Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:21, 8 January 2021

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Belteshazzar

Appeal declined. User may appeal again no sooner than 6 months. ~Awilley (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2021 (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 administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Belteshazzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Acupuncture

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Belteshazzar

Before the case was filed, I dropped the stick, as someone who clearly understood the concept in question nevertheless supported keeping "ineffective". My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment. What I did after that seems to have been misrepresented. Psychologist Guy said "If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [2] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked". Regarding the Quackwatch reference, I was simply trying to fix a citation, as the Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter of a 1956 book. I do think the apparent scientific consensus here is likely wrong, and if that someday turns out to be the case, that will raise questions about whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily label the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That's why I suggested that policy might be changed in the future. I was not proposing such changes now. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: But I dropped the stick before the case was filed. [3] [4]. My subsequent comments were just responses to others' comments, and an attempt to fix the aforementioned citation (an attempt which was misrepresented in the case). Belteshazzar (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I did it now because at least one point (regarding the Quackwatch/Pollack link) was misrepresented in the case. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are still commenting on this, let me make this clear: no one had shown a real understanding of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until Location did here. After that, I dropped the stick. Belteshazzar (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I think my topic ban was within process and was done as a read of the discussion of uninvolved admins --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Every WP:PROFRINGE POV-pusher argues that they are right and the Wikipedia is wrong, starting with WP:LUNATICS, WP:GOODBIAS, WP:ARBPS, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and so on. So, insisting that they will be proven right some day promises nothing good. I suggest that he was properly topic banned and that the ban should stay. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Belteshazzar: That's only a matter of procedure. We're not a bureaucracy. The topic ban is precisely to the point because you still insist at WP:AE that you are right and the rest of us are wrong, and that that will be shown to everyone sometime in the future. You don't have the right mindset to edit SCAM industry topics. You would just go on and on, wasting everybody's time. Prove that you can edit constructively and cooperatively, abiding by WP:PAGs before we allow you to edit SCAM subjects again.

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

—Broca's Brain (1979), Carl Sagan

Copy/paste from WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

This is not a suggestion to endorse or decline, just a note to Belteshazzar. If this appeal fails, it was likely made too hastily. The next one would be more convincing after evidence of a few months of constructive editing in other areas. —Paleo Neonate – 04:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Belteshazzar

Result of the appeal by Belteshazzar

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

Decline. Nothing of substance to really consider here. After six months to a year of productive editing outside the topic area, such an appeal would have actual merit. But after a few days? It's not realistic. Even then, the appeal ought to revolve around (as I note above to another user facing a different complaint) reflection and introspection, not a WP:NOTTHEM-centred defense. Rehashing the arguments which were already rejected in the original complaint, I'm sorry to say, is just not sound. Belteshazzar repeating again that they had already dropped the stick (which yes, we can see they said that), also doesn't really help. Because they may say that, but in light of their editing history, it just isn't that believable to me. Belteshazzar may genuinely believe it themselves, but I remain skeptical. I'm going to need more. More time. Better arguments. And not an appeal which comes across as a sort of last hurrah for this particular content dispute. El_C 04:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 2 weeks since my own evaluation above and a full week since Tony has added his. Despite there being no further input beyond that, I am inclined to close this appeal as having been declined. Unless someone objects, I intend on concluding this appeal sometime tomorrow. El_C 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline there is nothing suggesting this was outside of admin discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dadanke

The subject of this complaint, who has a total of only six edits, has made no contributions for about a week. They're probably gone (at least this latest incarnation). El_C 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Dadanke

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dadanke (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:ARBPIA4 :

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

19:38, 26 December 2020 New editor removes Walid Khalidi reference from Neve Monosson-article

18:00, 28 December 2020 repeat
22:13, 28 December 2020 repeat again

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

Alerted, 20:20, 28 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This brand new editor starts removing Walid Khalidi reference from Neve Monosson-article with edit-line "Dubious relevance, dubious source, POV of editor, added citations". I give them IP alert after 2nd revert, telling them that "you are removing Walid Khalidi's info that Neve Monosson is located on a depopulated Palestinian village land, and at the same time claiming that "this doesn't belong to the Arab–Israeli conflict"? Next time you do that, expect to find yourself reported to WP:AE," (link)

They then proceed to repeat the same edit a 3rd time.

This editor is obviously not interested in what I have to say; hope for "outside" input, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dadanke: this report is about you; if you have objections about my editing in general (not pertaining to this case): please open a separate report.
Walid Khalidi is obviously a WP:RS.
I am actually a little bemused that someone can remove info that an Israeli communal settlement is on former Palestinian village land, arguing that "this town has no relevance to WP:ARBPIA" (link). It doesn't make me optimistic about any future editing from Dadanke in the WP:ARBPIA-area, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Dadanke

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 Dadanke

The source cited by Huldra (Khalidi) is not a reliable source, as the review "here". states. As for the POV of Huldra, there is a plethora of information in her contribution page showing their non-neutral stance towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. In their edits in "here"., they added "citation needed" remarks and then simply removed them. Judging by the fact that they also did this in a number of other articles, such as "here"., "here"., and "here"., I am suspicious the user will return to delete the "unverified" information and keep their own information there which reflects negatively on Israeli towns (where the history section would indicate the town was "depopulated" and then remove any information which is not negative). Furthermore, Huldra requests citation for mundane statements in those articles, such as in the article of question (Neve Monosson), where they requested a citation for "In later years it became popular with the families of airline pilots and is today an independent-minded middle class community 20 minutes drive from central Tel Aviv, to where most of its workers commute." For this example in particular, this is a case of WP:OVERCITE, given that the town is geographically close to the Ben Gurion airport and it is reasonable to assume the statement is true. Nevertheless, I added citations for the administrative status of the town for some of the statements Huldra marked with ^{[citation needed]} by using governmental sources. However, Huldra still reverted all changes and stated that the article pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore I cannot edit due to the 30 day/500 edit rule as stated "here".. However, I don't see why the entire article of the Israeli town is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the town is in the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan area, an area not largely related to the Israeli-Arab conflict). I reverted once more by stating that the town is unrelated to the conflict, and called for a discussion on the article's Talk page with the edit-line This is an Israeli town, this doesn't belong to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 30/500 doesn't apply. Please discuss on talk page. Had Huldra explained to me why the book should be used, I would have been okay with including the information as well as my citations, but instead they reverted my edit once more, stating the article belongs in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:ARBPIA, and warning me with a report to WP:AE. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I don't believe my first edits constituted for vandalism, and I sincerely believe they did not cause damage to Wikipedia, as detailed "here"., so they should not have been reverted outright.

Beyond questionable edits by Huldra, their contribution history reveals a non-neutral record, such as their removal of Jewish related terms seen "here". and the Israeli War of Independence as seen "here".. The user has removed information related to Israel and Judaism from other articles, and added in unnecessary and disruptive information to the point where others complained on their talk page, "here".. I believe that the user in engaging in disruptive editing per WP:DE by bringing in unrelated topics to WP:ARBPIA, and given the evidence I have shown, I do not believe the grounds for sanctioning me are solid, and I do not believe Huldra is acting with good faith.

To respond to Huldra's claims, no, I have no previous accounts.

