restrictions (and conversely it not being weaponised despite it being easy to do so would be a point in their favour). @Pudeo, Vanamonde93, MastCell, and Sandstein: do you have any thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC) @Awilley: I missed your name, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the one-way ban is in fact gamed by Roscelese, we can at any time respond with sanctions on Roscelese. But if the concern expressed by GoldenRing is shared by others, a restriction on Slugger O'Toole from making AE requests regarding Roscelese could be an alternative. Sandstein 13:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein says, I think a sanction on Roscelese for misusing the IBAN would be easy to impose, should the need arise; and it should be fairly easy to see if the need has arisen. Pudeo's diff is concerning, but half a year old at this point. My preferences, therefore, are unchanged, though I think Awilley's point about misunderstanding revert vs removal is a good one, and therefore strengthens the case for a lesser sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I would oppose both the one-way and two-way IBANs. IBANs in my experience are a messy solution that should be reserved for messy problems. This AFAICT is not a messy problem, and it can easily be solved with a lesser sanction. I can tell from their interactions in the past few cases here that Roscelese and Slugger are annoyed by each other, but both of them have kept things pretty civil, and both seem like grown-ups who can manage a little conflict without the "help" of an IBAN. ~Awilley (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a TBAN on Slugger from making reports to any administrator noticeboards about Roscelese. Since the intention of the report we have here shines through (=an attempt to remove an opponent), I think a TBAN only from taking Roscelese to AE would leave the door too open for simply moving these attempts to other noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
OK, given all the above comments I see a strong consensus for banning Slugger O'Toole from making reports about Roscelese to any administrative noticeboard, including but not limited to AE and ANI and advising both parties that one or two way ibans, and/or blocks, may be imposed if further disruption occurs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere

Not actionable. Sandstein 09:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: François Robere (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_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

17:13, 2 October 2019 WP:Aspersions
08:33, 4 October 2019 - unsubstantiated accusations of several contributors of Holocaust denial. Publication of an "attack article" off-wiki does not mean that personal attacks should continue on-wiki.
13:57, 4 October 2019 - "I'll be happy to give you a whole bunch of diffs to show you how some editors consistently apply antisemitic stereotypes". WP:Aspersions and worse.
15:15, 4 October 2019 - reply to warning
22:19, 4 October 2019 - doubling down

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months 26 August 2019.
Participated in an arbitration request about the area of conflict in the last twelve months [6].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My apology if I misunderstood something, but I thought it was obvious which contributors François Robere is talking about in diffs #1 and #3 because he named them in diff #2 and because of the overall context of the conversations and previous history.

@Paul. There is no need to accuse the entire project or anyone specific of antisemitism, racism, or "promoting Żydokomuna" (as FR does). Just bring the diffs and say they were "problematic". If the edit was indeed antisemitic, everyone will see it.

@Levivich. It does not matter how you call the diffs. They can be #1, #2, whatever - if they are as obvious as your example. If however, you must create a wall of text with 20 references to "prove" something terrible about your content "opponent", then do not do it, and do not call him "names".

@Roscelese. I think the comments by FR on various noticeboards and his essay are extremely unhelpful because they only serve to promote conflicts and do not address any problem actually existing in WP. At least, I personally never encountered this problem in WP during years of editing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

Discussion concerning François Robere

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 François Robere

No editor was named here.
Citing a newly published article at a major newspaper (Haaretz), backed by two major historians (Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss).^[1]
1. This is not an "off-Wiki attack article", but a piece vetted by some of the most reliable names in the field, and I was quoting it as-is as part of an ongoing discussion at Talk:Jimbo Wales. Other editors have raised it, independently, on at least four other pages.[7][8][9][10]
No editor was named here.
"Warning" from admin I'm unfamiliar with, alleging I made comments I didn't make (and that I clearly expressed my disagreement with twice [11]). Discussion was promptly closed by an Arb as "off-topic discussion that was deteriorating quickly".[12] I was not personally warned, nor singled out by the Arb.
Citing an RS where the editor was explicitly mentioned. I have only mentioned the editor once; this is the same mention as #2.
1. Editor is under T-ban (history of Poland during World War II) and I-ban (Icewhiz),[13] and the discussion was about Icewhiz and Holocaust revisionism.

