Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:28, 24 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

Calton

Calton is assumed to be aware that because of their previous blocks for incivility, there's going to be increased scrutiny of their posts. They are advised to remember this and use a more neutral tone in their posts and edit summaries to get their point across. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:44, 21 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 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." [2]
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?" [3]
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." [4]
He continues the edit war. Personal attack in edit summary: "Please don't make shit up about VOX. The talk page awaits you." [5]
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?)" [6]
Continues. Personal attack in edit summary:"I DID prove it: you pretended not to understand it." [7]
Prostitution in the United States Personal attack in edit summary: "Get over yourself and your persecution complex. Repeat: per WP:UNDUE" [8]
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." [9]
Andrew McCabe Personal attack in edit summary: "Thought you could sneak out the Russian-contact mention, eh?" [10]
Alexander Downer Removes content sourced to thehill.com with edit summary "Save this insinuating crap for Breitbart News. [11]
Political correctness Personal attack in edit summary: "You've got an ax to grind? Find a blacksmith." [12]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Many previous blocks for personal attacks and incivility [13]

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

[14]

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 [15]. 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]

Maybe it's not directly a matter for this page and maybe it's just me, but does anyone else find this entire conversation just a tad suspicious? --Calton | Talk 06:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Given @Sandstein:'s comments, I'd again urge him to take a look at this entire conversation on D.Creish's talk page. --Calton | Talk 13:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:: I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. If the block log is your only measure, then you really really haven't been paying attention to the conversation. Look above your comments for some context. --Calton | Talk 13:56, 15 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." [16]

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]

Statement by SPECIFICO

I urge Admins here to take a close look at the DCreish account's history and behavior on Wikipedia. Here is his editing history profile [17] This ID has few edits, but an extraordinarily high proportion of aggressive AE, AN, and other noticeboard complaints, and what I evaluate as aggressive and uncivil POV editing and wikilawyering. This is a NOTHERE account, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved SMcCandlish

I would urge caution. There is a MEATy campaign going on to white-wash the articles of far-right, alt-right, white-nationalist, white-supremacist [which are not quite the same thing, despite considerable overlap], and neo-Nazi [ditto] subjects. It's not surprising that an editor with a bit of a WP:HOTHEAD past can be successfully baited by a round-robin tagteam of sockpuppets and trolls into losing their temper momentarily. There's a good chance this is an actual goal: game the system to thin the opposition and take ownership of the articles. I agree with comments below that imposing lengthy blocks and bans on long-term contributors who are actually trying to follow the core content policies in the face of a wave of PoV-pushing is neither going to be a constructive result nor going to go over well. It's excessive legalism in an editorial community that's trying to produce and publish quality content, not set up as moot court or a political simulation game. Our rules exist to serve us, not the other way around. And it's more important that the reader-facing content rules be followed closely than than editor-to-editor conduct rules be applied too narrowly, especially when many of the "editors" who maybe got their feelings hurt are bogus and had it coming. [Disclaimer of sorts: As far as I know, I have no significant involvement at any of the articles under discussion, nor with any of the editors under discussion. However, I have dealt with similar bullshit at various articles covered by WP:ARBR&I, WP:ARBAA2, etc., so I know exactly what's going on here, and have been subjected to similar antics by the nebulous PoV-pushing crowd on these issues.] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JantheHansen

