Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:59, 26 April 2021

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

Pkeets

While AE isn't a consensus board, sometimes consensus is helpful. I see this as a "no consensus" case, and after a long enough delay, I'm closing as such. Pkeets, I will give two informal (unlogged) warnings. 1. This case proves that good, experienced admin can disagree on what the outcome of a case should be, all in good faith. In this case, some want an indefinite topic ban, others want no sanction. Most of the time, policy is very clear, but less so here. Admin are authorized to act without conensus at AE, we are given that authority, but generally work well with each other. The next time you are in a similar situation, you may be subject to a single admin who may see things differently, which could have a very different outcome. Warning 2. You need to be careful in how you question sources. Really, the proper place is generally WP:RSN, but they aren't going to kick out CNN, you have to be realistic. You would do good to pick your battles, and then make sure you don't actually battle when you raise the issue, but continue to be respectful and provide solid reasoning, with links. Questioning sources that are generally considered reliable, can be irritating to people; it seems a waste of their time. That isn't a policy violation by itself if done from time to time. If you do so continuously, in a way that inteferes with normal article editing, then that is a violation of WP:DE, and you WILL be sanctioned, without question. Some feel you already crossed that line, others do not. That should tell you that you need to tread carefully. This doesn't mean you are blameless, it only means there are legitimate disagreements about your conduct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 24 April 2021 (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 Pkeets

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pkeets (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

14:22, 16 April 2021 Questioning the reliability of well established sources,...
Talk:Project_Veritas#Expose_CNN and Talk:Project_Veritas#CNN_2021_expose ...seemingly based on one "source" known for spreading disinformation
22:21, 16 March 2021
14:30, 16 April 2021
14:40, 16 April 2021 ...and making vexatious RSN filings.

All seem to indicate that this user has not heeded the concerns expressed previously about their behaviour in this topic area and that they are still intent on promoting their own views on the topic and engaging in trolling and posts of a purely disruptive nature.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by Drmies pursuant a discussion at ANI

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The problem isn't Pkeets opinion. The problem is their disruptive tendency to promote such opinion without regard, rather, yea, blatant disdain, for reliable sources (going so far as to make vexatious RSN filings). Prior topic bans are entirely relevant, as they show the editor was informed by the community of an issue with their editing, and, apparently, they have decided to disregard such community input and instead persist in their ways: a behaviour clearly incompatible with the project of a collaborative encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atsme: the issue is that the editor is using an unreliable, biased, known for fabricating disinformation source (Project Veritas - known for publishing misleading videos, getting caught red-handed by the WaPo trying to fabricate a story, etc... - in short, entirely unacceptable for any and all kinds of factual information: Talk:Project_Veritas#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_16_April_2021 seems to contain far more than enough for this) and using that to question the reliability of well established sources (seemingly because they are biased? - ignoring the wolf in the room that PV is solidly far-right...). The reports at RSN were vexatious and meritless (based on the same creation by PV), and this is clearly part of an existing pattern of behaviour about american politics for which they've already been sanctioned and are not stopping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dennis: Disagree that this is just "annoying" and a matter for ANI. There's a difference between legitimate concerns about reliability of sources and making an overblown case based on an entirely unreliable, poor, partisan source (they're not even subtle about it - the headers of the RSN section are clear enough on this one) and personal opinion (stuff like "Wikipedia may be personally liable"; see also the analysis of Peeks wild speculation based on "fantasy" here). The first is a regular and totally acceptable practice. The second shows not even a lack of comprehension of our policies, but a blatant disdain for them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:52, 17 April 2021 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Pkeets

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 Pkeets

Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supported these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Wikipedia? Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GorillaWarfare

(Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially).

I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at Talk:Project Veritas (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia in talk page comments ~~without actually beginning any discussions at RSN~~. Edit: Oh dear, I see they've actually begun to start discussions at RSN. While this is generally the advice that I give for people who object to RSP consensus, they're arguing from the basis of Project Veritas' "exposés". That's... arguably worse than not beginning the discussions at all. The AP topic ban should be indefinite.

I would also like to echo my comment above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pkeets: Is this accusation of harassment referring to RandomCanadian's merging of your two sections at RSN? What is the "raucous" comment? Their edit summary was "merging sections by same OP" and they left no further comment in their edit, so I assume it wasn't that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Just wanted to double check: is it possible you misread Thryduulf's comment? The rest of your comment makes me think you probably do not agree with his inclination: "I'm not seeing any reason not to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban" (emphasis added). It goes without saying, I think, that I disagree with your characterization of my and other commenters' attitude toward "the opposition". I regularly collaborate with people on this project who hold opposing views from my own; I am here advocating for a topic ban not because of Pkeets' political views, but because of their persistent attempts to flout the project's policies and guidelines for WP:ADVOCACY purposes, which a three-month-long topic ban did not address. It's not bad faith to bring up a previous, recent topic ban in this exact topic area for this exact type of behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I was alerted by Orangemike, who commented on Pkeets' claim that CNN was claimed to be unreliable based on some Veritas video. The "raucous comment" is probably this one (they're conflating me and RandomCanadian, I think)--I didn't merge the sections, but "Recommend reducing reliability rating of the NY Times and Washington Post over repeated failure to verify reports" is indeed presumptuous since "repeated failure etc." is hardly a fact, yet it is stated as one; I assume Orangemike's cn tag pointed at the same thing. In my edit summary here I indicated why I thought their comment (another indictment of the NYT) was a forum post--and that is precisely why I think we should go for a longer topic ban.

I didn't impose one myself, since I couldn't find the energy to do it, and log it, etc., and I figured that since the last one came from an ANI discussion it would not be a bad idea to have this one not be imposed by one administrator, especially since I think this one should be longer. And I asked RandomCanadian to file this since they need the practice. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orangemike

Pkeets persists in disingenuous insistence that they are just raising questions of reliability, when what they are doing is trying to argue that two of the most reliable sources in North America have been "exposed" by a fraudulent operation run by a notorious conman specializing in deceptive editing of recorded images. Obviously, they understand nothing of why they were topic-banned before. How long do we have to tolerate this nonsense? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

Pkeets seems to have not learned their lesson from their prior temporary topic ban, and has subsequently engaged in similar behaviour to what got Yurivict indefinitely topic banned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Yurivict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I reviewed the evidence, and did not find anything that Pkeets did that could be considered non-compliant with WP:PAG. I'm also of the mind that bringing up a prior t-ban is being misused by ^{some editors who represent} the opposition to gain advantage and amplify the obvious lack of a smoking gun; it has a chilling effect. Yes, mud sticks and WP:POV railroad is real, but each t-ban case is different; therefore, using a wide-sweeping net as a catch-all to rid a topic area of opposition is not what I would consider to be the original intent of DS/AE. Having an opposing view is not automatically considered disruption, I hope. ~~I agree with Thryduulf, and commend his ability to review this discussion without prejudice.~~ ^{Sincerest apologies, I misread Thryduulf's comment. Thank you for pointing that out, GW.} The AP topic area has become quite foreboding, and that is not how it should be in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What I've witnessed, and have inadvertently become the target of, is that any editor who dares express an opposing view is targeted, threatened, chastised and typically ends up here. For whatever reason, there appears to be an imbalance that negatively affects editors whose views doesn't align with the ideological bias on Wikipedia; the latter has even been pointed out in mainstream media. If we keep up this pace of opposition elimination, who among us will be left to represent the other significant views in order to achieve NPOV in our articles? As I've mentioned in some of the discussions at ArbCom's DS review, something needs to change, and what we're seeing in this particular case certainly supports that view. Atsme 💬 📧 23:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC) ^{Correction added 00:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

GorillaWarfare, thank you for pointing out my mistake, and accept my apologies because I did not intend to imply that all editors misuse prior t-bans to gain advantage. I am guilty of letting a recent incident color my POV but I am now in a much better frame of mind. (Oh, and I had my first COVID vaccine 8 days ago, and have experienced some strange side effects but I'm working through it). Following are my views on the diffs synced numerically:

