Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:19, 19 July 2018

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

Orientls

No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:43, 14 July 2018 (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 Orientls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NadirAli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Orientls (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/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

5 July 2018 Vandalism, removed old content sourced content and he also blanked additional scholarly refs added by Mar4d. Provided no explanation in edit summary. He also had no edit on that page or its associated talk page before that vandal edit.

Additional comments: What is interesting is that Orientls is an account which has only made less than 190 edits in the past 4 years[1] which raises socking and sleeper account questions. This diff also seems to indicate a botched attempt of meatpuppetry [2] where he inadvertently seems to have copy pasted something else, probably from a chat browser, which indicates that he is doing edits under instructions for somebody else. This diff [3] confirms my suspicions further.

His edit history also looks aggressive. See for example his aggressive/incivil comment to Joshua Jonathan here[4] and his condescending demands (to which he has no right anyway) on TurboCop's talkpage here.[5]--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Winged Blades of Godric: it doesn't have to be a chat browser. It could be something else. This diff[6] shows a botched attempt at copy paste of the entire talkpage, with the result that the talk page became duplicated. My feeling is that this sleeper account (indicated by their low levels of activity since it registered in 2014) was given a whole talk page to replace the existing talk page but messed up. I am also quite surprised that you aren't taking this diff seriously because I recall in another case you took similar activity seriously.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Sdmarathe: This unexplained blanking[7] of old content and sources was vandalism. There is no definition by which it can be called a "constructive edit". This blanking edit was even before Orientls came to the talkpage.

This diff[8] is incivility. Read these parts "Do you understand what is an WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? You clearly don't. " and "since it doesn't you can't make connection only because you feels to".

The message[9] to TurboCop is inappropriate because that disclousre is TurboCop's business and not Orientls'. We can't say its a case of impersonation with certainty when admins have not even decided on that yet.

I also find your AE statement inappropriate.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified on talk page--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Orientls

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 Orientls

Responding as I have been asked below. I wanted to describe my edit[10] on Regional power in edit summary but I pressed "enter" key before I would type edit summary. I have checked before if there is a way to modify edit summary and I never found one. Nonetheless, it is apparent to everyone that the edit was an acknowledgement of the problems with the disputed content that were already described on talk page[11] and the disputed content should not be restored until consensus is reached. On talk page, I have properly backed my argument with high amounts of WP:RS.[12] There was no vandalism per WP:NOTVAND. This report is not making any sense and it is just a personal attack and a clear misrepresentation. I was editing the talk page where I pasted the content twice as my key got stuck and I later removed the duplicate parts.[13] In the last two diffs[14][15] I raised appropriate concerns that you are not allowed to synthesize content or impersonate identity of other users. You would know better about these edits by reading the whole discussion and conclusion would support that my edits are well within policies and constitutes no violation. Orientls (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying the below message, WP:NPOV is irrelevant because the main concern is with the quality of sources per WP:IRS. If there are quality of sources that support the scholarly consensus then the named country can be added. This source names a few "countries as regional powers" and Pakistan is not included. My comment[16] reads that there are many sources that talks about the regional powers and they don't name Pakistan as the regional power, while my other comment[17] reads that we can't add those sources that fails to describe the context and are contradicting the main article and scholarly consensus regarding the list of regional power. The logic that some sources make mere mention thus they are perfectly acceptable then would you support inclusion of India as Great power? Sources describe India as one, but not all. The same is case with Pakistan when it is about regional power or emerging power. Also read this source that thoroughly describes the issues with this statement, and let me know if you can produce similar source that has also thoroughly studied and described if Pakistan is a regional power.

This is why, already I have stated below that RfC or feedback from WikiProjects is needed that how we should organize the list and even if there should be a list as paragraphs are more preferred. Orientls (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

I didn't have time to look through the diffs. in their entirety (me thinks that it is a content-dispute and out of scope for AE but I might be wrong) but if we were conferring awards for lack of assumption of good faith, the diff. provided in support of the aspersion that some chat forum is being used will make it.

NadirAli, can you please leave your creative thinking skills, (which borders on nonsense), for some time?∯WBG^converse 03:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies,∯WBG^converse 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~On a side note, Sdmarathe looks like a very good candidate to be subject to the next T-Ban/block post the last saga.~~ Are you incapable of reading someone's t/p or going through the system-log for DS-alerts? Here's the diff of notification, shall you like it to be served on a platter.∯WBG^converse 14:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline report-I fail to see a single problematic edit, in the area, post the alert of the sanctions.∯WBG^converse 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sdmarathe

Regardless of my above message, NadirAli is still WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there was no vandalism.[18]

There is nothing wrong with that message, and this other message was absolutely correct given that impersonation is not allowed and the suspicious account never addressed the impersonation obviously because the account's purpose was to engage in disruption while using identity of a long dormant account. I wonder why NadirAli feels this offended. We cant allow impersonation only because you feel otherwise and you are testing edges of your topic ban by talking about an account who's edits are not supposed to be discussed by you since you are topic banned from the entire subject.[19]

NadirAli lacks the understanding of what is a vandalism and wants to treat everyone to be as deceptive as him or even a little bit, given his own history of siteban and topic ban evasion that was never brought into attention until very recently.[20][21] NadirAli has been making these allegations against other editors [22] by falsely claiming that others are making edits for someone else and he never interacted the editor contrary to great deal of with NadirAli.[23]

NadirAli is bordering on objectionable behavior - noting his gross WP:CIR issues and battleground mentality here alone, including the recent topic ban(link) violation where he was engaging in same disruptive battleground mentality per his edit summary.[24] Ping GoldenRing. I think we might need to consider some reprimand about this behavior . Sdmarathe (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d's misconduct and assumption of bad faith is concerning. Here's an example of Mar4d's continued misconduct on Talk:Regional power, where he says other user is "hiding behind one non-Western source".[25] And on this board, he dismisses his opposition as "WP:TAGTEAM", and seeks sanctions against them when they are not in violation. If I recall correctly, it was this same misconduct that led topic ban on him. But now I see it is becoming worse that he evaluates sources by their ethnicity and terms good faith constructive edit as "vandalism". Sdmarathe (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note that NadirAli and Mar4d have now resorted to misrepresentation of sources on Talk:Regional power and Mar4d has misrepresented sources on Emerging power by making an edit[26] where none of the sources of Mar4d mentions Pakistan as "emerging power".

@Sandstein: Have you confirmed that if Orientls was notified of discretionary sanctions? NadirAli has not mentioned it though he knows it better. I have found that Orientls was not aware of them and according to you as well it is necessary prior the report.[27] Sdmarathe (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

I'll try to keep this short.

