Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:25, 26 February 2019

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910

Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. Sandstein 07:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Springee

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

RAF910 (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/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Note: This pattern of POV-pushing involves three editors. I hope that submitting them together is not problematic. These diffs and quotes are merely examples; the entire discussion should be read for context.

30 November 2018 Springee posts at WikiProject Firearms expressing concern that the "Criminal use" list at Glock is "out of control". RAF910 and Trekphiler chime in with POV-pushing comments: "...there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time. Just "VOTE and HOPE" that enough editors realize where this is going and are willing to do something to stop it." "If it didn't lead to a change in the law, what impact did it have on Glock? Show that., & maybe it merits inclusion". These complaints are not a substantial consensus-building discussion and none of the arguments are based in policy, however it is cited later as prior consensus. My suggestion to discuss at Talk:Glock was ignored.
30 November 2018 Trekphiler blanks the entire Criminal Use section with the summary "which of these led to changes in law enough to impact Glock sales? none." This is not consistent with any current guideline and seems to be based on a deprecated WP:FIREARMS criminal use recommendation.
30 November 2018 After I reinstated the section, Trekphiler removes it again with a personal attack in the edit summary: "don't need to show impact? it smells like gun-confiscator propaganda otherwise
11 February 2019 Springee opens a discussion: "The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [[1]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association." This raises several concerns: By linking the editors, Springee is effectively canvassing a group of editors who expressed support for his position; the previous, unsubstantial discussion is now referred to as "consensus"; and Springee is setting a high bar for inclusion, requiring that all sources in the criminal use section be about Glock specifically, an expectation which is not applied to any other section of the article. When challenged, Springee seems to apply a double standard to justify removing criminal use content while retaining information about police and military users: "The list is out of control because it is long, has no content other than "Crime X included a Glock" and is indiscriminate because no justification for inclusion was offered or suggested." (even though the Users section consists almost entirely of "Agency X uses Glocks" entries); " it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users" (while requiring that criminal use section be justified for inclusion in this specific article.)
12 February 2019 Trekphiler makes an uncivil accusation: ”This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns. “
17 February 2019 After reliable sources including the Washington Post are provided to support the Criminal Use section, Springee makes dubious claims that they are ”basicallly content free” and insists that more sources be found. This is accompanied by unproductive, rambling walls of text about everything from police departments using Glocks to something about F-150s.
17 February 2019 RAF910 canvasses Drmies, an editor who previously supported removal, and misleadingly assesses consensus by counting votes.
17 February 2019 RAF910 makes a false accusation of forum shopping (I did not start any of the discussions) and assesses prior consensus by counting votes.

Taken together in the context of the overall discussion, these comments represent a pattern of obstruction to the consensus-building process by refusing to work toward a compromise, refusing to accept that consensus may change and setting ever-higher bars for inclusion of criminal use content. The initial discussion on the Wikiproject Firearms page and selective notification of editors raise canvassing concerns as well.

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)

[1] Springee alerted
[2] Trekphiler alerted
[3] RAF910 alerted

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It should be self-evident that I did not come here to resolve the content dispute. I came here to address problematic behavior surrounding the dispute which has been impeding the consensus-building process. I find it particularly odd that Cullen328's statement consists entirely of their opinion on the dispute and implies that these editors being "right" somehow nullifies the civility issue. The comments presented here, by myself and others, would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia and certainly should not be tolerated in a Discretionary Sanctions topic area.

RAF910 has pointed out some of my writing on the topic and I too would encourage folks to read User:Dlthewave/Signpost_Opinion_Firearms. It is understandable that this may be viewed as polemical, however I feel that it is important to highlight the long-term pattern and I've been careful not to name individual editors. I view this episode as a continuation of the pattern described there. My goal is not to add criminal use to every firearm article or block everyone who disagrees with me. I just want to discuss it in a civil, open manner without being accused of bias. I find it interesting that Wikiproject Firearms members have repeatedly stated that criminal use is outside the scope of the project (most recently in November 2018) yet the project pages are still being used to provide recommendations on criminal use content and begrudgingly notify fellow editors of "out of control" lists. The lack of interest in developing best practices for criminal use content is one reason that I started the Gun Politics Task Force, an idea first proposed in 2015 by project members who did not want to get involved with political topics. It seems that their idea of "not getting involved" has evolved to mean excluding this content from articles within the scope of the project. The fact that RAF10 has made only two brief comments actually highlights part of the problem: They have made no attempt to actually discuss the content in question. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing I attempted to explain the purpose of my Signpost opinion submission above and Whitewashing of firearms articles was an essential supplement to that piece. I feel that it is important for editors to be aware of the long-standing pattern that has been taking place, including in cases like this where the issue is a continuation of something that has been going on for over a decade. I was careful not to include usernames. Is this a sufficient explanation or should we continue this in an appeal discussion? –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4] Springee
[5] Trekphiler
[6] RAF910

Discussion concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910

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 Springee

I don't understand why we are even here. This is a content dispute. The claim of improper notification Dlthewave made was wrong as APPNOTE specifically says notifying previously involved editors is not canvasing. However, when a few months after participating in said discussion Dlthewave reverts a consensus edit that is a problem. Rather than disputing the consensus Dlthewave ignored it. Since Dlthewave is concerned about improper notification I would point out that the project the editor started has a goal to add content such as mass shootings into firearms article when possible [[7]]. The ~10 project editors have been nearly unanimous in their opinions on such material. Why wouldn't any notice to such a sympathetic project be automatically seen as improper notification? Dlthewave isn't a "bad guy" or anything and, even though I think this ARE is way off base, I think in general they are acting in good faith. However, this is a very inappropriate use of ARE to try to address a content dispute. Finally, I would suggest that Dlthewave's own POV is very strong in this area. Consider that in their Signpost submission, towards the end of their article, they implied that editors such as myself were keeping criminal content out of an article against a general RfC discussion ("To date, the article does not make any mention of criminal use") but neglected to mention to readers that this was due to a new, local RfC that said consensus to not include. If there is PUSH I would say it is in both directions but also, even in Dlthewave's case, all within Wiki policies and guidelines. Springee (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac's comments

LP's history of INCIVILITY towards me should be kept in mind when reading this. The editor was blocked (later lifted with a warning) for their attacks against me. Block log [[8]], related talk page discussions [[9]], [[10]]. Unsubstantiated accusations of COI are certainly not assuming good faith when I have already stated I have no COI in this area. Never have, unlikely I ever will. Also, I'm not an NRA member, never have been. Springee (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, do not come to my talk page to accuse me of lying here. [[11]] If you feel something I said here was a lie then show your cards. I am tired of your accusations. Springee (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your follow up comment does not show where I "lied". Here is the block warning [[12]] in question. Springee (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional follow up comments

MastCell (talk · contribs), I'm not clear if you are suggesting I've engaged in battle ground behavior. I wouldn't think so. I've tried to engage editors like Dlthewave and K.e.coffman on their talk pages specifically to avoid civility issues. As K.e.coffman said, I have been civil. I do suspect I'm long winded and willing to post my concerns. I can see how that can be seen as stonewalling. You suggested I moved a goal post with respect to the Glock crime inclusion. I don't believe I have. I suggested that the sort of articles that could establish WEIGHT would be articles "about Glock" that talk about mass shootings. Never did I claim that simply finding any example should be sufficient. To K.e.coffman's credit they found two articles along those lines. Not to dive too deeply into the content dispute but the articles are of limited quality and don't draw any causal links. Basically I don't think they provide encyclopedic content. I said as much. I did not remove the new material from the article. I don't see how a civil disagreement on the talk page is stonewalling nor do I see how this isn't part of the process.

(new edit) @MastCell:, I don't think I have ever claimed this is a gun control issue nor accused others of promoting gun control. I have supported inclusion of criminal material in firearms articles (Mini-14, AR-15 style rifle). I can also point to examples where I was part of the consensus that opposed it (S&W M&P15, M1911). In the case of Glock, yes, I felt the WP and VICE articles don't do a good job of establishing weight for inclusion. However, after a sock added a new source I have stated I favor inclusion (but not as currently written).[[13]] I think it's unfair to classify my objections based on weight as some sort of anti-gun control mindset in my edits. Springee (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), I appreciate that you acknowledge the civility. I don't agree with much of what you have said here but I also view you as civil. So first, how do you think my question at WP:Firearms [[14]] would be canvasing? I made no edits to the article but I did raise a question. I suppose you could argue that the sort of editors who watch that talk page are likely to be sympathetic. However, wouldn't that same concern apply to anything posted to WP:Gun Politics, the project Dlthewave started? The few participants listed have been strident in trying to add crime material to many firearms pages. Look at the list of Collaborations and Related discussions. Every case is a discussion regarding the inclusion of crime content in a gun article. How is that different?

Anyway, based on the WP:Guns discussion the long list of crimes was removed from the article. Even now it appears that editors agree that the long, indiscriminate list should not be in the article. Pinging the involved editors when the topic came up again in February was APPNOTE (see Mr rnddude's statement below).

Yes, I did feel the proposal you highlighted at the S&W M&P15 page was forum shopping because less than two years earlier we had a RfC with significant participation looking at the exact same content.[[15]]. I think my view that nothing had changed was vindicated by the result of the recent RfC that reached the same conclusion as the previous one. How should editors feel when people simply ignore previous RfCs?

You said that based on previous AEs I should know about problematic behaviors. I agree. This is one of the reasons why I work very hard to remain civil, even in the face of attacks such as those LP has leveled against me here thus I'm not sure why you would highlight "Personalizing disputes" or "canvasing" given, as others have noted, we are dealing with APPNOTE. I do have a long term concern that is shared with other editors who have worked in the area of firearms. It does seem that some editors really push on the crime aspects by trying to put lists of crimes into every article. I have weight concerns with that which I've expressed with others and even asked Dlthewave to help with [[16]]. What I've seen is many of those editors got frustrated and found that either they did take things too far and violated CIVIL or they gave up and left that article space. So while I think it is incivil to suggest an objective to chase away editors who don't agree with a POV, I can understand why others feel that way.

Additional edit: @K.e.coffman:, I'm sorry that your reply was to back away from an acknowledgement of civil but didn't include answers to any of my questions/concerns Springee (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I do have a solution: I think one of the best things we could do for this problem, ie should crimes be added to many of these articles, is to visit the question of WEIGHT. I've discussed this a number of times and will throw it out here just in case. Does weight have reciprocity? That is, if A is significant to B, does that mean B is significant to A? In the case of some gun crimes people have argued, "the crime was significant and articles about the crime mention the gun thus the gun article must mention the crime". Other times we have decided that even if the crime was significant and a tool of the crime was significant, that doesn't mean the crime appears on the tool's article. For example, after a RfC it was clearly decided that it was UNDUE to include the DC sniper attacks in the Chevrolet Caprice article. Perhaps if we could answer this question we would cut down the back and forth.

Statement by Cullen328

I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun and feel that I am neutral because I have been criticized roughly equally by people on both sides of that debate. But if someone added content to an article about a kitchen knife manufacturer reporting that some criminal stabbed someone with a knife made by that company, I would object. Undue weight. It would be inappropriate, in my view, if someone added content to an article about a company that rents trucks stating that company inadvertently rented a truck to someone who carried out a truck bombing. It would be inappropriate to add content to articles about Home Depot or Lowe's or any other home improvement company reporting that somebody bought supplies there that were used to build a terrorist bomb. All bets are off, of course, if such a company was proved negligent in a court of law. Last time I checked, sales and ownership of firearms remains legal in the United States for the vast majority of adult citizens. And the overwhelming majority of legally owned firearms have never been used in a crime or any act of violence. Personally, I favor universal background checks and other reasonable restrictions on gun ownership so the so-called "pro-gun" editors might be wary of me. But really. If reliable sources report that celebrity X died of alcoholism, and their favorite beverage was Cutty Sark should we add that to Cutty Sark (whisky)? I do not think so. Undue weight and soapboxing. This should be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAF910

Please read User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions "Opinion: Firearms". Where Dlthewave portrayed himself as the epic hero fighting the forces of darkness. Basically, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy. Also, see User talk:Felsic2/Gun use "Requested move 19 May 2018" where on 4 June 2018 there was a consensus NOT to move this page to Wikipedia:GUNUSE or Wikipedia:GUNCRIME. However, 18 January 2019‎, Dlthewave ignored said consensus and created (backdoor) redirects to said page anyway. This is also clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Also, he is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. And, as you can see he is adept at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Dlthewave's edit history speaks for itself. I believe it's his ultimate goal to get as many "pro-gun' editors as possible blocked or topic-banned, so they cannot interfere with his crusade.--RAF910 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, Thank you for reminding me. On 11 April 2018,‎ Dlthewave started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics page with the expressed purpose of adding "criminal use" sections to firearm articles. Again, showing that he is a self declared Political Advocate. --RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, is wrong. I have made no effort to "to move the goalposts" or " responded with a litany of excuses that seem fundamentally like stonewalling." If you read the Talk:Glock page, the only editor moving the goal post is Dlthewave. I have only made two edits to this page, and only one edit in this regard..."OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.--RAF910 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)". The other edit was..."Starting a new discussion on the same issue, is just another attempt at forum shopping. The above discussion is 2 for and 4 against inclusion of a criminal use section.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)" after Dlthewave restored the "Criminal use" section against the aforementioned 2 to 4 consensus.....Also, how anyone could say that I'm trying to shut down the discussion at the Talk:Glock page with these two edits is patently ridiculous. The only editor trying to shut down discussions here is Dlthewave who is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. see User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions --RAF910 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave latest comment confirms that he knows that I have not engaged in any disruptive behavior. He's just upset that I have only made "two brief comments" and that I'm not willing to get involved in long drawn out discussions. He also acknowledges that it's understandable that his edits may be viewed as polemical, but he feels it is important to highlight what he believe to be long-term patterns. I don't know, or care why Dlthewave is here...I want no part of it.--RAF910 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

Springee opens a discussion ... This raises several concerns: By linking the editors, Springee is effectively canvassing a group of editors who expressed support for his position. Really? Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. <- The OP is the second name on the list of those notified, and only four people commented here. So everyone that was there was notified. So there's a falsehood.