Innocuous - I don't see anything noncompliant about questioning the NYTimes, especially in today's online clickbait environment. I think it's commendable to be cautious because there are instances where a news source is considered a primary source, which means we should find better 2ndary sources, problem with that is the 2ndary sources tend to use the primary as their source (like a wire service), so we have to reach outside the echo chamber. Our pool of resources is shrinking.
Innocuous discussions on article TPs: Project Veritas - CNN issue - rather brief and nothing that I would consider disruption or tendentious editing. Was the Project Veritas video proven to be fake - is that the issue - that he's POV pushing a fake video? That diff didn't tell me much.
Innocuous - (March WP:RSN - WaPo & CNN) he made a suggestion - & not the first editor to make such a suggestion. I subscribe to WaPo and I'm very concerned about some of their reporting, but that's what RSN is for - to get input and discuss whether a source is reliable for citing material we want to include - context matters.
Innocuous - WaPo and NYTimes (April WP:RSN) - another suggestion by the editor. I am aware of some pretty big errors by both publications, some of which have come to light rather recently. Our first red flag is to be cautious about the use of anonymous sources, and if my memory serves that was part of the issues that came to light recently.
Innocuous - CNN - Proj Veritas - (April WP:RSN) - RSN is a noticeboard and that's where we go to discuss sources, express our concerns, ask questions, seek input, and present arguments - why on earth would we want to t-ban an editor for doing that? I am judging the provided diffs only - I don't know this editor so I want make that clear. Perhaps different diffs would have told a different story. Atsme 💬 📧 02:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying my statement about not knowing this editor: I meant that the editor is not someone I collaborate with, or remember collaborating with; however, I just now discovered that I supported his December t-ban. RandomCanadian, I just now saw your ping, and I certainly understand your concerns. You need diffs that clearly support your allegation, but the diffs you provided don't support it. You said he's made vexatious filings at RSN - there's currently a serious discussion about WaPo on RSN right now, so how can we say his suggestion was vexatious? We tend to be annoyed by things that don't align with our POV, but that's not a reason to t-ban someone. That's more like an excuse. Provide more substantive diffs and let's go from there. I supported his last t-ban because there was strong reason to, but I'm not seeing it now. Atsme 💬 📧 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My final comment, so please don't ping me: I can certainly understand an admin action for edit-warring, beligerence, cursing, vandalism, relentlessly adding WP:OR, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Why are we silencing editors with t-bans for simply expressing a perspective or POV that doesn't align with the prevailing view in a discussion? Are we now considering disagreement to be disruption? Are we silencing editors for criticizing our favorite news sources - the ones that align with our POV? Doesn't that conflict with NPOV? Can someone point me to the ArbCom ruling, or policy that justifies such an action along the line of An editor cannot criticize a RS - does such a ruling or policy exist? I'm not saying it's being done in this case, but it has happened so I don't doubt that any one of us can assemble a large group of innocuous diffs against our opposition, present them out of context, prepend them with our own opinions that align with the prevailing view, and give the appearance that the editor is disruptive and actually make it stick. Throw them some rope, and dare them to express their POV again. But I thought AE is supposed to be where ArbCom decisions are enforced. My pragmatic style of thinking needs something concrete that actually demonstrates disruptive behavior, not just an opposing POV or a suggestion to open a discussion about a RS. I never imagined that to be an actionable offense. I realize it's probably suicide to criticize the home team when you're sitting in their bleachers^[stretch], and isn't that kinda what's happening here? I'm certainly willing to change my position with some hard evidence of disruption that supports the allegations presented by the OP. I also hope someone can help me understand why our NPA policy states very clearly: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. We don't have to agree with Pkeets, or his views, much less like them, but we are obligated to leave our biases at login and at least consider them, are we not? News sources are not subject to WP:MEDRS, and we're not using them to write medical articles; this is all politically based. We cannot deny the fact that news articles, most of which are available online, are provided to us courtesy of capitalism; thus the new clickbait media environment. Many news sources, including WaPo, are now either owned by big conglomerates, or the very wealthy, like Jeff Bezos who owns WaPo. News sources should remain open to criticism and scrutiny by WP editors whose job it is to exercise sound editorial judgment when citing RS. Atsme 💬 📧 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I kind of get the people who are saying we shouldn't punish Pkeets for just asking questions about sources. But I have to tell you that it is exhausting to deal with people who constantly raise frivolous objections to and try to undermine clearly reliable sources on these political articles. These people are poison to any attempt to cover a contentious, nuanced topic. It's like trying to write about linear algebra and constantly having to deal with people arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.

The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc have been discussed to death at WP:RS/N, and they are clearly and unarguably considered reliable by the community. Of course anyone can question that consensus, but a serious good-faith effort to reassess their reliability doesn't look anything like this.

Regardless of personal political views, as Wikipedians we need to accept the community's judgment on source reliability or try to change it. Pkeets clearly isn't willing to accept it. As to whether his efforts to change consensus are serious and thoughtful, or partisan and disruptive, well... I guess that's the question. And yes, continually trying to undermine reliable sources without any sort of compelling argument is, ultimately, disruptive.

(For that matter, it's also disruptive to routinely and reflexively attack the motives of people filing complaints, and to claim without any evidence that they're trying to "silence the opposition" etc. Noticeboard misuse is a real thing, but these are unsupported accusations and assumptions of bad faith which violate our behavioral standards and degrade discourse.) MastCell ^Talk 17:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Pkeets

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

Looking at what is presented here and having seen the discussions at RSN, I'm not seeing any reason not to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG: We absolutely should not remove minority opinions from discussions for being in a minority, however we should remove users who are disrupting discussions regardless of what opinions they are expressing. I see this a being a very clear case of the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in favor of imposing an indefinite ban from AP for such relative mild disruption as this which is mostly on WP and WT pages. . Arguing over a source is engaged in by everyone in the area, and I think it essential to NPOV that we do not remove minority opinions from our discussions. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I watch discussions there, tho I rarely participate in those that involve politics, just those involving academics. I have seen a considerable amount of repeated argument from each side iat RSN, or politics and other topics too, because otherwise most cases would not get there. I do not think any of it amounts to disruption, but if it did, I have seen it from each side. I do not think pkeets hs been more disruptive than others. If anything, in order to maintain balance, we should have more tolerance for those who express minority opinions. As Dennis says below, the material does annoy those on the other side. I don't see that as disruptive, but as a n inevitable part of the procedure there. The desire here for drastic penalties for minor offenses tends to confirm my opinion about selective enforcement. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a long-term (at least a year) is warranted. While the talkpage comments could be viewed as only mild disruption, they are not a first offence and the fact that they were done after a topic ban had already been served suggests that GW's comments about the previous ban being a timeout after which they could return to previous behaviour is accurate. Number 5 7 11:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to do a year t-ban, it should be indef. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I began reviewing the evidence when I commented on the discussion below, but was called away. I concur with my colleagues who have commented since that a TBAN is required. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a debate forum. Opinions, whether majority or minority, need to be based in policy, or they are detrimental to our project. Pkeets seems to believe that basing their opinions in policy is optional. If there was a way to implement a TBAN from a narrow set of topics (US media, perhaps?) I would slightly prefer that, but would not strongly oppose an AP2 TBAN. I don't think this TBAN should be time-limited; as I've said elsewhere, time-limited TBANS are rarely useful. I would make it indefinite, appealable in 3 or 6 months. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indef topic ban seems overkill here. What he's doing is certainly annoying ~~and to a degree, disruptive,~~ but not something we would normally take such drastic measures for. This seems more of an ANI issue than AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this, the more I'm against sanctions. I struck a bit of my comment above as well. It may be inconvenient for someone to distrust certain media outlets, and I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it isn't stopping work from getting done, it isn't warring over content, nor anything that is really disruptive. In short, it doesn't really belong here. I didn't just close it because it would end up here again. I think the solution is for people to be a little more tolerant of different opinions so long as those opinions aren't really getting in the way of consensus building. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't help out much at ARE but I do read over cases and just wanted to comment that it is an unfortunate situation that any editor would be labeled "the opposition" based on their political point-of-view. I think this must be an attitude is held by some editors working in the field of American politics but rarely stated so bluntly. While disruption is unacceptable, hashing out disagreements is what noticeboards and talk pages are for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not seeing it here, and would not sanction at this point. This editor is not edit warring, and is bringing up suggestions in regards to consideration of reliable sources and inclusion or exclusion of material in an article. Certainly, we should not hesitate to periodically reevaluate whether sources we have found to be reliable in the past still are; that can change and in some cases has. I am not seeing evidence of deliberate disruption, and just putting forth a position or proposal that doesn't ultimately gain consensus is not in and of itself disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plebian-scribe

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 Plebian-scribe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Plebian-scribe (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