I tentative agree with Goldenring about the non-equivalance between the two, one of who has been rude to others for so many years. The least we can ask for against the rude user is an indefinite civil restriction like The Rambling Man and no, this thread is of controversial nature that'll take countless behind-the scenes discussions for a resolution so it's not expected be quickly closed. JantheHansen (talk) 07:33, 21 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: [18], 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]
Calton's edits reported here fail WP:CIVIL, particularly in a contested area, and they have a relevant sanctions record. On the other hand, Seraphimblade above cites an edit by D.Creish that is at least as problematic, and D.Creish seems generally to be here to engage in political drama. I'd either topic-ban both for a month or take no action, depending on what other admins here prefer. Sandstein 13:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein that Calton's edits are not acceptable. This is from an editor who has been repeatedly, over a period of years, unblocked on the basis of assurances that "offensive epithets will not be repeated" and "any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block" (quotes from the block log). The message has clearly not gotten through. I appreciate that the objective of their recent editing has been good, but this is not a license to be offensive. I'm also not seeing the equivalence between an account with a clean block log who has made one uncivil remark and an account with a log as long as your arm covering 10+ years with 10+ diffs of recent incivility that would lead to equal sanctions. I'm sorely tempted to simple block Calton indefinitely as a normal admin action; the history more than warrants it. If other admins object to this, please say so here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia's resident civility enforcement fundamentalist, I can hardly disagree with this argument, but my experience has shown that lengthy civility blocks, particularly against long-established editors, are among the most controversial admin actions and can generate an inordinate amount of drama, perhaps because it signals to very many editors that Wikipedia is not in fact their private playground but a work environment - a collegial, collaborative project among adult professionals. That's not to say that the drama isn't occasionally worth it. So feel free to go ahead as far as I'm concerned. Sandstein 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't do that, for goodness' sake. I think I'm on pretty safe ground when I say that indeffing someone for an incident in which they were not even the worst behaving party would go very, very, badly indeed - especially given the existence of this and similar. I agree with Sandstein's original point. above - either topic-ban both for a month or take no action. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What Black Kite says. Calton isn't a model editor (I've blocked them before) and they have a fairly short fuse, but the disruption in these articles wasn't caused by their behavior. I also agree with some others that topic banning D.Creish from this area will be a larger and more meaningful action. While I appreciate Sandstein's measured approach, the two editors are not equivalent. Incivility is one thing but political grandstanding (which is what Sandstein and others, including me, think D.Creish is engaging in) is far more harmful to the project. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Dave Dial, other participants have given no diffs of D.Creish's problematic editing and have settled for "just look at his editing". If a separate request was brought against D.Creish it would probably be rejected if that's all the reporter presented. If editors think D.Creish should be sanctioned, provide evidence. Any admin sanctioning D.Creish would have an interesting time justifying themselves during any appeal when all they have to point to is one diff. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What NeilN said. From my (relatively cursory) look through I got the impression that most of what Calton was reacting to was from a range of other editors, not D.Creish. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a range of other usernames, though I'd be surprised if every one was a different person. The only established editor that Calton has had an issue with in that list is User:HiLo48. But, let's look at the users and behaviour that Calton was reacting to in that laundry list. (I'll add diffs if required, but most of them have so few edits that it's simpler just to look at their contrib history).

Identity Evropa - in reaction to User:Barbarossa139 (67 edits) edit-warring to whitewash the article of (well-sourced) references to Neo-Nazism.
On Alexander Downer (twice), User:Wesley Craig (152 edits), whose entire modus operandi is to simply remove unflattering sections from the articles of right-wing politicians, regardless of how well they are sourced or written.
Lana Lokteff - a 2-edit IP that simply reverted his edits, and User:Hansnarf, since blocked.
Prostitution in the United States - User:Miacek, since indeffed.
Andrew McCabe - User:PZP-003, since indeffed for sockpuppetry.

Far be it for me to say "there's a pattern there", but ... there's a pattern there. Frankly, given that list of editors and their editing, I'd be more surprised if Calton didn't get irritated more often. Black Kite (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, you are aware that because of your previous blocks for incivility, there's going to be increased scrutiny of your posts and you are walking a narrower tightrope than most editors. If you want to edit in this area, you'll have to avoid taking the bait from editors who may not be here to improve the encyclopedia according to our content guidelines. This will entail biting your tongue (or stopping from clicking "Publish changes") and using a rather more staid tone to get your point across. Can you do that? Because if not, its likely you'll be here or at ANI again and I see little point in doing this all over again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone just close this, please? It's obviously not going anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Siebert

No action. Sandstein 07:10, 23 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 Paul Siebert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Paul Siebert (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: Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

