Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sdmarathe

Declined per consensus amongst uninvolved administrators.--regentspark (comment) 00:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Sdmarathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed WP:ARBIPA: Indefinite topic ban from the conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed.[1] Administrator imposing the sanction BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [2] Statement by Sdmarathe I believe, the reasons provided by BU Rob13 for topic banning me are not valid and my discussion with him on his own talk page still did not bring up anything worthy of such a sanction.[3] Below are the 2 incidents that were used for the topic ban.[4] "involved in chilling SPIs that were found to be unsubstantiated, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital.": As I already told BU Rob13, there has been no involvement in "SPIs" by me, with the exception of the Liborbital SPI, which was about more than 2 months ago, and that had ended up with CU checking for the accounts and, fwiw, I never pursued the matter any further.[5] But BU Rob13 says he "personally would not have checked"[6], however other CheckUser already checked. "unnecessarily included information about the topic area .... an apparent attempt to exclude ... silence or remove the opposition" There's some big misunderstanding here. BU Rob13 seems to feel that I included details about "India-Pakistan conflict" only for barring someone, which is simply untrue. This same thing was discussed before as well, as can be seen in the preceding thread on the talk page (e.g., see here) The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is an intrinsic aspect of the rise and fall of India and Pakistan in terms of regional power, and it finds mention in a large number of academic and scholarly reliable sources when discussing the topic in question (e.g., see [7]); and so it is not possible to omit the details of this particular war when deciding if the said countries are a regional power or not. The principal reason why I sought clarification from BU Rob13 in the first place was because he had himself blocked Mar4d sometime ago along with 3 other editors after they had similarly participated in a thread about NadirAli's site ban,[8] and to me Mar4d's further participation in this thread struck as a breach of the topic ban imposed on him. Mar4d had then denied violating topic ban as well,[9] after which Bu Rob13 had detailed that how it was indeed a topic ban violation.[10] I informed about a new edit by Mar4d on Talk:Regional_power#RfC:_On_quality_of_sources to BU Rob13 and I only sought clarification[11] from him about this apparent violation (without requesting any sanction or block or warning) and BU Rob13 had agreed that "Topic bans are broadly construed, and this fits within that."[12], not to mention he told Mar4d for another time not to contribute in that RfC because of "mention of the conflict as a relevant factor in deciding the question under discussion".[13] However, after more than 24 hours, BU Rob13 changed his own stance on the topic ban violation from a "violation" to "no violation" without indicating how this is no longer a topic ban violation or violation of the actual warning added to Mar4d's topic ban notice that "testing of the edges of the ban" will be dealt with sanctions.[14] Similarly, I could be topic banned from WP:ARBEURO, because I included the mention and sources about "Ukraine" in my RfC and this RfC can be similarly construed as attempt to "silence or remove" editors topic banned from Eastern Europe or Ukraine under WP:ARBEURO. I was also thinking if one should be seeking clarification about this from WP:ARCA about the scope of a topic ban violation (not limited to this area) since this is more of a general confusion that if commenting on the thread concerning the restricted subject is violation "or" only making specific mention of the restricted subject is a violation. But anyhow, this topic ban in my opinion doesn't seem justifiable given there is a lack of any evidence of any policy violation or any misconduct. If there was a problem, I believe it could be easily handled with a dialogue. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC) @RegentsPark: I have removed nearly 300 words now, I shall trim further, let me know if I should or I should not. @BU Rob13: One 2 months old SPI and one recent query about a topic ban violation does not show I am "repeatedly" trying to get other sanctioned "through various abuses of process". Sdmarathe (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by BU Rob13 This sanction was the result of the same type of behavior that led to a "end of patience" mass topic ban of 10 editors in this discussion. This topic area has seen a pattern of behavior emerge where editors repeatedly try to get each other sanctioned through various abuses of process in order to remove "opponents". I believe this editor is a part of that pattern. This pattern is disruptive, and I will refer to my lengthy responses to the editor's complaints on my talk page for my explanation of why their behavior fits it. Note also that this editor came up in the previous AE discussion, but narrowly escaped a topic ban at the time. Instead, they received an interaction ban with Vanamonde93 for baselessly trying to get them sanctioned at AE. Again, the same type of behavior. ~ Rob13Talk 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Narrowly commenting on why I went with this specific sanction without an AE thread, it's because I see this issue as having already been brought to AE, essentially. I mirrored the approach to very similar conduct at the previous AE thread because I think it's quite important to have even enforcement across the board in a topic area where editors are trying to get each other sanctioned to remove the opposition. I may not have gone with an indefinite topic ban had similar