Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:53, 10 June 2018

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

There is consensus that Jordan is not reasonably construed to fall under the general prohibitions from the committee (30/500, 1RR, and the special restriction about restoration by the original author). Please note that this only is about whether or not this specific page as a whole falls under the general prohibitions authorized directly by the committee. Other pages about Jordan may fall under them, and specific edits to Jordan may also be subject to discretionary sanctions: those can be assessed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement

Protection log for Jordan, discussion at [1]

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

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by Makeandtoss

Edit notice template should be removed as the page is not protected as part of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The page should also not be protected to be part of the Arab-Israeli conflict as it is illogical to do so. Jordan gathers around 6,000 views/day-it is a high level article. 5 out of 95 paragraphs in the article discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, and this somehow makes it part of the conflict? If we want to apply the same criteria here then why aren't the United Kingdom and United States articles protected? The protection is intended to quell disruption, which does not exist on the Jordan page. The protection would only prevent IPs and new accounts from contributing to the article-which is what I am mainly concerned about. I was advised to take this issue here by @Alex Shih: after an amendment request on Arbitration. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: why not apply the same criteria to UK? The country that gave rise to the conflict, or the US that is nowadays directly involved? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Isolated incident that could take place in any article. Again the question that everyone here avoids, why not also UK and USA articles? If the protection wouldn’t be accepted there then it should not be accepted here. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Primefac

In general I have no opinion on this matter, but as background I did ten of these requests in a relatively short timeframe, and all ten seemed reasonable (and still seem reasonable). Given how much nonsense was thrown around at the time (with certain admins quitting over DS notifications) I figured it was better to err on the side of caution and place (and later keep) the notices. It's not a hill I feel the need to die on, though, and I'll respect any consensus reached. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I should have asked Makeandtoss to get a consensus somewhere, as is usually my reply; I'm not in the habit of making an edit for one editor, then immediately reversing it because another asks (i.e. I don't edit war with myself). I suppose Maile66's responses kind of did that. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BU Rob13

I just want to comment narrowly as an arbitrator on this. Discretionary sanctions are applied to the topic area "broadly construed". None of the restrictions in that edit notice are discretionary sanctions, so we don't need to talk about that anymore. All the restrictions in that edit notice are only applied to the topic area "reasonably construed". This difference in wording was very intentional. Since these restrictions are more draconian, they are intended to apply to a smaller set of pages than the discretionary sanctions. It is ultimately up to uninvolved admins to decide what "reasonably construed" means. Whereas you only need to look for some connection to the topic area, however small, to meet the "broadly construed" standard, you should ideally be evaluating an article more holistically for "reasonably construed". The exact placement of the line is ultimately up to you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss

Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss

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

I'd decline the appeal, which I understand is directed against the existence of the edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Jordan. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 provides that restrictions apply to "any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." Jordan is an Arab country that borders Israel. The countries have been officially at war until 1994, see Israel–Jordan peace treaty, and I understand based on our article Israel–Jordan relations that bilateral relations remain shaped by the wider Arab-Israeli conflict. In my view, therefore, Jordan is very much an article that is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the edit notice is correct. Probably extended confirmed protection should be enabled also, as provided for by WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. Sandstein 11:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Israel also has the edit notice and the protection, which also appears correct. Sandstein 11:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the template should be excluded from the Jordan page because the Arab-Israeli conflict is, presumably, only a small part of what defines that country. With apologies for editorializing, this is the problem with blunt instruments like the DS notice requirement. A few edits in the sanctioned area that could easily be handled by templating users becomes a big notice on a peripheral article that probably scares away legitimate editors. In this case, I say toss out the notice. --regentspark (comment) 14:26, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sandstein, the 500/30 prohibition applies regardless of whether or not ECP in enabled, and we will block editors for violating it repeatedly on numerous articles that are unprotected. In terms of ECP, I think our recent practice has been to enable when there has been a violation of the restriction that is noticed. This would seem to qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, per Seraphimblade below, if we find that the article is not part of ARBPIA, and I can see an argument either way on that, the template should be removed with all of the restrictions removed, not just 500/30. If it is within the scope, then I think ECP should be applied as this is a confusing situation for new editors as to whether or not they can edit an article, and comes from the difficult situation we are in with this area now, where protection isn't mandatory but the restriction as worded applies whether or not protection does.
  In terms of the article itself, while I did link the above issue, I'm not currently sure as to whether or not it is reasonably within the scope. As Sandstein noted, until 1994 they were at war, but tensions have died down recently, and the majority of the article isn't about it. The tricky thing here is that the prohibition applies to pages, not sections. How to enforce that is a difficult question. From a philosophical standpoint, I don't like the idea of entire countries being under ECP. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'm not sure how you enforce something like this on a section by section basis. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Makeandtoss: I actually think your point re: the USA and to a lesser extent the UK are valid, and were one of the main reasons along with Seraphimblade's comments that I expanded further here. I'm less convinced that the diff I linked above could happen in any article. Having reread the article I'm inclined to say that the article as a whole falls outside the scope both given the developments since 1994 and the fact that the article is not, as pointed out below, primarily or solely within the conflict area (i.e. Jordan is currently at peace with Israel and it covers the conflict as a historical part of the country rather than being devoted to the conflict itself.) To go off a point being made at the ARCA, this falls within the sanctions broadly construed, but not necessarily reasonably construed, and after further thought, I'd be inclined to remove the template and rule that the article about the country as a whole falls outside of the scope (which, in my mind, would also mean the 1RR bit would not apply). TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - A final note here: if no consensus is reached or if consensus is that this is part of the scope, I support restoring ECP immediately. I think the current situation we have in this topic area of "Wait for disruption until protection, it might bite the newcomers, but we'll block your for editing articles we knew were eligible for protection if you aren't extended confirmed and you continue to do it." is ridiculous and is one of the most confusing parts of the Arab-Israeli conflict from both an enforcement standpoint and for new users. As I said above, I'm leaning that the article on the entire country is not in scope, but whatever the case, the status quo should not stand. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think, generally speaking, to apply discretionary sanctions to an article like that, the article should be primarily or solely within the conflict area. A geographic area certainly could fall within ARBPIA in that way (I would certainly say, for example, that Gaza Strip almost certainly would), but I'm not so sure in the case of Jordan. Reading through the article, I'm trying hard to find very much in it that falls under ARBPIA, but I certainly wouldn't say the majority of the article content does. There's information on Jordan's structure of government, an outline of its legal and justice system, history from antiquity to present, climate, whatever else have you. I think application in this case is too broad, and that we should instead handle editing problems on the covered sections of that article as such. So I'd lean toward granting the appeal insofar as "300/50" has been applied to the entire article, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided whether I think Jordan should fall under the "reasonably construed" language of the remedy or not. In a sense, every nation is involved in this conflict in some way, as they all vote on UN resolutions etc. There is a spectrum of involvement, from Israel itself, through to nations whose only involvement is voting on non-binding resolutions at the UN. At some point on that spectrum, a nation becomes "reasonably construed" to be related to the conflict. On the one hand, Jordan's geographical proximity to Israel; the historical war between them (formally ended more than two decades ago); and Jordan's ongoing involvement in the relations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority (our article Israel–Jordan relations describes peace between them as a "major priority" of Jordan) are factors arguing that Jordan should be included. On the other hand, Jordan is one of only two (out of 21) Arab League members of the UN who recognise Israel and maintain diplomatic relations; Jordan has given up its claims to territory lost in the 1967 war; Jordan has historically co-operated with Israel, even when a formal state of war between them existed; there is considerable economic co-operation between them; and so on. I'm still thinking about where in all this the line should fall. GoldenRing (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I would accept this appeal. Some edits to Jordan may still fall under ARBPIA DS and related articles (such as Israel-Jordan relations) should be subject to the general prohibition and the general 1RR restriction, but Jordan should not. GoldenRing (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere

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

Request concerning François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Article under "consensus-required" sanctions for any changes: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Change in editing restrictions - please read

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

[3] 14:53, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
[4] 14:55, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first
[5] 15:47, 2 June 2018 — changes made without gaining consensus first

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[6]—12:03, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
[7]— 12:21, April 22, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
[8]—17:58, April 23, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes
[9]— 09:38, May 13, 2018, previous attempt at making same changes

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

Article discretionary sanction in for conduct in the area of conflict placed here [10] and [11] by NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User François Robere has made these three changes, even though the article is under strict consensus-required prior to any changes sanctions. This follows a pattern of editing by François Robere, where he continues to BLANK-OUT entire sections of text even though many of the statements have been agreed to on the talk page, such as this example here: Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, yet user François Robere goes in and blanks the text as in this edit listed above [12], or REMOVES text, which was restored after he removed it previously, several days back. In short, these three edits were made without gaining a CONSENSUS on the talk page first, as required by the discretionary sanctions, and follow an pattern of disruptive editing.

Extended content

One quick note in response to user Icewhiz's comments below regarding me — the talk page comments Icewhiz listed in his statement below, have NOTHING to do with the edits made by François Robere on 2 June 2018, and are simply a red herring. They do not pertain to the same text and are UNRELATED, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why user Icewhiz is bringing them up. Also, it is not breaking the rule to revert edit which was made without consensus, pls see here: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. and Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. --E-960 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A second note regarding Ealdgyth statement, it is NOT TRUE that the article statement in question contains "self-published and non-mainstream" references as she states, and most certainly not the text that user François Robere REMOVED in the three edits above, as a matter of fact here (below) are the two sources which backed up the statement that François Robere REMOVED [13], this statement was also agreed on in a discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG:

Winstone, Martin (2014). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi rule in Poland under the General Government. London: Tauris. pp. 181–186. ISBN 978-1-78076-477-1 and Winson, Chu (24 July 2015). "Review of M. Winstone: The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe". H-Soz-Kult. Retrieved 2 June 2018

So, if this statement had RELIABLE SOURCES, why did François Robere just REMOVE it, without initiating a discussion on the talk page first, and without gaining a consensus. The comment by Ealdgyth, is a red herring, because it distracts from the fact that user François Robere just BLANKS-OUT text without initiating a DISCUSSION and gaining CONSENSUS as the article discretionary sanctions now require. --E-960 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Slatersteven, there is only ONE editor who BLANKS-OUT text and it is François Robere, the discretionary sanctions are clear you DO NOT remove text unless you initiate a discussion and get CONSENSUS. So, to argue that this AE is only singling out one editor is an unfair statement, because it is François Robere, who continues to remove text without getting consensus.--E-960 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, all sounds reasonable and no objections on my part. --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User François Robere was notified of the AE here: [14]

Discussion concerning François Robere

Statement by François Robere

Few points:

Several days ago User:E-960 reverted a series of edits of mine en masse [15]. The edit summary made a false claim about removed material, which leads me to believe that, once more, the user reverted someone's changes without actually reading them.
I started a discussion about the reversal [16]. The user made no policy-backed claims, and at some point stopped replying. Now, eleven days later, they file this AE request.
Change #1 was never out of consensus. It looks like someone's linguistic mistake, and a petty, petty thing to bring here.
Change #3 isn't something I changed before, as I just today finished reading the relevant material. Again a false claim, which suggests the user is more preoccupied with making a claim than with its accuracy - WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Change #2 isn't a new edit, it's a reversal to an old revision that was not challenged, as much as "cheated away" by a third user [17] (This goes all the way back to March, where the same user changed quotes of sources to suit their POV [18][19]. Note the edit summaries).
I'm not sure what the user is citing under "relevant sanctions". It's not "sanctions", and it's all from before the page policy was changed.
We're left with one edit that supposedly violates the policy. If it does - my apology. I would RFC more of these changes, but there are already 2 RFCs open on the page.
An important question on the application of this policy is whether an editor is allowed to refuse consensus by performing a mass reversal, or whether they must reverse specific revisions? If an editor reverses multiple changes in one go, then there's no way to tell which change/s they object and which just got "caught up" with the others; the policy seems to require the reversals to be self-explanatory.

@GizzyCatBella: First of all, drop the lingo. This isn't a trial. Second, since May 13th the page went through 150~ revisions. Am I supposed to keep up with a minor linguistic change? François Robere (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Bella thinks restoring an RS to an article and correcting a source quote she changed is a "massive assault" [20] mandating a retaliation [21][22][23][24]. WP:BATTLEGROUND, anyone? François Robere (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth, @Beyond My Ken: I would very much appreciate more administerial involvement on that topic, and I said and asked as much in several ANI/AE cases. That topic is toxic, and Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a solution. And no - a global block that will indiscriminately punish editors, and leave dozens of articles damaged, is not the way to do it. We have over 500 active admins - surely there's one who's willing to take that up? François Robere (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On sourcing (I'm not collecting {{diff}}s, so these should suffice):

The Winstone book User:E-960 is referring to above seems to have been included based on a reading of a review [25]. The reasons I removed are explained in this thread, where the user twice accuses me of "forum shopping" because I opened the thread.
Point #5 above refers to a blatant distortion of a source, performed by User:GizzyCatBella several times [26][27][28].
Here's a list of sources brought to one discussion, where I marked the sentences that were quoted by the editor along with their surrounding text, to demonstrate "cherry-picking" (in some cases in blatant contradiction to what the source actually says). It's followed by some short notes on misattribution and unreliability of sources follow.
Here's a discussion on whether Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland are RS on WWII history.
Here's a discussion on a source that's so bad, it has only two reviews on Google Books: from the subject's children, urging readers not to believe it.

Just a few recent examples (plus one not so recent, but major). How many hours have we spent on these discussions? François Robere (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: Two questions:

What's considered "consensus" for the purpose of this restriction? I would usually think a discussion is enough, but you previously expressed the position that a formal procedure like an RfC is required. If that's the case, then we'll be seeing a lot of RfCs - which can itself result in a "disruptive editing" complaint.
Would massive reverts count for this purpose? In other words - if I make a series of small changes and someone reverts all of them at once, do I have to assume they object all of them? I suggest requiring editors who perform a mass reversal to explain their reasoning on the TP in addition to the edit summary.

One final note: This is not a common restriction on Wikipedia, so I suggest making clear that editors new to the page are to be warned before having sanctions imposed on them. François Robere (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I would like to clarify - “3 Change #1" FR is using as an excuse. In that past I did dispute the word “fighters" replacing it with word "soldiers" [29] that had been reverted today by FR. here [30] It is not a “linguistic mistake,” but a fundamental change and accused is well aware of that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Icewhiz comment below --->

This:

“Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

Does NOT say:

“Consensus required: all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits made after May 26 that have been challenged (via reversion) If in doubt, don’t make the edit."

So no, your line of defending FR is wrong.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere We have to stick to the new rule, so what makes you unique? And also, it just "happened" that you used the exact word "fighters" again? Having the alternatives such as combatants for example or partisans or even belligerents/warriors? No, it seems to me that you knew precisely what you are doing.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN:,@Ealdgyth,@Sandstein: please take your time to read this, it may help you correctly assess the situation and help to understand what VM meant by saying "blatant misrepresentation and manipulation". I'll stick to very latest interactions with Icewhiz but comparable circumstances go back 2-3 months.

A quick background first: In occupied Poland, the Nazis imposed a death penalty for every Pole helping Jews, including the family of the helper. This information is universally acknowledged by anyone familiar with Polish WW2 history and easily referenced. Data about the death penalty imposed on Poles in the article about Nobel peace prize nominee Irena Sendler was there for years [31] and read like this:

"This work was done at huge risk (helping Jews), —since October 1941—giving any kind of assistance to Jews in German-occupied Poland was punishable by death, not just for the person who was providing the help but also for their entire family or household"

On June 3rd, I noticed a tag requesting reference for that statement so I went ahead and inserted the citations trying to match the exact wording. [32],[33], (I have read one of these books) So what happened next? Icewhiz removed not only the sources I supplied but also the entire information [34] with edit this summary:

"POV pushing. SYNTH - coverage not on Sendler. First source is cited twice (duplicate) and doesn't mention Sendler in this context. The second source is about the death penalty for printing newspapers, not helping Jews."