[19] (last phrase at the bottom) - This is a BLP violation - accusing Stéphane Courtois of forgery; accusing a scientist of a scientific forgery is a very serious accusation.
[20] - This is a repeated BLP violation - contrary to claims by Paul, Courtois was not accused of forgery by his colleagues. They only had a public disagreement about numbers in a book and some interpretations.
[21] - This is a personal attack on article talk page (if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll, etc.) Paul argued about his edits: (a) (edit summary: "The source did not say the order was to use gas vans" and (b) [22]. Note that based on his own words (diff #3), Paul was well aware that the sources did say it, contrary to his edit summary. Here is whole thread. Paul make this edit to remove phrase "who acted on the orders from the higher NKVD administration" (his edit summary is "It is not clear that usage of gas vans was authorised by Berg supervisors...". This is also the title of the thread he started. How he justifies the removal? He tells (diff #3): "Nobody claims executions [of prisoners in gas vans] was Berg's own initiative. Obviously, he was doing that according to the order of his supervisors. The question was if the construction and usage of gas vans was the order of his supervisors." Does it sound logical?
[23] - This is personal attack on article talk page (starting from You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person...). This is clearly a personal comment, not just a criticism of something I have written during any discussions. He responds to this my comment.
[24] This is an unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith.
[25]. His "explanation" why I act in the bad faith.
[26] (last phrase at the bottom of the diff) - This is false accusation of misinterpreting a source. The accusation is completely groundless.
[27] Paul tells: if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you - reply to this. No, I do not see anti-Semitism in this quotation (last diff). Do you? What it suppose to tell about me? Yes, some writings by Solzenitsyn were debated as possibly antisemitic.
[28] - Long political rant culminating in accusing user Woogie10w of ... not respecting Paul's grandfather and Soviet people (your father came back .... because my grandfather was killed... Please, show respect to the people whose deaths allowed you to live. They were not just cattle...).
(older) [29] (at the bottom) - This is bad faith assumption - accusing Collect of deliberately violating a policy: You are repeatedly adding the text that violates WP:NPOV without properly explaining this addition on the talk page, citing a deliberately wrong reason. Their conversation resulted in such exchange: [30] ("you accused me of lying"), [31] ("I never accused you of lying, ... You falsely accused me in 1RR violation.")
[32] - misleading edit summary. The edit was explained on talk page [33], and Paul was well aware of this (some further comments: [34]).
(older) [35] - a thread started by Paul on article talk page. It was entiteled by Paul as "POV pushing". This is a violation of talk page guidelines. As banner on the top of the page tells, one should discuss only the improvement of the corresponding main space page. The thread by Paul was not about improvement of the page, but a flow of personal accusations ("POV pushing"). The accusations were bogus because there was no 1RR violation or any other "violations" alleged by Paul. This is actually a perfect example to explain how and why numerous article talk pages in the project are transformed to the "battlegrounds" simply because contributors (Paul in this case) start accusing others on the pages which exist only for discussing the improvement of content.

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

The alert was given on May 13, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was very reluctant to submit this request and thought it might be avoided. Therefore, prior to filing any requests, I tried to explain to Paul that his editing was problematic (whole thread), but he responded with offenses (diffs #5, #6, "that's a lie", "you continue to pretend"). Moreover, he continued doing the same (for example, diffs #1, #2 and #9). All these discussions were related to Eastern Europe.

In addition, Paul produces very long and fruitless discussions on article talk pages and refuses to accept consensus or the lack of consensus. For example, speaking about "Black Book", he posted this question a few years ago. He recently re-posted it again [36]. He received no support, but still continue defaming the author of the book on WP pages (diffs #1 and #2). I do not know if his sources to discredit Stéphane Courtois are cherry-picked or just random, however they do not support the assertion by Paul that the notable academic has been involved in a scientific misconduct. I believe it is a BLP violation and WP:OR by Paul.