The content concerned (which was blanked unilaterally) has been present on the article for several years [28]. Until it was removed in drive-by IP vandalism. I won't comment on Adamgerber80's restoration of the IP, given he has claimed it was in error. But right after a user restored the article to its longstanding version, Sdmarathe's first ever edit on that page is to restore the IP's vandalism. Then Lorstaking makes his first ever edit, restoring the IP's edit with the misleading summary "your SCO/G20 references don't make point", even though it included old references.

When the longstanding version was reinstated along with references, Orientls' first ever edit is blanking the section back to Lorstaking's version [29] [30] with no edit summary, which itself should be sanctionable. He did not explain his revert, and commented on the talk 13 hours later. All three of course have no history on the article, but edit the same topics, and added similar original research and personal opinions on the talk.

Regarding NadirAli's concerns on WP:MEAT, at the very least there is substantive indication of WP:TAGTEAM which ought not to be ignored. I would like to see scrutiny of the named accounts in addition to monitoring of the article for WP:NPOV issues, and at the very least actionable measures with regard to Orientls to prevent conduct-related damage. Best regards, Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdmarathe: Source details are certainly an issue, as you are emphasising one source in opposition to ten strong references. You have been long enough on Wikipedia supposedly to know by now what WP:WEIGHT stipulates. Please don't diverge this discussion off-rail. I'm not the one who's mysteriously turning up on articles, or edit warring and reverting WP:NOCON edits. Mar4d (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I am also going to request actionable measures for Sdmarathe, because it is clear this user is not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive or neutral manner. In addition to cherry-picking and source misrepresentations on Regional power, please see this latest revert where he followed me to a new page, restoring this IP edit. Mar4d (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, @Sandstein:: Both Orientls and Sdmarathe are obfuscating the reality when they use the term "disputed". As at least one other user noted, the content in question has been cited on the article since at least 2009. WP:STATUSQUO already stipulates the pre-dispute version is preserved, not the disputed version which in this case is Orientls and Sdmarathe's, and which was forced onto the article. I am also not convinced by Orientls' statement, given he made this cover edit right after the previous one where he blanked references, and would have had enough time to leave a null edit summary. His response on the talk page was half a day later as noted above. And neither am I buying the story about his keyboard getting stuck not once but twice. I wish to be proven wrong, but in my view, this is not the last time both these users are found creating problems, and their extended responses in the sections below are examples of the stonewalling we encounter. Mar4d (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I have now had a chance to review this. Orientls's behavior on Talk:Regional power is concerning. Their first comment shows a complete misunderstanding of NPOV: they say "We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream", which is a grotesque misrepresentation of WP:DUE.

It also provides the following quote "But it also reflects that secondary regional powers and entities such as ASEAN, Russia, South Korea and India have proved unwilling to chose between the two" from this source as evidence that Pakistan is not a regional power. Not only does that source not refer to Pakistan at all, it isn't even describing India as a regional power; indeed that quote says nothing about which entities are regional powers. If Orientls is unable to recognize this, it's a problem.

Similarly, this source makes it clear that it isn't providing an exhaustive list of "regional powers". Again, Orientls's comment betrays no awareness of this [31].

Furthermore, Mar4d provided [32] a number of sources. I have spotchecked these sources; the ones I checked support the claim they are used for. Yet Orientls's only engagement with them has been to state "We can't treat opinion of Robert Pastor that is added to the footnote by the source itself[26] and Iraq is not a regional power, thus Pastor's opinion is extremely flawed and same goes for "Buzan, Barry; Wæver, Ole", it is flawed too" [33]. Textbook stonewalling.

That said, Orientls has made all of 206 edits to Wikipedia. WP:ROPE would suggest only a warning at this point. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: I think you're missing the point. Do you stand by your statement that "We don't have to voice opinion of minority but mainstream"? Vanamonde (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Code16

Agree with Vanamonde93, leaving aside the content dispute (which is a whole separate can of worms), Orientls's actions are indeed concerning, but can be attributed to a lack of experience. Erasing reliable sources by claiming they are a "minority view" seems to be a misunderstanding of WP:FRINGE. All FRINGE claims are minority claims, but not all minority claims are FRINGE. There is a difference, and it is an important one for new editors to understand and respect. Since the user is inexperienced, I suggest he be given some advice on this issue by an admin and perhaps a warning. Code16 (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Orientls

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

Waiting for Orientls to respond. Sandstein 20:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. Sandstein 19:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only as a comment to @Orientls:, when I feel that I made an edit misclicked and forget to include an important edit summary, the usual trick seems to be a "null edit", adding a single whitespace character somewhere like in a template, call that a null edit, and then explain the edit summary I should/wanted to leave on the immediately prior edit, to be clear what I did. No statement on the validity of this report otherwise at this time. --Masem (t) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like admins are not interested in adjudicating the bickering about whether or not Pakistan is a regional power. I'm therefore closing these requests as no action, but @NadirAli, Orientls, Sdmarathe, Mar4d, 1990'sguy, Adamgerber80, Usman47, and Vanamonde93: I am warning all of you that if this comes back to AE then the result may be long topic bans for everybody who has ever edit-warred about this. Please use the fora provided in WP:DR, such as an RfC, to amicably resolve this content dispute. Please remember that this is not a question that necessarily needs a yes-or-no answer. This is the kind of question about which sources are often ambiguous and contradictory, and if that is the case then Wikipedia should reflect the disagreement among neutral, reliable sources rather than take one position or the other. Sandstein 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim System

No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (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 Seraphim System

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Seraphim System (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, third ARBPIA bullet :

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

16:41, 9 July 2018 Unjustified removal of long-standing sourced content related to Hamas (therefore ARBPIA) based on spurious reasons
22:21, 9 July 2018 2nd revert shortly after. This part of article deals with ARBPIA.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition, user violated third ARBPIA bullet as well: "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit."

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[34]

Discussion concerning Seraphim System

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 Seraphim System

None of the content in that edit has anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey isn't an Arab country. This has been discussed here before and the result has usually been that the content actually has to be about the Arab-Israeli conflict. (Especially on a broad article like this one, where the article is not actually covered by ARBPIA). And there are academic sources for this topic that should be consulted is not a spurious reason. Nothing in the edit even discusses state sponsored terrorism - all it says is they have a headquarters in Istanbul and gave some speeches. That has nothing to do with the conflict, broadly construed or otherwise.

I just want to add that I am not even trying to work on conflict articles, but some of the articles I'm working on like 1973 oil crisis and Terrorism may have some overlap and I try to be careful about it and self-revert when I think it's relevant. I will self-revert here also, but only if admins decide it's within ARBPIA's scope, because I sincerely don't think it is.

I first encountered this user when I proposed to move Yom Kippur War to Arab-Israeli War of 1973, ever since then he has followed me around to revert me on multiple articles, some that he had never previously worked on like here removing sourced content with edit summary "restoring sources" and here adding citation needed tags to content that is already sourced (I responded by adding two more sources). I just don't think this edit falls within the scope of ARBPIA, and it's frustrating to have someone following me around and starting ARBPIA-related disputes on articles that are mostly outside the conflict area.