Statement by RolandR

Well, I have seen a lot of tendentious editing in my time on Wikipedia, but that must be the first time I have seen an editor try to discredit a major work from a respected academic by quoting an Amazon customer review. And to justify an edit by stating that "it is reasonable to assume the statement is true" is further evidence of ignorance about or total disregard for Wikipedia's guiding principle of verifiability. For the avoidance of doubt, removing a sourced statement about the 1948 occupation and depopulation of the village is unquestionably related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and within the remit of the arbitration. I find it hard to believe that this is a new editor, and note that they have not responded to Huldra's legitimate question about previous accounts. RolandR (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, the Amazon customer review was cited in Dadanke's first sentence above, "The source cited by Huldra (Khalidi) is not a reliable source, as the review "here". states." RolandR (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

ARBPIA4 has a 500/30 clause, and the editor in question has 4 edits, at least under this account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

The editor shouldn't edit of course till he reach 500 edits per policy but what more worrying is the diff that was brought by the new editor [5] this was not just a innocent copy editing but a clear WP:POVPUSH with false edit summary --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dadanke

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

"Amazon customer review" — what? You can't toss a hot potato like that without a diff, RolandR! (Please don't make me look for stuff.) Anyway, Dadanke, please cease immediately from making any WP:ARBPIA edits, of any kind whatsoever, until you reach the required tenure. That's not really something which is up for debate. El_C 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry RolandR for the reading comprehension failure on my part. Anyway, I agree with you that this clearly falls short of the sourcing standards stipulated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Neutrality_and_sources. I also agree that, irrespective of whether or not the page is deemed a "primary article,", it is still an ARBPIA edit (i.e. "related content"). El_C 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress

Blocked for 2 weeks by Cullen328 and the content has been RevDel. Additional actions are at the discretion of individual admins --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Jokestress

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jokestress (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/Sexology#Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality :

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

30 December 2020 Clear and serious violation of topic ban in order to cause disruption at an ArbCom case. More commentary below.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

9 November 2019 Blocked for 1 week for violating the topic ban by Thryduulf.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The simple fact of the post in clear and obvious violation of the topic ban is grounds for a lengthy block and removal of the post. On top of that, however, the post exhibits the very same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TE problems that led to Jokestress getting her topic ban reaffirmed and clarified in November 2019. [6] It contains no difflinks whatsoever, but rather, conspiracy theories about an "editing collective", as well as baseless lies like "most transgender editors in particular have been driven from the project due to unrelenting hostility by this edit group" as well as numerous WP:ASPERSIONS and violations of WP:NOTTHEM.

This situation is very similar to this one. That user likewise violated a ban from the same topic by posting at an ArbCom page (about the election) and attacked a candidate while doing so. This was judged by the community to be a clear violation of the topic ban, and because they claimed not to understand their restriction, their resulting block was indefinite until they did.

As intentional disruption, Jokestress' post should be revision deleted per WP:DENY. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress says she intends to email ArbCom with "private evidence" about the case. [7] This is a statement of intention to violate the topic ban further, and actually emailing would be such a violation. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Jokestress

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 Jokestress

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jokestress

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

I have reverted the edit at the arbitration case but express no view on any further sanctions, other than that BANEX is sometimes misunderstood to mean that posting at ArbCom is always exempt from topic bans. It's not, but that misunderstanding may be a mitigating factor. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see @Cullen328: has blocked for 2 weeks - I would be tempted to make it indef since she hasn't edited for a year and has used her first edit not only to break the topic ban but also make a serious personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also tempted to make the block indefinite but this is only her second block, so I decided to double the length of her first block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: I was the one to suggest that Jokestress email the committee, and doing so would not be a tban violation. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with BK here, but I'm not going to do it because my IRL identity is too tied to my Wikipedia identity and I'm not trying to get dragged on twitter for the next month. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- which is a very bad thing, honestly. Why should someone enforcing our norms be subjected to that sort of abuse? (I agree with at least the two weeks, could see indef also) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crossroads: Emailing arbcom isn't a violation. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AE cannot indef, the maximum period is one year. An indef would need to be either an admin discretion thing or a community consensus at AN thing. I don't have a view, currently, on whether indef is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CozyandDozy

CozyandDozy has announced their retirement 5 days ago and have not edited since. If they return to editing, broad AP2 and BLP restrictions should be immediately imposed, referencing this report. El_C 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning CozyandDozy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CozyandDozy (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) and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014

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

Today's addition of unsourced content to the lead of Lauren Southern:
20:23–20:25, 31 December 2020‎ (UTC) adds In 2019, Southern suspended her public activities because she had developed a romantic relationship and conceived a child with a non-white man; she returned to public life in 2020, acknowledging that her husband and child are non-white, and attempting to rebrand her public image. to the lead of Lauren Southern. That Southern has said her husband is non-white is sourced in the "Personal life" section of the article, as is the fact that she has a child, the rest is unsourced.
Edit warring the same unsourced, possibly WP:OR content into Mike Enoch over the period of over a year:
In the process of formulating this report, I uncovered what appears to be a slow and long-running edit war to introduce WP:OR about Enoch's surname. Note that at one point Cozy does introduce a source, which an IP later says does not contain the material Cozy has said it supports. I don't have access to the source (a book) to verify one way or the other, and in a later edit it appears that neither does Cozy.
- 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC): part of the edit adds The revelation of Peinovich's Slavic surname was another oddity for a neo-Nazi, in light of the Nazi regime's classification of Serbs and other Slavs as subhumans ("Untermenschen"), and its ethnic cleansing, extermination, and enslavement of millions of Slavs throughout World War II. to the lead. This is not sourced anywhere in the article. No summary.
- 19:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC): Lindenfall reverts, summary Reversed opinion lacking WO:RS.
- 22:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the above text to the lead. No summary.
- 10:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC): Bilorv reverts, summary undid unsourced additions and sources say his wife is Jewish, not that he says this
- 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, this time with a source: "Andrew Marantz, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation, 2019, pp 275-314". Summary added citation. (Sorry for not doing this earlier).
- 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC): 212.178.243.209 removes the statement about Enoch's surname, summary Nothing in mentioned source says he was mocked for his last name.
- 18:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, sans source. Summary: re-adding Serbian bit along with source-needed tag; if a source isn't found for this I will delete. No citation needed tag was added in the edit, not that that would have made the addition of unsourced information acceptable.
- 18:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC): 107.77.210.96 reverts, summary doesn't belong in article until source confirmed
- 00:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC): 2601:241:8202:130:c1f1:edb2:3207:95b re-adds the text, summary restoring content that was deleted without a clear argument why it is not notable
- 00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC): Drmies reverts, summary Because it is totally unverified
- 09:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, summary We can put a source needed here if it isn't in any of the sources (I thought it was), but it is firmly established that this happened.
- 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC): 178.221.110.100 reverts, summary You have again reinstated a claim which is false, you have done this already even when false source quoting was pointed out. You also promised August 29th this year that you would delete this part if no source is found.
  - On December 27, 2020, Calton warns Cozy about adding unsourced content to BLPs, with the added note And if it's "firmly established", then actual reliable sources shouldn't be a problem, should they?.
Repeated changes to the same exact sentence in Lauren Southern that was under discussion at an RfC, with consensus leaning heavily towards not changing the sentence in ways like Cozy was changing it:
- Multiple edits (between 06:07, 24 December 2020 and 20:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)) to Lauren Southern to remove parts of or soften the statement that Southern "is a Canadian alt-right, white nationalist, conspiracy theorist, political activist..." They have made the edits while this exact sentence has been under discussion in the RfC (started November 23, 2020) at Talk:Lauren Southern#RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead, and at least at the current moment there is very strong support to retain the wording.
- 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC): Bacondrum warns CozyandDozy on their talk page for edit warring[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

15:03, 14 August 2019: 31-hour block for edit warring on Tucker Carlson. Edit war visible in page history. Following the block notice, the blocking admin added: And this by the way, without proper citation amounts to vandalism. If you continue your next block could be much longer.
17:33, 4 March 2020: 72-hour block for "Continuing to use tabloids, specifically the Daily Mail, not using edit summaries, ignored too many warnings."

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.
22:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Alert for both AP and BLP DS[reply]
11:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Alert for AP[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

CozyandDozy does not seem to understand that sources are not optional when editing, particularly when it comes to American politics BLPs. I have repeatedly observed them adding unsourced claims, often controversial, and often to the lead of an article (but it's not a LEADCITE issue; the claims are new information not sourced elsewhere in the article). They have been warned about this repeatedly, as well as about issues with edit warring and not following discretionary sanctions.

Cozy's talk page shows a long list of warnings about edit warring and disruptive edits on American politics-related articles, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer, and others. Best to look at the history of the page, as they have cleared some of these warnings and don't appear to archive their talk page. I compiled a breakdown of these incidents before realizing it would take me far over the diff/word limits, but can provide it on request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: I apologize that this request came as a surprise, but I have asked you to provide sources for your changes before, other editors have asked you to provide sources for your changes, you have been brought to noticeboards over this, and you've been blocked for insufficient sourcing. I was honestly at a loss for how to get through to you that this is a serious problem, because your behavior seems to have gone completely unchanged. You ask for a second chance rather than a topic ban, but why is it only now that you're going to change your behavior? Why not after the first, or second, or fifth warning? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: You reject the policy basis of providing reliable sources when adding new material, particularly controversial material about BLPs? Or that a citation must be provided inline so other editors can verify your additions, rather than being expected to read through sometimes more than one hundred references in the hopes that it might be in one of them?