03:25–03:30, 28 March 2021; 16:52, 3 April 2021
Edit warring to add "far-left" to the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club article, without citing a source or providing an edit summary.
10:13, 30 March 2021; 16:48, 3 April 2021; 22:52, 12 April 2021
Edit warring to delete "(a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes)" or "(a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, white nationalist organization founded by McInnes)", along with cited reliable source, from the Otoya Yamaguchi article against talk page consensus without an edit summary. Deleted text refers to the Proud Boys.
20:33, 7 April 2021; 03:19, 8 April 2021
Edit warring to delete "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Proud Boys article. At the time of editing, these edits contravened the RfC result on the talk page at Special:Permalink/1016536874 § Questioning the sourcing on "white nationalist".
22:56, 7 April 2021; 14:01, 8 April 2021; 20:08, 8 April 2021; 13:47, 10 April 2021; 21:42, 11 April 2021
Edit warring to add "Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison drew criticism after posing with the book in a now deleted twitter post in January 2018. Ellison’s post said the book should 'strike fear into the heart' of President Donald Trump." in the Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook article. Only the 13:47, 10 April 2021, edit used an edit summary, and it contained a personal attack: "added Keith Ellisons endorsement of the book which keeps getting taken down by trolls."
03:22, 8 April 2021
Deletion of "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Enrique Tarrio article against talk page consensus in ~~ongoing RfC at Talk:Enrique Tarrio § Lead sentence~~ Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 1 § Verified references support description in lead of Proud Boys as neo-fascist organization. Fixed link — Newslinger talk 06:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12:45, 18 April 2021
Deletion of "far-right", along with 14 cited reliable sources, from the Project Veritas article against talk page consensus without an edit summary.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Among Plebian-scribe's 36 edits so far, 17 of them (47%) have been reverted as unconstructive.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:46, 18 April 2021

Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe

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 Plebian-scribe

Statement by GorillaWarfare

It's worth pointing out that all three requests on this page at the moment (Vojtaruzek, Pkeets, and Plebian-scribe) involve disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. Please consider some kind of page-level restrictions for the talk page, which has been the location of most of it. See my comment above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: EC2 protection for the article might make sense, which I assume is what you mean (rather than EC2 for the talk page). But the real issue, in my view, is the talk page. I'm not certain what the best remedy would be, but it feels like something needs to be done—I am generally very hesitant to semiprotect talk pages personally, but maybe that would help? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Fair enough, I'll give that a shot. I've often found NOTFORUM reverting ends in obnoxious edit wars, particularly on these kind of pages where the editors are prone to feeling that they are being "censored by leftists", but it's worth a try I suppose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four requests now, with the addition of the Airpeka request below... Also worth noting here for posterity that El C semiprotected Talk:Project Veritas for two weeks, I think as an unrelated action from any specific request here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

Totally uninterested in the rest of this, but just to clarify @GorillaWarfare:: it was per (my) request at RFPP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

There indeed appears to be an ongoing campaign there and I also think temporary talk page protection would be a good idea. As for Plebian-scribe their edit history is not very encouraging but their last post followed by a pause seems to somewhat offset it. It may be a little early for an American Politics topic ban but I predict it'll soon be necessary if they're not careful... —Paleo Neonate – 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Plebian-scribe

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

On the face of it an AP2 topic-ban seems necessary. However, this is a new user, who has so far refused to communicate in a reasonable way; so I'm wondering whether a mainspace partial-block, as a normal admin action, may be more useful. GorillaWarfare I'm seeing disruption from newish accounts, and would consider EC-protection justified; but were you asking for something more? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: I'm not sure protecting the talk page is the way to go. Several posts there are vexatious, certainly, but over the last 100 edits I'm only seeing a handful that would have been addressed by semi-protection. Several of those posts fall afoul of NOTFORUM, and could be be removed with no response beyond stating that fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare: That's a reasonable concern, but I think a talk page protection could be justified far more easily if that sort of thing happens. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Vanamonde's comment, Plebian-scribe asked Newslinger where they could raise concerns and was told to participate here. I was hoping to see a response from Plebian-scribe before commenting here, but it seems unlikely to happen at this point. If nothing changes in the next 24 hours I think this should be closed as an AP2 topic ban. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere

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: GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 19 April 2021 (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

Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella [1]

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

1- Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page --> (...in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped... in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors...) diff - [2]

2 - Furnished within a new text and restored [3] my prior removal - [4] - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - [5] notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Explanation and additional information:

On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. (important - please note that the two-way ban is of no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans[6] One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed[7],[8],[9],[10])

On April 18, 2021, François Robere referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page [11] and included link to my talk page[12] despite the fact that interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly.

This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per WP:IBAN that editors under interaction ban can not - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.

François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text - [13]

My prior removals - [14] - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - [15] notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[16] edit war block
[17] personal attack block

Warnings:

[18] warning
[19] warning
[20] warning
[21] warning
[22] warning

I’m going to add BANEX rules for everyone to see easily with related underlined.

Exceptions to limited bans

Shortcut

WP:BANEX

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:
Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.

Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)

asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban

appealing the ban
As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see WP:IBAN - Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you. I believe I can do that under the circumstances ---> [23]

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

Background

The ban between the OP and myself was imposed as part of an AE request filed by a third editor.
It wasn't clear that I should be party to an I-ban,[24][25][26] but one was enacted anyway; along with another between the OP and the filer. Both were "no fault" bans.[27]
During the discussion I've shown that the OP was following my activities on Wikipedia, including my "sandbox", mainspace edits, and correspondence with at least one admin.[28]
Soon after the ban was imposed I stated that it makes me uneasy, since it can be "weaponized" against me.[29]

The diffs

Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive.[30]
Diff 2 is unrelated to the OP.
1. I've edited Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) before, including on Szarek[31] and the ref to Goddeeris.[32]
2. On March 3rd I mentioned the IPN in a comment.[33]
3. On March 4th I mentioned Szarek.[34]
4. On March 5th the OP made her first edit to Institute of National Remembrance since January the previous year.[35][36] Later that day she removed a statement regarding Szarek.[37]
5. On the same day I posted a long analysis of the changes made to the article by other editors.[38] I did not mention the OP nor her edits.
6. Point #22 in the analysis refers to the IPN's budget. An hour and a half after it was posted the OP removed a mention of the IPN's budget.[39]
7. The discussion evolved throughtout March. On March 29th I collected quotes from several sources and posted them to Talk.[40] This is my work, it has several new sources and perhaps 80-90% new content.
8. On April 14th, seeing as no substantial objections have been raised, I added the content to the article.[41]
9. The edit was soon reverted,[42] and we went back to Talk.[43]
10. After I replied to the reverting editor,[44] another editor voiced their support for my edit.[45]
11. The OP then made an off-topic comment about an edit that editor made three weeks earlier.[46][47] She then inserted an opinion that pertains to both our edits,[48] potentially complicating the discussion for me.

Another incident

On February 3rd I commented on Talk:Bogdan Musiał.[49]
1. 2.5 hours later the OP made a large removal of content added by Buidhe.[50][51]
2. On February 4th I posted a question on Musiał, Israel and religion.[52]
3. Three minutes later the OP deleted the content on Musiał, Israel and religion.[53]
4. Prior to this the OP had last edited the page on June 2018.[54]

François Robere (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) RandomCanadian

"interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly." - making a long-winded AE request about it seems about as clear cut of an infringement as I could imagine. Making an AE request is also very much against the purpose of an IBAN, which is to avoid confrontations between two editors - WP:BANEX also seems to suggest you'd have better done to ask an uninvolved editor about it before making a report here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As to the evidence presented, referring to the interaction ban itself (one amongst a chronicle of other sanctions imposed in the area) within an ArbCom request for clarification ([55]) does seem to be a perfectly allowable course of action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of Institute of National Remembrance seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per WP:LINKROT. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Volunteer Marek: Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to WP:DRAMA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Volunteer Marek: I do not see such a link in the evidence presented by GCB here. If there's something I'm missing point it out, but the supposed link to their talk page is a diff of an edit (block notice) by Rexxs, not by FR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On further look, agree with JzG and Paleo that this appears to be entrapment over what are, in essence, very minor details (a few words here and there, an incorrectly removed source, on an article FR edited first). As to VM's comment, the ArbCom discussion is clearly BANEX, I've also had a further look; so that's end of argument as far as I am concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more WP:AGF and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The more I read into this issue; the more I look at prior parts of ArbCom case; the more I look at all the WP:DRAMA (including the absurd quibbling over BANEX), the less inclined am I to think that there's any solution to this but a permanent topic ban for many of the involved participants - Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if editors can't agree to collaborate on a topic and are instead perpetuating a long, entrenched, dispute, the solution would be to remove the problem (the editors) and hope that new faces bring new looks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Since both users are involved in that amendment discussion, wouldn't this be somewhat unevitable? It also appears that Robere first participated before GizzyCatBella joined the discussion. One could argue that Bella should have avoided that thread to avoid involvement, but this is ARB related. Why not try to endure eachother, at least on that page (encouragement to both to avoid trying to trap the other)? —Paleo Neonate – 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