@Woogie10w. I am not surprised you do not want edit this subject. I think one problem is that Paul clearly exhibits an WP:TE editing pattern on the talk page (diffs #1, #2, #10, and #12; #9 was also related to this page). He also starts multiple threads trying to discredit the "Black Book of Communism", which is probably one of the best academic RS on the subject of this page. He does it over and over again: [37],[38],[39],[40]. And he continue doing the same on this AE page - see his response below [41].

@Paul Siebert. "Troll" again [42]? I do not find your arguments convincing, sorry.

Diff #7. You continue to insist that I mistranslated or misinterpreted something. Where? Any diff with my alleged "translation"? There is nothing.

Diff #8 (antisemitism accusations) -No, there was no any misunderstanding. Please check my comment Paul responds to in diff #8. Paul, what does it "tell about me"?

Diff #11. No, I did not make my edit against consensus. Paul provided incorrect/misleading link to something that had happen much later, after his and my edit [43]. Here is the state of discussion at the moment of his edit. What consensus? In fact, these words were unilaterally just inserted by Paul [44] (so I acted per WP:BRD).

Diff/link #12. I asked Paul previously not to make personal comments on article talk pages [45]. Nevertheless, he started this thread on article talk page 10 days later. Why? Paul tells that discussing other people on article talk pages is a proof of his good faith [46].

@TTAAC. In the first chapter of Black Book Courtois provides his own numbers of victims, which are not based on the chapters by Margolin and Werth, and he does not tell these numbers are based on their chapters. Therefore, the numbers must be explicitly attributed to Courtois. That is what I did in this edit. For some reasons Paul called this my edit "POV pushing" (link #12; at the bottom of the diff he tells I made "misleading edit summary" in this edit. Wrong. It was correct edit summary and good edit.).

Text in excess of 500 words deleted as an admin action. Sandstein 17:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Paul Siebert

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 Paul Siebert

I have to skip the most ridiculous accusations because of space limitations.

1. Re: Forgery etc: reliable sources say that Courtois "manipulated"^[1] or "deliberately inflated"^[2] some figures, which he then used as a proof for his theory. A beginning if the discussion of this question can be found here, all diffs cannot be provided because there were a lot of them). Manipulation of figures by Courtois lead to a serious conflict between Courtois and his co-authors:^[3] Two main contributors of this book (Werth and Margolin) claimed that Courtois took the figures produced by them and produced the figures that were considerably inflated as compared to the original data. Such manipulation is not necessarily tantamount to forgery, but it is very close. That is exactly what I say ("it seems Courtois simply forged his figures"), and a well documented public scandal over this story demonstrates that my statement was hardly an exaggeration.

2. redundant

3. Re: "if a person behaves as a troll, then it is reasonable to conclude they are a troll": To explain this, I need to briefly describe a content dispute in a formal way. Durin a discussion, I said: "I agree that the facts A and B did occur. However, I disagree that C follows from A and B. ^[4] MVBW twisted my words, and claimed "You admitted that A and B did occur, which mean you yourself agreed with C". To me, such behaviour is a typical trolling.

4. Re: "You cannot pretend you are an educated and skillful person..." Truncation completely changed the meaning of this sentence. A brief summary of my full post is: "You are smarter than the posts you make, please, return to a rational discussion". (MVBW is a scientist who is supposed to be familiar with the criteria applied to scientific publications and good articles).

5. Re: "This is an unsubstantiated accusation of bad faith" (partially addressed above (#4)). The whole discussion can be seen here. Obviously:

There were no accusations of bad faith, it was an answer to a direct question: "do you accuse me of bad faith?" MVBV asked me on my talk page.

It looks like MVBW started the whole discussion in attempt to force me to make this statement (as if they were already contemplating to file this AE request).

The policy does not prohibit accusations of bad faith, it prohibits unsubstantiated accusation. In this particular case, my words were not "an unsubstantiated accusation", but a logical summary of a long discussion.