Icewhiz then commented on talk page [35]:

"Misuse of sources - In what appears as a POVish hagiography, the following was entered into the article, the google-books search term rather betraying the intent. The first source, cited twice for some reason, is not about Sendler - so it is WP:SYNTH. The second source mentions the death penalty for printing newspapers, not for helping Jews, and is thus not connected to the sentence at all."

Well, so I restored the information and attached 5 further references [36],[37],[38],[39],[40] plus an image of an actual German poster from 1941 [41] announcing such policy. All in English, all published books by historians, clearly backing the information.

Give me some hours @NeilN: to think about it please, I'm not as swift as you are fellows. Thanks. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s clear to me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

As presented, not a violation, as the prior diffs presented (some over a month ago) were prior to the "consensus required" provision being added. FR's edits were not challenged by reversion since the consensus required provision was enacted on 26 May following an edit warring report filed against E-960.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further note, following being challenged by reversion, FR took it to talk.Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note, that E-960 has -

Supported content (Revision as of 15:18, 25 May 2018) about Jewish actions against Poles sourced to a blog by Jan Bodakowski - a fellow who has "interesting" views on feminism and who has received some coverage in research literature in regards to a blog post on "Jewish Nazism" Uprzedzenia w Polsce (Prejudice in Poland).
Revision as of 09:48, 2 June 2018 - suggests inserting content based on a WP:QS WP:SPS (described as propagating a myth and anti-Jewish tract in RSes who mentioned this briefly) - of an example of " Jewish agent provocateurs, and simple snitches" - based on the words of a Polish policeman, who collaborated with the Nazis, who was convicted for murder - and who attempted to justify his act murder with this claim regarding the victim prior to being convicted.

Repeatedly suggesting/promoting such sources raises serious NPOV/CIR questions.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to GCB stmt above - if FR broke the consensus required provision on material that was apparently disputed between the two of them over a month ago (prior to this provision being enacted) - then E-960 broke the consensus required provision when he reverted FR today - Revision as of 16:12, 2 June 2018 and Latest revision as of 16:16, 2 June 2018 - as the content was challenged by reversion by FR.Icewhiz (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of the use of WP:SPS / blogs / questionable sources by GizzyCatBella:

[42] - opinion piece or blog on defunct web site (but is available on personal website of author) - connecting a BLP to Russian agents, and communist secret police collaborators. No engagement on Talk:Peter Vogel (banker).Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[43] - letter published on Glaukopis website after History refused to publish it. Challenged as BLPSOURCES, and reverted. See subsequent BLP/n discussion.
[44] - Use of self-published documents by Mark Paul. See RSN on Kurek and Paul, and subsequent RfC opened on this matter.
[45] - iUniverse book by Ewa Kurek. See RSN on Kurek and Paul. The statement (Poland being the only country with...), incidentally, is false and has been demonstrated (refutation by examples from other sources) as such in discussions with GCB going back to April at least - discussion in Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland, in the RSN discussion linked, in Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland, following attempts to insert this on Revision as of 05:57, 11 May 2018, Revision as of 16:15, 11 May 2018 - the same content (more or less), the same false claim - was inserted into three different articles (The Holocaust in Poland, Collaboration in German-occupied Poland‎, and Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust). over a space of a month - each time necessitating a new discussion on why the sources weren't appropriate (self published, or other reasons) and a refutation of the content itself.
[46] [47] - restoring references to personal website of Anna Poray. See BLP/n discussion (for Zegota), and Fringe noticeboard discussion for the article on Poray herself that was up for AfD.
revdelled 22 May 08:10 (so no link) - restored copy-pasted content from Mark Paul's WP:SPS.
[48] - use of "Haf Books" - a young company founded in 2017 that doesn't seem to have done much else. The book itself is very heavy on graphics and illustrations.

Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: the page level restriction is mostly clear to me - though it is unclear to me (having avoided for the most part any editing on AP2 consensus required pages) - just how far back challenged (via reversion) goes (Obviously if I made the edit, it gets reverted, then I can't put it back in.... Does this apply to edits made over a month ago, possibly by someone else (that I might not be aware of - this page had a lot of back and forth I was not involved with))? I haven't edited the article itself since the restriction, I did open an RfC on the issue that was disputed late May.Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Is anyone keeping count of the AE actions brought related to Germany and Poland in WWII, generally with the same cast of characters? And this is despite the fact that there are already discretionary sanctions in place which cover this subject area (i.e. ARBEE). Is it possible that the number of AE complaints would be lessened if administrators started to take advantage of the additional powers they have under discretionary sanctions to help quell disruption? I am in general a supporter of the work done by our admins, but I think that they need to step up their games in this area, and do so quickly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

Unfortunately, I'm too involved in the area to take admin action (even though my editing has been very minor), but I'd like to note that there is a lot of usage of self-published and non-mainstream sources that definitely needs looking into. There is also quite a lot of personalizing of disputes and casting aspersions against other editors. While it probably isn't yet to the point of "ban them all" ... it's rapidly approaching that point. Certainly, there is little incentive for non-involved editors or admins to wade into this to give opinions, because the tone of editing by those most heavily involved is so poor. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E-960 - my statement was in general across the entire editing area, in response to Beyond My Ken's statement above. And, as an aside, I'm a she. I'll just note that this sort of instant-accusation/jump on the other editor is an excellent illustration of why third party uninvolved editors and admins are likely avoiding the area of German, Polish, and Jewish interactions in World War II. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: - I'd prefer not to say "sides", but rather there are some users definitely using too many SPSs and they do tend to edit from one viewpoint at times. But, not all of the editors from that viewpoint necessarily are trying to use SPSs, but all sides tend to be doing entirely too much "editing by google search", if you know what I mean. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH happening, where one incident in history is being used to generalize about an entire aspect of history, without actually having sources that make that generalization. There's a lot of hyperbole, a lot of aspersions, and, yes, it's toxic. The whole topic is complex and subject to a lot of real world angst, so it behooves us to be especially careful and discuss from the best sources, rather than internet web sites, self-published sources, and sources that are generally not in the mainstream of academic thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out I don't read Polish so I've stayed out of evaluating Polish language web sources - no matter who has brought them to the table. Yeah, I can use Google Translate, but too much nuance is lost so I've stayed away from those sources ... which all editors seem to use a bit too much instead of academic sources. We really should be avoiding news reports in any language as a source in this area - there is so much academic writing on the topic that it's hard enough to master that. And I'll reiterate - the ideal method of editing should be to ... read the foundational academic sources. Even a Google Scholar search is no substitute for reading entire sources, so that the background isn't lost. I'm afraid that too many folks editing in this area do not appear to be even trying to do that background reading. (And I'll freely admit I'm still working on it... just got in several more books on the subject area ... am trying to get through them in my copious free time.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

As an involved ed I agree with the above. It is becoming very toxic over there. It is not just one ed or one side, and I feel at this state that any action that singles out one ed it what is a content dispute will be unfair. I think therefore (I cannot remember where it was said to be take last time AE I thunk) this needs to be looked as a general issue now. It is getting to the stage where it is hard to tell what is being argued over, and DS have not really solved the problem.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

To answer NeilN's question: the issue is not the use of questionable sources, as it is blatant misrepresentation and manipulation of sources. The source may be reliable. But Icewhiz in particular, just keeps claiming that they say what they don't say.

Here's one example, which is straight up, serious BLP violation. This is on Marek Jan Chodakiewicz:

In this edit March 21, 2018, Icewhiz added the text:

In 2018, Chodakiewicz warned that the 50 year anniversary of March 1968 events would be used by American Jews to "launch another anti-Polish campaign of hatred".

He provided four sources: [49], [50], [51] and [52].

Two of these sources are right/far-right publications (fronda.pl and prawy.pl). I don't know what the other two are. This is strange, since Icewhiz keeps insisting that he only wants to remove "fringe" and "far right" and "nationalist" sources. Yet here he is ADDING exactly these kinds of sources. To a BLP. Why? Because he wants to make the BLP subject look bad, so he's got no qualms about using obviously non-RS, ideologically suspect sources that he claims to abhor.

Two of these sources (fronda.pl and tysol.pl) are really the same text, an article written by Chodakiewicz. The third (pch24.pl) is mostly also a reprint of this article.

NONE of these sources say ANYTHING about "American Jews". I expect AE admis don't read Polish, but this can be verified by searching the articles for "Ameri" or "USA". It doesn't appear. What Chodakiewicz says is that "western media run by neo-Stalinists" and Polish "post-communists" will launch this campaign. Yeah, Chodakiewicz is right wing, and thinks western and Polish leftists unfairly attack Poland. But that's a far cry from saying that "American Jews will attack Poland", which is what Icewhiz put into the article.

This claim does appear in the fourth source, prawy.pl in the headline. But this is a far-right, anti-semitic, publication which misuses Chodakiewicz's article for its own ends. Why is Icewhiz using a far-right, anti-semitic, clearly unreliable source - while at the same time claiming hypocritically in other places that his goal is only to remove such sources - in a BLP?????? Because it helps him push his POV and attack this particular living person.

So we have a combination of the use of blatantly unreliable sources by Icewhiz, with a misrepresentation of sources. To be perfectly clear, I have no love for Chodakiewicz, he's a right wing Trump supporter and ideologically very far from myself. But just the sheer obnoxiousness, dishonesty and hypocrisy, not to mention the violation of Wikipedia policies, with which Icewhiz approaches this subject pisses me off and gets my Wikipedia panties in a twist. Nobody who thinks that these kinds of tricks and stunts are ok should be editing Wikipedia, and certainly not a controversial topic such as this one.

This is an obnoxious BLP violation and the fact that Icewhiz calls it a "mild form of OR" (cuz you know, falsely accusing someone of anti-semitism is just "mild OR"!) aggravates the violation of policies.

Statement in excess of 500 words removed (admin action). Sandstein 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I've been involved in these disputes, specifically around the use of works by Mark Paul, whose academic credentials are unknown. He seems to be exclusively published by "KPK - Toronto", which is the Polish Educational Foundation in Canada, an advocacy group. There was an RSN discussion about Paul (RSN:Paul & Kurek), but certain editors, such as GizzyCatBella and Tatzref were not convinced. To the point that

I inquired with Tatzref about his affiliation with KPK, to which he did not respond: KPK Toronto.
I asked GCB to elaborate on the credentials and views of Mark Paul. The response to the first question was not convincing ("Some think he is a monk") & there was no answer to the second question.

My conclusion is that Paul's views are borderline fringe, yet his works are aggressively promoted throughout Wikipedia. I support the suggestion by NeilN here. For example, some of the disputes have been around Zegota, the Polish underground organisation to aid Jews. There's an English-language source available, by Gunnar S. Paulsson, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, which mentions Zegota 30+ times. And that's just from a cursory search.

In addition, the works of many Polish scholars have been translated into English by this point, such as The Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City, Yale University Press, 2009 by Barbara Engelking and Jacek Leociak (800 pages). The bottom line is that many high-quality sources on these topics are available. Why not use them, instead of arguing about questionable, self-published and / or fringe sources? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: there's an essay that may be helpful: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), specifically the section: What is historical scholarship? If this guidance were implemented in this area, it would cut down on much of the conflict and time-consuming discussions / RfCs. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tatzref

Since Tatzref's name has been invoked, one must look carefully at and assess the activities of the invokers. There appears to be concerted, in tandem, ideologically driven enforcement activity going on involving the issue of Polish-Jewish relations. For example, the “Bielski partisans” article, where Icewhiz, K.e.coffman and Pinkbeast keep removing an acclaimed book by Bogdan Musial, a professional historian with academic credentials, yet retain books by journalists (Duffy) and freelance historians (Levine). Why? According to Icewhiz Musial's book is a “fringe work”. According to Pinkbeast, "it's part of the same POV-pushing exercise”. The impugned book is Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1941: Mythos und Wirklichkeit published by Ferdinand Schöningh (2009), a highly regarded German publishing house. According to Yehuda Bauer, Musial's book is “a most important contribution” to the history of the war, the Soviet partisans, and Polish-Jewish partisan relations in Belorussia. (Yad Vashem Studies, vol. 38, no. 2). Dutch historian Karel Berkhoff stated that the book will likely remain a comprehensive description of partisan warfare in Belarus due to its large source base. This is “fringe”? Similar deletions of references to information found in Marek Chodakiewicz's The Massacre in Jedwabne, of primary sources, and of an authorized statement by prosecutor Radoslaw Ignatiew occurred in the Jedwabne pogrom article. Chodakiewicz's book is one of a very few (of very many publications on the topic) that was mentioned by Peter Longerich, a leading German Holocaust historian, in his 2010 book Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press). In the article Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944-1946, text referring to the findings of a pioneering recent study property reclaiming under the 1945 law on abandoned property, Klucze i Kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950, published by the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and edited by Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, was also removed. Do such comments and activities have any validity or credibility? Are they supposed to dictate the content of Wikipedia? What is the affiliation of these users? How are they connected? They appear to be pushing the same agenda. As Wikipedia points out: "Citing WP:FRINGE in discussions and edit summaries is often done by POV pushers in an attempt to demonize viewpoints which contradict their own."Tatzref (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning François Robere

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

Pinging NeilN as the admin who decided on these restrictions. Sandstein 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Please comment about Volunteer Marek's allegations of you using unreliable sources and misrepresenting sources. Sandstein 18:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I am not reading the "Additional comments" by the filer because the combination of an aggressive tone with ALL-CAPS SCREAMING and a wall of text gives me a headache. The request is borderline disruptive. Sandstein 18:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into considerations recent submissions I am of the view that the whole complex of issues involving POV and sourcing in Poland-related articles is too complicated to address at the editor level here. This seems to be a mixture of good-faith content disputes and possible conduct problems on the part of several editors. I'd support a page-level restriction as outlined by NeilN below. Sandstein 07:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: With respect to article content, is it your opinion that both sides are using questionable sourcing or is it mainly limited to one side? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I read Ealdgyth's latest post on the subject I was mulling over adding restrictions analagous to WP:MEDRS. That is, requiring the use of higher quality sources. This and related articles document decades-old past history. There's no reason why editors need to go to glorified blog posts or questionable partisan publications. I'm aware of François Robere's sometimes problematic editing in this area but as seen from past AE reports, they're not alone. So, two proposed restrictions:

Only the highest quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.