Unfortunately I don't think your portrayal of this as an issue limited only to the Enoch article is really accurate—as I mentioned in my filing, I went through the edits about which you've been warned in the past year, and this does really seem to be an ongoing issue. If an admin wants me to present this information I can, but I would need approval to exceed the word and diff limits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: Maybe best not to cast aspersions about the AE admins in an AE request regarding yourself... In my experience, the admins active here do very thorough work, and do not just take complaints at face value. Either way, sure, I can put the additional information on your talk page, and if an AE admin wants it here I can put it here too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: It would certainly get most of it, as that is the vast majority of their editing focus. Though I will note I have also run into issues with CozyandDozy adding unsourced content in non-BLP AP articles, for example this edit to Dominion Voting Systems which I personally reverted. That article was among the earlier times I ran across this issue with Cozy adding unsourced, new content to the lead: see Talk:Dominion Voting Systems/Archive 1#MOS:LEAD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that CozyandDozy has said they are retiring: I'm going to dramatically retire from Wikipedia now; I am certain to be topic banned but at least I can beat them to the punch. and posted a "Retirement notice" on their talk page: I'm going to spend more time getting and dozing off, as opposed to editing Wikipedia, when I'm feeling cozy in bed. (yikes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning CozyandDozy

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 CozyandDozy

Hi.

I must concede that I have respect for the intellect and seriousness of admin User:GorillaWarfare, so I was surprised to see her file this complaint, and have read it carefully.

Anyway, upon reflection I would agree that my conduct has not been unimpeachable; far from it. My biggest offense appears to be adding contentious claims about living persons without a direct citation.

I accept that this is not a trivial mistake; I can and should be criticized and perhaps sanctioned on these grounds. However, I must note some compelling facts in mitigation. I haven't added anything (nor am I accused of adding anything) that is erroneous/false about a BLP. Moreover the "unsourced" content about BLPs mentioned here appear in other reliable sources cited in the article.

For example, take the Lauren Southern edit about which Gorilla complains. The fact that she has a non-white husband and child is mentioned in the documentary White Noise; the documentary was produced by the RS The Atlantic, and was previously cited in the article by someone else. What I did is use the same source to flesh out a claim in the lede, although I failed to add an explicit citation.

I admit that I was lazy in not learning how to cite documentaries; I should have done that and cited the specific part of the documentary where these claims are corroborated. But I was using a reliable source (the Atlantic)

As for my edits to the BLP of neo-Nazi Mike Enoch, the misconduct detailed by Gorilla is more serious. Let me explain.

The underlying statement I have tried to add to the article, the fact that neo-Nazi Mike Enoch was mocked when his last name was revealed because it shows he is of Serbian heritage (and Serbs were considered sub-humans by the Nazis), is absolutely true. In addition to Andrew Marantz, The chemist and skeptic author Myles Power notes this too on his blog: "Mike was using a pseudonym to hide his Serbian heritage, because the Nazi regime – and therefore presumably his audience – classified Serbs as subhuman." https://mylespower.co.uk/2020/08/19/defending-my-work-debunking-holocaust-denialism-against-white-nationalist-and-neo-nazi-mike-enoch/

The problem, and herein lies my most serious offense, is that I used the RS Andrew Marantz book to cite this claim without verifying my recollection that the Serbian surname issue was mentioned by him in there, when in fact I am not certain of this (RS Marantz absolutely mentioned this, but he may have mentioned it in a podcast or blog). I accept that my conduct in this regard amounted to a serious violation of policy. But given that the claim I was trying to add is true, and that it is corroborated by Marantz and some forum or another, I believe that my conduct was hardly reprehensible or irredeemable.

I believe I should be given a second chance, rather than topic banned; I do not defend my conduct, but would distinguish it from the promotion of lies or misinformation about BLPs. (My claims are all true and backed by RS.) Regardless, I am pleased with my contributions to the project, and will retire without commotion if my head rolls.

tl;dr: There is a case to be made against my conduct. But it doesn't rise to the level of formal sanctions, much less a topic ban, at this time; though I do not think a temporary block would be unreasonable. I am humbled by this complaint, and hope to continue my contributions in my sphere of interest alongside Gorilla and other more experienced and policy-savvy editors. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gorilla. No need to apologize. This is just a hobby of mine, and I honestly don't take offense to any of this.

I have indeed dismissed most of these warnings, because I have rejected their policy basis. I have not dismissed all the warnings, however; regarding neo-Nazi Mike Enoch, which I agree is (by far) the worst offender among my editing, I have not edited the page since Calton warned me; nor have I deleted Calton's warning from my talk page. The only new edit is Lauren Southern, and this is much less problematic, since (as an uninvolved editor who restored my edits noted) the content I added there is established by an RS from the body of the text.

On Enoch, I accept that I found the idea of a neo-Nazi having a Serbian surname funny, and wanted to re-add that (true) material. This was misconduct. The question is whether this single episode, involving true information I wanted to write about a neo-Nazi, rises to the level of a topic ban. (I think you'd have to admit the other episodes, where I edit warred, and added content to the lede that wasn't cited in the lede but was cited by RS in the body of BLPs, were much less serious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CozyandDozy (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol the admins aren't going to read this carefully. They decide on hunches and the reputation of filers.

How about you present your allegations (with diffs) regarding other misconduct on my talk page? That way, I can see what you are referring to, and adjust my behavior in the unlikely event that I am not topic banned. Also, in the unlikely event that the closing admin actually studies these allegations seriously before rendering judgment, he can read these other diffs on my talk page. CozyandDozy (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CozyandDozy

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

This is looking like a case where a topic ban is necessary. Would biographies of living people related to American politics cover everything needed or does it need to be broader than that? Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Erring on the side of broader seems sensible, too. I'm looking in a bit of disbelief at an edit from a few days ago (diff), where CozyandDozy adds in wiki-voice and without attribution about how this American neo-Nazi was mocked when his non-Aryan, Slavic ethnicity was revealed. Totally unsourced, and here's the kicker — it's in the edit summary, I am quoting it in full: re-adding deleted content. We can put a source needed here if it isn't in any of the sources (I thought it was), but it is firmly established that this happened. Such a cavalier attitude toward citing sources for a page about a living person is alarming. The suggestion that a {{cn}} would be added in advance, and maybe a source is going to be found, maybe not. Maybe it's in an existing source. Who knows. Yet, it's "firmly established that this happened," somehow? I'll spell this out: the notion that neo-Nazis are not to be afforded the same protection as any other living person — that way, madness lies. El_C 05:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roy McCoy

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 18:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Roy McCoy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roy McCoy (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

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

Using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories:

Initial WP:COI @ Griffin

Special:Diff/982056247 Special:Diff/982424039 Special:Diff/982188051 confirmation of WP:COI and proposals, WP:PAID apparently didn't apply
Special:Diff/975250064 edit summary personalizing dispute and promoting "paid agent" conspiracy theory
Special:Diff/990072230 now claiming to no longer represent Griffin, but still complaining about Wikipedia and promoting latest author's refutations against independent sources

MkUltra

Special:Permalink/995948709#No consensus for Page move (a thread more than a diff, the page includes 21 McCoy posts, here are exerpts from between the 15th to the 23th: "'conspiracy theorist', a boring and embarrassingly hackneyed phrase that one sees everywhere in Wikipedia whenever anyone departing from the official narrative is concerned.", "Wikipedia's reputation falls with that of the "reliable sources" [...] following the official narrative even when it flies out the window, but there are also a lot of people who aren't being fooled", "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources", "since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with 'the lying media'", "If the purportedly reliable sources are partisan, your comment is a more a defense of partisanship than a legitimate claim to rationality." (arguing that mainstream sources are partisan, that the author's book is credible and should thwart reliable independent sources, and "Please don't come back to me about secondary sources at this point, thanks").