topic bans not already been handed out at AE, and I certainly wouldn't have gone with it without an AE thread if that were not the case. It's also worth noting that I already said I would be open to an appeal to me in three months. Indefinite is not infinite. ~ Rob13Talk 22:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by Ivanvector I was pinged to Sdmarathe's topic ban inquiry on BU Rob13's talk page by Mar4d, although I'm not otherwise involved since I don't really have an interest in the topic, but I am aware that defining Pakistan as a regional power has been an ongoing debate. Here is a basic timeline: Mar4d (and several others) were topic banned from the India-Pakistan conflict in May this year. Although the topic ban is broadly construed, the definition is a narrow subset of topics within ARBIPA (specifically, pages related to the specific conflict). It seems to me that Pakistan's status as regional power is outside the ban's scope, as it does not concern a specific conflict between the two neighbours, but I see that this may be subject to some interpretation. In July, Mar4d participated in a discussion at Talk:Regional power specifically about whether or not to include Pakistan in the list of regional powers (Talk:Regional power#Pakistan, [15]). Sdmarathe also participated in that discussion, which was mostly between the two editors. Several others also argued against Pakistan's inclusion, but none made any reference to Mar4d's participation being in violation of the topic ban, nor SheriffIsInTown, who is banned under the same sanction and also participated. This week, Sdmarathe formed an RfC on a general question of source context, but it's hidden behind an off-topic reference to the 1971 India-Pakistan war. The reference has no relevance to the question, which originally was whether or not at least three sources should be required for inclusion in the list. They also listed a series of examples of countries which were mentioned in passing as regional powers, in which Pakistan was the only one actually listed on the page. It seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind the RfC is to create a list inclusion criterion by which Pakistan would be excluded from the list. In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Adding a tangent related to the India-Pakistan war does not make the RfC about the India-Pakistan war. I also agree with Bishonen that Sdmarathe's original post on BU Rob13's talk page was not seeking clarification, it was seeking sanction; if Sdmarathe wished to request clarification they would have done so at requests for clarification, and would have asked "is this a violation?", not run to an admin and declared "this is a violation". Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment. And, given Rob's explanation here, which I endorse, even if I might not have not gone to a topic ban solution without pursuing an AE discussion first, I can find no reason why the sanction should be overturned. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sdmarathe Result of the appeal by Sdmarathe This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Sdmarathe: At 980 words, your statement is well over the 500 word limit. Could you please trim it down? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Decline. After checking out the discussion with Mar4d and Sdmarathe on Rob's talkpage, I find it difficult to take this request in good faith. Firstly, Sdmarathe's opening post there was in toto "Hi BU Rob13. It seems that Mar4d has violated his topic ban[1] by commenting in a thread that concerns India-Pakistan conflicts", posted under the header "Topic ban vio". There is neither in spirit not actuality any sign of a question mark or doubt there, so Sdmarathe's statement above that they "only sought clarification from him about this apparent violation" [italics in original] is misleading. Further down the userpage thread, Rob first asked Mar4d to disengage from an RfC at Talk:Regional power. Then, when Mar4d protested that the RfC had nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan, from which Mar4d is topic-banned, Rob responded "I do take your point and will dig into this further". 24 hours later, having dug, Rob said "@Mar4d: After a complete review of the situation and a review of your sanction itself, I do not object to your participation in that discussion." To me, this is just how an admin should act: listen to the sanctioned/warned user, do some more research, and if new facts emerge, change your mind. I love seeing that, especially after some experiences I've had of admins doubling down, listening to nobody, and defending their original stance to the death. On this board, Sdmarathe tries to twist this exemplary, prestige-free, admin approach into an implication that Rob doesn't know his own mind and contradicts himself. Bah. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC). In fairness, this sanction does appear to me to be fairly heavy-handed; that said, taking into account Sdmarathe's previous conduct (see here and here) and the well-known fractiouness of the topic area, I don't think that, in this case, Rob has exceeded the margin of discretion that administrators are afforded in respect of the imposition of discretionary sanctions. For that, in my opinion, this appeal should be declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC) I probably wouldn't have imposed a topic ban in response to what looks like a non-frivolous enforcement request. But the banning user's references to the user's prior conduct in the topic area make it clear that the ban passes at least rational basis review, so I don't think it is necessary to overturn the sanction. Sandstein 18:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Agree with declining. This area is plenty toxic enough as it is, and I don't see how this request really addresses the reason for the sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