Independent of this:

Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and would consider limiting this to English-language academic sources. A recurring problem in this topic area seems to be a reliance on fringe sources. Sandstein 18:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC) – To be clear, I don't think that Polish-language sources are inherently unreliable, but they can't be evaluated by most admins here, including me. That impedes arbitration enforcement insofar as source reliability is concerned. Sandstein 18:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I am sympathetic to your sentiments and share them, along with the concern that source misrepresentations will try to be passed off as "differences in translations". However I won't personally impose a restriction that supersedes a policy, guideline, or BRD (as opposed the strengthening them) without prior evidence that it's needed and I don't think we're there yet. I think we should just reiterate WP:NOENG ("English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance") and stipulate that we will go to Google Translate if we really have to if source misrepresentation is alleged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut down all the statements to the allowed maximum of 500 words because this is not the forum in which to address all the possible sourcing and conduct problems in this topic area. That would probably need a full ArbCom case. Limited to the specific conduct at issue, I myself would take no action but leave it to NeilN whether he considers his restriction violated and wants to take action, and whether he wants to impose an additional sourcing restriction such as the one proposed above. Sandstein 12:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere, E-960, GizzyCatBella, and Icewhiz: and other editors: Is there anything about this you find unclear? That is, an edit (new addition, removal of long-standing material, change to existing material) can be done once and if it's challenged, no one can make the same or similar edit without gaining consensus? Also, you understand the more extensive your edit, the greater the likelihood someone will take issue with part of it and revert the whole thing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Per my note, if anyone adds something then anyone else can challenge it before four to six weeks are up and require consensus for the addition. After that time period, if anyone removes it then anyone else can challenge it and require consensus for the deletion. Yes, this places an extra burden on editors but it also prevents tag team edit wars and promotes article stability and discussion.
François Robere 1) A formal RFC is not always required but two editors agreeing and one editor disagreeing in a conversation spanning two hours isn't going to be accepted as consensus either. Listen to each other and I suggest you find an editor most of you trust to be neutral (MelanieN seems to play that part on Trump articles) that can help guide you as to how consensus can be found (not what consensus is, but what level of discussion is needed to find it). 2) If someone has done a "massive" revert then you've done a "massive" change. In this case, you can open discussion with, "X, you've reverted all my changes. Do you object to all of them or only specific ones?" and go from there.
As to warnings, the standard discretionary sanctions notifications should suffice. I hope editors will be kind to each other and give an editor who has a good or empty record a chance to self-revert before reporting them. The American Politics editors, while disagreeing vehemently on many, many things, usually extend this courtesy to each other if the editor hasn't abused this courtesy in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

No action at this time. Netoholic has also been made aware of discretionary sanctions for BLP and pseudoscience. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Netoholic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Netoholic (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:ARBAPDS; logged AE warning: "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia per this AE thread. Diff of notification: [53]"

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

had a content dispute with Guy, which Netoholic discussed with Guy at his talk page, in this section. This was fine, with respect to the warning.
this diff at ANI, 21:10, 25 May 2018, continuing that content dispute (whole thread, permalink as it is now).
this diff at COIN, 19:37, 2 June 2018, continuing that content dispute

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)

Previously brought an action here, and was given a warning under the discretionary sanctions for conduct in the area of conflict, linked above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Guy's OP at ANI said:

Netoholic has spun out a section from criticism of Wikipedia. He is rather determined to include an off-wiki personal attack by Brian Martin (social scientist), a promoter of conspiracy theories, the debunked OPV-AIDS hypothesis and anti-vaccinationism, who was upset that I edited our article on him .... He asserts that "Most of the items you removed were copied there from within other articles already about Wikipedia", but the section on Martin does not appear to be anywhere else, but instead to have been written by Netoholic himself.
He's also pushing criticisms by the Discovery Institute and Conservapedia. There is a clear lack of consensus on Talk for including this stuff, but he seems to think it should go back in "per WP:NPOV" ([54]). I disagree.
I also commented on an AE case he raised against SPECIFICO, noting that the case, combined with an earlier one, might amount to vexatious abuse of process - as a result of that thread he was restricted from abuse of noticeboards. So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea.

In my view, Netoholic's response to that at ANI (linked above) was solidly in the territory of the AE outcome linked above, and I noted that at the ANI here (initially wrongly characterizing the AE action as a TBAN, as noted by User:Bishonen, and which I corrected here to reflect the warning)

Netoholic did not respond to that, as you can see at the ANI thread. In my view Netoholic pushed that content dispute with Guy further in the comment at COIN, which was also pointless as I pointed out here.

I just want to repeat what Guy wrote at the end of his comment: So he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute. That does not seem like an especially good idea..

And he has now doubled down on this strategy of finding ways to use noticeboards to attack Guy.

As somebody who who works a lot on COI issues, I find their crying COI as a bludgeon to be pernicious. In any case, they have completely ignored the warning about using noticeboards to win content disputes.

Netoholic's response was not what I was hoping for. Instead of reflecting on the warning and stepping back at all, they have gone deeper into "combat mode." And deeper into la la land; the "entrapment" thing is just weird. I have no more to say here unless asked: Netoholic has shown you their approach to the project. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DS alert for ps; DS alert for blp per User:TonyBallioni. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sandstein, the locus of this complaint is the page Ideological bias on Wikipedia, which Netoholic created in this diff on 22 May 2018. If you look at their contribs from around that time, there is a strong focus on the "liberal bias" in the American news media, academia, and with the creation of this page, WP, analyzed from the perspective of American politics.
- liberal bias in American media
- On May 20, Netoholic filed an EWN case about edit warring over the content created by an IP in this diff series at the page of New York Times journalist Nellie Bowles, which includes this blp-flagged diff, about a correction issued on her reporting about "far right conspiracy theories" on Facebook. (Netoholic did not participate in the edit war nor on talk). It is worth reading that whole thread to see how this was clearly a thing about "liberal bias" for Netoholic. See comments by User:DougWeller here and about the poorness of the sources for which Netoholic was arguing on behalf of the IP, and their explicit relationship to contemporary politics was commented on by User:Bishonen here.
  liberal bias in American academia
- On May 15 Netoholic created Passing on the Right a book that said there is liberal bias in academia. Big long discussion at Talk:Passing_on_the_Right#Sentence_in_lead with User:Tryptofish about whether the lead should say that there is liberal bias in academia and the book describes it (Netoholic's stance more or less) or whether the book says there is liberal bias in academia.
- diff on Political views of American academics
- Their last edit, two hours before this diff creating]] Ideological bias on Wikipedia, were to that talk page, here.
  liberal bias on Wikipedia
- so we have the creation of Ideological bias on Wikipedia and quite sure the key bit of that is "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased"...."The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral""
- On that same day, they posted this comment at AE with respect to Factchecker at your service, in which they placed FCAYS in their "bucket #2 which is "2) feelings of being cornered (as when there one person is outnumbered)"

The purpose of showing you that, is to show that there is a strong line through Netoholic's editing - even clear on a single day of editing, about "liberal bias" in the media, in academia, and here on WP. That falls squarely in the realm of American politics, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll further note that the inclusion of the section on Brian Martin in the "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" page sticks out like a sore thumb. The article by Martin about the WP article on him (author's version, freely available) doesn't use the word "ideology". It does talk about "bias".

For some background here, Martin describes calling anti-vaccination pseudoscience "pseudoscience" as "suppression of dissent" source and source) which is indeed a fringe view on medicine.

It is utterly unsurprising that he considers the WP article about him "biased". I am quite sure that any academic reading that paper will read it with Martin's clearly disclosed conflict of interest in mind; because the source is so deeply conflicted I am rather surprised to see anybody here wanting to give it much WEIGHT.

But it never fit in the article on ideological bias in WP and its inclusion there does seem very POINTY.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Netoholic

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 Netoholic

Per [55] discussion with the TonyBallioni, he and others provided extensive clarification that the warning was to encourage me to "think twice before submitting reports that the rest of the community would think should not be resolved through admin boards". He also said in response to "Do you disagree that, as worded, even posting to a board to defend myself in a report someone else created would be a violation of the warning? -- Netoholic" that "I do disagree with that reading, and I don’t think any admin would read it that way." Also, per Legacypac - "Even a recent topic ban proposal from Admin boards allowed the exemption for replying to filings". I'd like to point out that my concerns about the wording of that warning have been prophetic as demonstrated here.

In both cases, the ANI and the COIN, I was mentioned by name (pinged) there and, as is appropriate and acceptable, gave a minimal response directly to the point of concern. I did not ask for or imply that any specific admin action be taken against anyone.

I believe Jytdog is WP:FORUMSHOPPING in regards to COIs - a subject area he has previously been TBAN'd from (later lifted with a stern warning). I would also offer that it seems likely that Jytdog, who has already once tried to mistake or misrepresent this warning as a TBAN, might have created that COIN post in order to entrap me and give justification for his filing of this AE. -- Netoholic @ 21:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another point I'd make is that COIN is not, strictly speaking, an "administrative board" (not an Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard subpage), which I think also illustrates a second time Jytdog's lack of competence (or intentional misstating) has been an issue in relation to the warning. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenOfAllTrades gave a lengthy comment based on things I didn't say - first, my simple grammatical choice not to explicitly mention AE as an admin board for brevity (which I would think be obvious and not need to be stated here on AE), and second, speculation that I am "wikilawyering". That's not the case - I have learned from this warning. Certainly, the point of all discussion boards/pages is to try to resolve inter-editor conflicts, so how does one distinguish attempts to "further inter-editor disputes" and genuine attempts to resolve them instead? I would say "furthering" is when one asks for negative consequences against the other editor (win-lose), and resolving is when one seeks a win-win outcome. In the ANI and the COIN, I participated, when directed there, to seek win-win resolution for the editors involved for the benefit of the project. -- Netoholic @ 06:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

The ANI thread has stood for 9 days and no admin wanted to take action, why bring the exact same issue here? The WP:BLPCOI issue here is really difficult to interpret. The source in question comes from Social Science Computer Review which is peer-reviewed journal and has an impact factor over 2, and it criticized JzG's editing mentioning his nickname. The author has had some controversial views regarding vaccines and autism, and in the paper he was unhappy how JzG covered the issue in Wikipedia. The actual editing of his BLP happened in 2016. I doubt ANI or AE are the best places to discuss BLPCOI, but it's fair to say the claim that "he's edit warring to include an off-wiki attack on an admin with whom he's in dispute" is untrue. Also admins don't have any privileges in BLP or content disputes.

Jytdog called the source a "lunatic fringe paper" at ANI.[56] Way to treat a BLP issue.

However, unlike Netoholic sees, COIN is an "administrative board" for all relevant purposes. But the warning for Netoholic wasn't really well-thought. Only disputes are brought to administrative noticeboards. So, obviously when Netoholic responds to someone else's filing there someone could say he's "furthering inter-editor disputes" in pretty much all instances because the boards deal with disputes. --Pudeo (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Well, I think that there is a problem here, but I also think that there are significant ways in which this is not "ripe" for AE. (Put another way, Jytdog, in my opinion you jumped the gun a bit.) My interactions with Netoholic have been primarily at Political views of American academics and Passing on the Right, and those pages do fall within the scope of American politics. Netoholic's characterizations above, of how Jytdog has treated him and of how dispute resolution works, are clearly off-base. And I do get the clear impression that he has been cherry-picking material from sources to push a US-conservative POV: in multiple parts of society – academia, Wikipedia, etc. – there is a bias against conservatives. And he can get somewhat battleground-y when challenged about it. But, all of that said, I've been seeing evidence that he has been making a good faith effort to take on board the criticisms that have been made of him, and that recently he has been trying to do better. That's why I think that this AE filing is premature. For one thing, I would cut him a little slack about the times when he has not replied at noticeboards, given the warning he got. More importantly, I'm seeing some significant evidence of him making an effort to work collaboratively at fixing content that needs fixing. Please see Talk:Political views of American academics#Representative presentation of sources (permalink). It begins with my raising the concerns about cherry-picking. Then in the "Source examination" subsection, I spell out what I think the sources really say. But see how Netoholic responds to me in the source examination: exactly the way we would want an editor to do. In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Netoholic

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

Aside. Netoholic asserts that his behavior on WP:COIN is outside the scope of the warning he received at (and for) his behavior at WP:AE (this page): diff of warning. That warning cautioned him "not to use administrative boards to further disputes on Wikipedia" (my emphasis added).
His assertion is based in the presumption that "administrative boards" must be interpreted to mean "exclusively WP:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages". As WP:COIN is not a subpage of WP:AN, the warning he received must therefore not apply to any of his conduct there.
This selective interpretation of "administrative" is clever but fails in at least two key respects. The first is that WP:AE is not a subpage of WP:AN, yet that is where the behavior leading to Netoholic's warning occurred. It is implausible and inconsistent that the closing admin, on observing misconduct at WP:AE, would both warn Netoholic to avoid the same type of misconduct and circumscribe that warning to avoid application to WP:AE: the noticeboard where the most recent misconduct had occurred. The only reasonable inference is that "administrative" includes WP:AE (and other process pages dealing with user conduct), and is not intended to narrowly specify WP:AN and its subpages.
The second is that using Wikipedia's administrative processes – on any page or noticeboard – to further inter-editor disputes is generally a bad idea. Avoiding such conduct shouldn't require explicit, page-specific warnings anyway; an experienced editor who has received such a warning should know to tread carefully—especially if that warning is less than two weeks old.
TLDR: Wikilawyering about the scope of the warning is an irrelevant red herring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a bit convoluted, but since TonyBallioni issued the warning, I'd defer to their decision about what to do here. Sandstein 07:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having briefly looked at the diffs, I don't think this is enforceable as an AE action as they were not related to AP2, which is the only area Netoholic is formally aware of (they are covered by BLP and likely pseudoscience, but they haven't received alerts for that, Jytdog, given their apparent editing in both of these areas, you may want to make them aware).
In terms of the substance of the warning: it was primarily intended towards filings, but as I told them it could be factored into sanctions if they were acting in another disruptive way at a noticeboard (a part of my quote they left out). On that point, I can only say I'm underwhelmed by the wikilawyering here (yes, COIN is obviously an administrative board), and accusing Jytdog of entrapment without any evidence or diffs seems like aspersions to me. It's been established by this point that admins can issue regular admin actions based off of complaints at AE if there is grounds for it, but they don't fall within AE's scope. Because of that, I'd like to here more opinions from other administrators and editors on this matter. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm closing this now per Tryptofish. The diffs in question are in DS areas they weren't aware of, so weren't actionable as AE in my view, and Tryptofish gives a strong enough analysis that I'm find not taking any admin action at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב_הורון

יניב_הורון is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning יניב_הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: יניב_הורון (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/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

20:47, 2 June 2018 Partial revert of this, specifcally the removal of (including food and medicine)
18:04, 3 June 2018 revert of this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for 72 hours for violating discretionary sanctions in the topic
Blocked for 48 hours for violating 500/30 rule in topic area

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, still on this page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Talatastan

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Straightforward 1RR violation. Note the user has still not commented on the talk page for the revert on the food and medicine (see here)

@Sandstein:, the user still has not commented on the talk page about his or her repeated reversions, and says on his or her user talk so what about that. Almost every edit made by this user is a revert and there is nearly no talk page justification for any of them. I think a reminder that they need to justify their reverts would be useful. nableezy - 18:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning יניב_הורון