I already stopped working on 1973 oil crisis when this happened, which I was hoping to nominate for GA, but he keeps following me from one article to another. This complaint seems like part of the same pattern. Seraphim System ^(talk) 22:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidBena: I actually did not remove anything for any reason related to ARBPIA and I didn't remove any content about Gaza or Israel or Arab-Israeli relations. I'm not sure if the editors who are objecting to the removal are doing so based on a thorough understanding of the academic sources available. State-sponsorship is not about inclusion on the FTO list — there has been a lot of academic literature published. A subject like this with an abundance of academic sources available shouldn't have been sourced to media sources in the first place—these sources do not even discuss state sponsorship of terrorism. I'm open to discussion, and I'm sorry this has escalated to another routine ARBPIA dispute. I'm entirely indifferent as to whether the content is included in another article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that Israel was listed along with all the other countries that consider Hamas a terrorist organization - ok, I still don't think it's within the scope of ARBPIA - its just a basic fact that was in an irrelevant section that is about a topic that is not within the scope of ARBPIA (in my opinion). It seems to me the conflict here is limited to the one between Turkey and Israel - if the edit included something like Hamas' response to Turkish-Israeli discussions, than maybe, broadly construed it would be within the conflict area, but there is nothing like that - only Turkey's disagreement with Israel about whether Hamas is a terrorist organization. What about this could not have been resolved in good faith on the article talk page? Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: There is nothing in the edit about a conflict between Hamas and Israel, only a conflict between Turkey and Israel about Hamas. This doesn't seem like something that needed to escalate to Arbitration. I opened a discussion on the talk page right after I removed the content - he only replied at the talk page after he filed this complaint. So much for AE as a last resort — not how it's supposed to work, especially for something as borderline as this. Obviously, I reverted because I don't think it's within the scope of ARBPIA and he was not responsive on talk - not to be disruptive. And if admins decide this is within the scope of ARBPIA, I won't do it again — it's no problem for me to abide by that.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: 82% Muslim country (the rest being almost entirely secular, not Jewish or Christian) - excuse me, what? It's Arab-Israeli conflict - that includes Nasser, btw, but not Iran. I've seen other recent proceedings here where admins have excluded Iran from ARBPIA, so I also resent being accused of Wikilawyering when I am just going by what I have seen in the past. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#Mhhossein - this would really have to go to ARCA if the scope was going to be broadened to non-Arab countries.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, if you are going to put academic sources in scare quotes, I don't think we are going to see eye to eye. I don't really have anything more to say about this ... Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Yeah, I knew it was going to be controversial, that's why I opened a talk discussion after I removed the content. Yaniv reverted without replying to the discussion. What should I do BDDD with myself? No, obviously not. You should strike the incorrect parts of your statement. If you want to file at ARCA, then do that, please don't opine about Muslims or whether Arabs are an ethnicity or a nation, if you are saying something that offensive about an entire race or religion you definitely need to back it up with sources, and this is not the right forum for it. The fact that this is AE should not be a pass on these types of comments (saying Arabs are not a nation, or that the disruption has to do with religion, not ethnicity) - these comments reflect such a deep ignorance of the subject matter, and personal bias, that I really don't understand why you would choose to share them with us during an unrelated AE proceeding.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should probably let you guys know, at this point, that I'm going to be going out of town again so I won't be able to respond further and I won't have internet access for pings (As I said before, I would be in and out all summer so this is just bad timing). I was hoping this would be closed before then, but I think I've already covered what I wanted to say (plus some extra).Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidbena

I find it strange that our co-editor, Seraphim System, defends his deletion of well-sourced material in an article entitled State-sponsored terrorism, and yet claims that the edit had nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, for which reason he deleted it. I'm astounded, insofar that while the article does NOT limit itself to the Arab-Israeli conflict (ARBPIA), it does treat on terrorism in a general way, including what happens in Gaza under Hamas rule. The edit, therefore, was applicable and should not have been deleted by Seraphim System.Davidbena (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Relations with Hamas (hosting a HQ, etc.) is clearly ARBPIA related, Hamas being a Palestinian movement that is a side to the conflict - this is ARBPIA not because of Turkey, but due to Hamas.Icewhiz (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

ARBPIA scope seems pretty firm to me, Hamas being deeply embedded in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Whether Turkey qualifies or not is immaterial (though it does; it's an 82% Muslim country (the rest being almost entirely secular, not Jewish or Christian), barely on any kind of speaking terms with Israel at all, and threatening to break off all diplomatic relations with Israel again – i.e., to once again be allied with Arabs and the rest of the Muslim world against Israel – since 2017). The disruptive nature of nuking the entire section of source information because Seraphim System prefers "some academic sources", and then editwarring to re-delete it all is clearly within DS range. The fact that Seraphim System doesn't seem to recognize that this kind of thing is disruptive, and just wants to wikilawyer about whether the page qualifies under ARBPIA then disclaim involvement in the topic area, is a strong indication such behavior will continue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re "broadened to non-Arab countries": I'll just repeat: "Hamas [is] deeply embedded in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Whether Turkey qualifies or not is immaterial". More to the point, SS's response is just more lawyering about whether ARBPIA scope can apply instead of any concession that deletion sprees (and revert warring to "enforce" them) of sourced material isn't how we do things. I don't do any editing in this topic area at all aside from drive-by gnoming, and have no "dog in the fight", being completely agnostic; my interest is as a reader. I just see mass-deletion of sourced material, in a way that the deleter knows is going to be controversial, at a page wracked with controversy, and does it again anyway after it is definitely controverted. This is loose PoV cannon behavior. And the waving around of alleged academic sources that the party doesn't actually cite, much less use to build better material, even less to show that the extant source material is faulty, simply doesn't cut it. That's not working on the encyclopedia, it's handwaving to distract from destruction being done to it.