Sigh. I couldn't read past there, although I see Drmies is also named. Fascinating that a pro-gun editor should canvass a gun-control advocate. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - this? it was closed as decide on a case-by-case basis if I recall correctly. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac

I follow the NRA article where Springee can be counted on to push a "nothing negative about the NRA or guns" agenda. He denies any COI but from what I've seen the NRA should be sending him thank-you cards and maybe an honorarium for his dedicated efforts. Such volunteer dedication is truly rare. I'm not familiar with the other editors named here. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee decided to dig up how they managed to turn a comment about their whitewashing of the NRA article into a short, inappropriate and quickly lifted block against me. [17]. I'd forgotten they did that. Just shows how relentless their POV pushing and wikilawyering is against anyone that tries to hold a NPOV line. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trekphiler

Personal attack? Seriously? At what point did I even mention my alleged target's username? (Hell, I don't even know it. Or care.) POV-pushing? That has to be the thinnest excuse for a POV push I've ever seen. I do believe the Glock page's "criminal use" section should be remvoed, because all it does is catalog crimes with no particular cultural or historical significance & no impact on any laws, nor on Glock's policies or sales. As such, IMO, including it is POV against firearms. My views on the subject are strongly held, & may be strongly stated. I will offer no apologies for that. So, I would suggest this is an effort to silence criticism or an opposing point of view rather than persuade or achieve consensus. (That "consensus" may amount to nothing beyond a narrow majority vote is a policy matter better dealt with elsewhere.) Since I expect to be held to a different standard from anybody else, as always, I will expect a topic ban, if not an outright indefinite site ban, any second now. So be it. Good riddance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I've participated in these debates and I would like to highlight a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour, the voicing of conspiracy theories, and general failure to assume good faith on article Talk pages & via edit summaries. For example, Trekpiler persists with his theme of a "[gun] confiscator lobby" which the editors who do not agree with him apparently belong to:

WP:GUNS Talk page, February 2018: permalink

Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun confiscators come out & blame the weapon for the crime.
And there are evidently some confiscators involved, too, or we wouldn't have somebody trying to put the event on the S&W [Smith & Wesson] page in the first place

Smith & Wesson Talk page permalink

March 2018: Naah... The confiscators will still rather take guns away from law-abiding people.
April 2018: As for the proposition the page is written as a promo or fansite page, that is simply preposterous, and smells of another effort by the confiscator lobby.

Glock, Nov 2018, via edit summary:

don't need to show impact? it smells like gun-confiscator propaganda otherwise

RAF910 expresses similar sentiments, with accusations of "crusades", "missions", etc.

Colt AR-15 Talk page, April 2018: Now we have editors who have decided that it is their mission to add criminal use section to every firearms article that they can get away with. And, even if they lose today, they will be back tomorrow with another rfc, and then another and another until they win.
Compare with RAF910's comment in this report: "I believe it's his [OP's] ultimate goal to get as many "pro-gun' editors as possible blocked or topic-banned, so they cannot interfere with his crusade."

Springee is at least civil, but he misunderstands canvassing. This was a clear case at WP:GUNS: Crime list at Glock. He then uses that discussion to claim prior consensus on the Glock Talk page, as detailed in OP's report. Springee (along with RAF910) has also accused others of forum shopping on article Talk pages. See for example, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Talk page, October 2018 [18], four instances of "forum shopping" from Springee and one from RAF910. I discussed with Springee here.

Springee participated in prior AE requests in the topic area, so he should have known about the problematic behaviours highlighted there, such as "personalizing disputes" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Thewolfchild), and "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should qualify my statement about civility as being too generous. Using article Talk pages to accuse others of "forum shopping" is not civil. It's WP:ASPERSIONS. If one has an issue with another editor's behaviour, then article Talk pages are not an appropriate venue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: re: double standard on sourcing, I do believe that Springee fundamentally misunderstands NPOV and does have a double standard. For example, he argued on the NRA talk page:

"If the source doesn't provide the full [NRA] response then we certainly can. (...) Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article...." & "I think in most cases we can find articles that say the NRA disagreed but often they don't provide the full statement. If that statement is available we should provide it."

Source: NRA Talk page (a protracted discussion). I was reminded of this 2018 thread because of Springee arguing, a year later, that The Truth About Guns is a suitable sources in the article on The Truth About Guns: WP:ABOUTSELF and qualifications. I don't think that any lessons have been learned. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Hey, I'm at ARE again--it's getting to be exciting. I should run for ArbCom so I can be on these pages all the time. Cullen328, I see your kitchen knives (and earlier in the article history I felt the same way as you do) and raise you a couple of articles which, apparently, clearly link a particular gun/gun brand with a set of crimes/mass murders. Had it not been for those articles it would be an easy matter of "remove, undue". But that's all I have to say on content.

On the actual matter, well, some of the pro-gun editors have a tendency to be somewhat inflexible, and play it too personal: Trekphiler's comment, cited above, on the "effort to dirty Glock" is an example thereof; I believe this is the kind of thing that led us to the Arb case on gun control in the first place. Another thing that was so important in that case was the...let's charitably call it "quibbling" over what are reliable sources; we see some of that here. And the more you look at that comment, the more reason there is to think that they are simply too hotly involved, throwing shade on good-faith editors. Now, RAF's note on my talk page--yeah I supported removing that section earlier, and it's true that I'm a Nerfgun-toting admin, so I suppose a kind of selective canvassing is possible, but for such a judgment one would need some more evidence than just this one. Finally I'll break a lance for Springee, an editor with whom I frequently disagree (because foolishly they disagree with me), but I believe them to be working out of good faith and with a strong enough knowledge of what we're doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the comment by RAF cited below by MastCell: oh dear. RAF, that is totally uncool, and the time may come that you will regret having made that comment. Personally, I hope you regret it already, and will retract. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing, after Springee dropped me a note. The complaint mentions a double standard applied to sources, and Springee seems to see that point at least for this article. I think this thread is probably enough to ensure that they will take care not to argue that way again, and I do not see the need for any sanctions against them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Why are these editors being bundled like this? The general behauvior of RAF910 and Springee for instance is very clearly different. Are you expecting some kind of a collective sanction?

The content issue needs to be settled for once and for all somehow. It is ridiculous to keep fighting over the criminal use section in different articles. (My opinion is that criminal use should be mentioned when there is a lot of coverage commenting exactly that, like with bump-stocks and AR-15 style rifles, but random lists of crimes in most articles is completely useless WP:TRIVIA.) In the case of Glock, the list of crimes is undue, and Dlthewave's viewpoint was in the minority and perhaps that is why he is resorting to this board.

Dlthewave's first point about canvassing the Firearms project is rather absurd when you consider that he himself has started an alternative task force called Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. If you go look at the project's talk page, you will find Dlthewave informing the project about the criminal use RfCs and discussions. How is this any different?

I also think that the userpages (User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles and User:Dlthewave/Hall of Fame) are a violation of WP:POLEMIC and illustrate an uncollaborative attitude, certainly more than anything Springee has done, in any case.

MastCell's comment about the three editors having a "deep-seated partisanship" (and apparently Dlthewave not?) is strikingly biased, and given MastCell's history at AE requests that relate to gun politics and general politics, I have raised the issue directly on his talk page.[19] --Pudeo (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Truthbill

If there were was so much concern with NPOV they would not object to experts on criminal use such as highly respected criminologist Dr. Blair and Dr. Fox and there studies. But they have because they and there studies contradict there sources of uniformed journalist sensationalism(shown to be belatedly false). And this is what all this boils down to. They wish to have there views presented and when a majority object to this they slowly pester and pester other editors until they then can go run and tell in there attempt to manipulate the system. Editor Dlthewave has even petitioned to remove the two policies that allow a editor to ask others to not post on there talk page.

For any admin to not acknowledge these tactics or there stated intentions for what they clearly are, and then try to condemn editors who get flustered and make some minor infraction that is used to then try and remove this opposition presents the appearance of impropriety, no matter how they choose to frame it.Truthbill (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910

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

I am still looking at the dispute. But in the meantime, I would like User:Dlthewave please to explain how User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles is not one big violation of WP:POLEMIC that ought to be deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, want there a big RfC on "criminal use" sections of gun articles recently? Possibly specific to the AR-15. Can someone remind me where it was? GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: The very one, thank you. GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the dispute itself, I'd value insights from other admins, but initially I'm not seeing any need for enforcement action here. The community have decided that inclusion of such material is to be decided on a case-by-case basis and so there is nothing wrong with the existence of the discussion per se. And at this stage I'm not seeing such tendentious behaviour in that discussion that enforcement is warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have received no answer from Dlthewave, I have deleted User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles as an arbitration enforcement action for being a violation of POLEMIC.
@MastCell: I certainly have no objection to the warning you suggest. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I'm sorry, that doesn't change my mind. Linking to a big list of diffs / discussions and then protesting that you didn't actually write anyone else's username doesn't make this not a POLEMIC violation. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is prohibited. GoldenRing (talk)

As a matter of first impression, this looks primarily like a content dispute to me, and we don't resolve these via AE. I advise all editors to keep calm and avoid ad hominems, but the conduct reported here doesn't rise to the level of requiring sanctions, in my view. Sandstein 09:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I vaguely remember once taking part in an RfC or other discussion about this kind of topic, but I don't remember what my point of view then was, or whether I participated as editor or closing admin. Sandstein 16:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
The current consensus is that criminal use of firearms may be covered in articles about those firearms on a case-by-case basis, so it's correct to call the underlying question a content dispute. However, there appear to me to be significant user-conduct issues in how that content dispute is being approached, and those issues are appropriate for discussion, and possible action, here. Specifically:
- Dlthewave does present pretty compelling evidence of a battleground mentality on the part of RAF910 ("there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid their is very little we do about it at this time") and Trekphiler (who removed a reasonable edit with an edit summary reading "...smells like gun-confiscator propaganda...", and dismissed apparent good-faith discussion thus: "... nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns").
- In this discussion, Springee and RAF910 seem to move the goalposts. They previously, and properly, insisted on evidence of coverage by independent reliable sources to justify coverage of criminal use. However, when presented with such sources, they responded with a litany of excuses that seem fundamentally like stonewalling.
I don't think that all of Dlthewave's concerns are substantiated, but a significant subset seem to be based on valid behavioral issues. The RfC made it clear that discussions of coverage of criminal use are legitimate and need to be undertaken in good faith on a case-by-case basis, but the presented diffs show Springee, Trekphiler, and RAF910 trying to shut down such discussions as categorically inappropriate (in violation of the RfC), and attacking Dlthewave in terms that betray their own deep-seated partisanship, when Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion.
If I'm the only one who sees behavioral (rather than just content) issues here, then I won't push the matter, but I do think there is enough evidence here to justify at least a warning to Springee, RAF910, and Trekphiler to respect our processes and to tone down the battleground mentality. If there are previous warnings/sanctions, then a topic ban might be warranted. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting the most problematic aspects. I agree with this analysis. Sandstein 23:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This really isn't an AE issue, it's more of an ANI issue. While the Arb ruling on gun control is "broadly construed", I think this is about guns, not control. That doesn't stop any admin from taking an ordinary admin action (based in part on the consensus of the aforementioned RFC), but I don't see how discretionary sanctions could be used here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a gun-control issue because these editors insist on making it one. The evidence shows repetitive accusations that various editors are part of a "confiscator lobby", and that the content disputes in question are motivated by the desire to control and confiscate privately owned firearms. I don't see how one can read the evidence and conclude that this request is unrelated to gun control. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MastCell. It does also appear that Trekphiler's interactions with other editors are more aggressive than the other two. I too would suggest a final warning on such behaviour with further issues leading to a topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, BlackKite/MastCell, but let's not forget it needs to be a logged final warning. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  - Yes, it does. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this thread again, it becomes clear that there is no case for sanctions, but a case for formally warning all parties against misusing Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. With respect to Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910, the basis for doing so are the reported diffs, and with respect to Dlthewave, the basis for doing so is the now-deleted page User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles. Should such problems reoccur, the editors may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions. I'm closing this thread accordingly. Sandstein 07:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph

Blocked for 72 hours. GoldenRing (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Sir Joseph

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sir Joseph (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

01:19, 20 February 2019 - title of the section was reverted to version existing before on 19 February
04:18, 20 February 2019

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Edit-notice informing of 1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A 1 revert rule was instituted for Ilhan Omar on February 18. An edit-notice was created informing editors of that fact. Sir Joseph has previously been reverting over this same section header (eg [ here). After making two reverts, the editor was asked to self-revert. The user declined and has been editing since. A clear 1RR violation with a refusal to correct it.