6. Re: This diff see above.

7. Re: "last phrase at the bottom of the diff". A key point here is that the exact translation of the word "расстрелять" (that means not "execution" (a general term), but "shooting").^[5] Obviously, if one sees this my phrase taken out of context, it looks somewhat rude. However, taking into account that, as a rule, any discussion with MVBW makes several rounds where all arguments are being repeated ad nauseum, some degree of irritation is quite understabdable.

8. Re: "if you see no anti-Semitism in these Solzhenitsyn's words, that tells something about you" retrospectively, I see that it was just misunderstanding. I thought we were discussing this statement,^[6] whereas that book described the same subject in two different chapters, and the wording in another chapter was less anti-Semitic.

9. Re: "Long political rant" Actually, it was a friendly discussion between Woogie10w and me on our talk pages, where Woogie10w and I disclosed some personal information about our ancestors. I feel very uncomfortable that a third person wedged into this discussion, and I am not intended to discuss the details here. Although Woogie10w and I interact very rarely, I think he is a very kind and interesting person, and I am glad he thinks the same about me. Since I believe off-Wiki communication is something we should avoid, my email is disabled, so a talk page dialogue was the only way to communicate with Woogie10w. In my opinion, MVBW's behaviour in this particular case was profoundly dishonest.

10. Re: "accusing Collect of deliberately violating a policy" Don't have space to discuss this unrelated story.

11. Re: "misleading edit summary" In reality, (MVWB was acting against talk page consensus (see the "War breaks out in Europe; a pretext for a Soviet invasion" section).

12. Re: "a thread started by Paul on article talk page" This thread must be read in full from the beginning to the final TFD's post. It is a representative example of MVBW's behaviour. I just wanted to add that although I know MVBW since very early times (starting from his conflict with another user, which gave a start to the WP:EEML story, when MVBW was editing under the currently deleted account "Biophys"), I still assumed MVBW's good faith until June 2018. Regrettably, after this case, I have no possibility to assume it any more.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Through the manipulation of numbers (...) the impression is created that Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime
^ Hiroaki Kuromiya. Review Article: Communism and Terror. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression byStephane Courtois; Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201. [1]
^ Courtois enormous body count of Communism's victims certainly sparked the ire of some of his detractors - including Nicolas Werth, a contributor of the Black Book of Communism who broke over several aspects of the introduction, including the fact that Courtois used a figure of twenty million dead at the hands of Soviets, whereas Werth's own estimate, given in his chapter of his volume, was fifteen million
^ More concretely, (i) the source says that a person X obtained general instructions from his supervisors; (ii) to implement these instructions, X had to do some technical step; (iii) however, the source does not say this particular technical step was a part of instructions X got from supervisors.
^ The source says about Stalin's Great Purge. It tells about one person, Berg, who was accused of inventing the gas van. Berg explained that he was acting in accordance with the orders of his supervisors, who demanded his team execute (literally, "shoot") a huge number of people. The team was incapable of doing that, so he had to build a gas van. The source uses the word "shoot", not just "execute", which means the order to execute people did come from Berg's supervisors, but creation of gas vans was Berg's own initiative. Since MVBW is proficient in Russian, they could not make this misinterpretation just by mistake.
^ Google translates this fragment as follows: "And - I call on the Jews. Repent not for Trotsky-Kamenev-Zinoviev, they are already on the surface, they can be brushed aside: "they were not Jews!" And - to look honestly at the depth of the early Soviet oppressor apparatus - to those "invisible" like Isai Davidovich Berg, who created the famous "gas vans", which killed the Jews themselves too, and even to more inconspicuous people who were doing routine paperwork in the Soviet apparatus and never went public." In other words, Solzhenitsyn directly accused Jews, as an ethnic group, in inventing gas vans.