The OP is looking to ban me for citing a highly reliable source once; commenting on unnamed, ambiguous "editors" twice; and for being addressed by an editor I don't know for things I didn't say. I trust the admins will dismiss this request with haste. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside

@Masem and Black kite: I'm still looking for a way for us to be able to discuss issues of bias and prejudice openly without being under threat of sanctions. At the moment not only can you not say that "editor X is Y" - which I'm perfectly okay with - but you can't even say that "edit X introduces Y material" - which is a pure "content" statement. What's more, there are occasions where you would want to address conduct vis-à-vis content, and you can't - for example "editor X repeatedly introduces Y material".^[2] In academia this would be allowed, and on rare occasions you do see scholars use this sort of terms to criticize one another (eg. [14]); we need to have a similar ability for similarly-rare cases, rather than completely shut the idea off. As I said to another editor - people who are prejudiced in any way don't need these labels - they can go along being prejudicial without ever putting a label on it; it's the people who fight prejudice that need the labels, and if we block everyone from ever using them just because they're offensive, then we'd actually be impeding minorities' ability to fight for equity, while not promoting civility or neutrality in any meaningful way. Put differently: in order to promote neutrality, we need to be able to name bias, and at the moment we can't.

The distinctions here also matter: there's a big difference between stating that "X is Y", and stating that "X promoted Y". "Promoting" something in any single instance does immediately mean an editor is a "true believer". There are degrees of bias, and no one is completely free of biases. In the "real" world we'd be able to have this discussion at this level of granularity; here we cannot.

If you read the discussion behind #3 (not all of it, just the last part, between Guy and me),[15] you'll see it's more or less the culmination of all of the above. It really is something the community will need to address at some point, because it's not achieving its purpose and people are getting worn down. François Robere (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: The vagueness arises because clarity is not allowed - it's not the first choice, nor the ideal one, nor what anyone of us would've liked to write. Remember we had 11 ANI/AE cases, and we tried every single variety possible; for the most time, the only results we got were apathy and warnings. You may disagree with it, but the fact remains that Policy is inexact enough that many admins interpret it in just that manner. Bottom line: even statements like "claim X expresses a traditionally racist stereotype (see diffs)" are hazardous, because the diffs themselves can be construed as PA (as they link to editors), and we inevitably end up with obtuse and ambiguous statements. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Benjakob, Omer (2019-10-03). "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia's Longest Hoax, Exposed". Haaretz. Retrieved 2019-10-03.
^ Assume all of this is accompanied by diffs, sources, policy arguments, etc.

Statement by Roscelese

Speaking as a user with minimal prior editing history in this area, the problems that Francois is describing represent a serious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and it would be a shame if describing them were sanctionable behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

@François Robere: raises a very important question in his "Aside" section. Per WP:NPA, "comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" is considered a personal attack (which is correct: nobody knows who these users are in real life). Instead, we are advised to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In that respsect, it is really interesting to know what wording should have FR used in that case? Obviously, to use a "trial-and-error" approach (to try some wording and see if admins ban you) is hardly a good idea.

I am interested to know how should FR, as well as any other user, describe real or alleged manifestations of antisemitism? Is "the edit made by X is antisemitic" a comment on a content or on a contributor? Or he should have used some newspeak like "I find the statement Y a manifestation of antisemitism", and then to show a diff without calling a name? Or we are allowed to add: "the statement X was made by a user X"? Is this language ok? If no, then how could we describe and report a cases of antisemitism? If yes, what is wrong with combining these two statements in one: "A statement Y made by a user X is a manifestation of antisemitism"?

I am asking because that seems to be not only FR's and my problem: another good faith user told me he could be in the same situation, because the rules are unclear.