Election results

The incredible state of WP:AN3 on 31 December shows this editor among others campaigning in relation to the Stop the steal article (among some other frivolous reports). Feoffer's assessment: "argues our articles should not be based on reliable sources [...] not here to build an encyclopedia." Doug Weller's summary is also insightful, that are also related to the topic below.
Convinced that Biden lost (let's consider this a personal opinion, but it's still advocacy noise on the talk page). Special:Diff/996013128. I count 13 extant posts by McCoy on that page, who presents sources about complaints filed as evidence of fraud (WP:GEVAL disputes). Others included these quotes: "Whatever your motives, you and your diligent colleagues are inappropriately injecting POV here as elsewhere. This assertion assumes that Wikipedia should be an impartial and reliable reference rather than a propaganda ministry.", "a large amount of purported evidence purportedly indicating a purportedly massive amount of electoral fraud is purported to exist, and it has not yet been objectively established, but only asserted, that these claims are invalid" (even if all court cases but one failed). I stop here and some posts are so long that few would fully read them (firehose?).

9/11 (other than Griffin)

Special:Permalink/995948709#No consensus for Page move (a thread more than a diff, some still accusatory)
Special:Diff/997830666 Emphasis mine: "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the official narrative of the September 11 attacks in 2001." classical conspiracist assumption that it's just a questionable narrative.
The history of Talk:9/11 Truth movement shows soapboxing and personalization of the dispute, as well as aknowledgement for disregard of reliable sources.
Special:Diff/998181463 arguing that public perception should be considered equivalent to "mainstream knowledge".
Special:Diff/998177749 Most recently, a list of reports about public perception that are claimed to justify describing the official investigation results about 9/11 as a questionable narrative with disregard for WP:GEVAL, policy that the editor was already reminded about recently (Special:Diff/997909836).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

As far as I know, only one block in relation to accusing other editors (27 August).

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

Special:Diff/990979257 9/11 conspiracy theories (DS/Alert)
Special:Diff/995930016 US politics (DS/Alert)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to note that involvement in conspiracy theories is a recent trend, starting with Griffin. McCoy edited constructively with interest in languages (Esperanto), music, the manual of style and misc. random article improvements. I propose a topic ban in the area of conspiracy theories or US politics rather than a WP:NOTHERE block.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/998228884

Discussion concerning Roy McCoy

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 Roy McCoy

I congratulate PaleoNeonate on a fine and professional presentation of the case against me. His citations are all accurate and I retract none of the statements concerned, though I do deny that the positions I have defended are actually conspiracy theories, and I protest and reject Wikipedia's abuse of the language in this regard. I've suspected for some time that Wikipedia simply gets rid of dissidents (this explaining their notable absence on current talk pages), and eliminating me as well would appear to be a confirmation of that suspicion. This is all right with me, as Wikipedia can demonstrate itself to be a propaganda ministry all it wants. Some people will get this and some won't. I have been in the process of washing my hands of it, and this seems to be coming to a conclusion now.

Perhaps needless to say, the so-called conspiracy theories are regularly more true and substantiated than the fictional official narratives to which they provide more credible alternatives, and the individuals smeared as conspiracy theorists are often honorable and intelligent persons telling the truth and not deserving of the insulting, inaccurate and misleading characterization they are branded with in their articles. Yet the insistent, across-the-board libel and mischaracterization continue. What am I do suspect other than a consistent, deliberate policy, presumably executed by paid agents of moneyed interests (or by persons so moneyed themselves), with periodic support and assistance from deluded laypersons who are uninformed, unintelligent, unperceptive or inattentive, hypnotized/mind-controlled, and/or to some degree deranged?

I'm surprised to see my recent "General consensus > mainstream account" post cited as evidence against me, however.[9] I plead guilty to the general charge (though with the "conspiracy theory" qualification above) and don't mean to mount a defense, but I think this post is in some ways a model talk-page contribution toward the end of improving an article in accordance with approved sources. An editor had made a controversial and unsupported change to 9/11 Truth movement last August,[10][11] and I documented that this was not only not supported by the cited sources but contradicted by them. This was roughly the same thing I had done at Stop the Steal, where Feoffer and his collaborators were insistently and erroneously terming the campaign a conspiracy theory. This was simply illiterate and could rightfully have been corrected as a simple copyedit, but in addition it was also in contradiction to the cited sources as I described in detail there also, both in an edit summary[12] and in the talk. The proper change was finally implemented by Anachronist, and Feoffer's blustering accusation of edit-warring apparently did not lead to a sanction, or at least has not to date.

As I've stated in one place or another, you can get rid of me and I suppose you will. I request, however, that you not block me in the manner proposed by PaleoNeonate, but rather obliterate, as much as possible, my entire association with your shady propaganda agency that used to be to a degree reputable before it got taken over by whoever or whatever, whenever that occurred. As I've also said in one place or another, I suppose I can still come in and correct commas and misspellings on unprotected pages anonymously if I feel like it (as will likely occur, given my predisposition toward this kind of thing and the fact that I'll presumably continue to consult Wikipedia even though I don't like it), and that this won't bother anyone. I also understand that if I were to "vandalize" anything my IP address could be blocked, though I don't understand the technical details of this. In any event it will not bother me to no longer be morally compromised by association with your ethically seedy and intellectually dishonest operation. I hope a true history will judge you by your merits. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

I think the response indicates that in fact, a TBAN is not going to work. It's hard to see why they have decided to make an issue of Wikipedias (perceived) POV bias. Nor (as they are not a new editor) why they think this kind of attitude is acceptable (indeed it almost reads like they want to be banned, and are doing their damndest to get it done). This all reds more like some game. It needs to be put a stop to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roy McCoy

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

Onceinawhile

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 Onceinawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: 11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Onceinawhile (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions :

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

02.01.21 Unilaterally closing RfC they started themselves, out of process. They then launch a RM, mass ping editors, and later vote against their own RM. Disruptive hijacking of RfC that was going against their position.
05.01.21 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards" and in a thinly veiled manner calling them racist.
05.01.21 Attacking supporters of move of "whitewashing".
01.01.21 Attack against User:Shrike.
17.12.20 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards", ghetto comparison.
12.12.20 "Dripping from your words", thinly veiled accusation of racism against User:Reenem. Also Warsaw ghettot comparison.
12.12.20 Attacking me with accusation of whitewashing. Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison.
11.12.20 Attacking multiple editors with "whitewashing" accusation.
03.12.20 Attacking User:Levivich, accusation of lying ("outright lie").
02.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem and other editors with "consistent anti-Palestinianism" attack.
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, saying they are a "believer in fringe theories".
01.12.20 Attacking User:AlmostFrancis, "ultra-nationalist propaganda".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "anti-Palestinian racism".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions"
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism".
01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse."
25.11.20 Attacking User:Jr8825 with racism accusations. Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy.

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

04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ([13], [14], [15]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.

Edit made by Onceinawhile yesterday (5.1): "P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.". This is a direct personal attack, "continued double standards", and a very thinly veiled accusation of racism cast at User:Drsmoo. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [16], I will also notify other named editors.

Discussion concerning Onceinawhile

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 Onceinawhile

It is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does.

I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [17]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: OK I will go through and provide the evidence. Let me start by pointing out that the quote you highlight was simply a rhetorical mirroring of this comment from Drsmoo: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing, to which I was responding. I am simply using this mirror to point out that these claims can be made by both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have spent some time going through this. I can explain further but I will need more time.

The edits which the editor pulled out were made over a two month period since my creation of the West Bank bantustans article. The editor who posted this AE, a new account with mostly semi-automated edits, has made their first-ever AE submission with the quality of AE formatting that is beyond me, and I have been here for over a decade. It is also a misrepresentative list (see below); in the two month period I have found only three instances of mutual trading of anti-this and anti-that accusations, including with the original poster themself.

I think the edits below have been misrepresented in the commentary above, and hopefully can be ignored:

#1: This was simply following due procedure, as confirmed at ANI
#3: The AfD and two alternate move names proposed have one thing in common, to whitewash the word bantustan out of the title. I am not aware that the word whitewash is unacceptable, but open to being proven wrong.
#4: I am trying to encourage this editor to actually follow through on his frequent attacks on my work (over many years) with constructive debate. It has nothing to do with this topic.
#5: Nothing here
#8: Included a clear statement that I was not commenting on intent
#9: Perhaps “lie” (which can imply intent) would have been better replaced with “falsehood”; I do not believe there was intent
#11: This was a comment on a specific theory proposed which is definitely fringe; perhaps it could have been better worded but the implication that I was commenting only on the theory itself was very clear
#12: That is the only kind of source which would include the argument that was being made
#17: No accusations made

I have pointed out anti-Palestinian statements in three conversations:

#2 this was a mirroring of Drsmoo’s attack,[18] making a rhetorical point about equal treatment
#7 I don't think this was an attack, but rather a question and an attempt to generate discussion. It was followed up with an accusation of racism by the original poster here:[19] I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate. This is the point re "implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic"; this is what the original poster is referring to with their comments above ...ghetto comparison... Also Warsaw ghettot comparison... Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison... Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy... They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts.
#6, 10, 13-16 This was a single conversation, which got sidetracked into denial of the Palestinian occupation.