When it comes to these "your ethnicity/religion/country versus mine" pissing matches, admins should be handing out at least 3–6 month topic bans right and left; it's what ArbCom had mind when they created discretionary sanctions in the first place. Turning AE into an "ANI2" for endless blathering on and sleight of mental hand, then not doing anything about patently disruptive editing, is a waste of everyone's time. It's not an exercise of discretion but of bureaucracy.
PS: SS is confused; "some academic sources" isn't scare quoting "academic sources" it's directly quoting SS's edit summary.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia hasn't been a single nation in centuries. Your attempt to throw shade on me as unqualified to have an opinion on the behavior simply because I don't agree with your views of the subject matter is silly and transparent. I decline to get drawn into a circular debate with you; AE is not a forum. What matters here is unrepentant PoV revert-warring, section-blanking behavior in a topic covered by DS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A simple preventative measure would be for those who do patrol and edit neutrally in this topic area and who can well-diff disruptive editing relating to Muslim–Israeli conflict to, in fact, open a WP:ARCA request to expand the scope of WP:ARBPIA to cover the actual scope of the Israel-related disruptive editing. It was basically a mistake to have limited this to Arabs, who are an ethnicity, not a nation, religion, or alliance. The disruption, like the real-world conflict, has mostly to do with religion, not ethnicity. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: What's a GMAE? I thinking "general [something] at/of Arbitration Enforcement" but am coming up blank. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Similar to Iran-Israel, Turkey-Israel relations generally do not fall under the ARBPIA sanctions, but they can when they relate to support for Hamas. The page State-sponsored terrorism does not appear to explicitly be under any page-level Discretionary Sanctions, though content on the page might fall under several different sanctions (American Politics, Syrian Civil War, India-Pakistan). As discussion of the content dispute is now proceeding on the talk page, I see no reason for any action against any editor, though there may be a need for additional page-restrictions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mhhossein

@Black Kite: That GMAE is not something new by the mentioned user. You might want to see this archived AE report, specially [35] and [36]. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by [username]

Result concerning Seraphim System

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

In my view, the edit is not within the scope of the 1RR restriction, even though it may well be within the scope of other remedies of WP:ARBPIA (which we need not decide here). That's because the 1RR restriction has a specific, relatively narrow scope. By its wording, the 1RR restriction applies to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". Whether an edit is in its scope therefore depends on the page that is being edited, not the content that is being edited (as would be the case, e.g., with a topic ban). The page at issue is State-sponsored terrorism. I do not think that this page, as a whole, can be "construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict", because state-sponsored terrorism is a very broad topic that does arise in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but also in relation to many other conflicts, as the article makes clear. (However, the article does directly address the Arab-Israeli conflict in parts other than the one related to Turkey; there are 33 mentions of "Israel" and 7 of "Palestin*", so I could see how other admins could come to a different conclusion.) As to whether the content removal itself was justified, that's a content issue outside the scope of AE. I would therefore take no action. Sandstein 07:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent on whether this is in scope, but whilst looking at it I do note that the filing party's last 3 edits to this article, two of which were obvious reverts and another removed material (making it one as well), were at 23:00 on July 7, 23:02 on July 8, and 23:20 on July 9. Gaming much? Black Kite (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No administrator has expressed a desire to take action in the 5 days since this was filed. Closing it as no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d

No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:44, 14 July 2018 (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 Mar4d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 1990'sguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mar4d (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:ARBIPA: Per [37], topic banned from conflicts between India and Pakistan, with a warning that "any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

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

8 July: Made pretty extended response to a comment that deeply discussed India-Pakistan wars such as Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 by adding "after the successful vivisection of Pakistan in 1971", "per his comments on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971", "When Pakistan in 1971 was divided into (West) Pakistan and Bangladesh, losing about half its population".[38]
8 July: Replies a comment that not only said "it lost its status due to defeat in 1971 war against India", but also included a warning that "I strongly recommend you and NadirAli to stop replying to this argument since it is not going to move without clarifying the India - Pakistan wars"[39]
9 July: Points a diff that discussed "controversial articles like Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War".

I don't see why Mar4d is even editing this subject of Regional power. It largely borders and is sometimes focused on India-Pakistan conflict when it comes to adding Pakistan to this article.

Misconduct is more than just violating topic ban:

Refers a good-faith edit as "vandalism" and alleges Sdmarathe, Adamgerber80 of restoring "vandalism".[40][41][42] This is a personal attack. See WP:NOTVAND.

Mar4d restored problematic content [43] in the Regional power article even though the content was already disputed on the talk page.[44] Mar4d joined the talk page after 27 hours[45] and started assuming bad faith towards his opponents by adding that he "find it extremely odd that a revert of longstanding sourced content, later called a 'mistake', triggers at least three users with no immediate history on this article effectively trying to restore the same vandal's edits. This article needs to be put under extensive monitoring." Mar4d assumed bad faith and targeted only the opposing side (see WP:BATTLE) since the two new editors with low edit counts on his side also never edited the article before.[46][47]

Mar4d has been invoking WP:BANREVERT by hounding contributions of other editors which constitutes harassment. Mar4d has been restoring problematic edits of socks while having no clue about their validity.[48][49][50]

In the above report, he falsely claimed Orientls was "blanking the section",[51] when Orientls only removed a single disputed entry.[52]

WP:BATTLE: Mar4d also requested "actionable measures for Sdmarathe, because it is clear this user is not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive or neutral manner." Sdmarathe only restored the consensus version and removed source misrepresentation on Emerging power.[53]

Mar4d misrepresented sources in the Emerging power article,[54] given none of the references make mention of Pakistan as an "emerging power."

On Talk:Emerging power#Pakistan, he still hasn't provided sources to support his edit and has attempted to justify the source misrepresentation by alleging other editors of "WP:HOUNDING".[55][56]

Mar4d was already warned by NeilN in June 8 to "tread carefully in this area", following the AE that reported topic ban violation.[57]

This seems like a recurring issue of a long term problematic attitude of Mar4d. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: [58] Topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict, with a warning as already noted.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [59]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [60]

Discussion concerning Mar4d

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 Mar4d

Statement by power~enwiki

I don't see any of the three diffs listed as violating the TBAN imposed. Linking to an SPI report, or replying to a comment which mentions an India-Pakistan conflict (without discussing that conflict in response) are not violations. While the dispute at Regional power is mostly a content dispute, the behavior at Talk:Regional power may need the attention of admins willing to impose Discretionary Sanctions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that there is no agreed-upon definition of "regional power". Pro-India editors want a definition that excludes Pakistan, and pro-Pakistan editors want a definition that includes Pakistan. Without such an agreement, we resort to the fool's errand of trying to get a majority of reliable secondary references, and the editors cannot even agree on whether specific references give evidence for or against Pakistan being a regional power. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sdmarathe definitely should be added to the sanctions imposed against a host of other editors in this diff, for what appears to be an attempt to weaponize that sanction in this discussion. Nauriya, Orientls, and Adamgerber80 may need some sanctions or warning, but I haven't investigated enough to make a specific recommendation. (Orientls and Adamgerber80 have been the subject of other AE filings in the very recent past) power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sdmarathe

Topic ban extends to talk page discussions as well as referring anything that focuses the area from the user is restricted, be it large or minor in form, it is a topic ban violation.