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 יניב_הורון

Sorry, I'm not aware of "partial reverts". Obviously it wasn't my intention to revert this. I simply removed this small information which seemed superflous and POV. Everybody can see it was an honest mistake (this, on the other hand, was an intentional and full revert). In any case, with a simple message in my talk page explaining the problem and asking me to revert myself would have been enough. It's not necessary to make a report at AE because of something that can be easily solved with dialogue.--יניב הורון (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Yeah, I also knew this was going to happen again. That's because people like you keep making lousy reports to get rid of a competitor. Unfortunately such behaviour is very common in ARBPIA. BTW, everybody can see the so-called "partial revert" [of this entire content!?] was not intentional or motivated by bad faith. It's pure nonsense, just like your last report against me (when I didn't break any wiki rule or policy, remember?). As a matter of fact, I'm not the user edit-warring in this article, and definitely I'm not the only one challenging your extremely POV content. But for some people is easier to make reports than debate. I can't understand how it's possible to make unjustified reports at AE without consequences for the accuser.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I'm not making mistakes on a regular basis. Please, look at my contributions and see if "I'm not here to contribute" like they say (which is nothing more than a subjective opinion to begin with).--יניב הורון (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Pay attention to your own edits before judging others. As I explained you here, you broke third ARBPIA bullet. As you can see, everybody makes mistakes. Make sure you don't do it again.--יניב הורון (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Not only that, Nableezy already made three different reports to block or ban users in just two days for minor violations or no violations at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think such behaviour shows much willingness to hold a dialogue. It looks like wikilawyering activism. I understand I made an honest mistake by not realizing that removing two or three words from an entire paragraph could be considered a "partial revert" (not to mention he didn't give me the chance to revert myself!). But if I perceive another user made a mistake regarding ARBPIA restrictions (which is not very difficult to make among literally thousands of edits), I leave them a warning or polite message in the talk page first. I don't rush to AE and see if I can get rid of another editor who doesn't share my political views. Is it possible that sometimes the user who is making the report will be sanctioned? I mean, someone can make reports against you all the time for minor things (that MANY people do) and claim "See? Just the fact that me and my friends made x reports against him in a couple of months proves that he is a monster" [even if some of those reports were baseless and didn't end up with sanctions].--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Hasn't this user been reported for vagrant editing before? As far as I encounter him he appears to read down a number of editor's contribs and then revert many at sight without an intelligent edit summary, or indeed one that shows he hasn't even read the source. Just today see this. He's not here to build anything or collaborate constructively, and pleading for 'honest mistakes' when you turn a deaf ear to requests for an explanation is a contradiction in behavioural terms. Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAm:'the usual gang of partisan editors' (only those who keep a keen eye on Palestinian matters are 'partisan') You don't have to assume good faith, I guess, but for the record I have better things to do that comb daily through other editors' contributions. I made a note here because the editor in question reverted with a false edit summary an edit I made. I can't help noticing that. In Yaniv's favour is the fact that, on my page, he notified me I had (inadvertently) broken the ARBPIA3 rule, a thing some militants would have immediately brought to AE. I still think his editing bears scrutiny, since most of the revert justifications are subjective, rooted in dislike, and not soundly based on policy. This has been consistent pattern, and at a minimum he needs some sort of warning apropos.Nishidani (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

Sandstein a quick glance at this editor's talk page shows they have been making these "honest mistakes" since March. What makes you so sure they will suddenly self-remedy their behavior?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OtterAM, six. That is how many times this editor has been warned or blocked for edit warring or violating ARBPIA since March. This does not even include the times he just removes text and fails to engage in discussion entirely, as per WP:BRD. Yet, in your totally unbiased assessment you believe undiscussed reverts and edit warring is healthy for the I/P area? Oh boy.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone doubts the numbers:

edit warring at Dennis Pranger on 3 March
violated Arab-Israeli remedy on 11 March
1RR violation at 2018 Gaza border protests on 31 March
edit warred at the page above, again on 13 April; blocked for 96 hours
broke 1RR at Iran-Israel proxy conflict on 12 May
edit warring at Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party on 31 May

GoldenRing I urge you and other admins to consider the long-term behavioral pattern.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I reported him about 6 weeks ago: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive231#יניב_הורון...User:Huon prediction that we would end up here or at AN/I again soon turned out to be 100% correct, Huldra (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davidbena

From what I see by the current diffs, the issues at hand merely involve "content dispute" and should be resolved on the relevant Talk-Pages. Moreover, Yaniv Huron should also take greater responsibility when reverting, to make sure that he does not infringe upon the 1RR rule in Palestinian-Israeli articles. No need for punitive measures.Davidbena (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Whenever a request for discretionary sanctions is brought before this board, it is my view that the acting and non-involved judges should examine the ulterior motives behind such a complaint. I am of the impression here that some of the editors complaining against the new editor may actually feel "threatened" by his posts, due to some spatial dissonance that is often found between editors of different political affiliations and backgrounds. Our job, as editors, is to make good and qualitative, collaborative editing. Anything short of this would, in my view, be detrimental to our encyclopedia. In short, all persons here should be encouraged to work together in WP:Good Faith.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, the essence of this complaint differs from the one made in April, when Yaniv was blocked 96 hours for edit warring. This complaint, however, involves merely a revert or partial revert on a restricted page that may have been unintentional on his part. Generally speaking, Yaniv's edits are constructive and good, and we ought not to discredit him for his constructive edits. [For me, and I say this for יניב הורון (Yaniv), a general rule of thumb is not to be quick to delete another's edit unless it is a flagrant error, or in bad grammar, or an incendiary statement. Disputes about content should be discussed in the article's Talk-Page].Davidbena (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OtterAM

It appears that the usual gang of partisan editors is combing through יניב הורון's edits to try to find anything they can to get him kicked out. If you look at Nableezy's block log, you can see what I mean about the long-term partisan edit warring over the same issues stretching back to 2010.

Obviously different editors come to Wikipedia with different points of view. However, it would be more productive for different editors to work together to build an encyclopedia, rather than expending their energies trying to get each other thrown out.

From יניב הורון's explanation above, it's pretty clear cut that this was simply a mistake. Given the large number of edits that יניב הורון has made recently, the majority of which are quite good, it would be hard to avoid occasionally make mistakes like this. OtterAM (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I for one think this topic benefits from יניב הורון's presence. The edits in question don't seem to be edit waring, so much as a mistake. I've perused יניב הורון's contributions, and most of it helps to preserve the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia. Nableezy has recently been dragging a bunch of editors to WP:AE over relatively minor infractions - however he/she and the other editors on his/her side seem equally likely to make mistakes. OtterAM (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Just a typical example of an edit that keeps Wikipedia encyclopedia-like: [[57]]. Here יניב הורון's keeps Wikipedia's treatment of a fringe theory "the Khazar hypothesis" in line with the guidelines. יניב הורון does a lot of reverts that remove stuff like this, which can accumulate in articles on such topics at an alarming rate. OtterAM (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

Partial reverts are sometimes controversial. An edit can be made as a simple improvement to the text, and turn out to be a partial revert. Especially in view of the fact that the usual camp of editors is reporting this, I'd keep it to a warning to be more careful in the future. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning יניב_הורון

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

In view of the statement by יניב_הורון I would close this request with no action, trusting that יניב_הורון will make no more such mistakes in the future. Sandstein 17:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined the user's history in this regard, and would not oppose sanctions by admins who consider them warranted. Sandstein 15:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב_הורון, it seems you are making these kinds of mistakes on a regular basis? [58] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a first-time mistake, I'd certainly argue for leniency. When the same user was blocked for 96 hours in April for a similar mistake, I'm starting to wonder whether the topic would be better off without them for a bit. GoldenRing (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, do you want to take action here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN I would close with a logged warning, I think. If no-one does so by the end of today UTC I'll do it. GoldenRing (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser

Withdrawn

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 Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Debresser (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:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

15:28, 4 June 2018 Wholesale distortion of a source cited to insert something made up into the article, see below for explanation

1RR violation

21:05, 3 June 2018 Straight revert of this is the 1st revert at East Talpiot
16:22, 4 June 2018 Straight revert of this, along with this contiguous partial revert of this is the 2nd revert at East Talpiot

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Banned from B'tselem for two weeks 13 January 2018
Blocked for two weeks 15:51, 25 January 2018
Topic banned for two months 17 July 2017
Blocked for 72 hours 2 August 2017
Topic banned for three months 05:28, 27 July 2016, adjusted on 28 August 2016 to a 0RR restriction for the remaining period of the initial ban

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, listed above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The first edit noted, that at Beitar Illit regards Debresser inserting into an encyclopedia article material that is completely invented. The source cited discusses a legal battle about whether or not land used to expand a different outpost was legally registered as the private property of a Palestinian farmer. It says nothing, I repeat nothing, about whether or not the land used 30 years prior at the founding of the settlement Beitar Illit was appropriated from two Palestinian villages, which again has nothing to do with whether or not the land was privately owned. Debresser has invented a dispute about one topic using a source about a completely different topic.

The second set is a straightforward 1RR violation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified

Discussion concerning Debresser

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 Debresser

Don't know how I missed this. I checked like 10 edits back to make sure that I was not violating any rule, but my previous revert was edit number 11. :( Self-reverted now that I saw the diffs. If Nableezy would have provided them on my talkpage, as I asked him to, this could have been avoided. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Debresser

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Darkfrog24

Appeal declined. Another appeal may not be launched sooner than one year from today. Any future appeal that does not exclusively address why the topic ban is not currently needed should be declined with a block imposed. Additionally, Darkfrog24 is blocked for one month for topic ban violations and failure to drop the stick. An indefinite one-way interaction ban with SMcCandlish is also imposed - Darkfrog24 is banned from interacting with and/or commenting on or about SMcCandlish. The interaction ban sanction may not be appealed until after a successful topic ban appeal has taken place. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Initially topic banned from quotation marks, later all style issues.; WP:AE/Archive188#Dicklyon_and_Darkfrog24, logged at; Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#Article_titles_and_capitalisation_2; ~~But the best summary of this multi-chapter story is probably this comment~~ But the best summary of this multi-chapter story is probably here

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

Notification of that administrator: There is currently no enforcing admin; the initial enforcing admin quit and no successor was appointed. I have notified the initial enforcing admin nonetheless. If his wishes are still to be left alone, please respect that.

Statement by Darkfrog24

I want to rejoin my colleagues at WT:MOS and resume work on writing-related articles. I've also got some essays that have been on hold because they cite examples from articles that deal with style issues. Over the past several months, I've updated the Euryarchaota subcategory, earned a barnstar, done some work at 3O[59][60] and WP:RSN, and helped compose articles that made In the News and Did You Know, in addition to Wikinews. I am currently in the weird position of being allowed to make corrections to any article's grammar and punctuation but not to explain those corrections if asked.

I also want you to acknowledge that this punishment was never necessary. I didn't do any of the things I was accused of. I'll address any specific one, but the original complaint violated the length limit by over 9500 words after a previous attempt got the accuser boomeranged, so it'll have to be point-on-request or we'll be here all month. I wasn't ready for a case that size, and I can believe your colleagues weren't either—one of the admins later said something to the effect that he didn't even read the complaint—but I want my name cleared. For now, just the big ones: When I asked the then-enforcing admin why I was t-banned, he said, "Because you falsified an ENGVAR claim—you lied when you said British and American punctuation styles are different, just to make trouble" exact words here. No I didn't: Among the many sources that address this, here is an easy-to-read chart and formal style book. Whether you think I'm right or wrong, I am absolutely not fabricating anything. There are times when you can get punished on Wikipedia for saying water is wet, but "Water isn't wet; you made that up!" does not benefit the project. But what if the admin didn't really mean it like that? My best other guess as to why I am being punished is what SlimV said, that the volume of my and the accuser's and a third party's conversations was the actual problem.

This was the first I'd heard that anything like that could even affect third parties, let alone bother them.
My relationship with the accuser has changed. Back then, I thought we were two people enjoying a spirited discussion about something we both liked. I no longer think so. Our interactions since then have been few. He has been ordered to leave me the hell alone, and, mostly, he has.
Five years ago, I adopted a personal policy of not initiating a discussion about lifting Wikipedia's ban of American punctuation unless I had a previously undiscussed source or other evidence to present. Repeat: I have not initiated such a discussion since 2013. The fact that other Wikieditors who don't know me or each other keep doing so is not misconduct on anyone's part. I've been staying away from WP:MoS entirely, so for all I know, WP:LQ has already been replaced.

If the enforcing admin was being serious/literal, then lift the topic ban and expunge my record because I can prove I didn't do it. If he wasn't, lift it for the reasons provided. If you feel the need for some kind of transitional period, then lift it for article space for now (allow me to return to articles about writing) with an automatic total lift (allow me to return to Wikiproject MoS) in two months. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You want to know how I've changed? SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over. I'm not going to fall for it this time. If any admin asks me to, I will refute SMC's post in whole or in part. Just allot me the necessary time. He's betting that you'll skim his post without looking into what actually happened.

I am not the first person he sicced with a false misconduct complaint after disagreeing with him at WT:MoS. The fact that I defended that other guy may be one reason why he targeted me in 2015. When he can't convince someone that he's right, he abuses the disciplinary system.

Dicklyon, Tony1 and SMcCandlish are three MoS regulars who are in favor of keeping the British-only rule. They are not unbiased or representative of the crowd at WP:MoS. I've done some okay work with all of them over the years. I request permission to neutrally publicize this appeal, call in character witnesses, or both so that you get more than just their side of the story. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven:, if that's really the problem, it has such a simple solution: Just tell me. I have had to dig through reams of disinformation to figure out why those admins made the decision they did. If the real problem is that none of my guesses are right, if you know something I don't, then do Wikipedia a service and state it plainly here and now. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by all this talk of "relitigation." This is the forum for appeals and it's my appeal date. What exactly about this is supposed to be disruptive?

As to why I've brought up the original accusations: It's because they are too personal and too foul and requiring me to live with them forever is too much to ask. I never lied. I never harassed anyone. The person I was accused of harassing wrote me a thank-you note. I'm concerned that if I say anything that could be read as a confession to any part of that lie-fest back in 2016, it will be read as a confession to the whole thing, and then it'll be used to attack other people at WT:MoS. You should not ask me to pretend that I am an evil person just to get the punishment lifted.

So can anyone here say, "Darkfrog24, we acknowledge that you were accused of battlegrounding, lying, X, Y, and Z. We took a look and we find that they are completely false. But we still have concerns about accusations A, B and C. Can you explain your actions here?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim and Thryduulf: I cannot address all the accusations that were made against me and keep it short. It was twenty pages long. The accuser really should have been told to leave and come back with something shorter, but we can't go back in time and change that now. So, Thryduulf, if you have any particular brick that you need me to show is as thin as a playing card, I will do it, but you do have to say. I also have a full point-by-point rebuttal to the whole thing but it is very long. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlocierekim:I was wondering what you were talking about with "Trump references" and I just saw I had the wrong link in there. It was supposed to be a link to SlimV's comment, the same one as below. I have no idea what that other link is or how it got mixed up in there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I was unblocked on the condition that I not disruptively refute the accusations, not that I never refute them at all or plead guilty or pretend that I did it. That accusation extended to actual real-world crimes and, on top of everything else, I'm concerned about being sued or arrested. If here at AE is not the designated place to appeal an arbitration enforcement sanction and get my name cleared, then just direct me to the correct part of Wikipedia. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth and Goldenring: Painful as it is to hear that, I think what you're saying is actual progress. As for listening, I read every word of a SMcCandlish's twenty-page treatise about how disagreeing with SMcCandlish about quotation marks meant I was an evil person. Every. Damned. Word. There is no way to accurately describe that experience and stay within our civility rules. You should hope you never have to go through anything like that.

There is simply too much volume for me to just figure out which part you think is true. Do you actually think I'm lying when I say "British and American English quotation mark rules are different"? Do you actually think asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I do it or that looking up someone else's sources and talking about them out counts as ignoring those sources? Because I was literally accused of all those things—that's not hyperbole, that was in there. Say you really think I did it I know where we stand.

Or, better yet, say that you don't. Say "Wow, parts of this complaint are real baloney. You know what? Darkfrog, we'll say on record that you didn't do any of this weird shit. There was no gaslighting, lying, POV-pushing or battlegrounding on your part. Here is the part I think is real."

I can't read your mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

@Sandstein: as noted in the appeal, I resigned from taking an active role regarding this sanction months ago. I did this because I did not have time to deal with the endless relitigation framed as clarification requests. Post my topic ban, she was blocked until she acknowledged she understood the reason she was topic banned and agreed to stop disruptively relitigating it. Appeals were declined by arbcom twice based on no evidence of understanding why the topic ban was placed, no acknowledgement that her actions were disruptive (none of the edit warring, the battlegrounding, or the relitigation), and a desire to carry on where she left off. This appeal is just more of the same. Either this is deliberate WP:IDHT or it is a severe case of WP:CIR.