Text in excess of 500 words deleted as an admin action. Sandstein 20:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GPRamirez5

I regret that I don't have more time to write testimony and assemble evidence right now, but I stand by the ANI case I brought against MVBW, and I second everything that has been said here in Paul Siebert's defense. GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC))

I got involved in this discussion about Mass Killing under Communist regimes and gave up. The discussion degenerated into a gigantic POV storm because the editors, including myself, were not discussing the source Courtois. When I tried to discuss the various sources related to the topic I was ignored. The editors I interacted with constantly argued based on their own POV rather than citing reliable sources. I suspect that the editors were acting in good faith but were not familiar the topic and the sources. In my case I made the big mistake of wasting my time engaging a long winded discussion that involved my own POV, I realized my mistake and opted out of the discussion. Paul was acting in good faith and really needs to base his arguments on reliable sources that can be verified. I have hard copies of the sources and am willing to work with editors who want to improve the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes-By engaging in endless POV discussions ie.BS an editor can scare away other editors and by default own an article. I got tired of trying to discuss reliable sources and ran away from Mass killings under Communist regimes --Woogie10w (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

To give context to Paul Siebert's (admittedly unnecessarily inflammatory) "forgery" accusation against Courtois, it should be noted that Courtois authored the introduction to the Black Book, in which he purported to summarize the conclusions of the book's various contributors—notably Nicolas Werth, author of the chapters on the Soviet Union, and Jean-Louis Margolin, author of the chapters on China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. (The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia account for the great majority of all mass killings under communist regimes.) In the introduction, Courtois claimed that approximately 100 million individuals died as a result of communist regimes during the 20th century, compared to the roughly 25 million victims of Nazi Germany. To reach this total, Courtois cited estimates of the death toll attributable to communism in specific countries; for example, Courtois gave the figures of 65 million deaths in China, 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union, and 1 million deaths in Vietnam. Werth and Margolin, however, used somewhat lower and more speculative numbers for China and the Soviet Union, and Margolin (pp. 565–575) concluded only that North Vietnam's land reform was accompanied by "probably some 50,000 executions in the countryside" (an estimate that, just as an aside, has been contradicted by recent scholarship) and that "at least 3,000 people were massacred" during the infamous Viet Cong occupation of Huế in South Vietnam; Margolin further emphasized that "the subsequent fall of the South Vietnamese regime on 30 April 1975, was not in fact followed by the bloodbath that so many feared and that did take place in neighboring Cambodia." Werth and Margolin subsequently engaged in a public dispute with Courtois regarding the liberties he took with the introduction, as documented in several 1997 articles in Le Monde: "The two authors reproach Stéphane Courtois his 'obsession to arrive at one hundred million deaths.' Nicolas Werth thus accounts for fifteen million victims in the USSR, when Stéphane Courtois, in his introduction, adds five. Mr Margolin explains that he has never mentioned a million deaths in Vietnam." (In the original French: "Les deux auteurs reprochent à Stéphane Courtois son « obsession d'arriver aux cent millions de morts ». Nicolas Werth décompte ainsi quinze millions de victimes en URSS, quand Stéphane Courtois, dans son introduction, en ajoute cinq. M. Margolin explique « qu'il n'a jamais fait état d'un million de morts au Vietnam ».") While the ~20 million estimate for deaths under Stalinism was popularized long before Courtois by Robert Conquest—and it would indeed be hyperbolic to accuse Courtois of "forgery" for citing it—it appears that Courtois essentially conjured the 1 million estimate for Vietnam out of thin air, relying on Margolin to lend it some credibility even though Margolin's partial tally actually put the victims of Vietnamese communism at 53,000 or higher.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment by SMcCandlish