@Power~enwiki: The reports NadirAli and Nauriya had filed above are closed/closing with no action.[61][62] Both of these editors are on verge of getting blocked indefinitely for their sock puppetry[63][64] and Nauriya recently started an SPI against 4 opposing editors which included me and the SPI has been closed as insufficient without even a CU.[65] To sum it up, NadirAli and Nauriya are leaving, and only Mar4d is here and he is violating topic ban, calling good-faith edits a vandalism, misrepresenting sources,[66] trying to the last word on talk page while turning them into battleground and that's all after that stringent warning as mentioned already,[67] that any more disruption or testing edges of the ban would lead to topic ban or indefinite block.

To add further, I went through a number of discussions on Talk:Kargil War, Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Talk:Battle of Chawinda. These discussions also involved Adamgerber, 1990s guy, Orientls, and they were really smooth and finally ended up supporting the universal consensus regarding these conflicts. You need to think that why those pages didn't had any conflict but only this one article (Regional power) is having the conflict while those India-Pakistan war articles are having no conflicts despite major changes? The answer is pretty obvious. Sdmarathe (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

This again? The behavior at Talk:Regional power and Talk:Emerging power is bad, and probably requires sanctions on multiple users. It also isn't the best place for t-banned users to be. That said, The diffs as presented are not topic-ban violations. Mar4d is not permitted to discuss the India-Pakistan conflict. He is quite free to participate in discussions on more general issues, even if other participants are discussing the India-Pakistan conflict. It's also worth noting that the t-ban has been brought up in those discussions far more than necessary. In the AE discussion which resulted in the mass topic ban, I had warned that the conflict was likely to spill over into other IPA areas. That's what seems to be happening here. In sum, if sanctions are considered, I would recommend looking at broader topic bans/new topic bans rather than a block. Vanamonde (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orientls

Regional power in the context of India and Pakistan concerns major subjects including the Indo-Pakistani conflict. Initial argument was if Pakistan is mentioned by majority of sources as a regional power and the later argument was about if the sources make efforts to describe the emergence of Pakistan as regional power.

Mar4d replied to the sources added by Sdmarathe, detailing India-Pakistani conflicts with relation to emergence as regional power. Mar4d said: "your arguments and sources unfortunately are completely deficient, and therefore have been rejected."[68]

Sources have described that India emerged as regional power as a result of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 because Pakistan was divided.[69][70][71][72] I don't see sources that would make efforts to describe Pakistan as a regional power and/or provide significant details about Pakistan's emergence as a regional power. Sources are meant to be detailed and descriptive, more than simply giving a passing mention. Some sources support that India is the only regional power in South Asia.[73]

I stopped participating in the talk page because Mar4d has been replying without addressing these issues. This has also happened earlier on Talk:Umayyad campaigns in India#Infobox where he was ignoring every reliable source on the subject.

I plan to resolve this by organizing an RfC or seek feedback of multiple WikiProjects. Orientls (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mar4d

Concerning Regional power, please see my comments in the section above. Also, I have not violated any restrictions. Happy to respond if any admins have questions. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Code16

Mentioning the user's topic ban is irrelevant to this "regional power" topic, and seems to be an effort to stifle debate, which is bordering on bad-faith. I suggest that all editors focus on the content and stop attacking and launching arbitration cases against each other ad-hominem. Code16 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mar4d

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

Closed per my comment regarding Orientls above. Sandstein 13:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sdmarathe

No action, but involved users warned to resolve the content dispute about Pakistan's regional power status collegially or face topic bans. Sandstein 13:45, 14 July 2018 (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 Sdmarathe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sdmarathe (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/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions.

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

Sdmarathe's behavior at Talk:Regional power is in breach of WP:BATTLE. There is an ongoing dispute about whether Pakistan should be listed as a regional power. Stating that it should be listed, Mar4d provided 8 sources: [74]. I spot-checked some of the sources, and they did support the content Mar4d wished to add. These sources were provided partially in response to Sdmarathe asking for them.

Sdmarathe's responses have been discouraging. He has indulged in speculation [75], made claims about source misrepresentation [76], and tried to use lists of other regional powers as evidence (a logical fallacy) [77].

Most importantly, he has repeatedly discounted the sources previously presented [78], [79], [80], and then slipped into original research: [81].

While this may seem to be a content dispute, the problem here is not that Sdmarathe has not accepted Mar4d's version of the text. There would be no problem if they were engaging with the material. The problem is that Sdmarathe persistently refused to engage with the sources provided in response to his request, and instead indulged in original research and textbook stonewalling.

This behavior wasn't limited to that discussion. Their attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative, [82], [83], [84], and a warning from Cullen328 [85] made no difference to their behavior [86].

In sum, Sdmarathe is treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and is not displaying the level of decorum expected in an area under discretionary sanctions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15 May 2018 Sdmarathe is under an indefinite one-way interaction ban with me. To be clear, they are permitted to reply to this report, as it is covered by the "necessary dispute resolution" clause.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): Sdmarathe has participated in a number of AE requests in the last couple of months, all of which invoked the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To be clear; I don't give two hoots whether Pakistan is listed as a regional power or not. Personally, I think the dispute is silly in the extreme; geopolitical power exists on a spectrum, and any such classification is going to engender dispute. I am not exculpating the "other side" in this dispute; the behavior of Mar4d and Nauriya is far from ideal, and in their haste they have obfuscated what some sources say. I'm not excusing Lorstaking and Orientls either. But Sdmarathe's behavior has been a problem, and needs to be looked at: the other users can be dealt with in other sections. Vanamonde (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified. Vanamonde (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sdmarathe

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 Sdmarathe

First set of diffs concern content dispute, as far as I know they are not handled at AE. Still I would like to make a few things clear. First, my arguments are basically policy-based and similar to those put forward by many other editors on that discussion page. I have been analyzing the sources that have been presented so far in accordance with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, a core criteria for evaluating sources. The crux of my argument lies here; the sources provided by Mar4d completely fail the aforementioned criteria since they are making passing mention of Pakistan, just like the sources make passing mention of Venezuela,[87] North Korea,[88] and many other non-regional powers, without actually explaining in detail how and why Pakistan is a regional power; while, on the other hand, I have provided many reliable sources that describe how Pakistan is not a regional power and completely refutes Mar4d's arguments (e.g. [89])

I would not prefer to go into the details regarding the misrepresentation of sources by Mar4d and NadirAli, but just mention a few diffs that illustrate my point:[90][91][92] Also noting the existence of reliable sources rejecting Pakistan as a regional power,[93] it is even more necessary to take into account policies like WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

ScrapIronIV had just restored the version that supported my comments on talk page with edit summary "Per talk page".[94]

I understand the concerns. I can only assure the admins that I will be more careful in future, especially in what I say.

Also, it must be noted that on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizanali.007, my responses were made in response to misleading comments of Nauriya on SPI,[95] and Nauriya had filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RaviC against me in the form of personal attack and harassment. The suspicion, whether it was filed by Nauriya himself or it was provided to him has been raised by an uninvolved editor like Kautilya3, and patrolling admin Abecedare has also talked about it on the SPI. On WP:AN, Nauriya made more false allegations and personal attacks against me and others like, "personnel grudge and vendetta from Indian editors who themselves are involved in sock puppetry and edit warring".[96] This is completely untrue.