Uh, Sir Joseph, SoWhy said AE was the proper venue, and I disagree that the first revert is not a revert. Also, nobody mentioned ARBPIA here until you did. (since removed) nableezy - 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted to a version from one day prior. You restored a prior version of the article. That is by definition a revert. And you were offered the opportunity to self-revert. You refused. nableezy - 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Sir Joseph declined to self-revert prior to being reported to AN3. nableezy - 22:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yall Sir Joseph is still insisting he did not revert twice. He seems to be under the impression that if he does not hit undo then it is not a revert. Our policy however makes that a non-argument. I dont really care if he is blocked or not, but it needs to be made clear to him what is a revert. If it takes a block then do that. But after this thread, in which he takes "not clearly a revert" to mean "not a revert" (even though I disagree on the clarity) and continues to argue over it, I for one am unconvinced that this will not happen again or that he understands that he did in fact violate the 1RR. He was given the opportunity to self-revert. He refused. And now he is indeed wikilawyering, poorly, over what a revert is. nableezy - 17:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Informed

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph

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 Sir Joseph

This seems to be a bad faith request. As I stated on my talk page, there was no first revert, I made mention to go to Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion? where I changed the wording, which is the normal change not a reversion. MVBW then reported me to EW, and Icewhiz and SoWhy said the same thing. Admin, @SoWhy: explained this diff is not a reversion, and Icewhiz further clarified that the first diff Nableezy is pointing to is from weeks ago and can't be used as the first point of reference. diff I urge you all to look at the timeline of the diffs and not just Nableezy's request, we don't look at the baseline from weeks ago, this article is under 1RR. 1RR means you can't revert more than once in 24 hours. I did not revert more than once in 24 hours. I have also been participating in the discussion at the talk page and this is just playing the numbers game to get their side, which seems odd and disheartening to drag the IP conflict into a US Congresswoman's antisemitic tweets. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SoWhy also said, "Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW." so there is no first revert. Your whole evidence is that I have more than one revert within 24 hours, but I haven't. You can't put up an edit from three days ago and say you must use that edit and not revert. There is no restriction on this page about that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[20]] Where are my two reverts within 24 hours? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, that was in the diff I posted above, [[21]], "Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW" that the first edit is not a revert for EW is clear it's not a revert for here either. My first edit was not a revert and it's clear that it's unclear what is and what is not a revert. Further, I don't understand why BlackKite would point out my blocs from two year's ago, other than to muddy the water. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:That's not the point. SoWhy and DennisBrown are also of the opinion that my edit are not clearly a revert. Are we to go through an article's edit years or weeks or days to see if a word was there before? That is not what a revert is. That the article may have had this heading two days prior is irrelevant, it wasn't like that at the point I made the edit. That wasn't a revert, it was a general edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: No, that's not how it works. We don't retroactively change edits or intents based on other user's comments on those edits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Volunteer Marek's edits, are casting aspersions now allowed? He brings edits a, from years ago and b, from edits that are clearly not 1RR as even @Bishonen: pointed out to @PPX:, in VM's diff 36. So he's just again trying to muddy the waters with diff-bombing. It's a damn shame that people have to tag-team and make Wikipedia such a toxic area. Pointing out that 1RR doesn't apply to articles that 1RR doesn't apply to is now considered GAMING? I suggest a one-way IBAN for VM, every interaction he has with me has been negative and sniping, he brought me to AE for a frivolous action and he has it in for me, it's clear he can't interact with me civilly. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM has now stated I routinely violate 1RR and game the system. I want admin action at this violation of casting aspersion. It has been shown that his diffs that he provided are nothing more than rubbish. Why can he get away with one of the pillars of civility? Saying that 1RR does not apply to a page that 1RR doesn't apply to is not gaming the system, it's basic Wiki policy. And he saying I routinely violate 1RR is a violation of casting aspersions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: When someone points out to me that I inadvertently violated 1RR, I do self-revert, if you go through my talk page archives you will see that. That you are listening to VM's 4 diffs is a shame, especially considering his 4 diffs don't show that. I urge you to go though my archive and you will see that when I am asked to self-revert I do so. In this case, I didn't because I did not revert. I edited and as you can see, even the admins are not clear that it is a revert. So there is no need for a block and doing so would be punitive and foolhardy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

~~I have no judgement if any sanctions are required.~~ My only point is that everyone must respect the rules. This is the case when the user made an obvious violation and refused to admit it. Therefore, I reported it to WP:3RRNB, in a hope that admins will explain to Sir Joseph that he made the violation. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who edits in ARBPIA and American Politics must understand what revert is. One must also be very careful, be able to listen what others have to say, and react accordingly. Based on their responses, Sir Joseph still does not understand what revert is, he is not willing to listen an advice from others, and only blames others (even on ANI) of his own problems. All of that are very clear indications that Sir Joseph can not edit in such topic areas. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

@Newyorkbrad: - see diff at AEW. The first diff was an edit, not an undo, which passed through a state created by a different editor. The second diff is clearly a revert. The article is heavily edited (and just recently placed under 1rr) - to understand that the fist edit is a revert requires examining the edits of others in the page. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Let's cut the bullshit. Dude has been on Wikipedia almost as long as I have. He's been to WP:3RR and WP:AE countless times. Hell, it looks like he jumped right into the middle of an edit war. His edit summary begins with the words "again, her comments are..." (my emphasis). By using the word "again" he is clearly indicating that he is reverting/referring to an earlier version.

He knew, and he knows, it was a revert. That's sort of a point of jumping in to edit war.

Can we please stop pretending that this isn't just bad-faithed attempt at Wikilawyering? Which actually accerbates the offense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, go to Sir Joseph's talk page and type "1RR" into the Archive box. It's immediately obvious that this isn't his first tango. Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself [22] [23] [24] [25] (just a few). This is a pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sir Joseph

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

Maybe Doug Weller can opine here, since he is the one that put 1RR in effect. As this just got switched over, and the first edit is questionable as a revert, I wouldn't be inclined to take action other than a give a general warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: could you clarify why you think the first diff is questionable? GoldenRing (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly amazed that anyone could claim the first diff isn't a revert. The "allegations of semitism" header existed previously, was removed on 18 February with this edit, was then restored on 19 February here, and was then changed here. It's existed twice in the very recent history, so it's an obvious revert - and the second diff is definitely a revert. So that is clearly two reverts in 24 hours. If anyone thinks I'm analysing this wrongly, please let me know, but IMHO this is a clear violation. I note that the user has four previous AE blocks, although none are particularly recent. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Black Kite. The heading appears to have been moving in and out quite a bit and the 1RR notice is quite clear. Clear violation. --regentspark (comment) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit may or may not have been intended as a revert, but it becomes one when it is pointed out that the text was present previously. Once that has been pointed out, the intent of the original edit no longer matters, and not self reverting is a violation of 1RR. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Please provide a link to where SoWhy opined that the first cited edit was not a revert. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you to Icewhiz and Sir Joseph for pointing me to the link. If Sir Joseph declined to self-revert based on an admin's opinion that the first edit was not a revert, then it would be difficult to justify any sanction here (beyond possibly a warning) even if we disagree with that admin's conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which I would agree with, except that the user refused to relf-revert after it was pointed out well before SoWhy's comment. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While there is something of a grey area around what is a revert, I'm pretty sure this isn't that grey area. Restoring a title that was in the article two days ago is clearly a revert; that it is a revert if multiple editors' edits does not make it any better. I appreciate Brad's point immediately above, but according to the diffs above, the refusal to self-revert was more than 12 hours before SoWhy gave his opinion. GoldenRing (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether I'm considered involved or not for closing the ANEW thread, so disregard this if you think me involved. But since my comment was mentioned multiple times, I want to point out that "not clearly" is not the same as "clearly not". The first edit by Sir Joseph that is under scrutiny changed a section heading but there is no clear indication that they did so to restore this revision. They might just have come up with the same title coincidentally since the chosen wording is indeed used by sources without knowing about the first such change; Wikieditor1920 also changed the title multiple times afterwards before this change to the title. As such, I was and am willing - barring evidence to the contrary - to assume that Sir Joseph did not intentionally restore a previous version with their first edit. I'd recommend a warning be issued to be more careful and self-revert when challenged because even if the editor in question was not intending to edit-war over the title, the end result is the same and the purpose of 1RR restrictions is to avoid drama and force discussion instead. Regards SoWhy 08:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Sir Joseph should have known better, he has enough experience. I'd call it a revert. However, I'm willing to go along with a warning this time. No excuses if this happens again and probably a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that they should have known better and I agree with what you said regarding the warning. Regards So Why 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No real comment on the AE enforcement, I don't think there's enough here to justify a block, but to note that Sir Joseph has gone to AN/I and requested a one-way interaction ban be imposed on Volunteer Marek for casting aspersions (note that if he'd also used the term hounding we would have had an ANI complaint bingo). I think that is not a helpful thing to do. Fish+Karate 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that decisions about the enforcement of page-level sanctions should be made by the admin imposing the sanction, in this case Doug Weller. Sandstein 11:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- [[re|Sandstein}} you've said that before. What policy backs this? If that's actually the case and not your opinion, I shall have to go through the logs and remove all my sanctions because I just don't have the time nor am I paying attention enough. Perhaps I should start with this one. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's my personal opinion that admins should only impose sanctions that they are willing to enforce themselves, in order to make sure that they only impose sanctions where it is really needed. Indiscriminate sanctioning can otherwise cause a lot of drama and administrative overhead for other users and admins. Sandstein 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that imposes an unfair burden on Admins as well as a bit of a slur - I don't do indiscriminate sanctioning and I think few do. Coffee may have gone overboard, but he wasn't typical. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to close this with the following text:

There is consensus among the uninvolved administrators commenting here that this is a 1RR violation and that Sir Joseph ought to have known that and self-reverted when it was pointed out to him. Sir Joseph is warned to be cautious about reverting, especially in controversial areas, and that the next similar incident will be met with sanctions.

But the more of it I typed, the more it stuck in my craw. There is no acknowledgement from Sir Joseph that there was anything wrong with his edits, he is sticking to his wide-eyed surprise that anyone could possibly see a problem and has started picking the specks out of other editors' eyes. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Volunteer Marek. The history he points to may be old, but that's sort of the point: Sir Joseph has been around long enough that he should know what a revert is. So I will not close this with a warning. If anyone else wants to, feel free; if no-one else takes action or talks me out of it in the next 18 hours, I think a block is in order. GoldenRing (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement anywhere that the to be sanctioned user has to be repentant? Regards So Why 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is an expectation that people who have done something wrong understand that they have done something wrong and demonstrate a change in their behaviour accordingly; unrepentance suggests it'll just happen again. Fish+Karate 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: No, there isn't, but I'm not prepared to take Sir Joseph's contention that they didn't know this was not a violation at face value; as I said above, he's been around long enough to know what a revert is and it was helpfully pointed out to him. On that basis, a block is in order. I could see my way to a warning if his attitude here was, "Ooops, sorry, I was wrong and I'll be more careful," but it just isn't. As Fish and Karate says, inaction here will only lead to the same problems. GoldenRing (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I'm not saying I agree with VM about the diffs he presents, but that I agree that you are trying to wikilawyer what is a straightforward 1RR violation and that you've been here long enough to know better. SoWhy has clarified above that he doesn't think there is no violation here, but that he though you might believe there is no violation. GoldenRing (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR was just imposed, and the revert was from an older version which does blur it a bit only because 1RR was literally just put in place. It wasn't an active editing war going, so yes, I'm inclined to just warn and move on. Added to NYB's revelations, this seems the most prudent thing still. Blocking or sanctioning isn't going to change anything, so it would seem punative, or "just because we can", and I can't go for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, I'd support such a block for the reasons you give. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Atsme

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: Atsme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indef topic ban from AP2 broadly construed imposed at the beginning of this ARCA request in June 2018, and the first appeal in August 2018 that I withdrew in 24 hrs.

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

Notification of that administrator: Diff

Statement by Atsme

I’m here to appeal my June 2018 AP2 indef T-ban that was imposed on me by Bishonen at ARCA independently of the case that was filed, noting that I filed a 1st appeal in Aug 2018 and withdrew it within approx 24 hrs with an ArbCom restriction of 6 mos before I could appeal again. The 6 mos. restriction has expired.