In this comment, aside from making personal attacks and false accusations against other users and administrators, FR gratuitiously referred to GCB ("in June another one was blocked") and linked to one of GCB edits. The comment in general adds nothing to discussion and is not even on topic - it does not address the use of sources in the topic area. It's just an unnecessary griping about other users, including one that he is interaction banned with - GCB. There was a hundred different ways that FR could've said the same thing without violating the IBAN, or, just not make the comment altogher. Yet, they chose to do that anyway. As such, that one is a clear cut IBAN violation. Volunteer Marek 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:PaleoNeonate - GCB made a comment on a request for clarification and amendment concerning an area they're active in. In that comment GCB made no reference, direct or indirect, to FR. GCB was one of ... 29 (?) editors to comment at the request. It was a general discussion. This is completely, 100%, different from FR's comment, which specifically refers to GCB and links to one of their edits. It should also be noted that the IBAN was put in place due to FR following GCB around, not vice versa. Only reason it was made mutual is because admins believe that "one way interaction bans don't work" so they said "might as well make it mutual" even though it was FR who was at fault. Volunteer Marek 02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian - FR didn't just "link to a discussion announcing an IBAN" (there's two links related to GCB in their comment). He also linked to GCB's talk page. FR's comment is basically the standard griping and attacking of GCB, precisely what and why he was IBAN'd for. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RC, there’s nothing “supposed” about FR linking to GCB’s talk page. It’s right there in FR’s comment at ARCA: it’s FR’s 18th line here in this diff [56]. And yes it’s to a comment by Rexx (and that part of FR’s post is also problematic, especially since Rexx isn’t around anymore to defend himself against FR’s false accusation) but the point is that FR is clearly breaking his IBAN by commenting on GCB and making it clear their comment refers to GCB by linking to their talk page Volunteer Marek 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“Bob not Snob” account, the least you can do is remove the absurd “uninvolved” from your comment heading. Volunteer Marek 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG Item #1 is most certainly NOT covered by WP:BANEX. FR was NOT "reverting vandalism". FR was NOT "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". There was nothing "legitimate" or "necessary" about FR's comment. If he hadn't made it, nothing would've happened. If he had made it but left GCB out of it, nothing would've happened. He could've also made it without all the personal attacks against several users. FR's comment has nothing to do with the I-Ban and it's in a forum where the subject of discussion is sourcing restrictions and NOT any I-BANS. To claim this qualifies under BANEX is frankly absurd (otoh, this request by GCB clearly DOES qualify under BANEX, contrary to Random Canadian's assertion, since it involves "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user").

As far as the IPN article goes, FR might have edited it before GCB, but the difference is that GCB's edits were to different parts of the article and did not revert or edit anything FR put in. However, FR DID revert (with some rewording) GCB's edits. Editors under an I-Ban are in fact allowed to edit and comment on the same article as long as they don't revert or edit each other's text. FR violated that.

And frankly Bob not snob's "evidence", which is stuff they already posted to the ARCA page where it was rightfully ignored, is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from Francois Robere's very obvious violation at ARCA to "other stuff". Volunteer Marek 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no reason for FR to mention GCB or link to GCB's edits or talk page on the ARCA discussion. NONE. It had nothing to do with the discussion. It had nothing to do with the proposal. It was just gratuitous sniping at an editor FR doesn't like. That he's under an IBAN with, for a good reason. BANEX simply does not apply. Not even remotely. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RandomCanadian - these are not technicalities. This is a user under an IBAN bringing up (even attacking) the user he's not supposed to mention or interact with on a Wikipedia page. WP:IBAN explicitly says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly It's a pretty straight up violation honestly. The only Wikilawyering here is by the editors who want to pretend that it isn't by invoking WP:BANEX without bothering to explain why FR's comment was "necessary" or how it "referenced the IBAN itself" (because it wasn't, and it wasn't). IBANs are made for a reason. In this case it was imposed after a long history of warnings to FR to stop bothering GCB. Since FR hasn't bothered to heed these warnings, the part of the notification about IBANS that they received, the part that says "If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions." should be put into force. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:François Robere - you say: "Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive"

Can you explain how your comment at ARCA (Diff 1) was "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Because that's what it takes for BANEX to apply. Did your comment even refer to the IBAN itself? Was it made in an "appropriate forum"?
Can you also explain what you mean by "retroactive"? Usually "retroactive" means you cannot get sanctioned for edits you've made before the ban was imposed. Are you saying your comment was actually made before August 10, 2020, even though the date says "April 18th 2021"? This is a strange claim to say the least. Volunteer Marek 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:François Robere - in addition to explaining how your comment concerning GCB at ARCA supposedly falls under "BANEX", can you explain why you are claiming that GCB removing text inserted by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT editor (indef banned Icewhiz) [57] is supposed to be an iban violation with YOU? I know there's lots of Icewhiz socks around, but I'm pretty sure you are NOT one. So why are you claiming that a revert of Icewhiz, is an IBAN vio with you? You also didn't mention Szarek on the IPN article page until AFTER GCB's March 5 edit (your first mention of Szarek was March 23 [58]). It seems you're trying to flip or confuse the timeline here so let's get this one clear - Icewhiz adds stuff on Szarek before he was banned in 2019. In early March 2021 GCB removes it. In late March 2021 you bring up Szarek on talk. If there's an IBAN vio here (and personally I'd give this one a pass) it's you violating the ban not the other way around. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nsk92 and User:JzG - I don't know why you're bringing up a completely irrelevant AfD here, but it seems quite ridiculous to argue that someone should be sanctioned for disagreeing with you on an AfD. I voted to delete that article as well. Why? Because the subject is not notable!!! The article was started by indef banned Icewhiz, it's on a topic that was reported in the news briefly at the time but then hardly ever again and one which simply does not meet notability criteria. Trying to drag an AfD disagreement into this AE is... I'm not sure how to put this politely, but "bad faithed" and "disruptive" come to mind. Especially since this Whataboutism, as unbecoming as it is, is also combined with this bending over backwards to pretend that Francois' very clear and straight forward topic ban violation at ARCA qualifies under "BANEX". Neither of you, nor FR< has actually bothered to address how BANEX would apply here - what portion of FR's comment "addressed the IBAN itself"? What portion was "necessary"? You're just slinging Wikipedia acronyms around in a fairly transparently biased manner (you like one editor so they get a pass for harassing another). It's kind of depressing to see actual Wikipedia policies get thrown out the window so quickly under flimsiest pretexts. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, I think that removing the IBAN is a bad idea. It was put in place after years of User:François Robere bothering and following around GCB as noted in the AE request which led to it. At one point FR even stated that he was "policing" GCB's edits for which he got, rightfully, reprimanded by admins (this was before the IBAN). Furthermore, removing the IBAN would also reward FR for violating it, just creating the wrong incentives (it would encourage the bothering to resume). Note that FR hasn't even managed to acknowledge that they violated the ban, but rather has tried to WP:WIKILAWYER it by claiming absurdly that their edits are okay under "BANEX" (they're not). That kind of shows that they haven't learned anything from this experience or from the fact the ban was imposed in the first place. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Bob not snob

~~The indirect reference at ARCA falls under WP:BANEX, legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.~~

~~The second part of GCB's report is disingenuous, as GCB is the one who is in clear violation of the IBAN on Institute of National Remembrance:~~

On 19:57, 5 March 2021 FR made a long post on the talk page, challenging an edit by VM. GCB then jumped into the article less than two hours later (disingenuous edit summary, the IPN's budget has everything to do with the IPN) making large changes ([59] (another disingenuous edit summary, the IPN director's election campaign to directorship has everything to do with the IPN), [60], [61], [62], [63]). GCB generally removed scholarly sources on the IPN, replacing them with sources from the IPN itself. GCB did all this in parallel to the talk page discussion (and RSN) on the same type of edits and sources.

The IPN itself is an institution that "has spearheaded efforts to keep history on a narrow, patriotic path" (New York Times) and has a "history of ignoring or explaining away Polish complicity with the Nazis" and is known for employing a neo-Nazi historian in a major position ([64], Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum). VM and GCB using IPN itself and removing reliable sources is not legit, this is a disgraced institution known for publishing garbage.

On 20:44, 9 March 2021 GCB jumps into the discussion between VM and FR.

After the long winded discussion above, initiated by FR challenging VM's edits, and after support by other editors FR made an edit on 14 April. This edit was promptly reverted by VM. FR then opened a talk page section.

On 15 April GCB jumped into the talk page discussion started by FR, replying to User:Mhorg. This post as in direct violation to the IBAN as Mhorg was discussing FR's edits ("The part added by François Robere was acceptable, written in a neutral, disinterested manner. It was clearly due"), and GCB was directly referencing those edits.
Further back, GCB also made this post (right under FR's ANEW notification, linking to the IBAN case, and responding to this ANEW report by FR against E-960. GGB went even further and posted to the ANEW complaint FR started.
I recommend admins read this statement by Dallas Holocaust and Human Rights Museum to understand how the IPN is viewed in the historical community and compare this to what GCB and VM are doing on the IPN's page.