I will urge the participating admins to check my recent interactions on much more controversial articles like Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965#Change in result in the infobox, Talk:Kargil War#Result in infobox, where you won't see a single problem with my conduct.

I was mostly concerned about the aforementioned SPI and those continued personal attacks from Nauriya. I acknowledge that this doesn't justify my behavior--but like I said, I will be more careful in what I say. I had already realized after the second reply of Cullen238[97] to leave it alone and that's why I chose not to engage any further and I started editing something else as my contributions show.[98] I rest my case. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orientls

Replying the ping here. All I have to add is that Sdmarathe is correct with his assessment of sources on Regional power and it is true that the sources in this context are meant to be descriptive per WP:IRS. Mere mentions don't fulfill that necessary requirement. Sources must describe the emergence of Pakistan as a regional power, same way sources describe the emergence of India as a regional power. There should be no contradictions against the generally accepted names. Sdmarathe has only asked for such quality sources while provinding such sources for backing his argument. To make it more simple, can you find a particular date or year when Pakistan is said to have been emerged as a regional power? For India it is 1971.[99] I think you have ignored Mar4d[100] and NadirAli[101] incorrectly claiming that "all" sources mention Pakistan as regional power. There are mere mentions of Pakistan, but also omissions as regional power in many lists, while other sources saying India to be the only regional power in South Asia [102] and/or finding issues with the disputed statement.[103] Such contradictions are concerning and that needs to be addressed properly. Like I have mentioned above, RfC or assistance from WikiProject will help us to decide a standard of sources and if the list needs to be replaced with paragraphs.

SPI is still open and unhelpful comments are swiftly removed by the clerks there. If you are observing problems with statements of Sdmarathe then you can ping Bbb23 or Abecedare and request to deal with them. I disagree that his "attitude at SPI and AN has been extremely combative". It was not a very ideal one but you are ignoring that Nauriya filed an extremely flawed SPI[104] with apparent motive to get rid each of the opponents around. I don't see a logic for stoking this sort of rhetoric. I prefer ignoring such reports even though I was also falsely accused of sock puppetry by Nauriya who has assumed bad faith of the highest order.[105] In these circumstances you can expect worse if not better. Bigger concern is that why Nauriya is not addressing the concerns regarding his lack of prior interaction with any of the editors?

To be fair, such issues are not really significant and should be best discussed on the relevant talk page since the both discussions (SPI and Regional power) are still open. Orientls (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Code16

I will comment on a statement Sdmarathe made above, which indicates bad faith in the context of this dispute, and moreover, a dangerous redefinition of WP guidelines: QUOTE "Generally, it is possible to find two or more sources supporting many types of statements, including pseudo-scientific beliefs, that's why we need sources which completely comply with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources." END QUOTE. The user is claiming that this argument applies to ignoring sources like Samuel P. Huntington, who is one of the leading scholars in the field?! Wow. If this user was unaware of the difference between FRINGE and RS, I would chalk this up to a misunderstanding. But in this case, he seems to be fully aware of the difference, and has proposed a new synthesized guideline which converts any RS into FRINGE, arbitrarily, based on his own judgement. That is a major red-flag, and should merit more than a mere warning. Code16 (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sdmarathe

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

I don't have time to look into this. I do want to say, though, that Vanamonde93 checked with Sandstein before filing this, that it doesn't cause a problem with respect to the one-way IBAN prohibiting Sdmarathe from interacting with Vanamonde93 and neither Sandstein nor I have a problem with the filing. I do want to caution Sdmarathe that BANEX allows them to respond to this filing, but any attempt to re-open their wider dispute with Vanamonde93 will be a violation of the ban. GoldenRing (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closed per my comment regarding Orientls above. Sandstein 13:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Han Jo Jo

Blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:52, 13 July 2018 (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 Han Jo Jo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Han Jo Jo (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/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) : Talk:Race (human categorization) is within DS scope (article itself is semi-protected, so disruption in this case is constrained to talk page)

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

8 July 2018 – Accusation that article controlled by "American sociologists not biologists". Reality: article dominated by biological sourcing
8 July 2018 – Starts a trolling WP:FRINGE thread about classifying human races infrasubspecifically (idea rejected by scientific consensus since early 20th century); declares RS used in article 'copy paste[d] self-evidently false material from "reliable sources"'. WP:CIR problem: We can't have editors working on scientific topics who reject mainstream scientific sourcing.
8 July 2018 – Doug Weller adds {{Spa}} tag (AnomieBOT subst'd it later). Han Jo Jo (HJJ) reverted
8 July 2018 – HJJ starts "voting" subsection on their idea, as if WP determines reality.
[106][107][108] 9 July 2018 – I, Maunus, and EvergreenFir note it's inappropriate and why, hat the discussion per WP:NOTFORUM.
9 July 2018 – HJJ reverts; PaleoNeonate restores hat.
12 July 2018 – HJJ ignores hat, resumes thread; now making off-topic pronouncements about ICZN, as if this made any sense in the context.
12 July 2018 – Aspersions against other editors: "Why are the sociologists here cherry picking extreme minority views ..." – a delusional assessment of the sourcing (and the editors). Resumes nonsense about ICZN.
[109]12 July 2018 – Cites alleged "personal correspondence" from ICZN (still off-topic). Pointed to WP:V policy [110].
12 July 2018. Continues correspondence angle; attacks sources already used in the article, without any basis for doing so.
12 July 2018 – I patiently explain why ICZN isn't relevant and that taxonomy of humans isn't done infrasubspecifically in the RS, and why.
12 July 2018 – HJJ: "If you don't have the integrity ..." (NPA/CIVIL/ASPERSIONS). Totally WP:NOTGETTINGIT; produces double straw man nonsense (details: [111]), mingled with conspiracy theorizing about other editors. Right back to "WP is my forum" stuff, already refuted and observed to be off-topic.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

WP:SPA is a "new user", yet knows our lingo. Editing pattern similar to previous Mikemikev socks (they are legion) at the page (Слагмастер, A10000000000975, Felicity Wangmeister, Commissariat for Approved Egalitarian Views, Wikipedia NKVD, Pant Wrangler, Robert the Noose, KirkegaardEmil, Vekimekim, Emil Kirkegaard, David Smythe5, Diane Diamond, Rupert the Frog, etc.). Maybe insufficient evidence for WP:SPI at this stage, but one is open. Always trying to make "biological" arguments not found in RS, and HJJ fits this pattern. Note similarity of "Mikemikev" and "Han Jo Jo" usernames.