Since I created this article, being responsible for the choice of the title, I have been subject to a barrage of on-and-off wiki harassment.

To address the claims of antisemitism or anti-Israel: (1) This article, and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is (and have repeatedly stated as such). The article and title simply sets out that the situation in the West Bank is most commonly referred to as Bantustans, which may have been a component of apartheid but cannot logically be extrapolated to make the wider claim; (2) I have not and would not make comparisons to Nazi policy, nor would I claim that the historical situations or policies were similar. The point made re ghettos and pogroms is about the use of foreign loanwords with negative connotations, and how we rightly allow them across the encyclopedia.

Regarding my point above that "the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions". Those accusations include (there are more at the discussions but I do not have time now to go through further):

20:08, 5 January 2021, Drsmoo diff: “P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing”
15:08, 2 January 2021, IP diff: "Shalom. You’ve been revealed as an antisemite. How does that feel?"
08:12, 12 December 2020, 11Fox11 diff: “I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate."
16:39, 3 December 2020, Adoring nanny diff: “is anti-semitic to boot”
21:14, 24 November 2020, Bearian diff: “non-racist, as to opposed the current name”
09:26, 15 November 2020, Île flottante diff: “purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias”
Plus two off-wiki instances of harassment which I would be happy to share privately.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: the comments by 11Fox11 and Drsmoo were about IHRA's reference to "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis", which was clearly not what has been going on here. These comments "invocation... disturbing" and juxtaposition of IHRA with "your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy" were very clear (and nonsense) accusations of antisemitism. Finally the other three comments above, "anti-semitic to boot", "...racist..." and "...anti-Israel..." were all directed at my choice of title. And the off-wiki ones were obviously even less veiled. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - @El C: please could I ask you to be careful with your representation of things, as this is clearly a very sensitive area. You wrote "Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany"; I have not at any point drawn parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: that is not "comparison of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". I am explicitly not commenting on or implying anything about policies or anything of the sort. It is about how non-neutral foreign loanwords are rightly used in key areas of Jewish (and South African) history. You can consistently see this from my other comments on this question: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]).

Since you have rightly taken an interest in whether the claims of antisemitic behavior have any merit, could you please do the same for the claims of anti-Palestinian behavior?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: I can assure you that linguistic and etymological comparisons are not what the IHRA definition is referring to; I wrote the article on the definition a few years ago, and have read all the work of the authors. The point of that line in IHRA is that nothing can compare in scope, scale and horrificness to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, and to imply as such is unacceptable. I did not and would not do that. There is and was no attempt to equate the policies - please could you kindly review the diffs and acknowledge this? I do not feel comfortable with leaving this point open.

To your question, the original post at the top of this thread includes a few moments where I have claimed certain statements to be anti-Palestinian. I propose not to repeat those, in order to save space. Here are a couple of good examples on the minimizing / denying the Palestine occupation and dispossession: When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute.[25] and What disappearing land? It was never under control of Palestinians. It was controlled by Jordan then by Israel. It was Israel who gave the Palestinians some of the land.[26]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C please could you help me understand your last comment? This AE was seemingly opened on the basis that I pointed out a few statements from other editors that I considered anti-Palestinian. How can the merits of this AE be considered without assessing whether my concerns were valid? Plus I believe you have just provided an assessment of whether concerns of antisemitism could be valid? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C the words "sign of racism" is no different to saying "IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes" (a direct quote from the original poster here). It is now commonplace to talk about signs of antisemitism per IHRA, so surely we can do the same about other forms of racism without censure? I don't consider either to be personal attacks, but if they are to be deemed as such we must be consistent.

Awilley would you mind taking the time to review the two-month discussion more broadly? As I point about above, much of those diffs were misrepresented and described out of context. There have been more than 1,000 edits made to the discussion pages, and I have worked extremely hard to find a consensus in difficult circumstances. I have been working in this area for a decade and I don't think you will find an editor more committed to actual collaboration; you can see my intentions in black and white from my having written the goals section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Working in what may be our encyclopedia's most difficult topic area is a real challenge, and I simply ask that you take your time before reaching judgement here. Please also bear in mind that the editor here has only notified those editors on one side of the discussion here, so taking what you are hearing with a pinch of salt is reasonable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for bearing with me here; I think I have a way to explain what I am getting at. See these two comments side by side:

Comment directed at me: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing This was clearly building on an earlier comment that I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
My response: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.

I consider them to be exactly the same, primarily because I literally wrote my comment as a rhetorical mirror - i.e. it was intended to match what Drsmoo had just said to me. It was not written to be a personal attack, which I hope you can see from the mirroring. Context is everything here, and I realize that I could have been clearer here so as not to be misinterpreted. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C (I am sparing you a ping), thanks for explaining. I agree that the mirroring was a "strong" response to a comment that I objected to, and I hope you now agree that my response was not a personal attack (in our terminology) as the point of my comment was not to suggest anything about the editor but to draw the editor's attention to the fact that I did not appreciate their comment and show that just rhetorical devices can work both ways. I could have and should have done it more elegantly.

On your response to Zero, it seems that you are saying that editors can freely make charges of antisemitism, because there exists a formal definition of what constitutes antisemitism, but cannot freely make charges of other forms of racism (because no other form of racism has a formal definition). I don't think most editors would consider that to be a reasonable position for us to take. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C ok, thank you for continuing to engage on this. I realize it is painful. Whatever the admins conclude here, I would like to learn from it. At the moment I am still confused as to where the line should be drawn on pointing out other editors' potentially racist statements. I believe you have suggested that in one comment where I have pointed this out it constituted a personal attack, but in all(?) the others where such claims were made against me, it did not. So I think I understand your conclusion but I do not understand your reasoning. It seems you are not saying that no-one should be able to say that another editor's statement could be racist; that it is ok in certain circumstances. Perhaps the missing piece of the puzzle is notsomuch your views on my comment to Drsmoo, which you have set out, but on why the comments by Drsmoo, 11Fox11 and the three editors who claimed that my choice of title was racist were all not personal attacks. If you have the time to comment on each of those it would help me understand your conclusion on my comment more clearly. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ([27], [28]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:

Of the diffs that have been brought, per my comment above at 18:50 6 January 2021 the majority of these are not relevant. I have set out my assessment of #1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 above; if you disagree I would be keen to understand more.
Of the remaining three exchanges, which I think form the nub of this AE, as I have explained above these were mutual exchanges which could have been worded better. There was no intent for these to be personal attacks, and I don't believe they were understood to be. I have explained the rhetorical mirroring points above re Drsmoo and 11Fox11 (we were effectively warning each other that certain comments could be interpreted in certain ways) and my similar but much longer tangent discussion with Reneem included a clear statement that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent", which I should probably have repeated elsewhere. On this question of rhetorical mirroring, surely we should either carefully judge the merits of both sets of claims, or neither. If the merits of my claims are assessed and deemed to be slim, then I would like to learn from it. Per my conversation with El C, I would really like to understand what is acceptable on both sides of this "anti-this and anti-that" question, if there is time to build consensus on it.
Most importantly though, there was no disruption here, and I have never been a disruptive editor. In 10+ years of editing this crazy topic area, I have a maintained a clean block log (except for an incorrect procedural block that was immediately rescinded). I made c.7,500 edits to our project in 2020, the majority in this same topic area. In these discussions at Talk:West Bank bantustans and the AfD, I have made a little over 200 talk page edits. Through real effort and tough but ultimately constructive discussion, we have reached what may be an emerging consensus. I can't bring you each of those 200 edits without drowning this discussion, but you will get a good sense of the nature of my contributions if you just search for three or four of my comments at random. Or I can bring you examples if you tell me the kind of thing you would like to see. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier

The matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

It's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen any example provided of a post of mine that exhibited a double standard, or justified being directly accused of racism. Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely certain that there is no definition of racism that includes voicing displeasure at someone making Holocaust and Pogrom references. I'd also like to point out that the reason 11Fox11 brought this A/R/E (later supplemented by Levivich) was persistent and unceasing personal attacks and aggressive tendentious editing by Onceinawhile, rather than the single specific example being focused on. Drsmoo (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to selfstudier, yes you have also been "generating heat", as you too were directly warned to stop making offensive holocaust analogies. I continue to see aspersions cast on me, despite there continuing to be no justification provided for how any of my edits illustrated "double standards" or were racist. The argument appears to be that when they called me racist, they weren't ACTUALLY calling me racist, they were trying to make a "rhetorical point". That is frankly nonsense, they directly and baselessly accused me of double standards and racism as a form of personal attack. There was nothing "rhetorical" about it. This is also nothing new, I (and others) have received unprovoked personal attacks from this user for years and years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Additional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:

11:49, 15 Nov: Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick. [29]
21:28, 24 Nov: Shrike, stop with the bullshit propaganda please ... Have some empathy and humanity. [30]
12:02, 1 Dec: Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. [31]
12:41, 1 Dec: Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem. [32]
12:46, 1 Dec: By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. [33]
00:51, 2 Dec: I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others ... [34]
17:49, 10 Dec: Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. [35]
07:43, 12 Dec: It shows that you do not understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. [36]
14:57, 12 Dec: Wikipedia does not use whitewashed titles for such situations - we use the common name. Do all those editors proposing simply "enclave" believe that the Palestinians should be treated differently from other groups who have lived in subjugated/oppressed enclaves, such that the title of the article describing their living arrangements should not reference this subjugation/oppression at all? Do those editors really think it is right to single out the Palestinian people in this way? [37]
16:30, 14 Dec: Plus, some editors have track records of voting without contributing to the discussion. In this thread, Drsmoo and Shrike have both made comments about neutrality which fail to address the policy of WP:POVNAME, which has been mentioned frequently above. Since they have are unwilling to explain their positions, in light of pre-existing information which undermines it, their votes are meaningless and can be ignored. [38] Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requests I've made to Onceinawhile (among others) at Talk:West Bank bantustans for the bludgeoning/attacks to stop: Nov 30, Dec 10, Dec 18, and Dec 22. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlmostFrancis

My dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ohh boy, now more untruths. Onceandawhile is now saying that I was making claims that only an ultranationist would support. Too be clear I made three claims. One, that the source was a general interest magazine for which I had already cited the about page of the journal and the authors CV. Second that she only traced lines and was not a designer which was sourced to the authors own statement in the source. Third that the author was a secretery and not a high ranking insider which was sourced to both the authors own statments and a plaestinian artist collective. Not an Israeli ultra-nationalist source in the bunch.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, here you directly tied renaming "West Bank bantustans" article to renaming Nazi ghettos. That had nothing to do with loan words. Here is another comparison this time "West Bank bantustans" to the Warsaw ghetto. Making the argument that you were just desperate to use load words so you needed to make Nazi analogies (repeatedly), while never even using the term "loan word", takes a lot of chutzpah.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zero^talk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jr8825

I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" (diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" (diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor".

Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, diff #17 is a typical example. This happened one or two other times at most.

I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content, albeit with a conscious effort on my part to first spell out common ground and overlook initial slights aimed at me or the validity of my points. Looking through past discussions I can see Onceinawhile has always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area have been valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area.

I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted)

Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me.

Huldra (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:

Statement by Chipmunkdavis

All of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Onceinawhile

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

Sanctions are probably warranted here. While the evidence by the complainant is rather overwhelming, the response by Onceinawhile is almost entirely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud. One example listed by this complaint, from yesterday (Jan 5), which I found especially egregious (diff), reads in part: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing. The fact that Onceinawhile thinks that it's somehow okay to speak to another person in such a way is outright astonishing to me. I cannot stress enough how unacceptable this is. As for Onceinawhile's own assertion above about implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic — there needs to be actual evidence to corroborate this claim, which again, their response fails to provide. El_C 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I'm just not seeing where you've been accused of racism or anti-Semitism. Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany, like by noting (in a direct quote, no less) how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, for example, views the matter. The only actual violation I was able to identify in your recently-compiled evidence is from that IP, which I would block, if it wasn't for them being inactive. Otherwise, again, I simply fail to see how anyone has spoken as to your motivation or anything else that might be construed as a personal remark about you. El_C 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I don't see an issue with my representation, considering you make statements such as: "Bantu autonomy" (for South African Bantustans) or "Jewish autonomy" for (Warsaw Ghetto) would be whitewashing. Why do you wish to whitewash here? It is anti-Palestinian double standards; double standards being a key element of identifying racism (diff). El_C 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, that is not coming across as a meaningful distinction to me, since those words highlight Nazi German, Apartheid South African and Israeli policies, respectively. As for your request, I don't really understand what you're expecting me to examine, specifically. If there's something you consider to be especially egregious, I'm happy to take a look. El_C 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I acknowledge that it serves as a meaningful distinction to you, but I'm still letting you know how it is otherwise coming across. As for your objection to having editors minimize the impact of Palestinian occupation and dispossession and oppression by Israel, I'm not sure that is something which is in the purview of admins to mitigate. El_C 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Onceinawhile, when I excerpted your "sign of racism" comment, for example, I deem that to have been an ARBPIA-derived personal attack. What I'm not seeing is where you have been similarly attacked (again, save for that IP). Possibly another admin would interpret it otherwise...? Added after edit conflict: I see that Awilley has now opined below. His assessment generally mirrors my own. El_C 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I did not refer to "sign of racism" words, as you put it, but as clearly stated: your "sign of racism" comment (in its entirety), which was a personal attack. El_C 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I did not need further context. I already understood that you felt Drsmoo's comment crossed a line, which I'm not sure it did — it can instead be read as asking you to be wary of drawing these parallels. But I do find your "rhetorical mirror" to have been unduly acerbic, so I do deem it as an attack, whether you intended it as such or not. Anyway, that's my evaluation, which I'm not really inclined to debate further. Again, perhaps another admin will view it different, who knows. El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, I do not see it as the same thing at all, and I am quite surprised that you do. My view is that, within reason, an editor is entitled to advance the position that an argument possess anti-Semitic features according to this or that definition of whatever reputable body is being cited. But an editor is not allowed to respond to that challenge by intimating "racism" on the part of the original editor by virtue of a vague notion of "double standards." Anyway, I'd really would like to go do something else for a while rather than have to respond to these seemingly endless pings. There are other admins who patrol the AE board, why not let them have their say? El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, sorry, but I still think it was a personal attack on your part. Nor am I saying anything of the sort about the definition of antisemitism versus that of racism (per se.). Now, is there anything else you wish to query me about? May as well get it out of the way. Also, if you are speaking to me here at the AE board, it is actually better that you ping me — though, again, I do think I've already responded to this AE report in considerable detail. El_C 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, I'll do you one better than continuing to go on about what does or does not equate this or that. I'll preface this by noting that I am listening to a live feed of the reconvened Congress as I am writing this (Rubio just yielded the floor), so hopefully I'm able to communicate the following effectively. Look, I've known you to be a long time regular in good standing in the ARBPIA topic area for years and years, mostly engaging it without major incident (I'm not sure whether without blemish, but confident enough of it being at least okayish overall). Which is why I'm more than a bit puzzled to see you stumble like this over this particular article. Honestly, it's rather unexpected. So, while I'm willing to take your long-term ARBPIA tenure into account when considering sanctions, I'd still like to be able to get a sense of what's happening here. Because something has happened, I'm just not sure what it is. El_C 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed diffs 2-17 and found a majority of them were objectionable/disruptive/uncollaborative. It looks like most of the dispute is centered around West Bank bantustans. Would a narrow topic ban or partial block be enough to resolve this? ~Awilley (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a mention, Onceinawhile, that the instructions regarding statements say They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs and you have gone way over that. Unless asked a specific question, do not add any more to your statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss

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 Mandruss

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :

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

01:44 8 January Mandruss removes part of the lead of the article (I see no problem in that edit as such)
01:54 8 January Violating the required 24 hours, Mandruss reverts both me and others to their own edit only ten minutes later.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20 October 2015 Only one distant block

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

I informed Mandruss about the policy and encouraged them to self-revert [39]; Mandruss refused [40]. User Tataral likewise informed Mandruss and urged them to self-revert [41]; Mandruss again refused and even told Tataral to take it to WP:AE, showing they are well aware of the situation [42].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mandruss's conduct at Donald Trump has been combative and disruptive recently. In response to User SPECIFICO hatting an irrelevant comment by Mandruss, Mandruss (by their own admission) hatted the comment of a third user just to show that "two can play your little game" [43]

Below, Mandruss claims it somehow show 'lack of objectivity' that I mention the previous block against him. I want to be clear I consider the previous block irrelevant to the discussion. My inclusion of it was based on the belief previous blocks should be mentioned, not in itself based on any lack of objectivity. Like Mandruss, I believe it can be disregarded. The issue here is the current direct violation of discretionary sanctions, nothing else.