Over the past few months, I throttled down my editing to focus on family and RL demands, but also managed to devote some private time to reflect on my contributions in the AP2 topic area. I will say that it isn't easy to see oneself objectively but I did try and feel that I’ve succeeded as a result of the time I spent with family and friends who mercilessly indulged me in conversations regarding one of the least favorite topics people want to discuss over the holidays...that being the topic area of this appeal. It was the best thing that could’ve happened as it taught me how to better manage the emotional triggers that topic alone has a tendency to create. It certainly led me to a better understanding of the highly contentious AP2 topic area. More importantly, I’ve learned that the best way to avoid drama in political discussions is to simply stop contributing and walk away.

In retrospect, I regret the occasions I strayed from my customary collegial behavior during RfCs and consensus required discussions in the AP2 topic area. I don’t have such issues when editing in other topic areas so I used the latter to gage my behavior in AP2. I now see the biggest problem was my overzealousness to win the debates and gain consensus, showing little consideration to opposing views. The times my position did gain consensus were overshadowed by the inappropriateness of my persistence, and for that I apologize with a promise that it will never happen again. I made a New Year's resolution that if I ever find myself participating in the AP2 topic area again I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind, will answer questions if asked and will maintain my customary polite demeaner at all times. If I happen to be notified of an RfC, I will simply cast my iVote, state why, and move on to other areas. I have also read the essays WP:WORLDSEND, WP:DGAF, and WP:LETITGO and have taken them to heart.

In closing, I will add that I never before realized how intertwined politics is in our everyday lives, or that such a broad t-ban would be so restrictive to my normal editing activities, particularly when working at AfC and NPP. I also became overly cautious and chose to deny requests for copy editing and lead improvement if I saw even a hint of a potential political undertow in the articles. I did not under any circumstances want to inadvertently violate my t-ban. It has been a heavy burden to carry, and I do hope the decision here will weigh in my favor so I can return to my normal editing activity. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floq - allegations of specific misconduct without diffs are difficult to address but I understand that going back to find evidence is tedious work, and as an admin you already have a lot on your plate. My appeal is somewhat broad in scope as I believe the crux of my behavior is what led to other behaviors. If it will help, I once copied all the diffs presented against me by MrX and addressed them at User talk:Atsme/RVW back in August in preparation of my 1st appeal. Please select the specific diffs you feel are not covered in my current appeal and I will be happy to address them individually. With regards to your questions about Bishonen, I believe the word I used was bias not hate, and if I did use hate, I apologize, it was totally out of character. With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate for me to respond directly to that part of your question because I feel it is irrelevant to my appeal in that it has nothing to do with my ability to edit in the AP2 topic area. However, if it will help put your mind at ease, I will say that I hold no animosity toward anyone, regardless of the situation. In fact, I have defended two other editors at AE and/or ANI, SPECIFICO and BullRangifer, who have consistently been opponents in the AP2 topic area. We have maintained a collegial association as editors despite our disagreements. I have kept two diffs from other editors because their comments were unsolicited and I treasure them to this day. Hopefully they will serve to support my position as they are relevent to behavior: 10-26-2018 by an admin, and 03-14-2016 by a user I once filed against at AN/I and now hold in high regard. Sidenote: I am nopinging to avoid the appearance of canvassing. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Floq - this appeal is about my promise to not partake in TE, broadly construed. This is not about Bishonen - she was simply the enforcing admin. If you have an issue with anything I've said related to her, please take it to AN. It does not belong here. This venue is AE regarding editing behavior where DS have been imposed. Thank you. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 23:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AWilley - please read my response to Floq. Provide the diffs that have raised your concern, otherwise I cannot provide an appropriate answer without knowing exactly to what you are referring. I need specifics, please. The allegations against me are compiled in the link I provided to Floq above - you can pick the ones you feel I need to address. Without diffs to support a specific allegation, we are treading awfully close to aspersions. The diffs used as evidence against me in my June t-ban are there for the choosing, and my explanations are there as well. I don't recall ever being the editor you described below. While my editing was tendentious, I have never been one to spew nonsense, and will never be that person, unless ^[FBDB] is indicated. I will admit that on a few occasions my humor was sarcastic but we all indulged from time to time. Since my t-ban was imposed, the following discussions have emerged: here and here, so it isn't an issue that is unique to my concerns. Read Masem's statement again as it describes the primary issue well. As for the comments about AP2 becoming a quieter topic area, doesn't that customarily hold true when most of the opposition is eliminated and the bulk of the editing is done by like-minded individuals? Have you considered that since your attempt to impose Special DS on SPECIFICO, he/she has not edited in that topic area since? Others have been on and off. Please don't forget that there have been a substantial number of editors t-banned since June 2018, not just me. Bishonen acknowledged that in her statement. Was it really necessary for you to make such a claim without providing factual information with the numbers to support it? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was very disheartening to read your response. In your 1st diff, the source is not black listed and can be used with caution, but I took it one step further by adding NYTimes as a source for verification per the diff you provided. Did you not read the diff? There was no error on my part. The 2nd & 3rd diffs you included below - Breitbart which was cherrypicked from an WP:RSN discussion, not from an AP2 article rather it was about something Ben Shapiro had said. The #2 diff was also at RSN. If you had read my comment you would have seen "Editors have to exercise a bit more caution than before when it comes to verifying any publication that's considered a "news source". Bait-click headlines and fallacious content are rampant, and none of them are immune." The Daily Wire and Red State diffs you included were in a question I asked on the Sean Hannity TP regarding edits by an IP - "Can we use Daily Wire which explains the crux of what IP207 is saying?", so again, my references to those sources were taken out of context. Nothing I've said in my appeal has been disengenuous. What you provided as evidence to discredit me regarding sources substantiated nothing that belongs in this appeal, and none of it can be related to disruptive editing which further explains why I did not include it. You have your opinion, AWilley, and there is nothing I can do to change that if you're not going to actually read the diffs in context, but as an admin, you are obligated to at least present the facts correctly. I cannot fix problems that don't exist and if I'm to be blamed for doing things I didn't do, you shouldn't be disappointed if I refuse to apologize for it. I identified the problem that existed regarding my t-ban and Masem's statement helped to validate it. It appears that whether or not I respond to each allegation made by involved editors/admins or choose to ignore them, I will be condemned either way as what Floq just demonstrated - damned if I do - damned if I don't. At least I've corrected the misinformation and properly stated facts, so if I'm to be punished for that, then so be it. I've done the best I can do. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

regentspark - I feel that your question relating to Bishonen is irrelevant to my appeal in that it has nothing to do with my ability to edit in the AP2 topic area. Why are you even bringing it up? This is now beginning to appear to be punitive considering this is my first t-ban ever, since I've been an editor, and it was an indef t-ban whereas other editors who have done far worse were given shorter time limits. There is no need for me to vindicate Bishonen's actions. This is a t-ban appeal at AE, not a request for desysopping at AN so why is it even being discussed? No, I have no intention of filing for a desysop of Bishonen. My statement in my appeal is thorough and to the point. Your questions go beyond what is expected in an appeal. I've made my statement and acknowledged the areas where I need to improve - if you have reason to believe there are other areas that I need to improve, then provide the diffs please. I actually went back and studied the diffs that were used against me, and asked Newyorkbrad for the specifics. His response was quite vague - not one diff was mentioned. Editors who make allegations about another editor are expected to provide diffs to support their allegations. With all due respect, I ask for the same consideration. Provide the diffs so that I may respond with an intelligent, well-thought out answer to your questions. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 21:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

regentspark - I hope it doesn't create an issue, but I just bolded a portion of my text above to emphasize the crux of my appeal. In totality, that is the part that really matters. The focus here is supposed to be a remedy for disruptive behavior, and to deny my appeal based only on speculation and dismissing what I've vowed to do is not fair to me or the project. If you haven't actually studied the diffs in context that were used against me, and I copied to User talk:Atsme/RVW, please take the time to do so because they are what my t-ban was based on - and this appeal is about that t-ban. If you find anything in those diffs that I have not addressed, please advise so we can discuss it. I am a person of principal and I honor my commitments. You can take my words at face value. I am not hiding behind anonymity - what you see is what you get - my real id is on the line here, and I was hoping that my years as an editor have been far more productive than disruptive, so please don't judge me based on this one t-ban. In fact, it would be wonderful if every editor who participated in the AP2 topic area would make a behavior vow similar to mine. AE would look like a ghost town. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 03:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell - please provide the diffs you are referencing so that I may address your concerns. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 22:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - of course there is a human crisis at the southern border, and something needs to be done about it but AE is not the place to discuss it, and certainly not now. Instead of automatically believing the worst of me, you should have noticed that picture was posted a year ago on my TP and it is no longer there. The story behind it was actually a true situation when a friend's kids were watching TV and saw all the kids playing in one of the camps, and they actually thought it was a summer camp where they could go. Real life moment. Secondly, it has no relevance to this appeal except as an attempt to unfairly smear me, and it should be removed. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 05:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen - I was actually referring to the section here for involved editors.^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 14:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bish, my apologies for the confusion. Regarding the disruption comment, I was actually referring to your statement in the original case wherein you said, "I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld. Several people have recommended an AP3 case to deal with the chaos on Trump-related pages. This diff. Probably not the best example but it made sense at the time. With regard to the other issue, my reference was to the section title below where "Involved editors" are supposed to comment - involved in the regard MastCell mentioned and where other editors have participated in AP2, I suppose. Perhaps I was confused over what you said. Anyway, work awaits, and I think it's time for me to get busy responding to CE requests. Enjoy the day! ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to respond to MVBW's use of this link which appears to have raised some doubt. It actually turns out to be an excellent example of what I have already identified as the problem I vowed to not repeat. In that diff, I was overzealous, wandered off point, and clearly lacked brevity - please read my close in that diff which is actually the point I was trying to make - Use inline text attribution, follow the RS guideline for material that may be challenged, avoid policy noncompliance and apply BRD to rid an article of biased garbage and fallacious claims. Unfortunately, my close was completely lost primarily because of what I have properly described in my appeal as the crux of my problem. I reiterate...overzealousness, lack of brevity, wandering off point - and that's what led to the issues that were raised. Had I simply stated what I stated in the close instead of all the rambling that preceded it, my comment would not have been an issue...except for some of the ending terminology which I will not use in that manner in the future. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I don't think I'll comment here, unless someone should have an urgent question for me. But it might be useful to have a link to my topic ban rationale. Here it is. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It turns out I've nevertheless got a few questions now:

@Atsme: You say "Please don't forget that there have been a substantial number of editors t-banned since June 2018, not just me. Bishonen acknowledged that in her statement." I'm not quite following that. I acknowledged what, where?
@Atsme: I notice that now you meet some resistance, the allegations of "involved administrators" appear again: "It appears that whether or not I respond to each allegation made by involved editors/admins or choose to ignore them, I will be condemned either way". Not sure who you're referring to as involved — is it Awilley? Awilley and some others? Bishonen | talk 12:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
@Fish and karate: You point out that Atsme's banner about the Trump summer camps is seven months old, and "unless there's evidence of recent advocacy [you're] not really concerned about that". How could there be more recent advocacy, when she has been topic banned from American politics for the last seven months? And has properly abided by the ban. Anything Am Pol-related from Atsme is going to be at least seven months. Bishonen | talk 12:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Atsme: I was hoping this needn't turn into a whole discussion, but I'm more confused now than before you posted your reply. Does it refer to both my questions, or is there more coming? Where is there a section for involved editors? Where in my statement (presumably not my brief statement above, so what statement?) did I acknowledge "that there have been a substantial number of editors t-banned since June 2018, not just [you]"? Bishonen | talk 16:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I would support a lifting of the restriction. This is a very introspective appeal. Atsme is intelligent and articulate, which are characteristics of editors we need on the project. I believe them when they say they've taken those instructive essays to heart. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a risk that this could now go on and on with editors coming in with specific questions about what would you do in this case, what do you think about this, what do you think about that. I would encourage us to AGF and believe Atsme when they say they will approach this topic with better behavior. Most admins below seem to support lifting the topic ban, so how long do we need to go round and round here? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Any administrators considering whether to lift this topic ban should evaluate whether Atsme's appeal addresses the full extent of the conduct that resulted in the topic ban. As the editor who brought the original complaint, I can say that it had nothing to do with civility. Brevity and staying on point are necessary, but so is refraining from the other behaviors that lead to the ban: whataboutism, discrediting reliable sources, claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources, filibustering, sidetracking discussions, POV fighting, rehashing comments, refusing to get the point, distorting policies, and wikilawyering.