I already asked similar question on the NPA talk page, and the answer was literally "No universal answer exists. In connection to that, I am wondering how can good faith users observe rules that are obviously vague.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC) @Thryduulf: Actually, users resort to vague accusations and similar WP newspeak because a clear and concrete accusations, which use the wording that you described as acceptable, may inflict severe sanctions on those who throws them. If you want fresh examples, I can provide them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

@MVBW: If I said, "Calling a black man a n*****r is problematic," I think others would find that downright insulting. Because it’s not "problematic", it’s racist. Euphemisms aren’t appropriate in such situations, in my opinion; I think it’s better if we call things what they are.

Statement by Thryduulf

@Paul Siebert and François Robere: The best way to avoid trouble is to avoid trying to find where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is - the line is fuzzy and context dependant. In the example given, "the edit by x seems antisemitic." is borderline, far better to say "the edit by x seems to be promoting antisemitism, because y" or "I think the source user x added with this edit is not suitable, because y". In other words, make sure it's clearly about the content not the editor, and explain clearly what the problem with it is and why. It doesn't matter whether an editor is or is not antisemitic, what matters is that the article is NPOV. The consensus (which I agree with) is that antisemitism is bad, and so our articles should not give the impression otherwise. Vague accusations that some unnamed editors are trying to make the article pro-antisemitism do not help address the issues, they just serve to make the editing environment less collegial which in turn makes it harder to improve the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning François Robere

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

I'm not seeing anything actionable here. In particular, the alleged aspersions were not cast against any identified or identifiable editors. Everybody in the whole Poland/WWII topic area needs to seriously calm down or at some point we'll have to ban a whole lot of people. Sandstein 11:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Sandstein here, and as one that read that Haaretz article, it may out some past editors' names (I haven't checked to see if they were already outed), but it is far from an attack article but a fair look at a situation on WP related to this area. I do think FR needs to tone down the rhetoric - behavior is in the ballpark to the reasons why an editor like TheRamblingMan came under specific sanctions but not at a point of actionability yet. --Masem (t) 14:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced that there is anything sanctionable here, but as Masem says, FR needs to dial it back a lot here; there are only so many times that you can accuse un-named editors of anti-semitism without naming them (diff3), but then name other editors in a separate context (diff2) without eventually doing something that will get you sanctioned. Icewhiz, sadly, went too far with this; it would be unfortunate if it happened again. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not actionable. If anything the Haaretz article seems to indicate that the wrong editor may have been banned. It's the standard technique of people insulting each other until one of them is goaded to step over a line. Whoever can deal with this sort of Machiavellian operation most cleverly wins. I recognize FR is taking a risk in being forthright in recalling attention to the underlying problem., but we should not be penalizing honesty, althoug it seems that we sometimes have done so. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediansSweep

Blocked for a week. Sandstein 05:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 WikipediansSweep

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: WikipediansSweep (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_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

Oct 2 More ranting about Walter Russell
September 25 User page screed on how science isn't actually science
October 5 Definitely more pseudoscience

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

September 19 Blocked for ignoring topic ban
September 19 AE Topic Ban on PSCI, including Walter Russell

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on September 19 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I had tried to give WikipediansSweep the benefit of the doubt, and it was clear that ජපස (talk · contribs) was trying to be helpful and try to keep WS out of trouble. But clearly WS is only interested in talking about Pseudoscience, and has little interest in actually contributing. Of their 147 edits, only 25 are to mainspace. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

Discussion concerning WikipediansSweep

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 WikipediansSweep

This is sad man... that comments been there forever with people in here who've already seen it. So idk what you're gonna do because I asked a simple question, if anything you're mad at some sort of something. I have no idea I'm not you, but the guise of this format doesn't fool me. Totally a tattletale, as if i ate chocolate after lunch.