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

Received {{Ds/alert|r-i}} at 02:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC) [112] (and a {{uw-chat2}} at 10:08 [113]), both relating to the same page).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User hasn't (yet?) raised "intelligence" side of WP:ARBRI, but page is under discretionary sanctions regardless. No one makes arguments like these unless on a mission to push some superiority/inferiority narrative. Editor clearly WP:NOTHERE except to abuse WP for trollish crackpot "theories". See, scientists are just doing a WP:GREATWRONG because they aren't classifying us all as Homo sapiens sapiens africanus, H. s. s. caucasensis, etc. So WP:ADVOCACY must be used to stop Wikipedia, since its editors are a sociology conspiracy copy-pasting from fake/obsolete "sources" to hide the WP:TRUTH, which can be got from private e-mails (about something else entirely) that HJJ has in his secret stash. [sigh] We should waste zero more seconds entertaining this stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified: [114]

Discussion concerning Han Jo Jo

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 Han Jo Jo

Statement by (username)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Thanks for filing. I was only an observer of the discussion (although I indeed intervened once to assert that the discussion was undue) and it was clear that the editor had a particular obsession with this article, was determined to endlessly pursue discussion about a fictitious scientific debate in violation of WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. Resorting to attacks against the reliability of existing sources and competency, honesty and good faith of other editors when failing to reach consensus for their suggestions. The "Sad article, sad website" comment somehow appeared familiar... In any case, I agree about the WP:NOTHERE assessment. —Paleo Neonate – 00:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Han Jo Jo

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

No more time will be wasted here... well, it took me about 30 seconds to execute a WP:NOTHERE block, so a little bit of time was wasted. ;) Courcelles (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BullRangifer (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, and an explanation how these edits violate it

July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- Implies that I and another editor (user:Markbassett? it's not clear) are topic-banned when in fact, we are not.
July 18, 2018 Personal Attack- criticizes another editor for agreeing with me saying "Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe"
July 18, 2018 After being called out by user:PackMecEng for making a personal attack [115] he doubles down on the personal attack.
July 15, 2018- The above diffs weren't the first time he referred to two topic-banned editors, I don't know whether or not to interpret this as a threat

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified of sanctions on January 6, 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs speak for themselves. Bullrangifer attacks editors he disagrees with as "fringe". In regards to the first diff about "topic banned editors", the only way that this makes sense is he is casting WP:ASPERSIONS that we are actually sockpuppets of topic-banned editors. Not surprising since he mentioned the possibility of me being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before [116] there he says he is NOT accusing me of being a sockpuppet, but why bring it up?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Bullrangifer's response making no sense, he continues the personal attacks calling me a "fringe editor" yet again and now a "snowflake". Personal attacks like this are never justified.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:Typical WP:BATTLEGROUND response. Stop trying to muddy the waters. Your accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING is ridiculous. Even though it involves the same editor, this is a separate issue. The ANI thread was not about a page under discretionary sanctions. And you have completely mischaracterized the discussion I had on Abeccedare's talk page. That discussion actually had nothing to do with BullRangifer, it was about another editor's conduct at ANI [117] As for [118] & [119], not everything on a talk page needs a source. Why don't you actually read the John Brennan & Bill Kristol articles? Because those facts are there. And it wasn't a "quality of source" issue, its an issue of WP:UNDUE--Rusf10 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:Oh I see, John Brennan voted for a communist is just something the far-right made up, right? Too bad that CNN reported on it [120], showing you do not know what you are talking about. And would you care to expand your comments on WP:DUCK, because that is about sockpuppets, are you now casting aspersions that I am a sockpuppet?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek:- so you're saying that the CNN source that quotes Brennan is wrong?--Rusf10 (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[121]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

More harassment? Why am I not surprised. This is just more of their abuse of drama boards. This fringe editor's actions lately border on harassment and they need to be topic banned from American politics, broadly construed, and an iBan installed to keep them away from me. The last time their revenge MfD lost by a snow keep. At the MfD, their revenge motivation for starting the MfD was pointed out, and they were roundly called out by numerous editors for being on the wrong side of what RS say on Trump-related subjects. Anyone can check their contribution history and a pattern becomes clear. They tend to use spurious arguments to keep anything negative about Trump out of articles, no matter how well-sourced. That happens to be part of the subject of my private essay which they sought to delete. The community gave them a good spanking for that attempt to push a fringe, pro-Trump, non-RS-based agenda against a mainstream editor who consistently bases his opinions and editing on very RS.

Let me respond to their spurious accusations:

They seem to be paranoid. I have never said or implied that they or Markbassett are topic-banned editors. As I don't wish to cause anymore irritation than necessary, I won't mention the editors I was referring to here, but I'll provide that info to any 'crat who contacts me by email. Their topic-banning has created a calmer atmosphere in the Trump arena. Both are topic-banned and one has an iBan to keep them away from me. Unfortunately some editors, like Rusf10, seem to be filling their shoes, so a topic ban boomerang should be considered.
My comment was misunderstood, so I immediately clarified it. I did not "double down" on it. That's a false accusation coming from an editor who likes to throw around accusations of "casting aspersions". (BTW, when arguments are not policy-based, it's legitimate to question them and alert the editor(s) to the problem. That's not a "personal attack", even though directed at a person. It will usually be unpleasant, but as editors we should be able to handle such criticism. Snowflakes need not apply here. )
That diff only refers to PackMecEng's comment. My clarification response is linked immediately above.
Yes, I have referred to those two topic-banned editors before, and my response above covers it.

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also uses this diff and babbles about me accusing them (Rusf10) of "being a sockpuppet of a topic-banned editor before". WTF? I'm innocent and have no idea what that's about. More paranoia, and paranoia is a very poor reason for abusing dramaboards. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Recently Rusf10 filed a spurious request for deletion on one of BR's essays, in what very much looked like an act of revenge for comments BR made here (this concerned a discretionary sanction violation by Rusf10, which he however, self-reverted). The request for deletion was closed as a SNOW KEEP, highlighting the spurious nature of the request. This report seems to be part of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND pattern by Rusf10. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just realized that this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Rusf10. He brought essentially the same complaint to WP:AN [122], and the discussion there was closed by User: Abecedare with "No admin action needed yet". He then proceeded to harangue Abecedare about their close at their talk page, and was told, quote, "I am going to follow the advice I offered you all: drop the matter and concentrate on building the encyclpedia instead of wasting all this time watching each-other's edits and filing and responding to complaints". And furthermore, quote, "Please disengage and stop treating wikipedia as a battleground/schoolyard; none of you are coming across well in the process". Rusf10 has obviously failed to heed that advice as evidenced by this very request.