After Atsme was topic banned, the quality of discussion on several American politics talk pages improved markedly. If the topic ban is lifted, it should come with a firm provision that any recidivism will result in a resumption of the topic ban. - Mr X 🖋 02:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: I stand by my assertion that the discussions on the Trump talk pages improved in brevity, adherence to the topic, and quality. What's interesting is that if you think they have been the same or worse, why you have not raised your concerns at AE. It's not like you haven't been here before.- Mr X 🖋 15:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to know if Atsme still believes that "the media" is biased and proven to be 90% negative against Donald Trump, or if separating immigrant children from their parents is Barack Obama's fault.[26] Does she still believe that news sources "spin the truth"?[27]. Has her opinion changed that The Washington Post is "highly misleading and inaccurate" when they say "It has become standard operating procedure for Trump and his aides to deceive the public with false statements and shifting accounts."? Does she still believe that CNN, WaPo, NYTimes report disinformation?[28] Does she still think that her close friends on the border are better sources than Leftist mainstream media?[29] - Mr X 🖋 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Atsme is kind, is polite, is passionate about her editing, truly cares and wants to help keep articles balanced in their wording. While Atsme claims that she has had RL issues and what not to attend to since, I feel that the ban took the wind out of her sails for most anything on the site. I therefore support seeing the ban lifted but offer advice should this happen. That advice to Atsme is to not waste your precious hours arguing with editors that loiter on these political articles. While its fine to cast a "vote" and to offer a very concise explanation, the inevitable hectoring from those that disagree with you should be met with no response, no response at all. Brevity is the soul of wit. You will not change their minds, as their minds are made up. Avoid those drama-laden articles where no good happens, no one smiles, no one is happy, where people waste thousands of edits and yet the article is no where near to achieving even a "Good" rating because the article is merely a collection of twisted sound bites, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Yes, lift the ban so we can put this behind us and Atsme won't be carrying this on her otherwise quite excellent wiki-resume any longer.--MONGO (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simply adding that Atsme is going to be watched quite obviously. The chance she is going to make an irreversible error is next to zero and if she does err in a manner unpleasing to those here that object to her unbanning, it will surely be quite easy to ban her again, and that will likely be irreversible...at least in the near term.--MONGO (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric

The appeal looks sincere and impresses upon me that she has understood the problems of her erstwhile conduct in the area. Support a grant. ∯WBG^converse 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

@Atsme:, do you still believe the topic ban was placed unfairly, as retaliation by an involved admin who did so because she hates you? That it should have resulted in Bishonen's desysop? You said that - several times - on your talk page when it was first imposed, and while I haven't gone digging for diffs (I can if you believe I'm being inaccurate), I recall you saying similar things a whole bunch of times after that. Has that perspective changed as well? I'd also value your opinion on MrX's comment above. Do you think the only problem with your behavior was that you weren't being nice and were too longwinded?

I'm a friend of Bish's, so I'll consider myself involved, but these are the kind of things I think uninvolved admins should be asking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Why are you asking for diffs about things that you 100% know you said? Two of which you linked to yourself above? Here are 3 obvious, easy ones:

Atsme's statement in response to MrX's ARCA filing: [30]
Atsme's comments on her own talk page after the t-ban imposition: [31]
Atsme's statement in her appeal in August: [32]

Do a ctrl-f for "Bishonen" in each section and at least a half dozen examples of accusing her of malfeasance will show up in each one. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last reply: I am not trying to get you further sanctioned for the baseless accusations you made about Bishonen 6 months ago. I'm trying to evaluate whether you still have the same battleground mentality and proclivity for gamesmanship in an argument that caused the topic ban to be imposed in the first place. I think you've answered that question, so I'll go find something else to do now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

I'm concerned that this appeal shows no indication that Atsme understands the rationale behind the topic ban. She states that she has learned the importance of being brief and remaining civil. True, there was an element of bludgeoning in her previous participation in the topic area, and her commitment to avoid that behavior going forward is welcome. But the topic ban was not placed because Atsme was uncivil, or overly prolix. (If anything, commentary in the initial topic ban discussion generally praised her civility). The major concern was that Atsme consistently undermined or obstructed reliable sources, dismissed high-quality journalistic sources as "propaganda", and mischaracterized fact as opinion, all in service of an apparent ideological agenda. Those behaviors were rightly identified as toxic to our efforts to cover political topics accurately and neutrally. I would absolutely oppose lifting this topic ban unless and until Atsme grapples with the actual reasons that it was placed. And that's a practical consideration, not a personal one: if she doesn't understand why the topic ban was placed, then she will certainly run into the same trouble again. We currently have a major problem on American-politics articles with editors who inappropriately dismiss, stonewall, or undermine reliable sources on partisan grounds, and who enable and amplify each other in doing so. Adding Atsme back to the topic area is a mistake unless it's clear that this behavior isn't going to be repeated.

Separately, Atsme's reaction to the topic ban was highly, and somewhat indiscriminately, belligerent. She attacked various editors and admins as biased, disruptive, and so on, often without any substantive evidence. I understand that, to some extent, this was a fight-or-flight reaction in the heat of the moment. But if that's the case, then I think it's reasonable to ask for some introspection on Atsme's part. How does she view her reaction to the topic ban now, at a distance? Does she continue to believe that it was motivated by bias and personal malice? Does she feel an apology is owed to any, some, or all of the people whom she attacked?

I'm placing myself in this section, rather than the uninvolved-admin section, because I've interacted with Atsme quite a bit. We've often disagreed; we've sometimes agreed; we've generally been friendly. But, like Floquenbeam, these are the kinds of questions I would expect uninvolved admins to ask, as part of their basic due diligence, before entertaining removal of this topic ban (thank you, RegentsPark and Awilley). MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: Like Floquenbeam, I think it's silly (if not dishonest) to demand diffs when we both know exactly what I'm talking about. And I see that after Awilley went to the trouble of fetching the shrubbery you demanded, and provided an exhaustive list of diffs, you responded: "I'm not going to go over each one of your cherrypicked diffs". To me, this looks like straight-up wikilawyering on your part, to avoid taking responsibility for your statements and actions. I'm absolutely opposed to lifting the topic ban at this point, because I think Atsme's responses provide no reason to believe that anything will be different if the ban is lifted. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

In her responses to administrators here, Atsme is going right back into the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and self-justification that got her the indef topic ban. Sample: "it was an indef t-ban whereas other editors who have done far worse were given shorter time limits." Sample: bringing up Newyorkbrad who wisely ignored her belligerent baiting demands on his talkpage back then: "I actually went back and studied the diffs that were used against me, and asked Newyorkbrad for the specifics. His response was quite vague - not one diff was mentioned." Etc. All this says to me that Atsme has not been rehabilitated, does not understand her own behavioral problems, and will likely continue with battleground attacks and self-justifying recriminations if the topic ban is lifted at this time. I will also note that over the course of her TBan she complained fairly noticeably about the TBan, usually symbolically, indirectly, or covertly, but clearly, including to kindred spirits like Winkelvi, including posting images of a person with their mouth gagged, and so on. I recommend retaining the TBan. Possibly an appeal in another six months will be less belligerent and more self-responsible. Softlavender (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I've been involved in the general topic area, but not in the specific disputes with Atsme. I'm concerned about potentially continued advocacy that may be contrary to the goals of the project, such as inclusivity and tolerance. For example, Atsme's Talk page displayed the following in July of 2018:

I asked the kids where they want to go for summer vacation.
They yelled, Kid's summer camp!!
I asked where?
They said, Trump's immigration camp on the border, where all the other kids get to go.

Source: permalink. If the appeal is granted, I would like to request Atsme to please refrain from broadcasting intolerant messages in userspace.

I'm also concerned about the lack of acknowledgement of past battleground behaviour, as specifically was evident in the first appeal. At the time, I described it as "borderline harassment of the editor who submitted the original request": Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics_2#Statement by K.e.coffman. I see this as more than "stray[ing] from my customary collegial behavior". Perhaps, a one-way interaction ban should be considered in case the appeal is successful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In re: this response [33] to my statement, the "real life moment" was posted without context and the sentiment it seems to express was echoed in an unrelated user Talk page discussion about the Trump administration family separation policy:

"the whole affair has been sensationalized by media - great clickbait - our local news has assured us that the kids are fine, and living under the best of conditions. Our American children who are homeless wish they had it so good. The hook audio of babies crying is done with a purpose, specifically to persuade the midterms..." [34].

I noticed Atsme's response because I started the thread: permalink, and then took a look at Atsme's Talk page and found more of the same. I believe that such comments are relevant to the appeal, as Atsme asserted that reliable sources were "clickbait" and ascribed nefarious motives to the journalists covering the family separation policy, apart from my concerns about the nature of the Talk page banner. Such comments are toxic in the AP area, and I was asking Atsme to avoid them in the future should she return to editing these topic. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ading ping @Fish and karate: as you have commented on my statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Whoa, that kid's summer camp was new to me. Atsme, I do not understand how you ever thought that was funny. Those kids, separated from their families, many of them fleeing abuse only to land in more abuse, deserve much better than that. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I’m generally in favor of second chances, and I really like to see contrite appeals acknowledging past error and plans to avoid those errs in future. Atsme’s appeal was, indeed, contrite and promised avoidance of further problems. It was very well presented. Unfortunately, I believe it was off topic. Atsme was not banned for incivility. MrX gives a brief rundown of the many problems with her past behavior related to AP2 articles. I agree with all of MrX’s observations and haven’t seen any indication that they won’t be repeated. I would feel far more comfortable with an acknowledgement of these problems. And, I fear anyone with such a dim view of sources like WaPo and NYT, while accepting Breitbart, will continue to experience difficulties in AP2. Having said all that, Atsme is a solid contributor in non-AP2 areas. It would be an unfortunate outcome should reinsertion in the AP2 arena degrade her contributions to other areas of the project. O3000 (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JzG

Atsme is a lovely person, but I have encountered exactly the same behaviour since I first encountered her over her edits to G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2015, and also in other cases related to her hot-button issues. The tban here is entirely defensible, and any lifting would basically require a voluntary restriction almost as broad, I'm afraid. I think this is just how Atsme is. The good news is that everywhere else, I find she is an absolute delight, endlessly helpful and polite. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I understand your point, but Atsme has not simply advanced a political POV, she has rejected reliable sources on the basis that they conflict with her ideology. That is a specific and very real problem. The right wing media bubble is now almost completely disconnected from the continuum of mainstream media. Fox used to cite the WSJ and even WaPo, but this declined sharply after Fox lost viewers over ideological purity, with Breitbart taking up the slack. Fox has regained mindshare in the right only since it stopped referencing mainstream sources in its main segments. These days the word "mainstream" is used by the political right as a synonym for "liberal". That is profoundly dangerous. It casts propaganda and journalism as equivalents. The mainstream media includes the Wall Street Journal, remember, which has an editorial policy that is fiscally and socially conservative and rejects climate change on ideological grounds. I find Atsme's rejection of sources simply because they are mainstream to be profoundly disturbing. It is antithetical to WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV - and it was in evidence over the dispute in 2015 around G. Edward Griffin (a member of the John Birch Society), with a distinct conspiracist tinge. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

Atsme is one of the most level-headed editors I have ever encountered in the DS/AP area. Sure, she tends to be rather argumentative when discussing contentious issues, but isn't that what talk pages are for? I'd much rather deal with the occasional talk page bludgeoning than with a sneaky WP:NINJA editor or a holier-than-thou WP:POVFIGHTER. Atsme has personal bias, as we all do, but she doesn't let her personal opinions get in the way of the overall goal of the encyclopedia. I believe the enforced break may have improved her sense of understanding when she should drop the stick, or in her own words WP:LETITGO. She also has a thick-enough skin to withstand whatever criticism of her actions may further arise. Last but not least, I am looking forward to enjoying her sense of humour again. Support ~~unblock~~ lifting TBAN. — JFG ^talk 09:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darouet

I support the lifting of these sanctions. Atsme is not merely a kind editor, something that most have acknowledged here. She is also a superb editor and an example to other editors all across the project: sharp, dedicated, and involved in content creation. Atsme has a very strong record of improving site content. And Atsme appears kind because her tone reflects her generally thoughtful attitude to her editing.

Atsme's kindness and corresponding thoughtfulness have not always been reciprocated either by editors or admins at US politics pages, as she has demonstrated. Atsme's concerns in this regard were evidently not considered seriously since she was topic banned just minutes after posting diffs to defend herself.