Also be good editors and contributors, read the Twilight Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WikipediansSweep

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

This is a clear topic ban violation. I am blocking WikipediansSweep for a week. Given that they do not indicate that they are interested in anything but fringe science, which they are banned from, I anticipate that any next block will have to be of indefinite duration. Sandstein 05:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark09

Not actionable. Inadequate request. Sandstein 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Greyshark09

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Greyshark09 (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:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

21:11, 3 October 2019 removes connection between Ma'abarot and One Million Plan
21:17, 3 October 2019 Proposes deletion of One Million Plan. I will not comment on the merits of this here. Discussion began just half an hour later. Rather than responding to the subsequent discussion, the editor went on a campaign (see below).
06:25, 4 October 2019 tags image connecting Ma'abarot and One Million Plan as dubious, and opens a talk discussion. Canvasses another editor with whom he was previously aligned Note, the editor pinged me too, knowing I was already actively involved in the discussion
06:02, 6 October 2019 deletes the same image, after it was deleted and replaced by two other editors (including the canvassed editor), without having addressed any of the talk comments
06:11, 6 October 2019 deletes sourced content related to the same image on another article

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

User_talk:Greyshark09/Archive_5#Discretionary_sanctions_notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Sandstein: the last two edits (06:02 and 06:11) were disruptive in nature. Two discussions were ongoing on the topic, there was clear opposition to their position, but rather than discussing and trying to build consensus they decided to edit war their position into these articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17]

Discussion concerning Greyshark09

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 Greyshark09

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

Regarding Onceinawhile's first diff, please note there was a discussion on the talk page [18] the last time he tried to add the One Million Plan to the template almost 4 years ago, where no editor supported its inclusion and two objected. Adding it again without discussion is a violation of ARBPIA, while removing it is restoring a stable consensus version. This is a slow edit war on Onceinawhile's part. Obvious ARBPIA violation is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 3rd diff, I am the main author of the article, not "another editor with whom [Greyshark] was aligned". I had to completely rewrite the article after Onceinawhile created a blatantly NPOV violating article and then submitted it to DYK. Compare his version here to the stable version at One Million Plan.

The other diffs provided don't show any ARBPIA violations either, and this filing is a very obvious attempt to get rid of an opponent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Greyshark09

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

Unless another administrator disagrees I will close this as not actionable as reported. The report needs to explain why any of the reported conduct violates any applicable conduct policy or guideline. It does not. Sandstein 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So closed. The complainant now alleges edit-warring, but does not provide evidence, in the form of dated diffs of all relevant edits, to establish that edit-warring took place. Sandstein 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Paul Siebert

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 3 month topic ban from the Eastern Front [19]; see also my informal appeal and a subsequent exchange.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [20]

Statement by Paul Siebert

In his response, Sandstein correctly writes "you must not speculate about the motives of others". Unfortunatelly, Sandstein's interpretation of my diff#1 and diff#2 as "comparing editors to Nazis" would be hardly possible without assuming that when I wrote "defend Hitler" I wanted to "call these other editors defenders of Nazism". Actually, he cannot know what I really wanted to say, he cannot claim that by writing "X", I meant "Y", and he must not speculate about my motives, per his own rule.
As I already explained (see the first part of "Full evidences" section) I didn't use the word "Nazi" in a context of the user MVBW, and there was a very serious reason for that. There is a big difference between advocacy of the views of, for example, David Irving, a legally confirmed Holocaust denier,^[1] and pushing just the Suvorov's theory. I am always trying to be accurate in my statements, I described MVBW's actions using the words found in reliable sources, I know that the words "Nazi defender" (or derivatives thereof) are NOT used by scholars to describe Suvorov, and that is why I never applied those words to the actions of MVBW, who is advocating Suvorov's views.
The conflict that has lead to this AE report started around the book Icebreaker by Suvorov. It's major idea is that Stalin was more responsible for WWII outbreak than Hitler, and that Hitler's Barbarossa plan was just an act of self-defense.^[2]^[3] Suvorov defends Hitler's decision to attack the USSR, but he does NOT defend Nazism and its crimes, and, accordingly, he is NOT considered a Nazi defender by scholarly community. That is corroborated by the fact that his theory was seriously discussed in respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung^[4], and supported by some democratic and liberal Russian journalists, such as Julia Latynina and Mikhail Veller [21][22]; R.C.Raack, a reputable American historian, sees Suvorov's ideas as deserving thoughtful analysis.^[5]Obviously, all of that would be impossible, had Suvorov been an Irving style Nazi defender.