At minium this appeal needs to be declined with prejudice, but I'd be very tempted to reblock indefintely under the same conditions as last time with no appeals permitted for 12 months. If an appeal is just more of the same, then the interval until the next would be doubled.

Darkfrog exhausted my patience long ago and so I do not intend to contribute further to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to post here again, but after DF24 left a message on my talk page [61] saying she is "trying very hard to forgive [me]", I came to see what might have prompted that, and found only more evidence of just not understanding anything people are saying to her and more screeds against SMcCandlish.

Darkfrog24 in answer, again, to your bolded question: All of the accusations against you are real and have been backed up by evidence multiple times. For the avoidance of doubt that includes: gaslighting, lying, POV-pushing and battlegrounding.

@GoldenRing, NeilN, Dlohcierekim, Ealdgyth, and Sandstein: If I wasn't involved here in any way (although I am only involved in an administrative capacity) I would be issuing an indefinite block round about now for T-ban violations, CIR, NOTHERE and exhausting the community's patience. This to be appealable no sooner than 1 year, with the explicit note that appeals that do not exclusively address why the block is not needed now will be declined. I would also very strongly encourage that this be supplemented by an indef one-way interaction ban preventing Darkfrog24 from interacting with and/or commenting on or about SMcCandlish, this to be appealed no sooner than 12 months after any unblock. Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Dicklyon

DF24's troubles escalated to an indef ban because of inability to hear or admit what she was doing wrong. That obviously persists in this appeal. WP:OFFER suggests that she should "Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban." By denying that such behavior ever existed, she is going the opposite direction. Dicklyon (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that where she links "exact words here", no such words are to be found. WTF? Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Laser brain

Please lift these sanctions and let this editor get to whatever they want to be working on. If they go right back to litigating LQ and other disputes at WT:MOS, their behavior can be re-examined. I feel that they got caught in a quagmire of bureaucracy and a no-win situation. There's no need to continue punishing them. --Laser brain (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Yes, I read everything. I just think that, after a while, everyone (with the exception of full-time trolls and vandals) should be able to sort of "hit the reset button". They've clearly exhausted the patience of anyone who has the power to make it so, but I thought I'd register the opinion anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tony1

I think a lot of the "colleagues" Darkfrog refers to were put off by her relentless and disruptive campaigns at style-guide talkpages, pursued with a battleground mentality. At least to me, she appeared to be determined to drive a wedge between what she sees as US style and other styles. This was very destabilising, coming after the site had spent many years developing a trans-Atlantic style guide—a tricky task requiring international collaboration and a willingness to engage in practical compromise. If MOS has had successes, this must surely be one of them. The German Wikipedia has an annual brawl over German vs Austrian varieties, I'm told, but rather less destructively; our MOS ended up being locked several times due to squabbles in which I believe Darkfrog was a protagonist. Tony (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

More relitigation and "trying to get justice", and dwelling on me in particular. No acceptance or recognition of why the bans and blocks were imposed. Same as in the previous rejected ARCA requests, and in the four nearly back-to-back AE reports, and all the argumentation with admins over the terms and reasons for the sanctions. It's Just an unbroken cycle of WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Literally nothing has changed in DF24's understanding or approach, despite a thick stack of stern warnings.

2017-12 [62] Same projective accusations, while trying to appeal her indef (this was actually a TBAN violation). Same reason for this block and almost another.
2018-01 [63] Claims MoS is (not was) "[her] normal editing"; eager to get back into it. Feigns (really has?) confusion that she is allowed to muck with quotation marks, just not allowed to cite offsite sources for her changes. This bears no resemblance to any remedies in any of these actions (or common sense). Talking about MoS was another TBAN breach.

We're now deep into WP:CIR territory. It's a "long game" to return to her PoV stuff, as admins have suggested (e.g. [64]). Or it's a constitutional inability to accept things she doesn't agree with or like. Or DF24's ability to understand plain English is too poor to be constructive in MoS and punctuation matters. Any would be a CIR issue in and of itself, though that last one topically localized.

DF24 keeps claiming I've been administratively warned to leave her alone, and implying I'm harassing/stalking her. Total fiction.

What actually happened: an admin suggested that others should stop talking about MoS/quotes stuff on her page [65]; so we did.
We two had a couple of brief unrelated interactions after that, which stopped quickly due to her negative reactions.
I let her know I'd blanked my evidence stack since it seemed to be a source of stress to her (see edit summary for prophetic words). Her angry response.
I offered a retraction of and apology for something [66] (which she'd demanded repeatedly – [67] as well as in AE and ARCA). DF24 reacted negatively, with the "admins told you ..." fiction again [68]. I emailed ArbCom about my peace-offering (not her response).
No interactions since then (2017-09) until this AE.

WP:DR won't work if one party will brook no resolution. "Stay off my talk page" cannot be used to thwart DR attempts. I and some admins suggested a oneway IBAN before. This stuff is just really inappropriate, the more so the longer it goes on. If DF24 can continue to publicly focus on me, it'll be impossible for her to get out from under her self-made cloud. Editing under my real name, I'm starting to have concerns this might escalate offline, too, but that won't be a WP/ArbCom problem.

The request should be denied. Timespan until next appeal should be lengthened (2 years?), for everyone's sake. Forbid relitigation. And add a long-overdue, oneway IBAN. Whatever DF24 says next time, I don't see a return to style-related editing [read: squabbling and "slow-editwarring"] ever being viable for this editor, because of the activistic, deep-convictions nature of the behavioral problem. It's a stick the editor doesn't appear able to drop.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Word-limit extension requested. Since DF24 has (again) tried to put me on trial in her stead, I've had to both respond to her request, and defend myself. I got this to under ~~700~~ 580 words. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Laser_brain: Did you actually read all the "I just still don't understand" stuff she's been doing with every admin who'll listen for 2+ years now? The remedies in this case are entirely preventative, not punitive. This is someone who really badly wants to get back to what got them into the hot water to begin with (even aside from the years of increasingly creepy projection about being harassed, which is a different issue). I can't think of a request like this which has been answered in the affirmative without a really detailed justification (about the specific good it will do for the project), a showing of understanding of the problem and how it will be avoided in the future, a plan to ensure that it won't, and clear evidence that the person is long "over" the matter, doing great work, and highly unlikely to be problematic in this regard again. Here, we have the exact opposite of all of these things. And this hijacking of the appeal to again make her WP:SYNTH arguments about "American" this and that – the route that led her into the boiling kettle in the first place – is not just self-defeating of the request, it's actually another TBAN violation. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, something I missed: The "smoking gun" boomerang DF24 links to (because if I ever did anything wrong, everything I say must be ignored) – WP:AN lifted it (retroactively to when it was imposed) as an invalid admin action [69]. And we all already know that, because she brings it up again and again and I point this out again and again. So, more WP:IDHT and WP:GAMING and WP:WINNING. When have we have enough of this? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkfrog24 has added: "SMcCandlish is trying to bait me into writing a long, boring post, refuting every fib he's telling one by one so that everyone's eyes glaze over." More strange, ad hominem handwaving; that's a literally impossible interpretation, since it cannot be the case that I want DF24 to relitigate in detail when my entire point (for a long time) is that she won't stop relitigating. More importantly, it's been the point of everything every arb and admin has been telling DF24 since 2016. I'm just going to ignore all the aspersions and accusations and conspiracy theories in her posts about me, above; I don't get particularly undies-bunched when clearly angry people say something that sounds angry. However, it does all clearly demonstrate the untoward dwelling on a personal vendetta half of the problem, and similar material has been why several of the administrative actions were taken against DF24 in this sorry saga. I've seen plenty of AE commenters get sanctioned on the spot for less hostile but equally unproven allegations as hers. This is a behavior case, not a MoS-as-topic content case; this could as easily have been about Game of Thrones or any other topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: (well, @all, really) I guess the issue is that (long before now!) DF24 has gotten so close to what you might call "part-time but long-term troll" in effect if not intent that it's not clear what the difference is. Or, rather, it's not clear that the community needs to split that hair. The disruption level is just too much. The entire time, everyone's been telling her how to push the reset button and exactly where it is, but she just won't do it. She insists on being ruled blameless and getting to hang someone else in her stead. That's not fixable.

"The accuser really should have been told to leave and come back with something shorter" – except I didn't actually present evidence in the AE. I said I had a bunch of unsorted evidence half-prepared for an RFARB, at another page. AE admins chose to examine it anyway and found it convincing. The diffs (i.e. the recorded DF24 behavior/actions), not anything I said about them. Second, DF24's still dwelling on the "gaslighting" thing, despite it being unconditionally retracted [70] in a very conciliatory way. I.e., she's pestering AE to flush something already flushed, to force me to bend a knee I've already bent; it's some kind of public-shaming and vengeance/justice kick.

This is why I keep suggesting a "no more rants about SMcCandlish, no more relitigation, or your next appeal will be automatically hatted" solution. Just make it a condition that she cannot mention me (by name or otherwise) or the topic of the ban (including the evidence), only her own behavior and community perception of it and how the former will change. Otherwise the 13th appeal in 2027 will look just like this one (or worse). I advocate a solution like this instead of blocks, because the blocks aren't working, the pattern is cyclical, yet the editor is productive in unrelated editing.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Darkfrog24

I cannot help but note that the user still does not get what they did wrong, and seems to even by telling porkies about what happened (well at least what it was they were blocked for). I am not seeing any reason to grant this appeal, as the user looks as if they will go right back to the editing style that got them the block in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Slatersteven. Darkfrog24's appeal is a call for the annulment of the sanction, not a showing that it's no longer necessary. The evidence appears to show that it was necessary at the time it was imposed, and the statement of appeal itself indicates that there's been no change of view by Darkfrog24, meaning that the sanction remains necessary. I suggest that this appeal should be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Darkfrog24

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

This appeal appears to be precisely the behaviour that the Tban is designed to prevent. Instead of a clear explanation of how the sanctioned behaviour will be avoided we have relitigation of the rights and wherefores of the ban. I also am unimpressed by the use of the appeal as a platform to attack DF's opponents in this area and on its own this should be enough to doom the appeal. While reasonable latitude has to be given around a Tban to allow someone to appeal it properly this seems so far beyond that line that I wonder whether a further sanction or block should follow. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the appeal in detail yet and would first like to hear from the sanctioning admin, Thryduulf. Sandstein 07:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Thryduulf's comment and the previous AE thread I agree with Spartaz and would decline the appeal. Sandstein 09:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also decline this appeal. It is simply relitigating the original topic ban and the editor was unblocked on the condition that they cease to do so. I would like to hear from Dlohcierekim, but I am sorely tempted to reimpose the block. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the appeal had stuck to the first paragraph, I might have been inclined to support. But spending three-quarters of the appeal relitigating the topic ban really shows that they don't understand why they had issues and show no change necessitating relaxing the topic ban. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing I've seen further changes my mind, and while I would not agree with a reblock, the behavior isn't helping that case. Drop the hyperbole. If you want to address the behavior going forward, say "I understand that my behavior was perceived as disruptive and I will not engage in such behavior again. If someone tells me I'm engaging in such behavior, even if I disagree, I will stop it to avoid disrupting others." The important thing is to understand that your argumentation style and discussion style on the subject was disruptive to other editors. You don't have to grovel, but pledging to listen when others tell you you're disruptive would go a long way. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear from your behavior here that you understand that yet. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not ping me back here for more of the same "I was wronged, the decision was all wrong, other editors are out to get me" posts. Those sorts of posts make it clear you haven't taken anything on board, and are only going to lead to reblocking. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
reply from Dlohcierekim (If this is in the wrong place, please move it. Responding to the ping). Oh, dear God, so much text! Is this ArbCom? No wonder I've gone cross-eyed, and find it hard to get along. A momentary skim leads me to agree that this is yet another relitigation. The horse is so dead it is no longer suitable as 1) an organ donor or 2) even dog food. I don't get this "best summary link" at all. Looking at the unblock, maybe I was snookered, in effect if not by design in unblocking. What I find troubling is that Darkfrog 24 "has some essays ready to go". I get the impression there is an uncontrollable obsession that prevents DF24 from letting go of the subject. Ever have a scab you can't stop picking? Could someone please point me to the relevance of the Trump references in so far as TBAN's and sanctions are concerned? ( from what I hear in the news, the Trump-Putin election thing likely happened. I only hope FSB hasn't infiltrated Wikipedia.) Setting that aside, and returning to MOS, I see no benefit in lifting the TBAN, per comments above mine. Per this part of the unblock discussion "Darkfrog24 should probably enjoy this early Christmas present, and just get down to constructive editing in compliance with their topic ban. The stubborn determination to ignore good advice unless it is phrased as an "order" does not bode well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC) @TenOfAllTrades: I hope not. Not snookered, I mean. This is a great opportunity to shake off the past and leap forward into a newer, clearer, brighter day!" -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC) I urge DF24 to find something else to do.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further perusal has not changed my opinion.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear that this appeal is going to be denied; I do think we should give some thought to the terms on which it is denied. I see three options:

Just deny the appeal
Deny with another moratorium on further appeals (12 months? 2 years?)
Consider this appeal a breach of the unblock conditions and reimpose the block

I'm generally reluctant to indef someone who is not entirely disruptive, but at some point, enough is enough. GoldenRing (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: You have already appealed this ban to the arbitration committee – twice – and been denied. There is nowhere else. This noticeboard is powerless to overturn your ban on the merits, even if anyone here thought that was a good idea; you have exhausted your avenues of appeal on the merits. The only avenue left to you for this to be lifted is that you understand the problems you caused and know how to avoid them in future. Clearly you don't. GoldenRing (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkfrog24: This is the last time I'll say this (I hope): We understand that that is how you feel about this. But you have exhausted every avenue of appeal and been denied every time. So even if we thought there was a possibility that the original ban was unjust and wanted to wade through it all again to figure out the precise rights and wrongs of it all – for some here it would be the nth time of doing so – there is no point because we are never going to over-rule the arbitration committee's decision. Appeals to ARCA are final. No matter how unjust how think it is, your only option from here is to figure out why people are so upset with you – and from what I can see here, it's pretty universal – swallow your pride and come back in 12 months with a proposal that actually convinces us that relaxing the ban would be a good idea for Wikipedia. As things stand, your statements here are only hardening people's opinions against you. That is part of the problem you need to recognise. GoldenRing (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we now decline the appeal, prohibit any further appeals for 12m and block DF for one month for a Tban vio in her appeal and for using AE as a platform to attack her enemies. Thoughts? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will do so today if there are no objections from admins. While a block does not have full support, editors are warned that "[d]isruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't oppose that, though I think there is a big argument to be made for making the block indefinite as an ordinary admin action, for breaching the unblock conditions. GoldenRing (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Thryduulf's proposal of a one-way IBAN has merit - if only because it'll help Darkfrog24 focus on the right issues when it comes time for the next appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed with the one-month block, and also not opposed to an indef block and/or interaction ban if anybody deems that helpful. Sandstein 16:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see it come to a block, but I must say this has become quite wearing, and DF seems to not be hearing anyone. Willing to let it go as a simple denial with the understanding that returning to this matter anywhere for a year would be grounds for an instant block.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this appeal discussion is on my talk page

User_talk:Dlohcierekim#The_right_thing for you consideration. I feel I'm done with this matter. If anyone wants to move that thread here, please do. I'm gonna try to use my remaining wikitime for today productively.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Firkin Flying Fox

Editing not a matter for WP:AE (yet). Being handled at SPI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Firkin Flying Fox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Firkin Flying Fox (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:ARBPIA3#500/30 :

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

Gaming 500 edit rule: The following edits in sequence are representative of the users contributions following his return from a hiatus to reach 500 edits as that was now the requirement, and note this is an editor who had been here for years and made well-formatted edits from his very first edits:

The same story played out at BGUSAT, where between 21:50-21:54 7 April and then between 23:57-00:07 7-8 April he stretched this series of minor edits into 19 edits. Same thing at Wepemnofret where adding a single reference took eleven edits.