I strongly agree with more or less every aspect of DGG's statement on this case, highlighting that "it is essential for the proper presentation of controversial topics that all views be represented, proportionately and fairly," and "US courts have long held that the rules on free speech and press apply particularly to political matters." This is wholly consistent with Atsme's original appeal: "I didn't think civil disagreement while seeking consensus would be grounds for a sanction." -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Atsme

Comment by Shrike

I think Atsme learned from her mistakes and I support the appeal --Shrike (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PackMecEng

For what it is worth it certainly seems she has learned her lesson. I think her contributions elsewhere speak for themselves on that issue. Her response here also clearly shows she has seen the issues with past behavior and has learned form them. I must disagree with MrX's point above though, at best discussions on those pages are the same or worse. To say since the removal of Atsme the pages have "improved markedly" is rather perplexing and an unnecessary comment. I also think that many people will have an eye on her in that subject area and be quick to report any infractions should issues arise. In the end Astme is a productive and valuable editor and it would be a shame if she could not help improve all topics. PackMecEng (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I tend not to complain as much.[35] Unless something becomes a large problem or if I think something positive would actually come of it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Masem

Not really directly involved in any fashion but I've rubbed up against Atsme and other involved editors enough to consider myself "involved", if only that I share Atsme's stance on how we are treating these topics. I've been in the same boat before with Gamergate (where my policy-based discussed on talk pages were considered by some to be disruptive but not determined to be by Arbcom), and in reviewing the diffs from the original AP actions, the worst I see is the tendentious editing facet, but everything else argued then seemed to be an attempt to silence a dissenting voice that is bringing up valid policy-related matters and otherwise not outright disruptive. (I've seen this far too much in other venues outside AP2) As long as Atsme is aware of TE issues and is willing to back off if told they're approaching that point, then there's no reason to not lift the ban. AP2 is going to naturally create animosity between editors, but we have to be careful to vilify those that seem to be contrary but are otherwise fairly arguing. Talk pages are there to work it out. --Masem (t) 15:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Mastcell's comment The major concern was that Atsme consistently undermined or obstructed reliable sources, dismissed high-quality journalistic sources as "propaganda", and mischaracterized fact as opinion, all in service of an apparent ideological agenda. How one views what Atsme did (per diffs of the AP2 complaint) is eye-of-the-beholder stance. There is an unfortunate trend over the last several years that editors want to blindly use sources in a slavish manner without question, while there are others (which I'd include myself in and consider Atsme in as well) that feel that it wholly appropriate to consider the state of the state before blindly using sources. Which way to go is not prescribed by any policy, so there's no right or wrong way, thus it is improper to consider Atsme's interactions as disruptive for these types of comments is in poor judgement. Otherwise, this becomes a very easy way to silence opponents (the same problems happening at Gamergate) That there was TE-ness in their edits, that's very different and an actionable manner and one that, should their ban be lifted, to make sure Atsme stays away from. --Masem (t) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply re-stating the original basis for the topic ban. I'm not interested in re-litigating its merits with you, nor do I think you're doing Atsme any favors by minimizing and normalizing the behavior that got her topic-banned. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Springee

I'm very much not an involved editor here. I have no idea what brought Atsme to this point. What I'm seeing is two camps. One that thinks a second chance is warranted, others who are pointing out past issues out of concern they will happen again. It sounds like a fence case. I see four possible futures here. One, consensus says no and it turns out they were right because Atsme would return to the problematic behavior. Two, consensus say yes and Atsme stays clean. Three, consensus says no but Atsme would have stayed clean. Four, consensus says yes and bad behavior resumes.

The first two represent the correct decisions given future behavior. They represent the betterment of Wikipedia. The fourth is unfortunate but also reversible. The third is the problem. In the third case the decision is effectively a punishment rather than protecting the encyclopedia. What is the harm in giving the benefit of the doubt in a fence case? If the Tban is lifted and problems return are people concerned that Atsme's behavior won't be scrutinized or an admin would be more than willing to restore the ban? If lifting the ban turns out to be the wrong choice it can be reversed, edits undone. But if it's the right choice, but not the consensus decision, then the Tban is a punishment for past sins rather than a protection. Both the editor and encyclopedia suffer for it.

For what it's worth, and I only know what people are saying here, I think she should be given the benefit of doubt and lift the tban. It can always be restored. Springee (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRuban

Support per everyone and their brother. She's dedicated, experienced, energetic, kind, and an all around good Joe. Summer camp, well, if everyone who's ever made an unsuccessful attempt to lighten a terrible situation with a joke were excluded, we wouldn't have any humanity left. To err is human, to forgive is … among other things, what this noticeboard is for. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by My very best wishes

I think a successful appeal should generally include two parts:

What was the problem? For example, that might be a personal bias that a lot of reliable sources are equal to the "fake news" (as Mr. President said), or as Atsme tells here, "The news we're getting now is mostly propaganda". Obviously, one can not properly use reliable sources if one believes they are propaganda.
The solution? There could be different solutions. 1. Maybe the contributor realized that trashing reliable sources was wrong. 2. Maybe he/she still has a bias, but will not even mention any sources colored pink or yellow in this Table, while focusing on the sources colored green. 3. May be he/she is going to avoid editing any controversial subjects for a while. And so on, and so on. This depends on the person, but I am not sure what is that exactly, after looking at her statement. Something like "I will stay on point, present my case with civility while keeping brevity in mind" does not really address the actual problem I think. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme. My apology if I misinterpreted something. In the diff you compared WorldNetDaily and NYT as equally "good" sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Petrarchan47

I see no reason that the topic ban should not be lifted and good faith assumed. If Atsme is pulling our legs, or for some reason goes off the deep end, Wikipedians will deal with it in the moment. I see no harm in letting Atsme's future actions speak for themselves, and I see no good arguments presented to convince me otherwise.

Atsme's topic ban was meant to teach a lesson, and not, one would hope, to remain indefinitely in order to silence an editor who steers articles toward NPOV in Wikipedia's arguably left-leaning atmosphere. Obviously, any bias has a profoundly detrimental effect on the reputation of the encyclopedia. DGG points to this issue: the need for editors who speak outside of the echo chamber. Indeed these editors should be embraced if NPOV is treasured as it should be. I have not worked alongside Atsme on any political articles but I wonder from the response to the border wall cartoon if she is viewed by some as not anti-Trump enough, or seen as problematic for not adhering to a 'house bias'. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tryptofish

I've been wavering for days about whether or not I should say anything at all. But I've decided that I want to say that GoldenRing's most recent comment is correct. I think you should grant the appeal, and of course include very specific language about not backsliding and so forth. And if there is backsliding, then we will be back here swiftly, with decisive results. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Atsme

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

I support lifting this restriction, on the understanding that the tolerance for trouble will be very minimal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in making Shrike's comment unthreaded I made a bit of a mess of the template. @PackMecEng and Masem: If you consider yourselves involved, please move your comments back into the involved section. Sorry, everyone. GoldenRing (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I consider myself involved enough to not participate in this section (beyond this message) to determine the result, but uninvolved in the larger picture. --Masem (t) 19:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no objection to the restriction being lifted, with the usual caveats about Atsme not backsliding into any of the previous problematic behaviour. Fish+Karate 10:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I think the banner K.e. coffman has provided is evidence of a poor lead-balloon joke lifted here out of context, rather than 'political advocacy', and I note it is from 7 months ago, unless there's evidence of recent advocacy I'm not really concerned about that. Fish+Karate 10:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Yes that's right. Sorry I wasn't clear - I would be concerned if there had been anything during the topic ban. As I mentioned, I'd want to see the topic ban lifted with the usual caveats about not backsliding into problematic behaviour, and political advocacy would be one of those behaviours. Fish+Karate 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share the views expressed by GoldenRing and Fish and karate. Sandstein 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little troubled that Atsme hasn't addressed her remarks about Bishonen that I see linked above (Bishonen's statement). Atsme, do you still believe that Bishonen's actions were retaliatory and that she should be desysopped? I notice that you apologized only for using the word "hate" in your response to Floq - a word which, incidentally, you did not use - but say nothing about the other statements you made about Bishonen's motives following the block. It would be helpful if you would clarify whether you believe that the ban was justified and not retaliatory or made by an involved admin. --regentspark (comment) 19:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, the reason I brought that up is because your initial statement says that you recognize that your editing was less than ideal ("strayed from the collegial", for example) but it didn't specifically address your remarks about Bishonen (actually, coming to think of it, the entire statement is rather devoid of particulars). The point is fairly straightforward. If you continue to think Bishonen's actions were retaliatory and unjustified, then most of your statement is, with apologies, hogwash. Which is why it is not irrelevant. Now that I've read Awilley's comments below, I think what's troubling is that you're dealing in generalities and not pointing to anything specific about what resulted in the t-ban in the first place and not pointing to any specifics about how you're going to change going forward. --regentspark (comment) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards accept, but with a few thoughts and one big concern:

First, I think Bishonen's topic ban effected a clear net improvement for the topic area. Going back and reading some of the material surrounding the evidence diffs reminded me how bad things were getting, and as a side note it was interesting to see how many of the disruptive editors have since been topic banned or have otherwise moved on. If the topic ban is lifted I would expect Atsme to adapt to how things have changed, and try to further elevate the discourse (which is still far from ideal), and not drag things back in time to 2018 and earlier.
I think the appeal above does a really good job of dealing with the concerns of filibustering, IDHT, bludgeoning, etc. That really was a problem. In fact I wrote User:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#Anti-filibuster_sanction specifically with Atsme in mind, and if she hadn't already been topic banned at the time of writing I would have placed that sanction on her without any hesitation. (I think it would be a good idea for her to give it a read through and follow it anyway, since it's mostly just good talkpage etiquette.)
I don't think the appeal has adequately dealt with the concern about "Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources" which was a big part of the evidence and rationale for the topic ban. Is Atsme going to continue referring to the "MSM" as "propaganda" or claiming that sources like Breitbart are as reliable as the NYTimes? Note I'm not saying that we should unquestionably accept everything the "MSM" says, but there's a difference between having a healthy skepticism for all sources vs. yelling "Propaganda!" and "Fake News!" when news organizations write things we don't agree with. I'd appreciate a response to this @Atsme.

~Awilley (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: ~~Your request for diffs strikes me as a bit disingenuous, and~~ the page you linked didn't resolve my concern. You're responding to the diffs in "Group 1" as if the problem were civility. (It was not.) "The diffs related to the problem I am referencing are all here under the convenient subheading "Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources" and also the diffs in the following sentence: "Although she often complains about clickbait sources, she is apparently OK with using source like The Daily Caller [36][37], Breitbart [38], World Net Daily [39], Daily Wire, and RedState [40]" I'm really not interested in re-litigating the rationale of the topic ban and copying over and analyzing diffs that you are perfectly capable of opening and reading yourself. All I want to know is that you understand what the problem was and that you intend to fix it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this some thought over the past couple of days. I believe that the best outcomes of an unban/unblock occur when an editor clearly understands the problem that led to the ban and makes a commitment not to repeat that problem. My concern here was that Atsme only did that for half the problem and didn't seem to understand the other half of the reason for her ban. My conversation with her on her talk page unfortunately did little to resolve that concern. The next best solution I suppose is to lift the ban with an explicit warning that repeating the behavior that led to the ban will result in further sanctions. Call it WP:ROPE if you wish. ~Awilley (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should accept the appeal. It is essential for the proper presentation of controversial topics that all views be represented , proportionately and fairly. It cannot be assumed that in an area like AP (or any country's politics, or any similar mater of wide interest and extensive coverage,) that the sources will be divided neatly into Reliable vs. Unreliable. There is no source whatever in areas like this--even sources which try to present just a factual chronology or something that seems absolutely straightforward -- that can be assumed to be wholly reliable. They may at best be reliable for what they include, but they will always leave some things out. They may do this through deliberate judgment, or inadvertently. Similarly , there is no source so unreliable that it can not be used for what the person who writes it chooses to say about their POV. We cannot understand honest sources unless we compare hem with dishonest ones. The key here is proportionality and fair presentation. Every one of us who is interested in this topic will have a personal POV, and the only way to avoid expressing it is to consciously and deliberately and carefully write for the enemy, something that many find to be very difficult. Even if we cannot do that. we still need to consider that there may be situations where the opposing sources are correct. If I dislike a particular POV, I will be handicapped in finding positive sources about them, and need to at least not oppose those who do find them. . Historically, sources that are generally despised sometimes are the ones which find the most valuable material, The only way to get a balanced article is to be inclusive.

I do not know how close Atsme's politics might be to mine, and in any case I could not talk about it here for I have no intention of disclosing my own--I do know people have made various guesses about it, all of which cannot be accurate. I personally prefer not to edit in this topic area, for the very reason that i do have strong feelings, and though I may be experienced enough to not let them consciously affect my editing, I do not want to say anything that might disclose them. I think it would be good if those who do edit in this area would at least try not to blatantly disclose them either, even in non-article space. I'm aware that some of the people who have been involved in this matter have in fact disclosed them, to a degree that I think improper. and which might have a tendency to discourage opponents. I would therefore set a very high bar indeed to a topic ban in this area. The reasoning is exactly the same why the US courts have long held that the rules on free speech and press apply particularly to political matters. These are the ones where we need to be certain to not exclude those on the basis they have too strongly expressed views that we may not individually agree with. Frankly, it does sometimes look as if WP does have a certain political slant. To some extent, this is unavoidable, and will necessarily as in all other topics reflect the people who work here. We should however try to minimize it, and I think we probably need to make an effort to keep partisan political discussion out of user and talk space, as well as articles; indulging in it gives the impression that it will affect the person's content contributions also.