PeterTheFourth

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 PeterTheFourth

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

1. October 1 Trying for a 4th attempt on deleting this page with no new analysis, saying only, "no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" despite sources on the page including Nature and the New York Times. PeterTheFourth has no prior involvement with the page, or physics/physicists generally. There's no reasonable explanation for this action, except that a high-follower Twitter account today called for the deletion of the page following an argument with the page's subject. PeterTheFourth is thereby importing an offsite disagreement and using Wikipedia as a battleground.
2. August 5 August 26 2:34 August 26 5:58 Multiple restoration of BLP-challenged claims sourced only to a student newspaper. The second restoration claims restoration is supported by consensus at a point in time when no talk page discussion had even taken place.
3. August 6 Removing text close enough to the source that it might be plagiarism, along with removing the source entirely, with the edit summary, "Not supported by source used"
4. September 18 October 1 Restores deleted talk page comments that called another editor a liar; deletes a talk page comment that calls the article subject a liar with 3 citations.
5. September 26 Removing sourced facts explicitly for the reason the facts are favorable to one side of a dispute.
6. March 2 March 4 June 12 June 15 June 15 again June 25 June 27 July 1 July 3 July 8 July 18 July 19 July 28 At least 13 times removing the original English-language definition of "baizuo" from the page on baizuo. No explanation except to link WP:UNDUE despite 6 editors on the talk page finding that reason insufficient without further elaboration. Later reverts dispense with reasoning altogether, just giving variants on "Last good version" as edit summaries.
7. August 28 Responds to a request to stop wikihounding with non sequitur "This is not neutral and way too much detail"

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The issue with Motl is what prompted this filing, but PeterTheFourth is an editor I've been acquainted with for some time. I've provided additional evidence of less stale behavior that's nonetheless representative of what I came to expect from prior years, namely: opaque claims that consensus or sources support something without being willing to substantiate that, misleading edit summaries, double standards on applying policy, and general battleground attitude. An overview of his editing history shows he is exclusively active in pages related to the alt-right and gender politics, mainly whatever is trending on Twitter. This is basically his original mission as a Gamergate SPA exported into a larger sphere. There is a lot of right-wing misinformation, non-RS, and general shenanigans inserted into articles daily so it's good to have sentinels against that sort of thing. That doesn't mean a need for equal and opposite disruption, which is the nature of PeterTheFourth's campaign. Bringing the dispute about Motl on-site when there previously was none here is no isolated mistake. He edits with a battleground mentality whether or not the other side is on the field. It was simply his normal modus operandi accidentally straying across a red line. I have no specific remedies to suggest, but this at least needs the attention of the community.