Importantly, both Suvorov's supporters and his critics agree that his books make Hitler look better;^[2] many critics say Suvorov's books defend Hitler and his strategic decisions to attack the USSR.^[6]^[7] Other reviews on Icebreaker available at Jstor.org either say pretty much the same, or do not contradict to that conclusion. However, AE is not an appropriate place for presenting a comprehensive list of reviews on that book.

I believe it is obvious that when a user A is pushing the book X in Wikipedia, then the epithets that are applicable to X are equally applicable to the actions of A. If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler,^[7] the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A. I don't see any flaw in this logic, but I DO see a serious logical flaw in Sandstein's conclusion that by writing "X's edits defend Hitler" I meant "A user X is a Nazi supporter".

To summarize:

It does not follow from presented evidences that I ever called a user MVBW "Nazi defender".
The fact that Suvorov's books revive a bizarre politics of defending Hitler^[7] is an undeniable fact, although it is well known that this author is NOT a Nazi defender.
MVBW is aggressively pushing Suvorov's views (see a third part of the "Full evidences" section).
Therefore, it would be correct to apply the same words (bizarre politics of defending Hitler) to MVBW's actions. That was exactly what I did in my diffs #1&2.

Q.E.D.

Based on all said above, and taking into account the context, it is obvious that in my diffs #1&2 I actually say that the user MVBW is pushing a fringe theory that defends Hitler, concretely, his decision to attack the USSR. That claim is much less outstanding than the claim that was ascribed to me by Sandstein, it does not need outstanding evidences, and the evidences presented by me here fully support this claim. With regard to formal aspects of these two statements, it seems Sandstein has no objections to that, so I am not discussing this issue here.

In connection to that, independently on a result of that appeal, it would be fair if Sandstein modified his statements where he incorrectly accused me of calling some users "defenders of Nazism".

Appendix. I asked two closely related questions at different fora [23], [24], and the answers were: [25], [26].

@El C: Yes, that does not necessarily suggests POV pushing. However, when an experienced user vandalized the article one time, then does that again, than is doing several partial reverts: this and this this, this, and that in just a couple of days (a clear sluggish edit was), that tells something about the user. Taking into account that the same user has been engaged in a sluggish edit war on the same subject in a sister article: [27], [28], [29],[30], [31], [32], that suggests something about a user. Note, he is persistently removing good English sources and adding some garbage sources. Note, my participation in that edit war was minimal.

@Levivich: It seems you misunderstand something: what happened was a total removal of ALL criticism of the theory that defends Hitler (see my responce to @El C:). By that, a user gave absolutely undue weight to some fringe view. If that is not POV pushing, than what is? If an editor is edit-warring and vandalising the article to advance some POV, they do feel strongly. Regarding a misconception, I repeatedly asked about a wording that could be appropriate in this situation, the answers are shown in the "Appendix" section. My conclusion from these answers is that my wording is ok if it is supported by evidences. My evidences seem adequate, what is the problem? My question is not rhetorical, I sincerely want to master this Wikipedia newspeak.

@Nug: First, discussions of that type are explicitly allowed during appeals. Second, if you remember, I refused to present any evidences against you during EEML arbitration, although, retrospectively, I understand that I could. Don't you feel that it would be noble to abstain from supporting your friend today? @GoldenRing:, @El C:, @Sandstein: As far as I understand, you see a problem primarily with wording. In connection to that, can anybody give me a direct answer to one concrete question:

If I see a disruptive behaviour of a user X, who vandalized the page, removes a well sourced criticism, edit-warring, and, according to reliable sources, this type activity is defending Hitler, what wording can be used to report this user? Note, my post at Sandstein's page was not a part of a normal discussion, it was tantamount to report? What is the problem with a statement "User's X edits defend Hitler"? Does it imply anything about motives?