Since reaching the 500 edits the user has been singularly focused on reverting in the ARBPIA topic area, gaming the 1RR:

And finally I'll make note of the obvious, that this is a NoCal100 sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 for evidence. This account specifically was previously found to be operating through open proxies and satellite services and a public wifi hotpsot at an airport, so I dont know that a CU will determine proof positive that he is NoCal, a user who is literally involved in every single arbitration case about this topic area, first as Isarig, then as NoCal and Canadian Monkey (2 for 1 is impressive), and then as Brad Dyer, but I'd ask you consider the evidence provided there as well. Either way, the account gamed the 500 edit restriction and has since been nothing but a revert warrior. Just peruse his contributions since he hit the 500th edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Notified of discretionary sanctions 16:48, 13 March 2014‎
Notified about the 500/30 rule 22:06, 9 July 2016‎

Not a discretionary sanctions request though, this regards gaming the 500/30 restriction.

Additional comments

The sockpuppetry has never been dismissed. The first time raised it could not be confirmed as he had only operated from an airport. The second time the open proxies were blocked and he vanished for some time again. And based off the rather poor typing (and his trouble copy-pasting) in most of his comments I'd wager he is still editing through his phone to evade CU. All that can be ignored though, the user gamed the 500 edit restriction. That has previously resulted in an editor having the extended confirmed right removed until they petitioned to have it restored following making actual substantial edits. nableezy - 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:, repeatedly using upwards of ten edits to add a single reference, when the user has previously demonstrated an ability to format them correctly in one go is not what you are looking for? What would convince you on gaming? Here are 8 edits strictly removing the word "the". 7 straight in2 minutes, thats almost AWB speed removing bolds. 7 more in two more minutes to add wikilinks. How would you like me to demonstrate that the user has gamed the 500 edit restriction? nableezy - 17:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those are edits, not reverts. nableezy - 21:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Firkin Flying Fox

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 Firkin Flying Fox

A master game player attempting to wikilawyer his way to getting his opponents banned. I have not gamed anything- I was informed I need to have more than 500 edits to be able to edit certain topics [71] - so I did , getting there by , among other things, creating several new articles [72], [73], [74] , and improving others: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same_Old_Lang_Syne&type=revision&diff=741960917&oldid=741376168

This was done over the course of nearly 2 years - I must be really inept at gaming, if this is what I was trying to do. I mean, what is the point of making two edits within 2 minutes, supposedly "trying to game the system", and then waiting a few months for the next edit?

Not content with this, he is also forum shopping , using allegations of sock puppeting, which have been investigated in the past, and dismissed.

the only thing worse than this wikilawyering is the outright hypocrisy. These two edits are supposedly "gaming the 1RR restriction" -

01:51, 5 June 2018
24+3.5 hrs later [different edits , made more than 24 hours apart], but look at his own editing on an article subject to the same restrictions:
[75] - Revision as of 23:51, 3 June 2018
[76] - Revision as of 05:45, 4 June 2018

- A clear 1RR violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firkin Flying Fox (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the outright lying - " The first time raised it could not be confirmed as he had only operated from an airport" - the first sock puppet investigation was done in October 2013- by which time I had been editing for more than 2 years. Does anyone seriously think I had 'only operated from an airport" for 2+ years? Ridiculous.

Thanks, @GoldenRing:, I fixed it. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

I'm a fan of the 500/30 rule, but the point is to 1) make it harder to create sock puppet accounts and 2) make sure new editors have a chance to learn some of our many, many ropes before getting involved in a subject that could get them banned or blocked. Upon cursory look, it seems FF has been here since ...2011? Everyone makes a mix of big and small edits. Unless there's some big reason to think that FF is either a neophyte or a sock, cut him a break and call it a day. I have to admit my own bias on this particular subject, but FF raises the idea that the complaint was filed to artificially remove someone who disagrees with the filer from the conversation. That is one of many things that could be going on here. That is not what the disciplinary system is supposed to be for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jbhunley

Just a FYI. I noticed two other accounts making rapid +1/-1 edits a few days ago. One was a new user and one had been around for a few years without having enough edits to be autoconfirmed, much like the case here. I do not have a baseline for how often this editing pattern shows up but three in as many days seems odd enough to comment on. Actually two was enough – see User_talk:Bishonen#Autoconfirmed_games Jbh ^Talk 02:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I lean toward Bishonen's concerns. We know that people create "sleeper" accounts. This one talks the wiki talk a bit too much to be an editor that inexperienced. (A long-time account doesn't equate to experience if it has no edits until a huge spurt puts it over the 500 mark). We all (or most of us anyway) sometimes do a series of short tweaks, but that diffed sequence is downright strange if taken at face value. That kind of trivial one-character-at-a-time futzing has sometimes been declared disruptive because it hits people's watchlist again and again for not legit reason, and also tends to induce repeated edit-conflicts. Anyway, I agree with the idea this should probably go to SPI, and isn't (yet?) an AE matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Firkin Flying Fox

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

I don't see anything actionable in the "gaming". It's not clear which conduct policy it could violate. If ArbCom says that you need an arbitrary number of edits to edit a topic, then we can't really fault editors who really want to edit the topic for trying to reach the magic number of edits as quickly as possible. The WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 sanction itself does not address this.
Revert-warring in the ARBPIA area could be actionable, but we'd need more evidence for that. As to the socking allegation, this should be examined in the currently open SPI case. Sandstein 13:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Regarding "gaming", standard discretionary sanctions ("refrain from gaming the system") covers this. I and other admins have removed the extended-confirmed right from editors who have obviously gamed their way to 500/30. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely remember during the Gamergate situation several editors that were determined to have gamed the 500/30 system by lots of gnomish edits. The reason 500 edits was put in place was to make sure they had some type of reasonable edit history we could judge if they were an SPA or the like. --Masem (t) 00:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein; everyone knows where SPI is and they are much better equipped to look into socking than us here. The allegation of gaming 500/30 is one I think where we need to assume good faith; some editors do edit like this, massing lots of edits on smaller changes. So while it's possible they consciously made more edits than necessary to make those changes, it's also quite possible they didn't. We have certainly seen far more egregious examples of gaming the restriction (and per NeilN I am not always averse to removing EC edit rights in obvious cases). And as for the edit-warring, a single example of two reverts in 27.5 hours, not reverting the same text, is not a thing sanctions are made of. GoldenRing (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Firkin Flying Fox: I think one of your diffs regarding Nableezy's alleged 1RR violation is not the diff you thought it was. GoldenRing (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like gaming to me. Firkin Flying Fox appears to edit only sporadically so we can't conclude that their edits are solely to get to the 500 mark and then unleash themselves in this restricted area. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest no action here. The SPI will probably have to rely on behavioral evidence as CU data is likely stale. Perhaps HJ Mitchell, who helped out in prior incidents, would again help out with the current report? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton

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 Calton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: D.Creish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

Repeated personal attacks in edits to American Politics articles:

Identity Evropa "Your inability -- or pretense thereof -- to understand plain English is not my problem." [77]
Alexander Downer Personal attack in edit summary: "No, genius, I said nothing -- zip, zero, nada -- about the source. Pay attention: WP:DUE for the purpose of insuation which, again, has fuck-all to do with reliable sources. Any more non sequitors?" [78]
Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." [79]
He continues the edit war. Personal attack in edit summary: "Please don't make shit up about VOX. The talk page awaits you." [80]
Continues. Personal attack in edit summary: "Your link doesn't say what you claim, so yep, making shit up. Talk page? Have you heard of them?)" [81]
Continues. Personal attack in edit summary:"I DID prove it: you pretended not to understand it." [82]
Prostitution in the United States Personal attack in edit summary: "Get over yourself and your persecution complex. Repeat: per WP:UNDUE" [83]
Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits"; "Making shit up about other editors's motivations for basic quality control isn't go to fool anyone, son." [84]
Andrew McCabe Personal attack in edit summary: "Thought you could sneak out the Russian-contact mention, eh?" [85]
Alexander Downer Removes content sourced to thehill.com with edit summary "Save this insinuating crap for Breitbart News. [86]
Political correctness Personal attack in edit summary: "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith." [87]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Many previous blocks for personal attacks and incivility [88]

Blocked in August 2006 for "repeated personal attacks"
Blocked in September 2007 for "Persistent incivility and taunting of other users"
Blocked in November 2007 for "Continued incivility and taunting after previous block"
Blocked in August 2008 for "Incivility"
Blocked in September 2009 for "Personal attacks or harassment"
Blocked indefinitely in March 2013 for "Personal attacks or harassment: racist edit sumamries & general awful attitude to others"
Unblocked after "Assurances given that offensive epithets will not be repeated"
Days later "Per ANI discussion. The consensus on ANI is any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block"
Blocked in April 2015 "Further use of edit summaries to make disparaging comments about other editors, after being clearly infomred that doing so would lead to another block."
Blocked in January 2016 "Personal attacks or harassment"

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 June 29 2017

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite many warnings and blocks editor is unwilling to refrain from personal attacks.

In suggesting they won't consider this report, Black Kite and Seraphimblade do a disservice to the editors against whom these PAs were directed which includes established wikipedians @HiLo48:

As far as my own comments and edit summaries, I'm not concerned as long as they're evaluated objectively - PA on talk page vs PA on article page under discretionary sanctions; pattern of PAs vs a single example; unblock on the condition that further PAs would result a block vs clean block record; and so on.

Maybe an excess of good faith but I can't imagine a single offensive response to an editor who ignored my request to stay off my talk page will be judged more harshly than continuous incivility across the project. D.Creish (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

I saw the one PA and checked recent edits then his block log but given the IP's list of complaints and number of editors complaining it's mind boggling that he's still editing and continues as if nothing's wrong.

(Redacted)

I'm at a loss. Pinging @RegentsPark: who was the last admin to unblock. D.Creish (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN: I don't know procedure so please collapse those excerpts if necessary but I think it's relevant that the problem continued for "more than ten years." I'm not asking admins to address the earlier behavior but the current behavior in the context of earlier behavior that suggests the editor has no intention of stopping. Their only response (below) is to argue the PAs were appropriate. D.Creish (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[89]

Discussion concerning Calton

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 Calton

I can already see where this is going, so I'll only say a few things, unless otherwise required.

Lana Lokteff involved a brand-new account (User:Hansnarf, with 5 edits, and their previous IP) edit-warring to remove "white supremacist", despite sources -- a constant problem on this and other pages about alt-right and white-supremacist pages. Amusingly, the editor proclaimed one source as invalid because it was from a "far-left" website (VOX), despite the fact that their own "proof" of this didn't say what they claimed. I did make a mistake: I didn't notice that the VOX source wasn't attached directly to the lede, so I have fixed that. My apologies for not noticing.
Identity Evropa involved yet-another brand-new account (User:Barbarossa139, with 29 edits) edit-warring to remove "Neo-Nazi", despite sources and the talk page, with wikilawyering demands that I show where in policy the term "whitewashing" appears. I don't play that game, where someone establishes a false framework and demands that I justify it.
Continues attacks on editor's talk page with Section title "Your garbage edits": that was from indef-blocked Miacek (talk · contribs) -- whom you may remember from here, odd how D.Creish leaves off the name -- who left this bad-faith gem on my talk page:

Eager to just pick up a fight, yes?

A pretty much a textbook case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING I guess [90]. What next? Gustav Naan? Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes? Miacek (talk) 03:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I care to respond to unless necessary. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dave Dial

Most of the links given by D.Creish are of Calton rightly making sure some of the articles concerning or about white supremacists/neo-nazis/racists remain NPOV, without obvious whitewashing. Some edits reverted were ips, obvious sock accounts or throw aways. If anything, D.Creish should be topic banned. One of his examples he writes:

Lana Lokteff He restores an unsourced "white supremacist" label in a BLP (The source uses "white nationalist.") Personal attack in edit summary: "Far left? Cool, way to out yourself." [91]

In the NPR source it states:

Asked how she would pitch the alt-right to conservative white women who voted for Trump, but are also wary of being labeled a white supremacist, Lokteff told her, "we have a joke in the alt-right: How do you red-pill someone? ("Red-pill" is their word for converting someone to the cause.) And the punch line was: Have them live in a diverse neighborhood for a while," Darby says. "She also said that when she is talking to women she reminds them that white women are under threat from black men, brown men, emigrants, and really uses this concept of a rape scourge to bring them in."

The edits of D.Creish and the editors he is defending really speak for themselves. This is absolutely an attempt to rid these articles of editors that know the subject so they can more easily be whitewashed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Calton

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

One of the first things I always do when looking at an AE request is check the contribution history of the editor filing the complaint. On this case, I don't think there's any reason to even go further than that. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Black Kite's suggestion to check contrib history, without even looking at any diffs, I straightaway see this: [92], with the edit summary of "Didn't I already tell you to fuck off? If not, consider yourself notified." If D.Creish is advocating that sanctions be placed for uncivil comments, I think they might want to carefully consider who that might cover. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
D.Creish, providing a long list of diffs, some from more than ten years ago and others having nothing to do with the topic area, is not helpful. This is WP:AE, not WP:ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed submissions not pertaining to the AE request at hand. If you want to present general and old editing history then open an ANI discussion separate from an AE request. We are focused on specific topics covered by discretionary sanction here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to turn this around and TBan D.Creish instead. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been pinged. The unblock referred to by D.Creish was back in 2013 and is way too long ago to be germane to this discussion. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I missed a memo somewhere. Can someone explain the enthusiasm for a boomerang against D.Creish? Yes, that one diff provided by Seraphimblade is not good but it's one diff. If everyone who reported here had to have a clean history, we could almost mark this page as historical and focus our energies elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but seriously, look at the history. D.Creish involves themselves at one contentious article or another (Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, Men's rights movement, The Hunting Ground, Debbie Wasserman Schultz Murder of Seth Rich), gets involved in various AE and ANI shenanigans around those articles, then disappears again. A while later, they pop up again, find another article ... rinse and repeat. Their very first edit was this, with an edit-summary invoking WP:COATRACK. Hmmmm. No, I don't expect people bringing AEs to be sparkling clean, but this report is a waste of time; let them bring it to ANI, and let's see what happens there. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily suggesting a boomerang. More just how frustrating I find it when people will happily dish it out, but run straight to AN-(insert letter here) when they get a bit of their own medicine in return. It's rather like when someone reports to the edit warring noticeboard, and both of them are well past 3RR. And realistically, I find Calton's comments to be somewhat abrasive, but not really what I'd consider attacks. But if the level of discourse you practice is "fuck off", you'd probably best not be too surprised when people in turn speak that way to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Hansnarf (talk · contribs) for 48 hours making accusations of racism against Calton after warnings and several opportunities to just stop. Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NadirAli

No violation but NadirAli is warned to tread carefully in this area. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning NadirAli

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA :[93] "You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

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

7 June: Helping an editor with the "article's talkpage" and "last stable version" of the article (Kashmiris) directly related with the subject where he is topic banned.