GCB's complaint on Institute of National Remembrance is disingenuous, besides breaking the IBAN herself, she initially jumped into the article in March right after FR made a large a post challenging VM's edits, and has done the same now in April. She is complaining about Behr, but FR discussed Behr (points 18, 22) 2 hours before GCB jumped into the article.Bob not snob (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Whether there is a technical violation here or not, I don't have a strong opinion (as I don't feel like reviewing the diffs in detail). In general, I find such remedies to be producing more harm / noise than good, not to mention they can encourage battleground mentality (more diffs to save/report, sigh); vacating it may be a simple solution but I really don't have a strong feeling here. It would be interesting to hear from both parties (GCB and FR) whether they think the remedy was necessary and whether they think it still is. The main reason I am posting here, however, is to just comment than in one of the recent comment submitted as a diff here [65], FR incorrectly claimed I was blocked. I was not. Please WP:REFACTOR this. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS. The above error has now been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had the time to look at the diffs and read the comments here and I certainly think the i-ban should be removed. It does nothing but encourages battleground mentality on both sides. As for any new restrictions, there is no evidence that any party here is disruptive; their edits seem fine (not particularly controversial or edit warred by others) - the only problem is that they both share similar interests and occasionally overlap. It's really hard to judge whether it's intentional or not, reverting stuff from years ago, or making an edit in an article another one commented on not that long ago or whatever. I say unmuzzle both of them and see what happens, if they start edit warring and fighting, then we will have evidence to consider more restrictions. For now let's AGF and hope they can behave themselves, after the lesson of how annoying it is to operate under various half-way bans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, I certainly agree that if the i-ban were to be removed, François Robere should confirm they no longer are planning to "police GCB". My point is that this entire report seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Yes, he skirted the i-ban, maybe violated it once or twice (no, I don't think BANEX applies to his recent edit, there was no need to mention GCB, it's as simple as that) but I'd rather see a warning than any block. I never liked the use of excessive force to drive some point, American-police-style, although I do know that I am in a minority when it comes to this. That said, this would be helped if François acknowledged they got a bit zealous recently and apologized, instead of trying to counterattack. Blocks should not be needed if one acknowledges their mistake and promises to be better (yes, I know, another notion that is not very popular here). Call me naive, but I still believe that forviness, and building bridges, rather than blowing them up, would be a better mindset, given we want to reduce any WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Thinking about this a bit more, if there is no support for removing the i-ban (I don't think anyone else here besides me expressed support for this), how about this: perhaps a better remedy would be to change the full i-ban into a simple ban for both from reporting one another to AE/AN(I)? My point is that they should not be prevented from regular interaction with one another in the mainspace, particularly as when they edit the same articles, sometimes months apart, and perhaps innocently change content that another one added before, this creates a very technical i-ban violation that is really not a violation of the spirit (being arguably accidental, not intentional, but that's hard to verify). On the other hand, the existence of the i-ban encourages both to collects diffs on the other, and encourages borderline violations such as reports here, or worse, the usage of meatpuppets or worse (see Bob's section, now indef blocked). Also the "first mover" advantage, which i-bans encouage, is ridcolous. One edits an article, the other one is banned from it for life? And they are supposed to check edit history to make sure that sections they edit were not, by any chance, added by the other one? That's a nightmare. The fewer bear traps, aka "remedies", we have, the better for everyone. If our main concern is that those editors were making too much noise at AE/ANI about one another few years back, just prevent this from happening, no need to also prevent them from commenting in the same discussion or make them look for "gotcha's" in obsure edit history ("I edited this first 5 years ago, he violated the i-ban fixing a typo there now"). Love and peace, guys.

Statement by JzG

Item 1 is clearly covered by WP:BANEX.

Item 2 invites us to look at Institute of National Remembrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the context of an IBAN enacted on 9 August 2020. FR edited that article before GCB did, FR was also the first of the two to edit the article after the IBAN. GCB's first edit to the Talk page was both after the IBAN and after prior comments by FR. If an IBAN violation exists here, it is GCB. This looks like an attempt to abuse of Wikipedia process to remove an opponent, and is, at the very least, a vexatious filing.

As to the content matter, GCB's edits seem to me to be tendentious, adding WP:MISSION statements and uncritical discussion of figures identified by RS as controversial. Taken along with this vexatious filing I would argue that a TBAN may be indicated. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is reinforced by the prior TBAN, thanks Nsk92, whic I had forgotten. This is textbook recidivism. The ban should be reinstated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

Regarding JzG's TBAN comment, GCB was under a Poland-related TBAN in the past, but it was lifted here at AE in December 2020, see the relevant thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella. The closing statement for that appeal request reads: "The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed." Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) (which somebody should really close by now, as it has been resisted three times already and has been open since March 7) may also be tangentially relevant here. The AfD, where CGB is the nominator, concerns a page about a Holocaust conference in France in 2019 that was disrupted by an anti-semitic attack by a group of Polish nationalists. Apart from !voting twice (as the nominator, and then again as a participant), there is nothing overtly disruptive about GCB's participation in this AfD but the choice of the topic is indicative and it does overlap with the topic of GCB's prior TBAN [66]. The Institute of National Remembrance was one of the bodies that criticized the conference. The page New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) and its talk page had been actively edited by François Robere; the first edit by GCB appears to be the AfD nomination itself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Err, sorry, Guerillero, but I don't think it's an acceptable approach for the AE admins to declare that they have "no appetite" for enforcing WP:ACDS in an entire area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. And I don't think I've seen AE wash its hands off from dealing with an entire area of discretionary sanctions before, no matter how unpleasant. Develop some appetite. If necessary make a post at WP:AN and ask for extra admin participation. But do something. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BMK

How very exciting to see all the same names once again! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think this request is very simple because #1 (a comment by FR on ARCA) was such an obvious IBAN violation. The comment was made when FR was already under the editing restriction, and this is clearly not "a legitimate concern about the ban itself". The denial by FR only makes it worse indicating that he is going to repeat it again. So, I think this should be confirmed as an obvious violation. But does it require any additional sanctions or block? I would say no, just a warning. Once again, this looks to me by itself as just an obvious and minor incident. No need in Arbcom or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2021 (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 suggest that the people involved here take this to arbcom, because I don't see that there is much appetite among AE admins to get involved in this area --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airpeka

Blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter as a standard administrative sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 24 April 2021 (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 Airpeka

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Airpeka (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/American_politics_2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

19 April 2021 after DS/Alert as well as clear warnings (1, 2).
16 April 2021 after DS/Alert and first recent warning.
16 April 2021 ditto.

These were before DS/alert or clear warnings but included for context

15 April 2021 Start of the new campaigning thread (already repetitive on that page).
15 April 2021 Continuation of the same thread.
29 March 2021 Random exerpt of typical WP:NOTFORUM creationist spamming among others in their edit history.

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, on 16 April 2021‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I recently noticed this editor then evaluated their edit history as WP:NOTHERE but they admitedly were not always properly warned on their talk page when their previous WP:NOTFORUM or spam were replied to or reverted at article talk pages, except once on February 2021. I made sure to issue a very clear warning but it seems to have been ignored. That warning pointed at evidence of previous problematic behavior, notably that since the start they were apparently only on Wikipedia to campaign and complain about WP:RS (example). I propose either a fringe topics and American politics ban or a non-AE NOTHERE block. Also noting that this user is autoconfirmed and can edit the recently protected Project Veritas talk page. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1019075469

Discussion concerning Airpeka

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 Airpeka

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Airpeka

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

I blocked the user indef per WP:NOTHERE as an ordinary admin action. All their contribution, 33 edits in total, is in talk space, where they either attack other users, or spam wixra.org, a website hosting materials which are typically not good enough for arxiv.org. I do not see how this user is helping to build encyclopedia, quite the opposite. Leaving this open a bit longer for possible other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs)
Well done, Ymblanter. Bishonen | tålk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Maudslay II

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 Maudslay II

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Maudslay II (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: [[67]]

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

14:46, 22 April 2021 First revert of this [68]
18:15, 22 April 2021 Second revert of this [69] in 24 hours
13:03, 10 April 2021‎ Revert of this [70] calling other WP:AGF edit a vandalism
20:19, 11 April 2021 2nd revert in 24 hours
21 April 2021 Putting a fake photo of Dier yassin masscare[71]
21 April 2021 WP:CANVASS user that voted to keep the article that he created to WP:RSN discussion

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)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 March 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was asked to self revert[72],[73], but refused and calling other user edits as vandalism.