A second question. Do I understand correct that by banning me from reporting that user you demonstrate me that you see more problem with formal wording than to a potential disruption case? Is it a consolidated position of admins?

I believe if your goal is really to decrease the number of violations, you should explain me that, because I really don't want to use a trial-and-error approach to understand admins' position.

^ Peter J. Wosh. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans. Archival Issues, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2002), pp. 164-166
^ ^a ^b Michael Jabara Carley. The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov. Review. The International History Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 165-166: "Suvorov's central hypothesis is not based on archival research, but rather on circumstantial evidence, and mainly, on categories of Soviet 'offensive' weapons"..."Suvorov's account may remind readers of a science fiction scenario in which the protagonists travel to an alternate reality where everything is upside down. Evidence does not matter in Suvorov's world where Hitler, too, is a victim of Stalin, the 'chief culprit' who connived at world domination."
^ Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941.Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293-1326 "In a sensational book published in the West and then in Russia, the Russian expatriate and former Soviet army major Viktor Suvorov also blames Stalin for starting the war with Germany. With virtually no documentary sources, Suvorov's book has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet track."
^ Teddy J. Uldricks. The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler? Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643 "Likewise, among some segments of the German population there has long been a market for popular literature that provides some sort of justification for the Nazi war effort. Gerd Ueberschar has suggested that the resurgent popularity of the preventive war thesis in Germany springs from an attempt by conservative political forces to refashion an image of the German past acceptable to right-wing nationalists. Even the respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung got into the controversy, declaring that the preventive war hypothesis had "become more plausible" as a result of Suvorov's findings. In contrast, the icebreaker thesis seems not to have stirred nearly as much interest among either the general public or the scholarly community in France, Britain, or the United States, except perhaps in anti-Semitic circles.
^ R. C. RAACK. Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II: OPENING THE CLOSET DOOR ON A KEYCHAPTER OF RECENT HISTORY. World Affairs, Vol. 158, No. 4 (SPRING 1996), pp. 198-211.
^ Jonathan Haslam. Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia 1941: A Failure of Reasons of State? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 76, No.1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 133-139: "The claim made originally by Field Marshal Keitel and subsequently reiterated by Suvorov that Hitler, in launching Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, pre-empted a Soviet attack always was, to say the least, a piece of dubious special pleading on behalf of a lost cause. The reason for its unheralded appearance is not hard to explain. The interpretation proved a godsend to Germans, now freed from postwar constraints, who hoped to place Hitler back into the pantheon of patriotic history."
^ ^a ^b ^c Mark Von Hagen (2006) Review Article: Pairing Off Dictatorships, The International History Review, 28:3, 567-571, DOI: 10.1080/07075332.2006.9641105 "... he [Overy. -P.S.] rejects a recent revival of the bizarre politics of defending Hitler for having saved Europe from Bolshevism in the 'Icebreaker' polemics that claimed that, as Stalin was planning a preventive war against Hitler, Operation Barbarossa was a defensive war. Curiously, this recent restatement of the claim, which rests on published statements by a defector from Soviet military intelligence, found immediate support among German scholars and cold war anti-Communist scholars elsewhere."

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons given by Nug and El_C.

As to Levivich's suggestion that a warning would have been appropriate, I think that this appeal indicates that a warning would not have been heeded. The ban was not twice the length of the previous 24h block because the sanctions are not for the same kind of misconduct, and because blocks and topic bans are not equivalent. A block is much more restrictive than a narrow topic ban. Sandstein 06:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Here is link to WP:AE case under discussion.

Paul completely misrepresents my editing and motivations. @Paul, once again, I did not act "as a Hitler defender" and a "troll", contrary to your claim [33]. I also did not "push a fringe theory that defends Hitler", as you continue claiming here, just as before [34]. I did not remove sourced criticism from the page (please see my diffs 1.1-1.5 in the original WP:AE case [35]). I did not "aggressively push" views by Suvorov.