@Black Kite: Peter's origins as a SPA are not in dispute, being he self-identified as such[16]. I would not characterize myself as a SPA though I have generated a large volume of text on the same subject; I have other interests. All of that is beside the point, as single-purpose accounts are not inherently an infraction. What matters in this case is that tendentious editing motivated by the single purpose is overflowing into other topics. Per the arbitrator's decision in American politics 2:

• "This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to political and/or social issues in the United States." (emphasis mine)
• "Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."
• "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited."

So while some of the pages themselves are not obviously related to American politics on the face of them, they are being edited with a a propagandist slant related to American politics. That's rightly more concerning than wikifights happening squarely within the confines of obvious battlegrounds, and that facet significantly informed the decision to emplace discretionary sanctions.

The arbitrators may consider whether Gamergate discretionary sanctions are more apropos, since it also claims jurisdiction over gender politics. My personal assessment is that the effect is on a broader area, and that's why it's important. Rhoark (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants:I regret my high-handed manner in bringing those complaints about you to AE. Rhoark (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: The issue is furtherance of outside conflicts using Wikipedia, regardless of what position one takes on those conflicts. I'm not advancing any sentiment different from your first reply to Masem re: objectivity. I think Motl's politics are terrible, and that AfDing him was a behavioral infraction. Similarly with the other incidents noted. Rhoark (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bishonen: It came to my attention via an offsite forum for Wikipedia criticism. Rhoark (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification[17]

Discussion concerning PeterTheFourth

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 PeterTheFourth

Man, that Baizuo article was annoying. I should've stepped away earlier, but I got frustrated when editors wouldn't engage with me. I totally deserve a trout for that.

I'm not going to pretend I don't have political opinions - if this makes my editing worse, I hope somebody steps in and lets me know. In the case of Luboš Motl, I'm not sure it has negatively influenced my editing. I first heard about him on Twitter very recently, and I checked out his wikipedia page. I was stunned that the dude had an article at all, as it didn't seem like he passed GNG - the most coverage of him appeared to be in the NYT article about a web-based archive which I would disagree satisfies the significant coverage part of GNG. It looks like consensus is against me due to interpretation of the more specific notability guidelines found at WP:PROF, plus some studious editors finding additional sources, like some interviews in Czech (a language I don't speak.) I wasn't blindly following instruction from some nefarious controller when I nominated it for deletion, I was just following my own boneheaded thoughts.

@MjolnirPants: I'd love to do the whole angry 'parade of grievances' with Rhoark where we fling diffs about and say mean words, but I'm not feeling it right now. Besides, he hasn't edited in 5 months - I couldn't find diffs even if I wanted to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants

I won't speak to the behavioral complaints directly, but any science nerd with even a passing interest in physics should be well aware of Motl. He's been quite influential in the field, and there are lots of good sources about him. I'm sure I have absolutely no idea why anyone would nom him for deletion claiming there are no sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: Hmm. I guess that explains it. I agree with your conclusions about the article, FWIW. Furthermore, I would say that the absolute best thing we can do to further the causes of social reforms (including fighting against sexism and achieving more diversity in the STEM fields) is by doing our job here with as must objectivity as possible. Any overt activism here is tantamount to the admission that the views we share are not based in reality, and any steps that appear to be overt activism will also appear to be said admission. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: My disclaimer about not discussing behavior only extended to that edit. I agree completely and I think this was a bad move on PTF's part.