Together with the spurious MfD nom of BR's essay and Rusf10 persistent aggressive responses to BR [123], this is a pattern of badgering. It's actually no surprise that BR has finally responded in an exasperated way in this request to this badgering. And let's be clear - Sandstein's proposal for the topic ban is NOT based on any of the diffs presented by Rusf10, but rather, just on the frustrated response made here. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, User:Sandstein, how about you actually bother asking User:MelanieN how she viewed the comment? I'm sure she can speak for herself and doesn't need you grand standing for her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're here, in this WP:AE Rusf10 was "warned against using purely personal opinion in place of policy-based argument when assessing the quality of sources. They are also warned against engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior".

As the comments by admin User:Abecedare above make clear, he's failed to take the second part of that warning seriously. As far as the first part goes, here we have Rusf10 cheerily disregarding that part as well:

[124]
- "not to mention how far-left (Brennan) is (he once voted for a communist)" - unsourced attack on a living person and an outright smear
- " Bill Kristol (...) claimed to be a Republican for many years, he is also a "never-Trumper" " - another unsourced attack on a living person, implying that when somebody says they're a Republican they're lying ("claimed to be")
[125]:
- " Brennan is highly partisan" - another unsourced attack on a living person.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [131] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather WP:DUCK and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. All editors are asked not to use AE to continue interpersonal or content disputes, to avoid complicating this case. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Looks like a frivolous, vexatious, and unclean-hands report to me. Let's look at the diffs. This is not a personal attack and doesn't imply what the reporter says it does. While "Wikipedia is endangered by your attitude" wasn't worded very well, in the broader context of the dispute it obviously means "this kind of cavalier attitude about suppressing well-sourced information for PoV purposes, in favor of stuff sourced to fake news, endangers Wikipedia". No. 2 is also not a personal attack, though similarly unnecessarily personally worded. Criticizing an editor for holding a position that mimics that of a long-running PoV or fringe stance isn't an attack (either to that party or to the background party of the comparison), it's a criticism of viewpoint. Again, the broader context of the discussion makes it clear why that viewpoint is being criticized. Ditto with this one. What seems to be happening here is that Rusf10 is angry about being put in the WP:FRINGE box. If referring to it were an attack, we would not have that page. And it's an important page. The fourth diff is BullRangifer providing sound and civil advice, which Rusf10 did not heed, and the prediction in which is now likely to come true. I do think that BullRangifer would benefit from the first two sections at WP:HOTHEADS (basically, avoid "you" wording). One can make the same point without it, and without providing incentive or ammo for WP:DRAMA like this AE time waste. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

No opinion on the edits presented by the OP. However I am very concerned by a recent comment by BullRangifer, telling a well-respected editor: MelanieN, you really need to examine your thinking,[132] simply because she happened to hold the same view as Rusf10 about inserting a particular piece of content (a tweet by John Brennan lambasting Trump). He was immediately called out by two editors PackMecEng and myself, but he persisted and refused to apologize: It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking.[133] See developing thread at Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump#Side track on "wrongthink". — JFG ^talk 07:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BullRangifer

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

I think we need to take action against BullRangifer here. Even leaving the three reported diffs aside, their response to this request is wholly unacceptable, as it includes a number of personal attacks ("fringe editor", "paranoid", "snowflakes", "babbles"), and includes unacceptable aspersions, i.e., accusations of serious misconduct without evidence ("harassment", "their revenge motivation", "more of their abuse of drama boards"). Particularly, BullRangifer's assertion that "snowflakes need not apply here" is entirely at odds with Wikipedia's communal ethos as established in WP:5P4 ("Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility") and in the core policies linked to from there. Our community does expect and require that editors treat each other respectfully and collegially even if – especially if! – they strongly disagree about content. This statement reflects a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that is incompatible with editing in the tension-filled American politics topic area. I therefore intend to topic-ban BullRangifer from modern American politics for three months to give them an opportunity to improve their interpersonal skills in other topic areas. Sandstein 06:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Add to the fact that at least for the first three diffs, there is nothing that I see in the immediate contributions in that talk page of anyone else using personal aspersions or similar uncivil behavior that often begets more uncivil behavior. BullRangifer's comments out of nowhere are definitely a problem and do suggest a topic ban is valid. --Masem (t) 06:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree with JFG that BullRangifer's comments regarding MelanieN in this discussion are of eminent concern. Telling MelanieN that "you really need to examine your thinking. When Rusf10 agrees with you, you're beyond merely partisan and fringe", and "When an editor like Rusf10 agrees with MelanieN, in a situation like this, it makes it appear that MelanieN is in fringe and partisan territory. She risks being judged by the company she keeps, except for this vital difference...she did not choose the company. It should still be a wakeup call for her and cause her to revise her thinking" is so unacceptable that I find it difficult to put it into words. This is genuine harassment and abuse of a sort even I have seldom seen on Wikipedia, and not even because of something MelanieN did, but because of somebody else agreed with her. It makes me inclined to impose a block and an indefinite topic ban on BullRangifer. Sandstein 07:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 504: / Line 504: @@
 BTW, this whole Brennan thing is a current far-right talking point/concerted attack on the man [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_O._Brennan&diff=prev&oldid=850973345] [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/07/17/gorka_john_brennan_is_a_traitor_a_communist.html] [https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u0Ztr_1531930687] [https://deneenborelli.com/2018/03/communist-party-voting-former-cia-director-john-brennan-blasts-trump/] [https://bigleaguepolitics.com/watch-rand-paul-torches-creepy-communist-john-brennan/] (needless to say, these are not reliable sources). Earlier, he was being accused of "being a Muslim" [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cia-director-john-brennan-muslim/] and other ridiculous shit. So why is Rusf10 repeating this nonsense, even if it's just on talk pages (to which BLP still applies)? Gee, maybe the "fringe" label isn't a personal attack after all but rather [[WP:DUCK]] and maybe the comments directed at MelanieN should be seen in this light. But hey, go ahead, and enable and support this stuff on American Politics articles.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 07:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
+:''Text in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. All editors are asked not to use AE to continue interpersonal or content disputes, to avoid complicating this case. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)''
-Rusf10: ''"Why don't you actually read the John Brennan & Bill Kristol articles"'' - you mean the [[John O. Brennan]] article that is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_O._Brennan&diff=prev&oldid=850973345 currently being vandalized] with the same smear attack that you made on the talk page? (also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_O._Brennan&diff=prev&oldid=850953799] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_O._Brennan&diff=prev&oldid=850798947]) [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 07:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
-Rusf10 - calling Brennan "far-left" is most certainly false and an unsourced BLP smear (people do lots of stupid shit in college. I once drank ... nevermind). And yes, it is something the far-right made up.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 08:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
-''"so you're saying that the CNN source that quotes Brennan is wrong?-"'' - I said no such thing. Hey! This is a pretty good example of how you blatantly misrepresent other editors and try to play dishonest [[WP:GAME]]s in discussions.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 08:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 ====Statement by SMcCandlish====

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