Paul also distorts the content and the coverage of the book by Victor Suvorov in the literature. No, it does not absolves Hitler of responsibility for WWII. There are numerous publications about this book, some of them are supportive. Selectively citing a few highly negative reviews proves nothing. Suvorov does not defend Hitler's decision to attack the USSR. No, the books by Suvorov do not make "Hitler look better", etc.

Statement by Nug

Paul doesn’t seem to be exhibiting any understanding why he was topic banned in the first place. He says above: ”If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler, the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A.”. No, it is not okay to conflate a viewpoint or political beliefs held by an author of a source and project it as the POV of an editor using that source in contributing to an article . That would have a chilling effect upon achieving NPOV. The place to assess a source would be WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. This appears to be a relitigation of the original topic ban, the outcome of which expressly prohibits “continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request” —Nug (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

@Paul: I would go even further than El_C's formulation and say that an editor can feel very strongly that a particular source should be included, and still not be pushing the POV of that source. For example, Adolf Hitler would not be a complete article without some quotes from Mein Kampf, and so Mein Kampf is a source for the article Adolf Hitler. You'll see "Hitler, A." in the references. I am strongly in favor of including that source in that article; it doesn't mean that I am promoting or pushing Hitler's POV, or that I'm a Hitler fan or Hitler defender.

@Sandstein and other admin: That said, if you look at the original AE report, Sandstein noted that Paul had one prior sanction, a 24hr 1RR block from nine year ago, and so a relatively-brief sanction was merited. I don't think a three months' topic ban from the topic area is relatively brief, or warranted. What happened to the sanction being twice the length of the previous sanction? The previous sanction was a 24hr block 9 years ago for 1RR; there were no previous PA sanctions.

Also, why was a warning skipped? A warning that explained what I explained in my first paragraph above probably would have educated Paul about this point, so he could conform his behavior accordingly. Instead, by just issuing a sanction without an explanation/warning, we get an appeal that misses the point, as this one did. I think Paul needs to be educated about the misconception he has, and the sanction length should be reduced, in light of the fact it's his first PA sanction ever, and the PA consisted of saying that someone else's PA was correct (which is slightly better than making a new PA of your own, I guess). – Levivich 01:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Paul Siebert

As a general comment, I looked into experts' views on Suvorov and his book Icebreaker as part of drafting the para on this at Operation Barbarossa#Soviet preparations (please see the last para). This material was discussed on the talk page of that article before being added and has now survived with no significant changes for several years. Icebreaker is generally considered unreliable by experts in this field, two of whom have gone to the trouble of writing entire books to rebut it. As such, the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article should go into greater detail on the reactions to the book by experts than it currently does. In particular, it should be made clear to readers that Suvorov's argument has little support among historians and the book is generally not considered reliable. The material being added by the IP was a mix of bad and OK content though, and it's sensible to have removed it pending proper review of sources given that this is a somewhat complex topic with a surprisingly large literature covering it. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Paul Siebert

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

I agree with Nug. An editor could contribute content that's derived from a source without necessarily being engaged in promoting the views that the source represents. El_C 01:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I more or less agree with Paul on the content here; removing all criticism of a book that absolves Hitler of responsibility for WWII is not acceptable (note that I haven't looked into whether that is what MVBW was doing and it is not necessary to find out for the purposes of this analysis). But even if that was exactly what MVBW was doing, it is not appropriate to dismiss another editor's views by accusing them of defending Hitler. The way to resolve such disputes is by collegial discussion and getting more editors involved to form consensus on the subject. I don't care if reliable sources accuse the book of defending Hitler; imputing that same motive to other editors is not appropriate. This is clear BATTLEGROUND behaviour and, in my view, the sanction was warranted. I would decline the appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[3] Benjakob, Omer (2019-10-03). "The Fake Nazi Death Camp: Wikipedia's Longest Hoax, Exposed". Haaretz. Retrieved 2019-10-03.

[4] Assume all of this is accompanied by diffs, sources, policy arguments, etc.