That being said, Black Kite raised a serious point: This is almost certainly bearing on PTF's social views, but that's a very different subject that Post 1932 American Politics. Just because we call the large subject "socio-politics" doesn't mean it has anything to do with the actual practice of politics, it's just an acknowledgement that it's a subject that politics loves to harp on. And of course, just because this probably has something to do with PTF's social views doesn't magically make the topics under discussion politics. To say that this filing is a stretch is an understatement akin to saying that the Hindenberg suffered a little hiccup on landing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Masem:Oh yeah. Once again, I'm not saying that PTF was perfectly kosher here, I'm just saying that this filing looks more like it stems from an agenda than from concern for the project. See their response to Black Kite, which pretty much confirms it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: <sarcasm>Clearly only a filthy lib'ral would do such a thing.</sarcasm> Note that Rhoark has a history of abusing this forum for making socio-political points. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I'm glad to hear that. For what it's worth, I haven't seen you make a habit of it and I won't say that you have. But it still looks like a phenomenally bad idea to pursue this, especially considering that your response to Black Kite makes it quite clear that you're going after another editor due to their sociopolitical views. Establishing oneself as an editor pursuing a particular political agenda is generally a bad idea, but that's what you seem to be doing to yourself here. We all have political views, especially those of us who deny having them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rhoark: I get that, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that. The flippancy of my remark to Black Kite was not a dismissal of your position, but rather a simple satire of it for the sake of humor. What I'm talking about is the way this filing reflects upon you. The way you went about it speaks to a political agenda of your own, especially given that you should have been well aware of the GG DS, yet you chose to cite the AmPol DS instead. You might be surprised to hear this, but I think you do make an effort to be neutral on WP. I've seen you make edits that go against your apparent (and sometimes, but not always obvious) POV. But this filing just screams "partisan bickering", even though there's some meat to it. Note that Peter is likely to point out some problematic edits of yours, so a boomerang or a mutual smack-down remains a possibility. If I were you, I would back out of this and offer to withdraw. If the admins think Peter's edits are bad enough, one of them will sanction Peter on their own. Right now, this has mostly been a discussion between me, you and Masem. But pretty soon here, it's going to turn into a parade of grievances. You'll want to make sure you're not stuck behind the horses when that happens.

P.S. I skimmed over your filing the first time, hence the end of my initial comment. Having read the whole filing now, I do understand why someone would do it and I agree that it demonstrates partisanship. I agree with Masem below that a reprimand is warranted. If there are further problems of the sort, sanctions should follow. Note that I too, have responded to outside calls to fix WP from partisan outlets, though I made a point of verifying that their complaint was valid, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Oh, I'm sure you could dig up plenty of dirt on Rhoark, but I commend you for declining to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pudeo: Social issues are not an offshoot of Gamergate. Quite the opposite, in fact. Your argument is even more of a stretch than the applicability of AmPol DSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Moving myself out of uninvolved to involved, only due to past interactins with PTF on Gamergate and now commenting on behavior

• Zero comments on editor behavior here, but background here: from keeping a watch on various forums outside WP, the history of the situation on Motl starts with Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University defending his statement at a CERN conference that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation", which led Dr Jessica Wade to strongly criticize this stance, and where Motl came to defend Prof. Strumia's stance on Twitter. This led to Dr. Wade to call him out on that on Twitter, subsequently calling for deletion of Motl's WP page because she claims he wrote his own page in 2004. (Twitter thread here [18]). I don't think that if there were COI issues from creation, they remain at this point (prior to this weekend) (changes since creation).--Masem (t) 22:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: This is one concern I have in behavior. It is one thing to react to a Twitter message related to one's WP article to fix a small mistake or make a small improvement, but acting on behalf of a Twitter user to make significant changes like deletion is bordering on meatpuppetry or brigading. And this was an issue in the GG situation, even if one could argue that it was a net improvement to WP. --Masem (t) 22:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: under AP2 this is a stretch, but at least two of these - Sealioning and the Columbia U. rape controversy - fall within the GG's DS area (which includes gender-related controversies). Proud Boys might too, if one considers a mens-right group under that too (though the group appears more notable for the right-wing elements). The other diffs corroborate a certain behavior that is not desirable. Whether we can take action, I don't know. --Masem (t) 23:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Ah, see what you mean, hence while I don't know if we can take action or not. If anything, definitely a formal reprimand to PTF not to jump on actions requested from social media on Twitter without good reason and to Rhoark to not use AE if their complaints seem driven by a POV element. --Masem (t) 01:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