Judging from the user contributions he seems here to WP:RGW and so its not suitable to edit such a topic --Shrike (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maudslay II: Why do you call WP:AGF edits as vandalism? You were already warned about this? --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maudslay II: Why after you self revert you continued to edit war [74]? --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

Discussion concerning Maudslay II

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 (username)

Statement by Huldra

Re diff 5: A lot of (fake) photos of the Deir Yassin massacre are circulating on the net. Off course, all "oldtimers" (I have been editing the Deir Yassin massacre-article since 2006) knows this. But I think it is unfair to punish a newbie for thinking any of these pictures actually are from the Deir Yassin massacre. (Just an example of how Maudslay II is a newbie: they refer to me as "Him", heh. Maudslay II: I'm female!), Ms. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newslinger I have already asked for these pictures to be deleted on commons (link). And I do not know if it is correct to sanction anyone on en.wp., for what they have done on commons.wp? Anyway, as Maudslay II stated themselves: they did not edit-war with me when I removed the wrong picture from the Deir Yassin massacre-article. And these pictures are (unfortunately) all over the internet, illustrating the Deir Yassin massacre. If anything: this should teach Maudslay II not to trust the internet... Huldra (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maudslay II

I actually reverted myself, [[76]]. I'm not looking for edit wars or anything else. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now Shrike is basically fishing. I added the Deir Yassin massacre photos, but another editor thought that they are not related to the massacre and removed them. I did not revert his edit. How is this being used against me? -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

More importantly he plays very loose and fast with RS to further an agenda. In one RS that said "Shiite Muslim bombed..." He created the article and wrote it as "Israel bombed...." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Somewhat enthusiastic editing by a newish editor might be forgiven this once. With a reminder to exercise caution in future in this difficult area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geshem Bracha

This isn't "enthusiastic editing", it is fabrication and prevarication:

In Iron Fist policy, he does this, But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
In Maarakeh massacre, he [77] responsibility on Israel as a fact. But Washington Post and New York Times do not say this. This also describes this as Category:Zionist terrorism, which is inappropriate and sources do not say. Maudslay makes this out as an attack on a mosque, however a source he cites, Robert Fisk, says: "A bomb exploded on the roof of Jerardi's office on 4 March 1985. It killed almost all the resistance leaders: Jerardi, Sa'ad and ten other guerrillas were blown apart.", which paints a different picture than the article.
here he supposedly self-reverts, but he messes up the formatting so a bot reverts his edit 4 minutes later. Despite surely noticing this he does not correct this. He then reverts another editor while this discussion is open.

The talk page discussion with him is full with problems. He pushes unreliable sources. The good sources he presents, do not support what he is trying to say. He keeps on saying it "is obvious" it is Israel, but it isn't obvious enough for the sources he cites.

What is going on in Deir Yassin massacre is much worse. He placed a fake photograph on Wikipedia, and uploaded five other fakes:

[78], [79], and [80] are from Lebanon in the 1980s.
[81] is from a famous massacre in Korea ([82]).
[83] is from Nazi Germany (original, not fake.

Maudslay II actually uploaded a picture of a Nazi concentration camp and said this took place in Israel. This is bad.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Maudslay II

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

Here are the six photo uploads mentioned by Geshem Bracha:
1. File:Deir Yassin massacre 01.jpg
  - Originally from "الذكرى الـ 72 على مجزرة دير ياسين" [The 72nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre] in Felestin
  - Caption: "صورة أرشيفية" [Archival photo]
2. File:Deir Yassin massacre 2.jpg
  - Originally from "واحدٌ وسبعون عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين" [Seventy-one years after the Deir Yassin massacre] in Arab48
  - Caption: "لم يُفرّق القتلة بين امرأة وشيخ وطفل (نشطاء -تويتر)" [The killers did not differentiate between a woman, an old man and a child (Activists - Twitter)]
3. File:Deir Yassin massacre 3.jpg
  - Originally from "72 عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين.. تعرف على تفاصيلها " [72 years since the Deir Yassin massacre: know its details] in Sama News
  - No caption
4. File:Deir Yassin massacre 4.png
  - Originally from "شهادات من دير ياسين: القتلة أحرقوا جثامين الشهداء بإحدى ساحات القرية " [Testimonies from Deir Yassin: The killers burned the bodies of the martyrs in one of the village's squares] in The New Arab
  - Caption: "سقطت في المجزة ما لا يقل عن 110 فلسطينيين(Getty)" [At least 110 Palestinians fell in Majzah. (Getty)]
5. File:Deir Yassin massacre 5.jpg
  - Originally from "أم المجازر في ملف كامل من 3 أجزاء: مجزرة الدوايمة المغمورة تضاهي دير ياسين وكفر قاسم" [The mother of the massacres in a complete file of 3 parts: the submerged al-Dawayima massacre comparable to Deir Yassin and Kafr Qasim] in Al Mayadeen
  - Caption: "لمجزرة الدوايمة خصوصية كونها أكثر المجازر التي وُظفت فيها كل الأساليب الوحشية البربرية" [The al-Dawayima massacre is unique for being one of the most brutal massacres in which all barbaric methods were employed.]
6. File:Deir Yassin massacre 6.jpg
  - Originally from "مجزرة دير ياسين هدفت لإرهاب الفلسطينيين ودفعهم للرحيل" [The Deir Yassin massacre aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians and pushing them to leave] in Rai al-Youm
  - No caption

The "Summary" sections of these pages indicate that all six images were taken from the same Google Images search (for Deir Yassin massacre – "مجزرة دير ياسين"), as the source URLs of these images are identical. The uploads did not attribute the actual websites that hosted the images. While I don't think the uploads were made in bad faith (considering the content of the news outlets that published them), the images were not uploaded with the care that is expected in this contentious topic area: for example, the fifth image was claimed by Al Mayadeen to be of the al-Dawayima massacre, rather than the Deir Yassin massacre. These images should be removed from Wikipedia and deleted from Commons if they are hoaxes or copyright violations, as Geshem Bracha's source links appear to indicate. I have not yet had a chance to examine the other behavioral aspects of this report. — Newslinger talk 12:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

There was substantial and reasonable confusion over whether 1RR did or did not apply to the article at the time of the reverts. Due to this, no individual sanctions will be levied against any editor, though for clarity, 1RR will be in effect on the article from this point forward and editors breaching it will be subject to sanctions. All editors involved are warned that edit warring and ownership are disruptive and undesirable even if an nRR restriction is not technically breached, and can be subject to sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:48, 25 April 2021 (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 Buidhe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Visnelma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Buidhe (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: [[84]]

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

12:20, 22 April 2021 Manually reverted edits by Gators bayou
00:21, 23 April 2021 Reverted edits by me
06:13, 23 April 2021 Reverted edits by Betoota44

19:05, 24 April 2021 Restored revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
19:09, 24 April 2021 Undid revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
20:03, 24 April 2021 Reverted edits by A455bcd9

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

Warned twice[85][86]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The article Armenian Genocide has 1RR restriction, and the user repeatedly violates this rule.
I want to note that Barkeep49 clearly stated that the conclusion about 1RR sanction being no longer in effect was his assumption and that he was not certain about that: "(...) it is unclear whether the 1RR is still in effect. It appears to me that the 1RR sanction is no longer in effect because that element of the decision was amended away. I have not removed it because it's not clear to me that it isn't because the area still has Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions imposed."--Visnelma (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Dear @RandomCanadian:, you accuse me of violation WP:V and WP:BRD. I didn't add sources to the statement I made in the article because exchange of the populations is a commonly known fact, and as far as I can remember well-known facts doesn't need to be sourced, apart from the fact that I added about just 6 words. You said I reverted the other edit without discussion, but I put a note about my earlier edit on my edit summary which I thought to be a part of the discussion process. When my edit was reverted by another user, I understood there was a serious opposion to that statement, and discussed the edit with Buidhe in discussion page. She stated 200.000 people emmigrated after the war which she doesn't want to specify since she considers it to be a small number which I think to be a wrong assumption.--Visnelma (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:48, 24 April 2021

Discussion concerning Buidhe

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 Buidhe

I was told yesterday at User talk:Barkeep49 that the 1RR restriction of this page is no longer in effect. (t · c) buidhe 21:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

Buidhe does a tremendous amount of good work at Wikipedia and is an asset for the project. Whatever problems there may be, Buidhe's net contribution is overwhelmingly positive. I hope that this positive net contribution is taken into account in any decision. Unfortunately there is a recent problem, coming close to WP:OWN as Buidhe has taken to decide for themself how the article should look. Numerous reverts within 24h on a 1RR article is always a problem. Buidhe overruling governments of countries is downright bizarre. I don't dispute good faith, but still odd. We currently have a situation where the Swedish government emphatically explains that Sweden does not recognise the Armenian genocide (and numerous good reliable sources for that) yet Wikipedia claims the exact opposite because Buidhe (who, I believe, does not speak any Swedish) is so sure of their own interpretation they happily revert me when trying to add the official Swedish position. The situation is problematic. Once again, I very much appreciate Buidhe's net contribution. At the same time, I'm concerned about their recent behaviour in this ArbCom-protected area. We cannot have individual WP users overriding national governments on those governments' positions. In the best case, Buidhe takes this on board and no further action is needed. Anyone can have a bad day and Buidhe is a great editor here. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