This topic ban violation was pointed out by other editor to him,[94] but as usual, his WP:IDHT approach continues that he denied any topic ban violation.[95] My Lord (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Site banned by Arbitration committee in 2007.[96]
Topic banned in 2014 after getting unbanned.[97]
Blocked for topic ban violation for a month in 2014.[98]

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [99]

Discussion concerning NadirAli

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 NadirAli

Statement by (Farhan Khurram)

As far as I can see the topic ban had a very narrow scope in that it only applied to India-Pakistan conflicts. That left the rest of the India-Pakistan topic area pretty wide open to these users to edit. The diff that My Lord has produced for NadirAli here is dispute resolution advice on a user's talkpage [100] and has no relation to any India-Pakistan conflict. The topic area in question is the racial origins of Kashmiris, one of those facets of the region that have never been contentious between India and Pakistan. NadirAli has not gone into even that topic, merely advised a user on the best course of action to solve their disputes. What I am seeing in both this case and the Mar4d case below, the filer is exerting a deliberate effort to get these users blocked on a very subtle ground that any edits by these users in the India-Pakistan topic area are off-limits for them when the topic ban is actually very narrow in scope to India-Pakistan conflicts.

I am also very concerned now that I have gone through My Lord's editing history. This AE report is itself a clear display of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. But there is more.

My Lord's editing behaviour reveals a tendency to assume bad faith of others[101], he restores contentious unsourced terms (calling them "sensible")[102], he accuses others of violating 2RR on pages where there is no 2RR[103], accuses others of edit warring[104], threatens others with reports[105].

His editing style[106][107][108][109][110][111] and way of talking[112] is also very aggressive.

Worryingly he also has a tendency to cite non-existent talkpage support for consensus-less addition of his new contentious material. A basic example is this[113] where the discussion he cites in his edit summary does not have any consensus for his content. He was already told quite clearly by administrators to get consensus for that content.[114] He has also repeated this behaviour at Kashmiris, where he cited a discussion which does not actually support his preferred version.[115] Another example of his disruption is that he unilaterally removes[116] material which was originally merged into the article per an AfD.[117]

Perhaps the filer's behaviour should be treated the same as the 10 recently mass topic banned editors?

Farhan Khurram (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

I may be missing something but this looks a bit specious to me. In fact, it looks like someone trying to get people sanctioned in the same manner that the sanctioned group were doing. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: wouldn't that be a matter for WP:ARCA? - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

I don't have any comment about this particular complaint, but I would like it clarified that all Kashmir-related pages and Balochistan-related pages should be off limits for the sanctioned editors. Kashmir is certainly the theatre of a proxy war between India and Pakistan and their respective ideologues. Balochistan is also getting there due to repeated accusations of Indian involvement by Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush:, I don't know. I am just giving my view based on my experience editing these pages. Even remote areas of these regions are now getting caught up in the conflict. See these cautions for example. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NadirAli

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

@GoldenRing: this was your ban. Sandstein 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling that I lack the brain space to process this well at the moment. My reaction is that this is near the edge of the tban but so tenuously connected to it that it shouldn't be considered a violation. But I'd like others to form their own judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d

No violation but Mar4d is warned to tread carefully in this area. My Lord instructed to take careful note of the "groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions" warning located at the top of this page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Mar4d

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBIPA : [118] "You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning."

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

Saw this on WP:ARCA and thought about pointing out here:-

[119] 19 May
[120] 19 May
Both edits are about a Pakistan Air Force base that has played significant role in both Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.
[121] 18 May
Chuck Yeager was an American advisor to the Pakistan Air Force during Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Exactly that is the thing Mar4d is talking about in his edit.

In short, all 3 edits were violation of the existing topic ban.[122] My Lord (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [123]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [124]

Discussion concerning Mar4d

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Mar4d

Statement by Sitush

As I have just said in the above report, this too looks specious and behaviourally similar to what the previously sanctioned group of people were trying to do, ie: run to the drama boards at any opportunity, however tenuous, that might result in an "opponent" being sanctioned. Eg: just because Yeager was in combat and just because a base was used in a war does not mean that the edits in question related to the conflicts for which the topic ban applies. Blimey, if we adopted that logic then these people would already be unable to edit anything with the word India or Pakistan in it because, hey, those two countries were involved in conflict that is subject to the ban. - Sitush (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mar4d

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

@GoldenRing: this was your ban. Sandstein 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments on the request above. GoldenRing (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My Lord

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 My Lord

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Farhan Khurram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

I am finding his editing style to be too aggressive. His reverts are accompanied with attack terminology on other users' edits, words in the edit summaries include "useless", "irrelevant", "pov", "pseudo".

He is also too ready to assume bad faith of others. He makes unsubstantiated accusation of socking on another user and accuses another of edit war.

But what I find most concerning is the misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and false claims of consensus for their preferred page versions.

My Lord (previously called Anmolbhat) added this content[125] on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus but was reverted and told by administrators to get consensus for it[126] because it was contested by other users.[127] He has now restored that content[128] without consensus and has even cited this talkpage discussion[129] in his edit summary as a justification for his mass revert even though the talkpage discussion shows no consensus in favour of his content. This is a deliberate misrepresentation, which I think is disruption.
This is by no means the only article where he has behaved disruptively like this. On Violence against women during the partition of India he made a contentious edit[130] with an edit summary saying "see talkpage for consensus" even though there was no consensus on the talkpage in favour of that edit.[131]
There are other examples too of this disruption which in my view amount to tendentious editing. On Kashmiris he removes content with a similarly fictious edit summary[132], citing a talkpage discussion which does not actually support his version.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[133] User was blocked for violating the copyright policies.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [134]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am finding that this user's editing behaviour in relation to other users is just too confrontational. This "you lose buddy" [135] edit summary is just symptomatic of their battleground mentality. They also recently filed two [136][137] groundless enforcement requests against two users.

This user has already received multiple warnings for unconstructive editing[138], disruption[139], and for pov deletions[140].

I would like the administrators to stop this user's disruption on Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, Violence against women during the partition of India, Kashmiris and Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. In the last one he unilaterally removed a section[141] which was originally merged into the article per a community discussion at AfD.[142] Farhan Khurram (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_Lord&diff=prev&oldid=845151250

Discussion concerning My Lord

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 My Lord

Statement by Danish.mehraj26

Sandstein may be right that the first batch of diffs is not actionable but the third batch is very concerning. He has been falsifying consensus and misrepresenting talkpage discussions to do reverts. He has also removed content from Cow vilgilante article even though it was added there after a community discussion.

For someone who has already been warned not to do POV deletions[143] and disruption,[144] the kind of disruptive behaviour Farhan Khurram has reported of My Lord doing reverts and falsification of talkpage consensus to support those reverts is disconcerting.

Here is additional evidence of this user's battleground attitude,[145] in addition to this edit summary[146]. Danish Mehraj 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning My Lord

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

I've looked at the first seven diffs and don't find them actionable. They contain judgments about content, yes, but this is what we do as editors. Criticizing content is ok, it's criticizing editors personally that we disapprove of. Given that the first batch of diffs is completely non-actionable, I've not examined the rest of the request and would close this without action. Sandstein 21:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

‎Netoholic

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 ‎Netoholic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

Pretty much all of this is at Political views of American academics.

June 5, 2018 Just after the recent previous AE, does a massive revert while Template:In use is on the page. Another editor comments to him about it: [147].
June 9, 2018 Another massive revert, edit summary is misleading.
June 9, 2018 "Begin"s to restore material that had been deleted by consensus.
June 5, 2018 Battleground-y comments, disregard for actual policies.
June 6, 2018 Ditto.
June 6, 2018 Ditto.
June 7, 2018 Ditto, with me replying.
June 8, 2018 Ditto. ("Careful what you ask for.")
June 9, 2018 Uses "throw anything at the wall and see what sticks" argument to say that the page should not include what the author of a study says about her own study.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [148]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just days ago, another AE complaint was raised about Netoholic: permalink. I suggested cutting him some slack, [149]: "In the next several days, I plan to do a top-to-bottom rewrite of that page. In the past, that would likely have led to edit warring. But let's wait a couple of days, and see whether that happens now. I'm crossing my fingers that it won't." On that basis, TonyBallioni closed the thread: [150] (sorry Tony!). Unfortunately, exactly what Netoholic was supposed not to do is what he did, and repeatedly. He had every reason to be aware that DS were in effect. And please note that there was overwhelming support from other editors for the revisions that I had made: [151], [152], [153], [154], [155]. And before anyone gets the idea to go boomerang-y, I've been trying very hard to be fair to him: [156], [157], [158], [159]. When he added material that I thought should not be there: [160], I nonetheless made edits to try to improve it: [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]. (Looking at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Conservapedia, it looks like this may be happening at other pages too.)

At the very least, you need to topic-ban him from American Politics, explicitly including "political bias". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [169]

Discussion concerning ‎Netoholic

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 ‎Netoholic

Statement by Lionelt

I do not see a consensus. I just see Tryp and Netoholic going back and forth on the Talk page and at the article. Occasionally another editor will chime in with "Good" or "Not good" but I would not call that consensus. I, for one, have voiced concern with Tryp's efforts at the article.

It's extremely difficult to completely re-write a controversial article from "top-to-bottom." Perhaps even ill-advised. It severely limits the ability to compromise over fine points. Imagine if an editor attempted to re-write Presidency of Donald Trump from "top-to-bottom"?

Yes, there does appear to be frustration at the page. However I do not see any violations which rise to the level of sanctioning. Our normal dispute resolution process should be adequate. Since this appears to be a content dispute primarily between Tryp and Netoholic, perhaps WP:3O is the solution.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ‎Netoholic

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

Request for the comments by Jytdog to be stuck out in the record of my AE case

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Factchecker_atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Factchecker_atyourservice 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Text of false and unsubstantiated aspersions by User:Jytdog in the evidence section of this AE case which resulted in the sanction against me logged at the AP2 sanctions list.

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

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

Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice

Request for the comments by Jytdog to be stuck out in the record of my AE case

In a recent Arbitration proceeding successfully seeking an AP topic ban against me, a number of statements were made by Jytdog which grossly mischaracterized my editing history, without evidence, while giving a misleading impression of being accompanied by evidence. I seek the striking of these comments, either in whole or in part, from the record of the proceeding. I feel this is appropriate because of the persuasive force of posting a long, convincing-looking takedown with a bunch of links in a top-level administrative proceeding.

Jytdog does not appear to have looked closely or at all at the subject matters he refers to, and thus the compilation of diffs and statistics is misleading. It's one thing for someone to make an off-the-cuff remark without diffs simply claiming someone has a pattern of abuse, but it's another when a deeply established user shows up to comment on a topic ban case, posts something that looks like a comprehensive overview of an editor's conduct, purporting to offer "review with a solid foundation of context", and then claims he can't find any edits upholding a left-wing POV. This puts me in the position of having to prove a negative by coming up with a long post with a big pile of diffs contradicting the claim of right-wing POV push.

Outline of complaint

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

The general premise of the claim is that I joined Wikipedia to combat left wing bias and have never done anything else. He cites as evidence for this that my very first edit was this additing of a FACT tag to a statement in Wiki voice reading that "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI."

This was indeed my first article-space edit, but I didn't arrive at this point because I said, I want to combat left wing bias on Wikipedia, let's go find some, here it is. Rather it was because I was reading a Wikipedia article and it told me that the FBI had fabricated evidence in referring an American citizen for prosecution on terrorism-related charges, which I found shocking and outlandish.

Indeed, although Jytdog presents my original username of "Factcheck_4uwingnuts" as further evidence of an ab initio purpose of combating left-wing bias, he doesn't seem to realize that "wingnut" is usually interpreted as a reference to right-wing nuts, not left-wing nuts. Rather, the left-wing counterpart is moonbat.

This is further explained by another reason I was motivated to edit WP, which was the second article I edited, Copwatch. While Jytdog correctly notes that my edits changed prose saying the guy being arrested was "apparently restrained" to prose that indicated he was "struggl[ing] to prevent the police from handcuffing him" and that the cops were "trying to force his hands together". This was simply replacing one WP editor's editorializing with another's. Neither was sourced. (Watch the video for yourself to see if you think the guy was "apparently restrained" or whether the cops were struggling to restrain him.) But going back to the tie-in to the "wingnuts" in my original name, I had seen the WP article but also an external website called copwatch.org (NSFW), which seemed to be an extreme militant right-wing anti-authority website, with a lot of virulent anti-police rhetoric that sounded like Waco type stuff, including, for whatever reason, a lot of stuff about the guy from the other article, Sherman Austin. I edited both these articles on Day 1. That was why I had "wingnuts" in my name.

In any event, Jytdog then goes on to talk about my time at Sarah Palin and, while presenting diffs that look like they are supposed to be supporting evidence—but without explaining why he thinks my editing was indicative of a right-wing bias—he goes on to conclude "They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that...."

When another editor replied that the diffs he cited were mostly "exculpatory evidence", Jytdog made no effort to validate his accusations, but instead demanded evidence invalidating them(!), saying "If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a 'Factcheck 4uwingnuts' with respect to anything ring-wingish that would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it."

Indeed, he seems to have been blinded, because if he had looked past his analysis-free tables and edit counts, or his 90-second "deep dive" of my first couple-hundred edits, he would have noticed that my next 1000 edits were spent being the most ardent anti-Sarah Palin content hawk that ever existed on WP. Indeed, I am present in about 30 talk-page archives and while I have only combed through the first 7 of those for diffs here, I'm confident they're representative of the rest:

"Moratorium on article material about Palin controversies until after the election?" OH HAIL NO

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

I complained about a biography being used as a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?" To his credit, Jytdog actually gave credit for this being a "good question", but then this turns to ashes when he persists in claiming he didn't see any sign of me combating right-wing bias.

Indeed, in the below debates I did virtually nothing but ensure that well-sourced criticisms of Palin made it into the article:

I complained about the removal of details about some sundry Palin controversies

I began (or continued) an endless series of arguments in favor of including "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy material. Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt. Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does.

It's often celebrated how much I talk(!) so here's an even lengthier disposition and rebuttal of one of the endless arguments why the "Bridge" controversy was supposedly not worth mentioning.

Arguing strongly for inclusion of quotes by other Republicans calling for Palin to withdraw from the nomination ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready")

I argued and edited for inclusion of commentary on Palin's support for banning abortion. Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources. And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.

I argued extensively in support of saying Biden had made himself available to the press adequately and Palin hadn't. Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion. I also called for a repeat of a failed RFC.

I complained about a Palin campaign staffer who was editing her WP article, I accused users of being pro-Palin sockpuppets, I talked about NYT article which "details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography". Later in a debate about AGF'ing: I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.

I argued at length for inclusion of mockery of Palin in "Jesus Ponies and Dinogate" controversy, defending the use of an op-ed in LA Times ("No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications.")

I argued further against removal of "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy details.

I went on what I called a "large scale weasel hunt regarding a bureaucratic investigation of Palin because I felt that the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions.

I argued at extreme length about source material regarding Palin's apparent blurring of the line between church and state. Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations.

I further argued about source material about Palin's attempt to ban books due for religious reasons. Again, at very great length. According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format.

I argued further for mentioning the above bureaucratic report which accused Palin of ethical violations. When somebody proposed a "moratorium" on any further controversies about Palin until after the election day, I strongly pushed back: Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, and the article would take on a promotional tone. [emphasis added in 2018]

I argued for inclusion of source material discussing Palin's husband's past association with a political party advocating Alaskan secession from the US.

When somebody asked why something had been removed, I explained: Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad.

I argued for inclusion of a controversy about making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. While doing so I complained: The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying.

I pushed back against complaints that mentioning various criticisms and accusations violated NPOV. I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations.

I argued against someone removing RS-published criticisms of Palin simply because they quoted a political opponent of Palin.

I argued at even greater length against removal of the controversy on victims paying for their own rape kits. I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue. This also involved a very salty complaint about how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate

Here is another lengthy complaint about what I regarded as POV-pushing in favor of Palin.