[5] Peter J. Wosh. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans. Archival Issues, Vol. 27, No. 2 (2002), pp. 164-166

[carley-6] Michael Jabara Carley. The Chief Culprit: Stalin's Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov. Review. The International History Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 165-166: "Suvorov's central hypothesis is not based on archival research, but rather on circumstantial evidence, and mainly, on categories of Soviet 'offensive' weapons"..."Suvorov's account may remind readers of a science fiction scenario in which the protagonists travel to an alternate reality where everything is upside down. Evidence does not matter in Suvorov's world where Hitler, too, is a victim of Stalin, the 'chief culprit' who connived at world domination."

[roberts-7] Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941.Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293-1326 "In a sensational book published in the West and then in Russia, the Russian expatriate and former Soviet army major Viktor Suvorov also blames Stalin for starting the war with Germany. With virtually no documentary sources, Suvorov's book has been viewed in the West as an anti-Soviet track."

[Uldrick2-8] Teddy J. Uldricks. The Icebreaker Controversy: Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler? Slavic Review, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 626-643 "Likewise, among some segments of the German population there has long been a market for popular literature that provides some sort of justification for the Nazi war effort. Gerd Ueberschar has suggested that the resurgent popularity of the preventive war thesis in Germany springs from an attempt by conservative political forces to refashion an image of the German past acceptable to right-wing nationalists. Even the respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung got into the controversy, declaring that the preventive war hypothesis had "become more plausible" as a result of Suvorov's findings. In contrast, the icebreaker thesis seems not to have stirred nearly as much interest among either the general public or the scholarly community in France, Britain, or the United States, except perhaps in anti-Semitic circles.

[9] R. C. RAACK. Stalin's Role in the Coming of World War II: OPENING THE CLOSET DOOR ON A KEYCHAPTER OF RECENT HISTORY. World Affairs, Vol. 158, No. 4 (SPRING 1996), pp. 198-211.

[10] Jonathan Haslam. Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia 1941: A Failure of Reasons of State? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 76, No.1 (Jan., 2000), pp. 133-139: "The claim made originally by Field Marshal Keitel and subsequently reiterated by Suvorov that Hitler, in launching Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941, pre-empted a Soviet attack always was, to say the least, a piece of dubious special pleading on behalf of a lost cause. The reason for its unheralded appearance is not hard to explain. The interpretation proved a godsend to Germans, now freed from postwar constraints, who hoped to place Hitler back into the pantheon of patriotic history."

[Hagen-11] Mark Von Hagen (2006) Review Article: Pairing Off Dictatorships, The International History Review, 28:3, 567-571, DOI: 10.1080/07075332.2006.9641105 "... he [Overy. -P.S.] rejects a recent revival of the bizarre politics of defending Hitler for having saved Europe from Bolshevism in the 'Icebreaker' polemics that claimed that, as Stalin was planning a preventive war against Hitler, Operation Barbarossa was a defensive war. Curiously, this recent restatement of the claim, which rests on published statements by a defector from Soviet military intelligence, found immediate support among German scholars and cold war anti-Communist scholars elsewhere."

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 454: / Line 454: @@
 ===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Paul Siebert ===
+*As a general comment, I looked into experts' views on Suvorov and his book ''Icebreaker'' as part of drafting the para on this at [[Operation Barbarossa#Soviet preparations]] (please see the last para). This material was discussed on the talk page of that article before being added and has now survived with no significant changes for several years. ''Icebreaker'' is generally considered unreliable by experts in this field, two of whom have gone to the trouble of writing entire books to rebut it. As such, the [[Icebreaker (Suvorov)]] article should go into greater detail on the reactions to the book by experts than it currently does. In particular, it should be made clear to readers that Suvorov's argument has little support among historians and the book is generally not considered reliable. The material being added by the IP was a mix of bad and OK content though, and it's sensible to have removed it pending proper review of sources given that this is a somewhat complex topic with a surprisingly large literature covering it. [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]] ([[User talk:Nick-D|talk]]) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 ===Result of the appeal by Paul Siebert===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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 and 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:Wikipedia noticeboards