Furthermore, Mandruss also claims their two edits were different "by 2,219 bytes" and alleges it is bad faith of me not to mention this. I consider it irrelevant; the only reason they differ in bytes is that edits in between had both added and removed content. Mandruss's revert was 100% a revert to their previous edit 10 minutes earlier, even as the discretionary sanctions forbid reverts to one's own edit within 24 hours.

Update In 12 years, I've never seen users abuse an AE report to game the system as Mandruss and O3000 have done here. Below, O3000 tells Mandruss "self-revert and I'll revert" and they then proceed to do exactly that 03:09 03:11. This is not a good faith effort to address the situation, but instead about two users using an AE report to game the discretionary sanctions in place.

Could I kindly encourage O3000 to take the time to read the request, as they have now misrepresented several facts. O3000 claims it would have been proper to ask Mandruss to self-revert instead of filing this request. Had O300 read the request, they would have seen that that is exactly what I also did. I first asked Mandruss to self-revert [44]; Mandruss answered by refusing [45]. Next Tataral asked Mandruss to self-revert [46]. Again Mandruss made it very clear they refused [47]. Only after these repeated efforts to de-escalate was this report filed. Against this background, it is baffling that O300 now claims it was wrong to file this AE instead of asking Mandruss to self-revert. The only thing that made Mandruss 'self-revert', after repeatedly refusing, was O3000's explicit promise to restore Mandruss's version [48]. Only then did Mandruss "self-revert" [49]] (explicitly referring to O300's gaming proposal in the edit summary) and then immediately inform O300 [50] so that Mandruss preferred version could be restored [51]. Like El_C, I'm a bit surprised this even needs to be explained at AE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification [52]

Discussion concerning Mandruss

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 Mandruss

Preliminary response: The 24-hour 3RR block in 2015 was not in the AP2 area (or any DS area for that matter), therefore doesn't belong in "previous relevant sanctions", and its inclusion there says something about the filer's objectivity in my opinion. The spin in the filer's comments is I suppose par for the course in this venue. The diffs presented largely speak for themselves, but I will respond within 12 hours to any questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the filer has presented the same diff as two successive reverts, making it appear like they were identical. They were not; in fact they differed by 2,219 bytes while intersecting. No doubt this was an honest mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Done.[53] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: On your first point, if one of the most experienced, most level-headed, most law-abiding editors in the project (O3000) can get that so egregiously wrong, I'd say the error is far less outrageous than you claim. On your second: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Mandruss violated 1RR. For the record, I apparently edit-warred, but not by violating 1RR, which is currently suspended at that article.

I'm trying very hard not to think about all the times I've witnessed editors re-revert identical edits at that article, causing far more disruption than I did, and get off scot-free, apparently because nobody had the time, energy, knowledge, and capacity-for-stress to file an AE complaint with no guarantee that it will have any beneficial effect. In my experience, the discretion conferred on admins by DS means very little in the practice of enforcing its rules.

That was worth bringing up in an ArbCom venue, but I want to be clear that it is not meant to excuse my mistake. I don't blame my failures on the failures of others, and in fact my greatest peeve is that that is routinely tolerated and even encouraged by the community. My parents taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, and the destructive results of a system where they do are quite clear to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I can't believe you just cited an essay as proof that O3000's action was "outrageous". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: So what? You propose a logged warning based on an essay? I think that's outrageous. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." To borrow your words, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. If that's wikilawyering, check please! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

@Mandruss: Self-rvt and I’ll rvt (or someone else if I’m asleep). @Jeppiz: Yes, something belongs. But, take to the talk page, have patience, and avoid running to drama boards. Let us not mimic the politics we document. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In no way was I attempting to "game the system". If that was my intent, I certainly would not have done so openly at AE. Using email would be gaming. 1RR causes serious gotcha problems as it is easy to accidentally violate. Mandruss violated 1RR. If I see this happen, I warn the editor on their UTP and suggest self-rvt, as opposed to filing at AE or AN3. I believe that's what most editors do, even when on opposite sides of an issue. If I run into a situation where a rvt is needed, but I am up against 1RR myself, I ask someone else to rvt on the ATP. I've been doing this for years and several times an admin has reverted for me. The entire point is to bring discussion to the talk page without drama and time-wasting complaints like this one. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt was to continue the removal of challenged text from the lead, relating to news currently on the front page of nearly every major newspaper in the world, in an extremely highly viewed article, to bring discussion to the ATP where it belongs. My philosophy of DS editing is collaboration to improve the project over drama. Editing AP2 articles is like dancing a tango in a minefield. As for Mandruss refusing to rvt, I had not seen the user talk page discussion until now. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I would claim WP:IAR; but I seriously do not know what rule I violated. I made a good faith effort to quickly bring discussion back to the ATP where it belongs in an extremely delicate area, immediately after what RS call an insurrection not seen since the War of 1812. I only made one edit, which was aimed at improving the project. I did not (and have never) secretly collude with another editor. There appears to be general agreement here that the edit should have been reverted. I merely suggested a quick path to doing so that fit within the rules. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That article states: Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. In no way was I attempting to “circumvent the normal process of consensus”. The one edit I made was to revert an edit for which there was no consensus. I was trying to guide the subject back to the ATP so a consensus could be constructed. We should not be constructing a consensus on the article page at such a critical time on such a controversial article. That's what an ATP is for. I was doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The lead of Donald Trump is far too long. Those who wish to trim it down are following our guidelines. Those who wish to keep it excessively long are violating our guidelines. They should instead work on getting consensus for changing the guideline.

This is not to say that dodgy behavior while enforcing a guideline is OK, but the issue would have never come up if not for certain editors thinking that WP:MOSLEAD doesn't apply to them.

(I will be without Internet access soon, possibly for weeks, so may not be able to respond.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mandruss