So Buidhe was operating under the assumption that this was not under 1RR. Whether that was a misunderstanding or a correct understanding, WP:NOTBURO and WP:WIKILAWYERING would lead me to say that if that was the case, and I see no reason not to AGF here, then we shouldn't punish for a supposed 1RR violation (and OP here is funny, because they inserted their material in the article, got it reverted, and then re-inserted (diff) into that article after it was clear there was opposition to it; and supposedly being well aware of the presumed 1RR requirement they seek to enforce here - in addition to the fact their edit violated WP:V and got correctly reverted by somebody else). I have always understood 3RR to be about edits which are substantially similar or which affect the same material (because 3RR is supposed to prevent edit warring, and edits which affect different parts or which are substantially different are not edit warring). I don't think there's a reason to go with any heavy-handed enforcement here; except maybe clarifying whether the page is under 3RR or 1RR, and warning the OP about WP:BRD - if their edits get reverted, they must follow WP:BRD and start discussing it, not revert again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: There's much reverting, but most if not all of it seems to be regular enforcement of our content policies (WP:UNDUE; WP:V, ...). As to this particular report, there's no violation of 3RR involved (even under a broader interpretation of what constitutes a revert than what i say above), and sanctions for the 1RR which was understandably thought not to be in effect wouldn't be logical. Agree, of course, with clarifying the status of these sanctions as regards the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

As it happens User:Barkeep49 was incorrect and gave Buidhe really bad advice here. In fact the 1RR restriction for the Armenian Genocide article remains in effect, even though the original arbitration remedy authorizing 1RR has been amended away. The reason is that the amending motions explicitly specified that all earlier imposed DS sanctions for this arbitration case remain in effect. The 1RR restriction was placed on the article by Moreschi on January 27, 2008. That was done under the early version of Discretionary Sanctions, authorized by the January 19, 2008 motion in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The next motion amending that remedy was passed on October 27, 2011. The motion placed AA2 articles under the first version of standard Discretionary Sanctions but also said that "Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected." The next modifying motion was passed on March 8, 2013 It similarly said: "Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion." Thus the original 1RR restriction placed by Moreschi on January 27, 2008 still stands. Having said that, the history of all of these superseding motions is pretty complicated and even a sitting arbitrator was confused and arrived at an incorrect conclusion. I think that Buidhe's actions here should be AGF-ed, and Buidhe should not be sanctioned for following incorrect advice from basically the highest authority. However, the closing statement should indicate that the DS sanctions imposed under the January 19, 2008 motion in the AA2 case remain in effect unless they have been formally withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (user)

Result concerning Buidhe

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

If nothing else, there is way too much reverting going on at this article, so I think we need to impose 1RR on this article under DS to make it abundantly clear that it is still in effect. For the rest, I'm still looking over the report and circumstances. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing this, there is enough legitimate cause for confusion that I would not be comfortable issuing any direct sanctions against editors. Absent anyone objecting very shortly, I would suggest closing this request with a clarification that 1RR is still in effect for this article (and if needed, that would mean I'm reinstating it, if indeed it was ever removed), and a warning to everyone involved to cut down on how much reverting is being done. Whether 1RR or 3RR, that is a limit, not an entitlement or allotment, and disruptive edit warring can and will be addressed even if it doesn't reach those "bright line" limits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe that the point RandomCanadian brought forth should be clarified: Revert limits are cumulative. If you revert one thing, and then revert something totally different and unrelated, you have made two reverts. Were 1RR in effect, this would be a breach of it. WP:3RR is quite clear on this: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. (emphasis added) So to avoid any further confusion, I hope that clears that question up. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an honest misunderstanding on buidhe's part, and clearly the article does continue to need to be 1RR. I don't think there's need for any action other than clarifying that 1RR is in effect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything other than a misunderstanding here - looks like the article does need to have a big sticker on it to remind about 1RR, but clearly nothing malicious here. Perhaps a quiet reminder that edit warring and ownership aren't things we are looking for on-wiki. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe you were also told that if you wanted clarity to come here and that I was making an explicit decision not to remove the tag. Poor form pushing things rather than getting clarity. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CutePeach

I hate to shut this down, but it isn't a simple case that a drive by admin can clear up, and it isn't an AE issue, it is a General Sanctions case. AE is a rather fenced off area for a reason, but this is a case the entire community should be able to participate in. WP:AN is ok, but really it is an WP:ANI issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:11, 25 April 2021 (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 CutePeach

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CutePeach (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:General sanctions/COVID-19

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

WP:MEDRS

18:09, 16 April 2021 - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...) [combined with copious amounts of personal opinion and inferences]
07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources.
12:44, 24 April 2021
12:52, 24 April 2021 - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections.
15:14, 22 April 2021; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in WP:NOLABLEAK) - see also the subsequent explanations about this, including the clarification from Guy Macon

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH

16:03, 19 April 2021 - attempting WP:SYNTH based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH.

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT

10:10, 17 April 2021 - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite.
15:34, 24 April 2021 - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on WP:OR. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints.
One long section at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none.
15:46, 19 April 2021 - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus ([[User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Top_quality,_WP:MEDRS_sources|this section of the NOLABLEAK essay clearly shows that it is; and despite me making a long, researched comment quoting from multiple MEDRS just after this...
16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later.
16:32, 22 April 2021 - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, 02:15, 17 March 2021; here.

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

06:50, 18 March 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; It would be better understood in the context of this ANI [87], which was all over Twitter.). Edits such as one of their very first ones (08:09, 18 March 2021) also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing.

Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts...

Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: Regarding MEDRS, you can see the linked GS discussion and User_talk:ToBeFree#WP:MEDRS. Trump's opinions might be included in relevant articles (most notably the misinformation one - where they already are), but he has peddled so many of them, that I don't think highlighting one in particular serves any useful purpose in the main topic article, and it certainly must not be presented as an equivalent to the science (which is what CP has been arguing for since forever, entirely ignoring the MEDRS, to the point it has become disruptive - disruptive editing is not just edit warring in articles, as shown at WP:DE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jtbobwaysf: Your comments go in your section and not mine The discussion on TBF's page wasn't about establishing a new consensus, it was about clarifying an existing one, as you can see, one which is also fully consistent with our other content policies, as explained on that talk page. I'll also quote WP:REDFLAG: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jtbobwaysf: I suppose you could ask ArbCom about it (they'll tell you it's private information); but the statement which was on my user page is true, I've indeed been here since about 4 1/2 - 5 years. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:54, 25 April 2021 Done

Discussion concerning CutePeach

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 CutePeach

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Perhaps this should have been at AN considering it's GS vs DS.

BTW, CNET is only good to report about consumer electronics. In this case it's a bit related as being related to social media. On the other hand it clearly only echoes dubious claims and even on the misinformation article, it would be suboptimal. It mentions the Drastic group that's also been making noise on WP, but uncritically, as supposed investigators who correct misinformation, rather than itself being part of a misinformation campaign that also produces literature in dubious venues.

I might post more but would need more time to look at the editor's edits, I have to leave until tomorrow. —Paleo Neonate – 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement/Question by Jtbobwaysf

Does WP:GS/COVID19 mean that Trump's notable claims (maybe incorrect and with proper attribution) cannot be added since he isn't a scientist? What about the opinions of other scientists/public health officials (CDC, WHO, etc), that also put forth the lab theory, are they to be excluded with the claim that they meet WP:GS/COVID19's defintion of "medical aspects of the disease"? I dont see how the origin claims (something that is probably political, and certainly location-based) has anything related to do with medicine. Certainly, we are not discussing a cause, let's not conflate the issue here. This seems to be the subject of the editor's edits, so let's look at it more generally (take a step back).

Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19 says:

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Generally speaking: Has there been a discussion to determine if/how MEDRS applies to the COVID-19 pandemic article (the subject of these alleged ANI violations)? Is it appropriate to apply this indiscriminately to COVID-19 pandemic (a societal event article) that that describes the impact on society and not really the disease itself? We clearly would apply MEDRS to Polio and poliovirus, but @DocJames: do we also apply it to History of polio and 1916 New York City polio epidemic? Would we have an RFC on such a matter, or is it solely up the DS closing editor who says broadly (often we use this term broadly)? Assuming arguendo we do apply it to the COVID-19 pandemic article, how is it applied, and how are we currently applying it? When I do a quick look at the sources of COVID-19 pandemic I see CBS News, Business Insider, Financial Times, The Guardian, etc. Clearly, these are not MEDRS, is this MEDRS policy being applied selectively? If yes, how and what is the logic? Essay WP:NOLABLEAK is not a policy on how it is applied, merely an opinion of an editor that puts forth the opinion on whether or not the location of the virus origin (lab, city, market, etc) is subject to MEDRS. Note however the essay notably fails to address how the location could be considered a "medical aspect(s) of the disease." Do we use MEDRS to determine the Spanish flu originated in Spain? Clearly not, as it is now widely held that it didnt originate in Spain, rather we use the common name.