I also at some point wrote an eye-popping-angry breakdown of an argument I had had with a pro-Palin editor. Looking back on this I'm not especially proud of it, but it is evident that I was arguing at exhaustive length for inclusion of a piece of anti-Palin commentary despite arguments that the source itself was "conjectural" and supposedly thus prohibited by BLP.

Again, these are just from the first 7 talk page archives in which I appear (28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36). There are something like 23 more. On the eve of the presidential election I was hashing out disputes and putting to bed any last doubts that the controversy on billing rape kits to rape victims' insurance instead of having the police department pay for them (as was previously done) was RS-documented extensively enough for detailed discussion.

If there is a criticism here, it's that I was too hard on Palin.

@@ Line 1,112: / Line 1,112: @@
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*
+== Request for the comments by [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] to be stuck out in the record of my AE case ==
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. <p>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]]).''</small>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Factchecker_atyourservice}} – [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive234#Statement_by_Jytdog Text of false and unsubstantiated aspersions] by [[User:Jytdog]] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive234 the evidence section of this AE case] which resulted in the sanction against me logged at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2018#American_politics_2 the AP2 sanctions list].
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|NeilN}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by Factchecker_atyourservice===
+Request for the comments by [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] to be stuck out in the record of my AE case
+In a recent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive234 Arbitration proceeding] successfully seeking an AP topic ban against me, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive234#Statement_by_Jytdog a number of statements were made] by [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] which grossly mischaracterized my editing history, without evidence, while giving a misleading impression of being accompanied by evidence.  I seek the striking of these comments, either in whole or in part, from the record of the proceeding.  I feel this is appropriate because of the persuasive force of posting a long, convincing-looking takedown with a bunch of links in a top-level administrative proceeding.
+Jytdog does not appear to have looked closely or at all at the subject matters he refers to, and thus the compilation of diffs and statistics is misleading.  It's one thing for someone to make an off-the-cuff remark without diffs simply claiming someone has a pattern of abuse, but it's another when a deeply established user shows up to comment on a topic ban case, posts something that looks like a comprehensive overview of an editor's conduct, purporting to offer {{tq|"review with a solid foundation of context"}}, and '''then claims he can't find any edits upholding a left-wing POV.'''   This puts me in the position of having to prove a negative by coming up with '''a long post with a big pile of diffs''' contradicting the claim of right-wing POV push.
+{{hat|Outline of complaint}}
+The general premise of the claim is that I joined Wikipedia to combat left wing bias and have never done anything else.  He cites as evidence for this that my very first edit was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=153576817 this additing of a FACT tag] to a statement in Wiki voice reading that "The government fabricated evidence documented in the January 16, 2002 search warrant and affidavit issued by the FBI."
+This was indeed my first article-space edit, but I didn't arrive at this point because I said, ''I want to combat left wing bias on Wikipedia, let's go find some, here it is''.  Rather it was because I was reading a Wikipedia article and it told me that the FBI had fabricated evidence in referring an American citizen for prosecution on terrorism-related charges, which I found shocking and outlandish.
+Indeed, although Jytdog presents my original username of "Factcheck_4uwingnuts" as further evidence of an ''ab initio'' purpose of combating left-wing bias, he doesn't seem to realize that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingnut#Slang_terms "wingnut"] is usually interpreted as a reference to ''right-wing'' nuts, not left-wing nuts.  Rather, the left-wing counterpart is '''[[Moonbat|moonbat]]'''.
+This is further explained by another reason I was motivated to edit WP, which was the second article I edited, [[Copwatch]].  While Jytdog correctly notes that my edits changed prose saying the guy being arrested was "apparently restrained" to prose that indicated he was "struggl[ing] to prevent the police from handcuffing him" and that the cops were "trying to force his hands together".  This was simply replacing one WP editor's editorializing with another's.  Neither was sourced.  (Watch the video for yourself to see if you think the guy was "apparently restrained" or whether the cops were struggling to restrain him.)  But going back to the tie-in to the "wingnuts" in my original name, I had seen the WP article but also an external website called [http://www.copwatch.org copwatch.org '''(NSFW)'''], which seemed to be an extreme militant right-wing anti-authority website, with a lot of virulent anti-police rhetoric that sounded like Waco type stuff, including, for whatever reason, a lot of stuff about the guy from the other article, [[Sherman Austin]].  I edited both these articles on Day 1.  That was why I had "wingnuts" in my name.
+In any event, Jytdog then goes on to talk about my time at [[Sarah Palin]] and, while presenting diffs that look like they are supposed to be supporting evidence—but without explaining why he thinks my editing was indicative of a right-wing bias—he goes on to conclude {{tq|"They seem to have come here specifically to address what they perceive as left-wing bias, from what i have seen. There may be diffs of them tamping down POV editing from the right, but I haven't seen that...."}}
+When another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=842869267 replied] that the diffs he cited were mostly "[[exculpatory evidence]]", Jytdog made no effort to validate his accusations, but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=842911879 instead demanded evidence ''in''validating them(!)], saying {{tq|"If you have significant diffs of this person serving as a 'Factcheck 4uwingnuts' with respect to anything ring-wingish that would be somewhat exculpatory. It is hard for me to see past the glare coming from the very shiny ax that this person has carried into WP and the sparks that are flying from grinding it."}}
+Indeed, he seems to have been blinded, because if he had looked past his analysis-free tables and edit counts, or his 90-second "deep dive" of my first couple-hundred edits, he would have noticed that <big>'''my next 1000 edits were spent being the most ardent anti-Sarah Palin content hawk that ever existed on WP'''.</big>  Indeed, I am present in about ''30 talk-page archives'' and while I have only combed through the first 7 of those for diffs here, I'm confident they're representative of the rest:
+{{hat|"Moratorium on article material about Palin controversies until after the election?"  '''OH HAIL NO'''}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_28#Biography_by_Kaylene_Johnson_--_is_this_really_a_reliable_source? I complained about a biography being used] as {{tq|a uniformly promotional text (perhaps even ghostwritten) and it's hard to see how it could have any reliability at all. Could anybody help me understand this?"}}  To his credit, Jytdog actually gave credit for this being a "good question", but then this turns to ashes when he persists in claiming he didn't see any sign of me combating right-wing bias.
+Indeed, in the below debates I did virtually ''nothing'' but ensure that well-sourced criticisms of Palin made it into the article:
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_28#Couric_interview I complained about the removal of details about some sundry Palin controversies]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_28#Gravina_road I began (or continued) an endless series of arguments in favor of including "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy material].  {{tq|Palin is being held out to the nation as a "reformer" who "opposed pork". The conceivably biased view of her as a reformer is handily balanced by the massive amount of Federal pork funding she sought for such a tiny town and tiny number of people. I think the Federal-dollars-per-person tally comes to about $17,000. If such an extravagant level of spending were insisted upon for all US citizens, we'd have $5 trillion worth of Bridges to Nowhere each year. To put that in perspective, the Federal budget submitted by Pres. Bush for 2009 totals just over $3 trillion and includes all expenditures by the government, including paying down interest on the national debt.  Another way to put it in perspective? Obama has pursued similar amounts of Federal pork funding ... but his state contains 18 times as many people as Alaska does.}}
+*It's often celebrated how much I talk(!) so here's an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=241577862 even lengthier disposition and rebuttal] of one of the endless arguments why the "Bridge" controversy was supposedly not worth mentioning.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_29#Calls_to_withdraw Arguing strongly for inclusion of quotes by other Republicans calling for Palin to withdraw from the nomination ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready")]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_29#Abortion I argued and edited for inclusion of commentary on Palin's support for banning abortion.] {{tq|Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources. And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_29#Opinions_on_availability? I argued extensively in support of saying Biden had made himself available to the press adequately and Palin hadn't]. {{tq|Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion.}}  I also called for a repeat of a failed RFC.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_30#SemiProtection I complained about a Palin campaign staffer who was editing her WP article, I accused users of being pro-Palin sockpuppets, I talked about NYT article which ''"details the way this article, in the 24 hours BEFORE Palin's candidacy was announced, was plastered with bubbly, glowing commentary of Palin sourced from her published-just-in-time-for-the-election biography"''].  Later in a debate about AGF'ing: {{tq|I mentioned the issue of good faith only the highlight that editors who appear sympathetic to Palin have repeatedly questioned the good faith of editors who appear unsympathetic to Palin. This is merely to remind everyone of the context in which these claims are being made. Speck in neighbor's eye, boulder in own, and all that.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_30#Sarah_and_the_Dinosaurs--Jesus_Ponies_and_Dinogate_(aka_Dinosaurs_and_Evolution_vs._Creationism_and_Intelligent_Design) I argued at length for inclusion of mockery of Palin in "Jesus Ponies and Dinogate" controversy, defending the use of an op-ed in LA Times ("No matter how much of a liar you think that guy is, he's a critic, this is on reputable record by a publication with a factchecking department and the ability to be sued for libel, and that is the whole basis for Wikipedia's reliance on mainstream news publications.")]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_33 I argued further against removal of "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy details.]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_34#Large_scale_weasel_hunt_in_%22Public_safety_commissioner_dismissal%22_section I went on what I called a "large scale weasel hunt] regarding a bureaucratic investigation of Palin because I felt that {{tq|the wording of this section is carefully chosen to distort its cited references and undermine the apparent credibility of the investigative probe while upholding Palin's actions}}.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_34#Church_and_State I argued at '''extreme length''' about source material regarding Palin's apparent blurring of the line between church and state].  {{tq|Why this is all troubling is not because of Palin's faith or beliefs; it's to do with the apparently special status she places on religious beliefs, religious people, and religious organizations.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_34#Book_Banning I further argued about source material about Palin's attempt to ban books due for religious reasons.] Again, at very great length. {{tq|According to Time, according to Stein, the attempt to ban books was an example of her injecting religious beliefs into her policy. Perfectly legitimate, primary-sourced, analysis/synthesis which has been published by a reliable source and is therefore fit for inclusion in appropriate format.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_35#Monegan's_dismissal I argued further for mentioning the above bureaucratic report which accused Palin of ethical violations.]  When somebody proposed a "moratorium" on any further controversies about Palin until after the election day, I strongly pushed back: {{tq| Actually, it would do a lot of harm. If there's a moratorium on including material about controversies until after the election, anybody reading this article before the election (which will probably be the majority of people that ever look at this article) will be wrongly getting the impression that there are no controversies. Meanwhile, all manner of positive and supportive material would be fair game, '''and the article would take on a promotional tone.'''}}  [emphasis added in 2018]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_35#Support_for_Alaskan_independence I argued for inclusion of source material discussing Palin's husband's past association with a political party advocating Alaskan secession from the US.]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_35#Experience When somebody asked why something had been removed, I explained:] {{tq|Probably deleted because somebody felt it made Palin look bad.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_35#More_rape_stuff I argued for inclusion of a controversy about making rape victims pay for their own rape kits].  While doing so I complained: {{tq|The constant effort to turn this article into promotional campaign literature is equally annoying.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_35#NPOV_in_General I pushed back against complaints that mentioning various criticisms and accusations violated NPOV.] {{tq|I'm not sure anyone here is intent on including any scurrilous or merit-free allegations.}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_36#dinos_again? I argued against someone removing RS-published criticisms of Palin simply because they quoted a political opponent of Palin.]
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_36#Deletion_of_rape_kits_section I argued at even greater length against removal of the controversy on victims paying for their own rape kits.] {{tq| I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue.}}  This also involved a very [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=245682022 salty complaint] about {{tq|how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate}}
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=247027944 Here is another lengthy complaint about what I regarded as POV-pushing in favor of Palin.]
+I also at some point wrote an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Factchecker_atyourservice/Argument_with_Collect eye-popping-angry breakdown] of an argument I had had with a pro-Palin editor.  Looking back on this I'm not especially proud of it, but it is evident that I was arguing at exhaustive length for inclusion of a piece of anti-Palin commentary despite arguments that the source itself was "conjectural" and supposedly thus prohibited by BLP.
+{{hab}}
+Again, these are just from the first 7 talk page archives in which I appear (28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36).  There are something like ''23 more''.  On the eve of the presidential election I was hashing out disputes and putting to bed any last doubts that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&oldid=249522284#Rape_Kits_Redux... controversy on billing rape kits to rape victims' insurance] instead of having the police department pay for them (as was previously done) was RS-documented extensively enough for detailed discussion.
+If there is a criticism here, it's that I was ''too hard on Palin''.
+==Other topics==
+The Sarah Palin article wasn't the only one where Jytdog's superficial presentation is misleading.
+*For example, he lists the fact that I edited the article on [[Fascism]] as evidence of trying to oppose left-wing bias, but my time at [[Fascism]] was spent arguing against editors who disputed Fascism being described as a ''right-wing'' ideology.
+*Jytdog also cites [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=624305945 this diff] at the article on [[Michael Brown]] removing a comment claiming NOTFORUM, and racks this up with the "right wing troll" evidence because I was removing a statement complaining of "certain media outlets" attempting to "criminalize" Michael Brown. But he neglects other edits such as this similar [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=770176365 NOTFORUM removal of some trollish comment calling Michael Brown a "drug dealer".]  Of course there are other edits that you might describe as "right wing", but which were emphatically legitimate, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown/Archive_15#photos opposing the use] of a [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sharpshooter_facing_camera.jpg&oldid=134889031 WP-editor supplied Commons photo caption] saying a police sniper had his "weapon trained in the direction of the camera at protests"—a very inflammatory phrasing not used by any RS—with the adding editor arguing on the talk page that the police sniper was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown&diff=prev&oldid=626650299 "aiming at the crowd"], when in reality he is sitting on a rooftop aiming up in the air and comparable RS descriptions said things like "A police sniper looks over the crowds"
+*Jytdog cites my editing at OWS, but this was not a cleanly left/right issue.  If anything it had to do with many of the same competing visions for the Democratic party, i.e. Classical Secular Liberal vs. Progressive, that are tearing it apart today.  Moreover, I spent a very great deal of my time trying to compartmentalize material about a splinter group [[99 Percent Declaration]] that grew out of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=99_Percent_Declaration&oldid=458785873 content fork] arising out of the efforts of a later-indeffed sock, [[User:Dualus]]—and as interesting side note, this series of events led to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice&oldid=459395788#Occupy_Wall_Street '''my very first block'''].
+*Jydog cites my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=643067565 POV tagging] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)&oldid=643067565 the then-revision of "Mattress Performance (carry that weight)"] as a "shameful advocacy tract rife with innuendo and unsubstantiated criminal accusations", again as part of a list of supposed efforts to "oppose left-wing bias".  But this whole incident, wherein a girl essentially accused a guy of rape via an art project and attempted to hound him off campus instead of cooperating with a police investigation, was ''hugely'' controversial and generated a great deal of [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/magazine/have-we-learned-anything-from-the-columbia-rape-case.html mainstream news commentary].  Again, not a cleanly left/right issue.
+These seem to be the bulk of the subject areas he raises, besides the issues I addressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=842953682&oldid=842932118 during the case itself], but since he doesn't present a clearly diff'd claim of POV pushing, I'm reluctant to go digging around further in my edit history looking for evidence of ''not'' being a right wing troll.
+In any event these comments are deeply misleading, and since they were posted with such apparent authority at a top level administrative proceeding, I think it is a reasonable request to ask they be stricken.
+{{hab}}
+Thank you. [[User:Factchecker_atyourservice|<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">Fact</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">checker</span>_<span style="background-color:black; color:white;">at</span><span style="background-color:gray; color:white;">your</span><span style="background-color:black; color:white;">service</span>]] 14:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
+===Statement by NeilN===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice ===
+===Result of the appeal by Factchecker_atyourservice===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
 *

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