@Black Kite: hardly ludicrous to call PeterTheFourth a Gamergate SPA when their 13 first edits in Wikipedia were directly on the evidence and workshop pages in the on-going Gamergate ArbCom case. The only other topics edited by PTF, like social justice/alt-right/Jordan B. Peterson, are extensions of the same culture-warring and it's hardly surprising that the Reddit et. al. communities that were into Gamergate follow these topics too. But yes, it's pot calling the kettle black because Rhoark is the same, they both even registered in December 2014 when the controversy was at its peak. Maybe the ArbCom should have blocked editors whose only interested was to participate in the ARBGG drama.

And indeed, this is a gender-related topic, with its discretionary sanctions, as the scientist has been nominated for deletion because of his comments on gender diversity in the field of physics based on an off-wiki request, as pointed by Masem. --Pudeo (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning PeterTheFourth

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

• Um, without going into the actual issues presented here, what have most of the diffs presented here got to do with WP:ARBAPDS? Genuine question, I don't see how you can present a DS as the reason for sanctioning someone when most of the diffs are about subjects not related to it at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Also, it's quite ludicrous that the filer calls PeterTheFourth a "Gamergate SPA" given their own contributions. [19] Now that's what you call a Gamergate SPA. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Questions for Rhoark: you haven't edited for 4 1/2 months, yet here you are with an AE filing, where you state that "the issue is furtherance of outside conflicts using Wikipedia" by PeterTheFourth. My question is, how did you even know about the AfD of Luboš Motl and other recent activity by PTF? Have you been attentively reading Wikipedia all this time? Or might your AE filing be another example of importing outside conflicts? Have people been contacting you off site to urge such a filing, provide you with diffs, etc? Are you a mule? I don't know, I'm asking. I don't follow Twitter or the "criticism" sites much. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC).

• I'm not convinced that action is warranted here, at least not against PeterTheFourth. The complaint is a veritable grab-bag of diffs, most of them either stale or content disputes or both. It looks like somebody tried to throw whatever they could find at the wand in the hope that something would stick and thereby remove an opponent from content disputes. This isn't what I think what AE is here for. We are here to protect the community from serious, normally repeated and recent misconduct, and I'm not seeing that here. That's not to say that I think that all of these edits by PeterTheFourth are unproblematic. Many of them are questionable, but at least PeterTheFourth has recognized that as regards the most problematic series of diffs concerning Baizuo. Sandstein 13:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to the edit war over at Baizuo, I also find the edits made to Gibson's biography problematic; they are pretty much a textbook violation of BLP, in that contentious information concerning a living person was removed from an article on BLP grounds and Peter reinstated it repeatedly without getting consensus first. I agree that, as formulated, this complaint is unlikely to be actioned, because it seems to be an attempt at throwing basically anything at the wall to see what sticks. That said, speaking personally, I think Peter should be cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to that. Sandstein 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Nableezy

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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (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/ARBPIA :

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

1. [20] Stalking or conspiring.
2. [21] and [[22]] Disruptive addition.
3. [23] and [24] Disruptive removal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [25] Shows many ban and restrictions.
2. [26] EHe has been the subject of complaints here many times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy had never before edited the Birthright Israel article, and came there only after he saw my revert from 10 minutes earlier, after he had at that same minute replied to a comment of mine on [[Talk:Palestinian right of return]. This proves he decided to stalk me and "check" if I had made any other edits or comments he doesn't like.

The addition and removal are disruptive because they are major edits (the size of at least a whole paragraph), made whilst willfully ignoring the fact that the discussion on the talkpage showed that there is no consensus for them, with Nableezy simply forcefully imposing what he thinks is the right thing to do. That type of behavior in the sensitive area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inflammatory, as it causes edit wars, and is generally disruptive and most certainly not in the spirit of community editing. Even though these things are evident, I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Principles for additional stress in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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.

Result concerning Nableezy

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