Assuming there has been a discussion & consensus that says the NOLABLEAK essay is to be enforced as a policy and requires MEDRS to introduce content on a pandemic article, specifically the location of the possible start of the pandemic (or the party responsible if that is being asserted?), then does that same policy also mean that it is prohibited to discuss the GS policy on the respective talk page? If yes, then I may have unknowingly violated this policy and I apologize for that (if I have in fact violated at policy on it). Other DS/GS I have seen in the past normally prohibit reverts or other abusive activity, but I haven't seen it prohibit a discussion on the talk page (unless the talk page activity is clearly abusive). I would think any such policy that would ban non-abusive discussion on the talk page to fundamentally violate WP:CENSOR. After all isnt DS/GS meant to identify a known issue and move the discussion to the talk page to prevent WP:TE on subjects that have known issues with it. It is not the intent of DS/GS to censor, nor is it the intent to let GS/DS be a weapon to enable censorship.

I ask all these questions here as I think before we can decide if the editor has violated the policy, we need to determine if/what/how the policy applies to the article, and then to his edits. Maybe all my questions are answered by other prior discussions, if that is the case please show me (I am not a regular editor of this article or medical articles in general). Relating to the canvassing claim, I havent looked at that so I dont have a comment. Regarding the bludgeon probably a boomerang to the nominator on that. I viewed the long posts by cutepeach, as on topic and useful, often containing extensive sources and context (exactly what I was requesting when I created the talk page section) but I am only commenting on what I have seen this week in the talk page section I created as I dont follow this article regularly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RandomCanadian, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that you say was reached on ToBeFree (talk · contribs)'s talk page is insufficient. JPxG (talk · contribs) raised the same WP:BMI question we are raising, if this leaked from a lab theory requires MEDRS. You will note Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information? that both the "history" and "Commercial or business information" are not defined as "biomedical information". Here we are talking about the history (when and if) the virus (was or was not) created by the institute, and the controversy surrounding it. It is obvious we are not talking about the "Attributes of a disease or condition" (aka medical cause). Rather we are talking about the history, specifically when and if an organization invented it and maybe released it on purpose or by accident. The Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly meets the definition of legal entity and it would by very definition have "commercial or business information". You have stated many times that the theory is subject to MEDRS requirements and others have stated it isn't. Maybe it is you who are not listening? WP:CAREFUL states "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions... should be done with extra care." In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." It seems to me that this discussion right now is the very definition of "arduous negotiations" :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: sorry about editing in your section above, didn't know the rules for this board. Thanks for moving my response. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: I yesterday looked at RandomCandian's edit history yesterday also wondering if this was something unusual. You will note this edit where the user creates their user page also claims to have deep experience prior to creating an account and said "Previously edited as IP for around 4 years". The speed and quantity of the replies was what made me look. In both cases when these users get up to speed right away with all wikipedia policy it could be WP:FOWLPLAY. Sure users might know how to edit a bit, but participate in these details discussions, ANI, etc that took me a decade to figure out, and we almost never see IP editors in these ARB/ANI sections, why would they bother? Then the user brought up redflag in their response to me...Quack Quack Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

CutePeach has been here for just over a month and has 275 edits, but displays at the same time a familiarity with Wikipedia ([88]) and a strong preference for a content outcome that has been the subject of assiduous advocacy by consumers of conservative media for a year, and which has been repeatedly rejected. Put bluntly, I smell a rat. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

As noted by PaleoNeonate, this filing concerns General Sanctions rather than WP:ACDS. Therefore WP:AE is the wrong venue for this request and it needs to be re-filed at WP:AN (unless somebody cares to take some kind of of a quick regular admin action here.) Currently WP:AE has no jurisdiction over imposing sanctions under GS. That's probably unfortunate, especially for an important topic like COVID-19, but that is the current situation. I vaguely recall seeing a discussion somewhere about creating an AE-style venue for considering GS related requests but I don't think anything resulted from it. Short of that, perhaps a more narrow proposal could be made to the community authorizing WP:AE to handle COVID-19 related GS requests. (Arbcom would probably also have to approve such an arrangement since AE is ultimately answerable to them.) Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CutePeach

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

Terjen

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 Terjen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP

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

14 April Places a "disputed" tag on the wording far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, which wording was expressly included by consensus determined in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020
20 April Again places the tag, after it was removed and the consensus was expressly explained to them
25 April Once again places the tag, ignoring multiple editors explaining to him that the consensus existed
25 April Yet again places the tag, after being explicitly warned that their editing was verging on tendentious

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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 here, on 20 April

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a case of delayed one against many - in this case, Terjen rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo. Terjen apparently disagrees with the inclusion of far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, and expresses the opinion that the wording is "unreasonable." Unfortunately for Terjen, their opinion is expressly rejected by a formally-expressed community consensus as concluded in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020. That they individually "dispute" this formally-concluded consensus is, at this point, irrelevant - it is axiomatic that absent exceptional circumstances, a formally-expressed community consensus may only be overturned by another formally-expressed community consensus. Thus, as has been repeatedly explained to them on the article talk page, unilaterally tagging the section is unavailing. Whatever "dispute" there may have been about the far-right wording was formally resolved with the RfC. Terjen's option, if they disagree with the label, is to open a formal RfC. Attempting to permanently tag the section until they get the outcome they want is tendentious and disruptive editing behavior. As my request on their talk page was ignored, I was left with no other option but to file this request. My hope is that no formal sanctions are necessary - that this filing is enough to get them to stop their behavior and accept that they may not use tags in this manner. Pinging Bacondrum and GorillaWarfare as relevant to this request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Terjen

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 Bacondrum

Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Terjen is blatantly POV pushing and tagging well sourced claims in a pointy manner, editing against consensus, edit warring. A firm warning to stop is warranted at this point, IMO. Bacondrum 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Terjen

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Terjen

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

TopGun1066

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 TopGun1066

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TopGun1066 (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#Final remedies for AE case

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

09:29, 16 November 2020 Adds unattributed claim that a living person is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST
16:51, 24 November 2020 Claims that describing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. The whole discussion at Talk:Thomas McMahon (Irish republican)#Bias is worth reading
08:58, 10 March 2021 While I would agree with the majority of the edit, they obscured the fact that two members of the Scots Guards were convicted of murder for this specific incident. In particular note the changing of the reference, this is changed to one that was before the trial took place making it much more difficult for editors/readers to obtain the fuller picture.
09:20, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of my talk page post
09:33, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of the murder conviction information, instead thinking Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride tells the full story
07:40, 26 April 2021 Adds unattributed claim that someone is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST. Considering two soldiers are presently on trial for his murder (trial started today), I believe that's wholly inappropriate
08:38, 26 April 2021 Repeat of previous edit (since self-reverted)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At User:TopGun1066 the editor admits to being a member of the British Armed Forces. The above edits are the totality of their edits in the Troubles area, there are no positive edits to mitigate the disruption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning TopGun1066

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 TopGun1066

1. 09:29, 16 November 2020 FDW777 is incorrect and their bias towards showing IRA members in a positive light is blatant. Living people are described as Terrorists on Wikipedia: [Ted Kaczynski].

2. 16:51, 24 November 2020 Desribing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, as per [Ted Kaczynski] and [Murder_of_Lee_Rigby], and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. As stated, although McMahon was not convicted under any Terrorism Laws in the Republic of Ireland, the sources cited from the Guardian refer to him as a terrorist.

3. 08:58, 10 March 2021 The Scots Guards edit was tidying the text up. The fact that they were accused of murder was irrelevant as they were also re-admitted back into the Army.

4. 09:20, 26 April 2021 I didn’t remove this.

5. 09:33, 26 April 2021 The text describing the Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride is an appropriate level of information to include. It doesn’t hide the incident.

6. 07:40, 26 April 2021 It is more inappropriate for FDW777 to slander people who have not been convicted of any crimes by describing them as ‘murderers’. [Joe McCann] was however, appointed commander of the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion. On 22 May 1971, the first British soldier to die at the hands of the Official IRA, Robert Bankier of the Royal Green Jackets was killed by a unit led by McCann. Describing McCann as a Terrorist is consistent with Wikipedia labelling other people (alive and dead) as terrorists.TopGun1066 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

This is not about the editors or this particular instance but I would like to mention that I opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Widely vs in text attribution. This is also the style guide, that sometimes can conflict with policies. This source for instance doesn't attribute it and it would be difficult to know who to attribute it to, yet it's obvious to that article's editor(s) and likely to many. —Paleo Neonate – 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TopGun1066

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

[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.

[a]

[b]

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