The only significant thing that I think Atsme has done really wrong is carrying on an argument beyond the point where it is productive. Obviously, the same charge will necessarily apply to those on the other side of the discussion. We need to fight any tendency that might look as if we deal with it differently depending on the position. In any case, I think Atsme realizes the reasons why such persistence is not appropriate here. (persistency may be a great virtue in partisan environments, but not in discussing content in WP). I'm concerned both that we need to remove this topic ban, and that we avoid making other similar bans. It is never a good idea at WP to look for reasons to discredit one's opponents. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG :The repetition here of diffs from earlier years may show problematic behavior then, but it has little bearing on whether it would continue. At this point, I think repeating them constitutes an attempt to suppress further discussion at the proper places , and possibly even to fix the interpretation the way you would prefer it. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the questions being put to Atsme are straying into rehashing the original ban. If Atsme has turned up here arguing about those same diffs, we'd send her packing for re-litigating the ban; I don't see why we should entertain the same from other editors. Atsme has abided by the ban, shown fairly mature reflection on her own behaviour and asked that the ban be lifted; IMO we should give her another chance, but at any rate rehashing behaviour from before the ban is not helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenRing (talk • contribs)

Smeagol 17

Not an AE matter; moved to WP:ANI. Sandstein 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Smeagol 17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Smeagol 17 (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:GS/ISIL :

1RR

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

Revert 1: 09:40, 21 February 2019, Revert 2: 11:03, 21 February 2019 - 1RR Violation after recent warning
Revert 1: 15:31, 19 February 2019, Revert 2: 07:36, 20 February 2019 - 1RR Violation after recent warning
Revert 1: 08:44, February 18, 2019, Revert 2: 09:29, February 18, 2019 - 1RR Violation. Warning

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on April 27, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Smeagol 17's deceptive response is not comforting.- Mr X 🖋 14:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I will copy this request to ANI. For future reference, where is the enforcement process for community authorized sanctions documented? I would have thought here or [[[WP:GS/ISIL|here]], but for some reason, it is not.- Mr X 🖋 19:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41]

Discussion concerning Smeagol 17

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 Smeagol 17

I corrected wrong tense and accepted phrasing in the article, this was reverted without explanation. I used my once per day revert with explanation. What is a problem?Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If my correction was formally uacceptable, then I am sorry. When given warning abot similar (more serious) matter in this article, I complied. If someone told me that this minor correction was also unacceptable, despite ambiguosnes about what constitutes a revert? I would have complied also. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About temporary self revert. Is it gaming the rules? I though they were working as intended. (I did it after reciving a warning, so I self-reverted for a day) Or what then is the point of allowing one revert a day?Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was taking this issue too casually. But if you look for example here (end of tread) you will see that some are taking to editing even small wording issues on this topic with openly less then encyclopedic motives. Given that, I used formal rights to improve (in my view) the article. Honestly? I throught my explanation in the edit comment would be enough for such a minor (and close to consensus (in my view)) issue, without creating a talk topic (at least for third-party onlookers). I was wrong in this, as it often happened with such issues. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, this situation has taken an a bit unexpected (to me) turn (re: User:Dan the Plumber). So what happens now? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude

The first two "revert 1"'s are ... in what world is copy-editing (first one) and expanding the sentence (second one) considered to be "reverting"? As to the third "revert 1" diff, yes I think that actually constitutes a "first revert". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fitzcarmalan

Three things:

As it turns out, the edits that are being "reverted" were those of a sockpuppet of Sayerslle.
Even if Dan wasn't a sock, replacing "regime" with "government" is without doubt an improvement to the article. I don't even know who Smeagol is, but blocking them for doing so is a pretty fucked up thing to do (so is ~~censoring~~ reporting them for ~~that~~ "violating 1RR").
@Sandstein: I distinctly recall you disregarding an AE request once because community sanctions (and I quote) "are not a matter for enforcement through the AE process". If that is the case, then will you kindly inform your colleagues (Fish and karate and RegentsPark) that they are in the wrong here? Because they sure as hell are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (next involved editor)

Result concerning Smeagol 17

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

While I agree "Syrian government" is more neutral than "Assad regime", this is what talk pages are for. I note one of these breaches was followed by a "temporary self-revert" which was re-reverted a day later, which smacks of gaming the 1RR rule. The other two seem to be clear 1RR breaches and as a warning was previously issued, a short block is probably necessary. A look at the editing history of that article shows some tag team reverting by various editors which may warrant looking into. Fish+Karate 16:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps gaming was too strong a term, but making the second revert, undoing yourself, and then after a bunch of intervening edits by other editors, remaking the same edit just outside the 24 hour window for 1RR is not really conducive to collaborative editing. The one-revert-a-day rule, as with the three-reverts-a-day rule on standard articles, is not an entitlement. You don't have to make sure you get your one revert in a day. The revert rules are an arbitrary mechanism to stop edit warring, with the intent to nudge people into editing collaboratively; ideally you should be discussing, challenging, asking questions, making your case, reviewing sources, compromising, and so on - all the things that mean being a good, collaborative editor - on the article talk page. You should not be clock-watching to see when you can make another revert. I hope the short block you're likely to get gives you a chance to go read a few talk pages and learn a that there is a better, less stressful, more enjoyable way to do things. Fish+Karate 11:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this Smeagol 17 has been working this particular revert (Assad ==> Syrian) for several days so any "I've been above board about my motives" arguments is disingenuous at best. A short block is in order. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fitzcarmalan is correct that this is not an AE matter, because the sanction that is to be enforced is a community sanction. This request should have been made (and can still be moved to) WP:ANI. Sandstein 19:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sir Joseph

Appeal declined as frivolous. Block duration extended to one week. Sandstein 07:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 72 Hour Block for 1rr Violation

 [42]

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Sir Joseph

I am requesting an appeal (I do have other reason, but I am requesting mainly on legal reasons, since this is AE and AE is supposed to be 100% legal)
I did not realize this at first, but the AE request itself was invalid and should have been dismissed.
This is the AE action brought against me, [43].
However, if you look at the section "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts)"
Note the text Supply evidence that the user is aware of them, Nableezy only showed that there was an edit notice in place. If you go to Wikipedia:AC/DS#Awareness_and_alerts you will see that while there are ADDITIONAL requirements for page restrictions, there are requirements for alerting that Nableezy did not do or highlight which makes this AE action invalid.
This is from: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions. Therefore for the above reasons, I humbly submit my appeal, mainly on this specific issue. The only other issue I will bring up is that at the point of the block, the block was punitive, not preventative, and while an admin can take unilateral action and block, at the specific point in time, the edit was well over a day old and some admins were not in favor of a block and I think that even if a block was placed, a 72 hour block was far too long for a block.

Statement by GoldenRing

Statement by Nableezy

I opened the request. To the point of the appeal, Sir Joseph was notified of the discretionary sanctions within the past 12 months. Making that purely wikilawyering. An arbitration block does not even require an AE thread. Enforcing a page level restriction requires that the user be aware of the sanctions and an edit-notice. All it would take for Sir Joseph to get unblocked would be an acknowledgement that he did in fact violate the 1RR and a promise to abide by it in the future. But no, he wikilawyered around the revert, or attempted to, and is wikilawerying over the block now. nableezy - 00:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sir Joseph

Endorse block per Nableezy From what I've seen, this is just further disruption from a disruptive user who seems, to me, to enjoy arguing. (He posted a related thread about Volunteer Marek but provided no dif's. His energy and eloquence would have been better spent at the AE thread that lead to the block.) Simply put, he violated 1RR, knew better, was sanctioned (minimally) and has no sound basis to be unblocked or to appeal the AE action. At risk of being accused of casting aspersions, my conclusion from my observations is his wikilawyering is for its own sake and vacant of any substance. Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Were it within my power to extend the block, I would do so. Ordinarily, such would be unseemly and excessive. But as blocks are preventative, and as appealant shows no indication of accepting that their behavior is/was inappropriate, and in fact continues to "game the system" disruptively and frivolously, a block extension would be warranted. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Even if the appeal were not dishonest (which Nableezy's evidence shows it to be), it would still be Wikilawyering and arguably a WP:NOTTHEM violation. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Sir Joseph

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

Decline. Sir Joseph was aware that the area is under discretionary sanctions, per this alert, but is appealing on the ground that Nableezy failed to supply evidence that he was aware. I. e., Nableezy didn't supply the link to the DS alert which I have just given. Wikilawyering was one the issues that led to the sanction, and here's some more of it. You don't often see it this crude. Bishonen | talk 01:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Decline. If anything, this appeal makes me want to lengthen the block, but I will resist that temptation. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: I sympathize. It isn't altogether out of our power: when I spoke of resisting the temptation I was simply making a point, but although an individual administrator cannot modify an AE action, we can certainly modify it if we have consensus to do so here. At the moment I am of the opinion that a "decline with prejudice" close to this appeal should be enough of a reminder to Joseph, but I'm not opposed to an extension, either. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, and I wouldn't mind lengthening the block either. As per WP:AC/DS#sanctions.fresh, 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. The filing of this wikilawyering appeal seems to constitute "fresh misconduct" to me. T. Canens (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this request because there is consensus that the appeal is frivolous. I'm also extending the block duration to one week because it is clear, judging by this appeal, that a 72 hour block is not sufficient to deter Sir Joseph from disruption. Sandstein 07:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‎Sangdeboeuf

Self-reverted on request here. Closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning ‎Sangdeboeuf

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ‎Sangdeboeuf (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, page specifically placed under 1RR by Doug Weller (Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log)

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

06:01, 20 February 2019 - requesting Sir Joseph to self-revert on same article and same content - indicating awareness for 1RR on the article.
00:10, 23 February 2019 - revert of IP. Note use of "vandal" in edit summary - the IP made a single contribution, and it does not appear to meet the standards of vandalism in removing questionable BLP content.
00:11, 23 February 2019 - Revert of logged in user. Note Sangdeboeuf is aware they are reverting (removing, restoring).
05:01, 23 February 2019 - revert2 of logged in user - User is aware this is a revert as they used the rollback button.
06:44, 23 February 2019 - requested to self revert.
07:58, 23 February 2019 + 07:54, 23 February 2019 + 08:01, 23 February 2019 - Wikilawyery (and a wrong one) response claiming no vio.

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)

12:40, 2 December 2018 - notified of AP2.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Page is under AP2, not ARBPIA. Furthermore the content in question (for Trump and Omar) regards accusations of antisemitism towards US Jews, not Israel - making the relation to the conflict, even broadly, a stretch. Furthermore, the WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition applies only to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." - this is a page level, not an edit level, restriction - and a freshman US congresswoman being "reasonably construed" seems unlikely - recently discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (with a rather clear arb consensus, it would seem, that the current restriction doesn't apply and some discussion on whether it is worth extending it). Thus, the claim that this was made to enforce ARBPIA3 should be dismissed as without merit.

Addendum - the 110 edits and 44k wall of text on the talk page by Sangdeboeuf all or mostly around this recent issue is not helpful for reaching consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing appears in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log about a special 500/30 revert exemption - I looked - it is a standard AP2 1rr DS (which exempts IPs, not logged in users) - old posts on the talk page are not where DSes should be looked for . ARCA on this specific article seems to indicate 500/30 does not apply. @TonyBallioni: - ‎Sangdeboeuf was requested to self revert. They still have not, even after your response. They also called the IP behind this edit a "vandal" - a personal attack - that they did not retract below. Sangdeboeuf made two non-consecutive reverts to logged in users + a PA vs. the IP.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Sangdeboeuf

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 Sangdeboeuf

WP:A/I/PIA states that it applies to "any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The non-autoconfirmed user that I reverted had removed "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" from a section heading; the first sentence under the heading read, "During her time in the Minnesota legislature, Omar was critical of the Israeli government and opposed a law intended to restrict the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement." I'm a bit mystified as to how this could be construed as unrelated to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

I admit that I didn't read the edit notice carefully enough; I assumed it was there because of the Israel–Palestine issue. I could have waited for the edit to be reviewed under WP:ECP, but I wasn't sure the reviewer would notice the general prohibition on edits related to Israel–Palestine. If uninvolved admins believe this was a breach of 1RR, I will happily self-revert. Since Doug Weller added 1RR here, perhaps they could clarify whether it supersedes the older exemption for reverts to enforce the 30/500 prohibition as mentioned here?