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

I'm not very interested in bureaucratic procedure. Instead, I would suggest to Jeppiz and others wanting to tell the world about yesterday that it is not reasonable to pack all that into the lead of a long article. To paraphrase from the edit summary by Mandruss, it's grossly excessive and violates MOS:LEAD (for example, there's nothing in the article about a coup d'état), and (according to Mandruss) this article does not use citations in the lead. Why would you want to do that? Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, unless something like WP:BLP is invoked (which I don't believe it has been), this whole Self-rvt and I’ll rvt in turn plan and subsequent execution thereof is just outrageous. Editors are not allowed to coordinate for the purpose of circumventing an existing revert restriction. It's bizarre to me that this even needs explaining. A sign of the times? Just because Mandruss may have been correct on the edit (which, in fairness, when it comes to the Trump page, he usually is), doesn't mean that this was even remotely acceptable. El_C 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mandruss, reverts need not be "identical" to count as such. WP:EW is quite clear on this: in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period (bold is my emphasis). El_C 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, while I can appreciate the impulse to defend your long-time colleague, I do not subscribe to that logic. El_C 03:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, I do not accept that. Mandruss was already given the opportunity to self-revert, but they declined. They accepted your suggestion that they self-revert because you offered to mitigate the edit war in their favour, which is not acceptable. You are not allowed to do this, anywhere on the project. Again, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. El_C 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, logged warnings to both Mandruss and Objective3000 works for me. But for the record, any further circumvention of revert restrictions (anywhere, whatsoever) will be viewed harshly and is almost certain to result in immediate sanctions. El_C 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, it was clearly an instance of Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics (bullet point 1). And, no, IAR is not a magic exemption. El_C 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, they blatantly circumvented the edit restriction. Anyway, I intend to log a warning for them, too. If either yourself or Objective3000 (or anyone else) objects to this, you are welcome to seek clarification from the Committee on the matter. Mandruss, yes, I cited an essay. So what? El_C 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, if that is the basis for your objection to my application of the discretionary sanctions, again, you are free to contact the Committee directly for further input. Obviously, I feel that to be a weak argument. But as always, I defer to Committee guidance in all matters AE. El_C 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I think this was a violation of the AE restriction. FWIW I pretty strongly agree with Mandruss, O3000, and Johnuniq on the "that's way too much detail for the lead" issue. I agree with Johnuniq on his general disinterest in bureaucratic procedures. I don't even think the following point is the most important point, and Jeppiz should take on board Johnuniq's comments. But if I imagine for the sake of argument that I could stomach editing political articles (or could stomach editing articles on any area subject to AE), and I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't. That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever we talk about reverts and reinstatements, there's always an assumption of "whether in whole or in part". Mandruss's second revert was a clear violation of the editing restriction "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours..." (Note the restriction even words it as a "change", instead of an "edit" or "revert".) That said, from my observations, Mandruss has consistently been on the side of Wikipedia policy and community norms. From what I've observed, on the Donald Trump article he's been the strongest enforcer of community consensus, enforcing even the community resolutions that he opposed, and pushing back against the recent-news-induced editing frenzy many editors often get caught up in. For this reason, I would oppose anything more than a warning or reminder in response to this incident, especially now that the edit has been (belatedly) self-reverted. Newcomers and drive-by editors, even the problematic ones, often get a free pass the first couple of times they run afoul of the editing restrictions. I don't think it hurts to extend the same courtesy to the veteran editor on the front lines of trying to maintain decorum. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I personally don't think Objective3000 did anything wrong. They talked Mandruss down off a ledge and got the article back to the status quo. That kind of thing happens all the time when someone accidentally violates 1RR, often with some amount of eye rolling by the person who has to self-revert an obviously good edit for procedural reasons so that someone else can immediately revert the self-revert. The difference here is that the exchange happened here at AE instead of a user talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RKOwens444

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. El_C 18:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning RKOwens444

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RKOwens444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

03:02, 8 January 2021 Edit warring in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:CON on Alien abduction
00:20, 8 January 2021 ibid.
23:50, 7 January 2021 ibid.
22:22, 7 January 2021 ibid.
20:04, 7 January 2021 ibid.
23:55, 7 January 2021 Edit warring in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:CON on Haim Eshed
19:34, 7 January 2021 ibid.

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)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:34, 4 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

New user that seems to be WP:NOTHERE, but specifically causing disruption to articles about alien abduction and UFO conspiracy theories. Refuses to engage on talkpage. See also discussions at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Haim Eshed

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54]

Discussion concerning RKOwens444

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 RKOwens444

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RKOwens444

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

There's a Haim Eshed article now? Yay! Anyway, these clear violations to WP:FRINGE are as unambiguous as they get. To the point that it almost seems like an outright provocation (diff). El_C 13:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing note: Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action (also per Bish), which was my original impulse. Not really sure now why I didn't do that from the outset. We should really have zero tolerance to this kind of nonsense. El_C 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RKOwens444 is a very new editor, but it does seem quite difficult to steer them into being a constructive Wikipedia contributor, as several people have tried to do, notably PaleoNeonate. For instance, they push right on with the edit warring on Alien abduction after being warned about it; that doesn't slow them down at all. And first they insist on using the user-generated Medium.com as a source; then, while still claiming Medium.com is actually fine, move on to using an article in NYT. A reliable source, right?[55]. Wrong. The article in NYT that RKOwens444 considers shows David Huggins's alien encounters are "a strongly-sourced fact"[56] is actually a review of Huggins's (alien-encounter-related) paintings, and, if it needs saying, by no means credulous. Nor is the Vice article credulous. RKOwens444 is also quite belligerent, making no use of the article talkpage although several people have urged them to in edit summaries, and although there is a discussion there. One that they have clearly not consulted before penning the aggressive recent edit summary "Finally someone has the courage to provide an actual explanation for their reason for removing this sentence", etc.[57] No, several people have had that "courage", and RKOwens444 has been repeatedly asked to go read all about it on Talk. I will topic ban them indefinitely from pseudoscience pages unless I see some objections below reasonably soon. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: The diff El C cites is another example of belligerence; it seems designed purely for provocation and trolling. If anybody thinks we might as well block indefinitely as a regular admin action, I'm on board with that. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 8 January 2021 (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 656: / Line 656: @@
 ::*{{u|Mandruss}}, while I can appreciate the impulse to defend your long-time colleague, I do not subscribe to that logic. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 03:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 :::*{{u|Objective3000}}, I do not accept that. {{u|Mandruss}} was already given the opportunity to self-revert, but they declined. They accepted ''your'' suggestion that they self-revert because you offered to mitigate the edit war in their favour, which is not acceptable. You are not allowed to do this, anywhere on the project. Again, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::{{u|Awilley}}, logged warnings to both {{u|Mandruss}} and {{u|Objective3000}} works for me. But for the record, any further circumvention of revert restrictions (anywhere, whatsoever) will be viewed harshly and is almost certain to result in immediate sanctions. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
+:::::*{{u|Awilley}}, logged warnings to both {{u|Mandruss}} and {{u|Objective3000}} works for me. But for the record, any further circumvention of revert restrictions (anywhere, whatsoever) will be viewed harshly and is almost certain to result in immediate sanctions. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::::{{u|Objective3000}}, it was clearly an instance of [[Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics]] (bullet point 1). And, no, IAR is not a magic exemption. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
+::::::*{{u|Objective3000}}, it was clearly an instance of [[Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics]] (bullet point 1). And, no, IAR is not a magic exemption. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::{{u|Awilley}}, they ''blatantly'' circumvented the edit restriction. Anyway, I intend to log a warning for them, too. If either yourself or {{u|Objective3000}} (or anyone else) objects to this, you are welcome to seek [[WP:ARCA|clarification]] from the Committee on the matter. {{u|Mandruss}}, yes, I cited an essay. So what? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
+:::::::*{{u|Awilley}}, they ''blatantly'' circumvented the edit restriction. Anyway, I intend to log a warning for them, too. If either yourself or {{u|Objective3000}} (or anyone else) objects to this, you are welcome to seek [[WP:ARCA|clarification]] from the Committee on the matter. {{u|Mandruss}}, yes, I cited an essay. So what? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::*{{u|Mandruss}}, if ''that'' is the basis for your objection to my application of the [[WP:ACDS|discretionary sanctions]], again, you are free to contact the Committee directly for further input. Obviously, I feel that to be a weak argument. But as always, I defer to Committee guidance in all matters AE. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 *To be clear, I think this '''was''' a violation of the AE restriction. FWIW I pretty strongly agree with Mandruss, O3000, and Johnuniq on the "that's ''way'' too much detail for the lead" issue.  I agree with Johnuniq on his general disinterest in bureaucratic procedures.  I don't even think the following point is the most important point, and Jeppiz should take on board Johnuniq's comments. '''But''' if I imagine for the sake of argument that I could stomach editing political articles (or could stomach editing articles on any area subject to AE), and I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't.  That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 *Whenever we talk about reverts and reinstatements, there's always an assumption of "whether in whole or in part". Mandruss's second revert was a clear violation of the editing restriction {{tq|"If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours..."}} (Note the restriction even words it as a "change", instead of an "edit" or "revert".)  That said, from my observations, Mandruss has consistently been on the side of Wikipedia policy and community norms. From what I've observed, on the Donald Trump article he's been the strongest enforcer of community consensus, enforcing even the community resolutions that he opposed, and pushing back against the recent-news-induced editing frenzy many editors often get caught up in. For this reason, I would oppose anything more than a warning or reminder in response to this incident, especially now that the edit has been (belatedly) self-reverted. Newcomers and drive-by editors, even the problematic ones, often get a free pass the first couple of times they run afoul of the editing restrictions. I don't think it hurts to extend the same courtesy to the veteran editor on the front lines of trying to maintain decorum. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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