Icewhiz apparently thinks my talk page contributions are disruptive based on their comments above, which is nonsense, unless having a lot to say on the talk page is a sanctionable offense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that diffs #2 & #3 in the above request are consecutive edits, so count as a single revert. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "vandal" I referred to in one of those diffs left no edit summary when removing text, and certainly did not suggest they were acting based on BLP, including on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: It was a misunderstanding, though not just because of what's in the article. DW wrote on the talk page: "IPs and editors with less than 30 days and 500 edits may not edit material relating to the Arab-Israeli dispute ... This is part of the discretionary sanctions regime at WP:ARBPIA. Such edits can be reverted without counting as ordinary reverts." This is still what it says, which is why I requested clarification above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: I have self-reverted here. Note that this is already the topic of discussion at Talk:Ilhan Omar#Section header, where consensus was against using the phrase "Anti-Semitism" as a subheader. Now it's a level two header, which is worse. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The edit by Sangdeboeuf was made in a section of the page entitled "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" [44]. So, it can be reasonably viewed as covered by WP:ARBPIA. And WP:ARBPIA does tell "any pages and edits". Arbcom is debating this right now - see here. So, I have to agree with Sangdeboeuf: this is not a 1RR violation. Saying that, I do not agree with his/her edit, but that belongs to content disagreements. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor ToniBallioni: Debate between US politicians, especially within the US Congress, about the Israel-Palestinian conflict is very much part of that conflict. It isn't just people just voicing opinions either, because the US is a party to the conflict and events at home have a real effect on the progress of the conflict. There are countless reliable sources that treat this relationship in depth. So I believe you are mistaken. Zero^talk 03:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sangdeboeuf

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

I do not view this page as being under the Arab-Israeli conflict sanctions (and I would decline an ECP request if it were made). A Western Politician simply having views on the conflict does not make them reasonably part of the conflict, even if they're known for them. There are plenty of American politicians who have strong views on this matter, and we never count any of them as being part of the conflict. That being said, I'm willing to close this without any formal action because I agree that it is a reasonable misunderstanding. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, clarify since I only removed part of what I was planning on saying, but its a contentious area and I don't want my sloppy copy-editing taken out of context: I think that a lot of the focus on this is a part ARBPIA is because she's visibly Muslim, and that plays a part in the news coverage, because it is a region where the ethno-religious tensions are high. This hasn't been brought up here, but I do think its something that needs to be addressed as a sort of elephant in the room.
  That being said, I don't think being a Muslim American politician with views on the conflict makes that politician part of it under our rules anymore than an Evangelical Christian congressman who wants all of Israel and the Palestinian territories to be part of the State of Israel because it will speed up the end of the world. The question is whether or not she can reasonably be considered part of the conflict. I do not think she or any other current member of the United States Congress can, so the exemption should not apply to reverting 500/30 violations, but at this stage, we should just close this with "be more careful and when in doubt, don't revert." TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Zero0000 if you can find me any other sitting member of the United States Congress that we have under ECP because of their views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I may be willing to reconsider, but even then, I would first want to consider removing the ECP. There is no doubt that American politicians have contributed to the conflict, but our question under ARBPIA is whether or not they can be reasonably construed (not broadly) as being part of it. I do not think being a member of the US Congress who has attracted coverage because of statements involving Israel is enough to make her a part of the conflict. That is American political drama, and would fall under ARBAP2, not ARBPIA in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Sangdeboeuf, thanks for pointing this out. This might be one of the rare instances I disagree with Doug, but let's see what other admins say. Regardless, I don't support sanctioning at this time because I agree you were acting in good faith and that the situation was unclear. When the law is unclear, there is no law, is a good axiom in general, and I think it applies here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sangdeboeuf: as this exact article is being debated at ARCA now and other than one arb, the vibe I'm getting is that they agree with me it probably isn't under ARBPIA, would you be willing to self-revert and take it to the talk page?
    Icewhiz, yes, I understand, but the confusion as to if this is part of ARBPIA (where there is an exemption for reverting IPs...) is something they may have relied on in good faith, especially considering a then-arb posted on the talk page saying it was part of it. I generally only like sanctioning people if its clear they should have known better, and right now, I can't say that it is clear Sangdeboeuf should have known better. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

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: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions being appealed: Discussion Log

Logged warning by Sandstein
Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring

Administrators imposing the sanctions

Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of those administrators

Sandstein

Goldenring

Statement by Dlthewave

I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.

Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave

The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave

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

I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page^(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Highpeaks35

I've blocked for 1 week as an AE action per BMK's diffs of personal attacks within the conflict area. Hopefully this time away from the project will also help them consider the other concerns that have been raised here. If it continues after the block expires, a new AE report can be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Highpeaks35

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Highpeaks35 (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 :

I'll keep this as brief as possible. Highpeaks35 has been around just over a year, and has made 7000-odd mostly gnome-ish edits, to articles broadly associated with the history and culture of South Asia. Frequently, though presented as minor corrections, these edits have NPOV implications (they may or may not be violations of NPOV, but they do alter the POV of an article); examples include the following (diff, diff, diff). There are a number of others, among which the unifying pattern is a tendency to add "Indian", "Indian subcontinent", or "Hindu", as descriptors for specific objects and customs.

This, in and of itself, is concerning, as it appears to be subtle POV-pushing concealed by laconic and misleading edit-summaries. However, Highpeaks has also been in several conflicts, prominently with Fowler&fowler, many of which derive from the type of edits described above, including at Talk:India (and its archives, [45] and [46]), Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation, and Talk:Pilaf. In each case, again, Highpeaks appears to be attempting to portray specific cultural heritage as "Indian" (such as at the article about Pilaf), or alternatively to be advancing the argument that bits of history favorable to "Hindus" have been left out (at the article about India).

Furthermore, in many of these situations, Highpeaks has veered into original research (diff (see their conversatin with SmokeyJoe), diff (no source was provided to back this up)). He has portrayed scholarly consensus as supporting his view when it obviously didn't (diff). He has also engaged in personal attacks (diff, diff), which he has refused to strike, displaying while doing so a certain inability to understand the underlying issues (diff).

In sum, Highpeaks has for several months now demonstrated an inability to use sources with the rigor necessary for a contentious topic, and an inability to work collaboratively, which required administrative intervention. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: User has not been previously sanctioned.

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

notified in March 2018.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified.

Discussion concerning Highpeaks35

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 Highpeaks35

I made my position clear, FF called my work “Hindu garbage.” Used “skin tone” where skin had no impact on the conversation. I am hurt and saddened that those language and content is being taken lightly from this user. This whole issue comes up when FF decides to come to my talk page, which I informed him not to do. I am not comfortable with him on my talk page, as his language and tone is not acceptable to me. He is usually degrading and boarderline insulting almost always (this is not just me, he has done it with other editors). (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

User:Highpeaks35 to User:Fowler&fowler on the former's talk page:

In my POV, you are a racist and white supremaist of the worst kind. Using your influence and privilege to be disrespectful, arrogant, calling me and my work “Hindu garbage”, making fun of Indian women and their skin color, etc. [47]

This is the same discussion referenced above. [48] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AC/DS Says, in part:

Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to...:
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

The standard for civility in a discretionary sanctioned subject area is supposed to be higher than normal, regardless of where discussion takes place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

I became aware of Highpeaks35 on 1 January 2019, when, upon returning to Wikipedia after a long vacation, I discovered he had made a large number of unwarranted edits in the FA India. The following day, he made a post on my user talk page, which seemed to be taunting me. Said he, "Wait... Above you stated: "I will no longer be working on India-related topics." Change of heart? Missing edit-warring on India related topics with you Eurocentric view?" (See diff.) Although I did think it was odd that a total stranger was being so familiar, I did not respond.

Meanwhile, Highpeaks had also just added many images to India (See diff) Upon being challenged, he created sections in Talk:India, proposing in each section different images for inclusion in the article. (See diff) In particular, in the "Clothing" section there seemed to be gratuitous use of "Hindu," (or implication of Hindu) in the description of attire that had been introduced into India in medieval times by Muslims from Central Asia. I said so in my reply, using the expression "Hindu garbage," which I regretted later, to mean irrelevant, somewhat provocative, use of "Hindu" to assert cultural ownership of apparel that by bragging rights belonged to the Muslims of India, especially an India in which the relations between Hindus and Muslims have been fraught. (See diff.) Accusing me of racism, Highpeaks35 took me to ANI, where I apologized; see here)

Highpeaks has since been feigning feeling hurt, assuming victimhood, but also insulting me across WP pages (see one example). Ultimately though, and more insidiously, Highpeaks35 has continued to make his POV edits of Hindu-, or Hindu-nationalist, or Hindutva, or Indian-nationalist promotion. One manner in which he has done this is to change "South Asia," "Pakistan," "Sri Lanka," or "Nepal" to "Indian subcontinent." (There are over 400 such edits with edit summary, "improve accuracy," in several hundred WP pages (see here) The expression "Indian subcontinent," as old WP India hands will know, is preferred by many India-POV editors, for it puts the brand of India on all the countries in India's neighborhood. Fixing these pages will take time. Highpeaks35 obviously needs some kind of restriction. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I don't have much time for this place at the moment but there is definitely something odd going on with Highpeaks35, aside from the extreme and unwarranted attacks noted above which they seem to be convinced do not need to be retracted. They have argued in this thread that this magazine article explains the justification for preferring the use of the phrase Indian subcontinent over other uses but, as I indicated in the thread, that replacement is often relatively imprecise and also point-y. I've not been active for considerable periods when they have been making changes, and a lot of their changes have been to aspects of Indian culture (such as foodstuffs) where I generally have little involvement, but I have a strong gut feeling that this all forms a part of some sort of Hindu nationalist agenda. I would have to trawl through an awful lot of my edits to find other examples of their inappropriate references to Indian subcontinent but they do exist. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Highpeaks35

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

I've blocked for a week per BMK's diffs. Such personal attacks are unacceptable anywhere, but especially within DS areas. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatzref

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 Tatzref

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions - for WP:HOAX / WP:V, WP:TE, editing against consensus and introducing rejected WP:QS WP:SPS, WP:PLAGIARISM of said SPS (alternatively could be WP:COI), WP:NPOV

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

While this report discusses content - this is not a content dispute. Content is produced here to prove plagiarism of a dubious SPS that resulted in the introduction of a hoax to an article:

Tatzref is a WP:SPA whose 210 edits over the past year have revolved around Mark Paul, defending Paul in talk pages - first edit, inserting Paul as a source to articles, following consensus this was unreliable - copy-pasting material from Paul - see revdelled edits to Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 from 01:42, 22 May 2018‎, and recently (evidence below) - paraphrasing content from Paul and copying citations.
This academic source describes a work by Paul as "expressing the myth" of "the ungrateful Jew". (Per this academic source = "antisemitic trope")
See RSN, and RfC on Paul (note comment on Tatzref) - consensus not to use this WP:SPS.
Tatzref queried @K.e.coffman: regarding a WP:COI vs. KPK. No response: [49]
16:42, 22 February 2019, 17:26, 22 February 2019 - expanding Jewish trade in Christian slaves - counter to prior discussion involving Tatzref - [50][51]
16:37, 22 February 2019 - insertion of "Jewish restitution text". (WP:PLAGIARISM of [52])
18:16, 23 February 2019, reverted without discussion 21:25, 24 February 2019 - insertion of "pimp pogrom". (WP:PLAGIARISM of page 152)
Despite challenges to the text and an open discussion at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland - Tatzref is absent.
The "pimp pogrom" and moreso the "Jewish restitution text" are WP:PLAGIARISM (no attribution) of Paul. See User:Icewhiz/Illustration for detailed analysis.
The "pimp pogrom" text misrepresents the sources it cites. Sources are clear this is inner-Jewish violence, while the text suggests possibly otherwise. The text says "more than 100 injured" while a cited source - Barricades and Banners page 127 says "over forty hospitalized".
The "Jewish restitution text" contains severe misrepresentations rising to WP:HOAX (sentence names per User:Icewhiz/Illustration)
1. Jewish fraud - verified vs. source - there was widespread fraud. However, there was also non-Jewish ("fake Jewish" claimants) and Jewish/Polish joint fraud ventures - omitted.
2. Thousands of reclaims - WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (I have both, can send upon request). Kopciowski2008 (English) supports "over 240 cases filed", and Kopciowski2005 (Polish) supports "total of 291 files". Neither source tallies success vs. failure (though many were successful). Neither source (both local microhistories) support "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" that the sentence asserts. (per this academic source- it is hard to estimate, but "extremely small")
3. Restitution law - this sentence is cited to 38 pages in Polish (two works) and 1 page in English (one work - again a microhistory). I have checked the sources, and it seems to me a libelous (to the cited authors) misrepresentation. I will not send admins to read Polish (But see summary at end of Haaretz here) - but I will refute (sourced) several falsehoods packed into this sentence:
  1. "in effect until the end of 1948" - the 1945 decree was annulled in March 1946.[53][54] (claims continued under different laws till 1948)
  2. "or their relatives and heirs...reclaim simplified" - by design of Polish lawmakers ONLY directly ascending/descending-line heirs could use the simplified route, and this only resulted in possession, not title.[55]
  3. "expedited/21 days/same day" - "rarely as simple" for occupied properties.[56]
  4. "minimal costs" - 800 zloty (almost a month's wages) to file, 20,000 zloty (20 monthly wages) for case. Majority couldn't afford without help.[57]
  5. "outside the country" - Poland block returns from DP camps, Jews returning from USSR came after claims deadline in 1948,[58] "we will not permit some foreign Jews..."[59]
  6. Notable omission - claimants "were often murdered". [60]
  7. Notable omission - no restitution of state property/intent (including Nazi handovers to the state).[61]

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)

17:23, 18 May 2018 alerted

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning Tatzref

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 Tatzref

Statement by Roscelese

I don't do a lot of editing in this topic area and I'll defer to people who do, but my previous encounters with Tatzref led me to strongly suspect socking or off-wiki coordination as detailed here, due in large part to the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources into articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tatzref

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

I’ve full protected History of the Jews in Poland for two weeks as an AE action given the disruption and multi-party content dispute of the last few days. No opinion on if further action is needed here, and will let others decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 871: / Line 871: @@
 <small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 ====Statement by  Tatzref====
+====Statement by Roscelese====
+I don't do a ''lot'' of editing in this topic area and I'll defer to people who do, but my previous encounters with Tatzref led me to strongly suspect socking or off-wiki coordination as detailed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/GizzyCatBella&diff=843796410&oldid=843795794 here], due in large part to the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources into articles. –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] &sdot; [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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