An obvious part of the problem here is that the entire Mass killings under Communist regimes page is basically a giant multi-pronged WP:Coatrack. These are not all one topic, and putting them together is a WP:POV and WP:OR exercise, verging on propaganda. These should be split into separate articles on each government (and should not use the loaded word "regime", per MOS:WTW). I think that would go a long way to defusing conflict; a pseudo-encyclopedic article like this a magnet for PoV-pushing in both directions. And don't capitalize "communist", per MOS:ISMCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: That may be the case, but it's not related to what I'm talking about. That whole page is a "we're in a magical fiefdom of our devising" WP:LOCALCONSENSUS playground, and it needs to be brought to a close. I'm not at all surprised that some editors are losing their temper there, but some editors being temperamental doesn't appear to be the root problem. The page being set up as an unencyclopedic WP:BATTLEGROUND on purpose is the problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re your 2nd response: Yes, I see what you mean. I'd labelled my section "Side comment" because I know it's only partially on-topic. I"m not trying to address the user-behavior specifics (others have that covered), just relate some of them (correlatively if not entirely causally) to the battleground nature of one of the pages at issue, to direct some attention there. I don't mean to imply that's a cure-all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I have some mixed thoughts on the issue of MVBW and Paul Siebert, but as concerns this edit summary by GPRamirez5 I believe that's what's usually called "casting WP:ASPERSIONS". You can't make allegations like that against another editor without solid evidence, especially in an edit summary (which means it's impossible to strike or undue the comments).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

I note my name has appeared above. My goal would be a short article on the topic of "Noncombatant deaths attributed to communist regimes" as is clear on the talk page. I note that Paul seems to have made a substantial number of contributions to the talk page, and a substantial amount of verbiage. Some of that verbiage is, per Paul, self-attributed to English not being his first language, [47] [48] but other example indicate that he feels exceedingly strongly on the topic, to the extent of accusing others of lying, violating Wikipedia policy, and more, and some of his charges are poorly worded or unsupportable.

I also note that an IP has posted on his talk page aspersions about some editors here. [49]

Paul has greatly misapprehended my positions and made charges about me which are ill-worded, inapt, and objectionable. (see above diffs) I did not issue a complaint mainly because in his large number of edits to the article talk page (I suggest looking at the quantity and length of such edits might be useful), he has iterated such charges for a long time now.

Thus I ask that the complaint be viewed as being of a serious nature, devolving on the Wikipedia principles of affording all editors due respect, and not simply lashing out at them. IMHO, it would not hurt Paul to have a vacation from the article in question, though. Say, a month or so? Collect (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

SMcCandlish's assessment is quite correct. The page has been constructed in a manner that does not represent consensus among sources, and this construction itself is then used to exclude and/or stonewall any changes to the sources. It is completely unsurprising that tempers are getting frayed. I've taken Paul to task myself over his tendency to open numerous and lengthy discussions, but that's hardly a blockable offense, and I would concur with Sandstein's assessment of this report. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Paul Siebert

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

At first glance it does look as if Paul Siebert needs to dial it back a few notches. I'm not sure whether this necessitates sanctions at this point, I could be persuaded either way, but clearly several of those comments add much more heat than light. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:44, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's some aggressiveness in there, and I'd support a warning for that, but I for one am not a friend of the throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach to AE. Much of the reported conduct isn't obviously problematic or reflects content disputes. Sandstein 20:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll close this as no action without admin objection in 12 h. Sandstein 17:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 21 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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

13:43, 18 June 2018 Revert of Material that he removed [50] and not waiting 24h before the last revert [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_al-Ahmar&diff=846303318&oldid=846174932 21:00, 17 June 2018]
14 June Calling editors "Pov warriors"
15 June calling editor "revert specialsit

16 June Calling other editors that don't agree with him insane( "No one in her right mind..")
I urge the admins to look at the diffs presented by IceWhiz

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Was blocked in March as AE sanction [51]

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Except the 1RR violation and edit warring that should be taken care by admins the editor creates toxic atmosphere around him, calling the editors he don't agree various names to diminish them and create a chilling effect its not the fist time its happens since the topic ban was lifted by ARBCOM(he was banned exactly for that) take for example case from the last year [52]

Yes I well aware that other user might violated 1RR in this article like I noted[53] and if the admins see fit they may sanction them or not but the problem with Nishidani editing are going beyond that

I just like to remind everyone that revert is an edit too of course so the rule does apply so please stop WP:Wikilawyering Per WP:3RR " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert".So yes now that he reverted he became the original author of the edit as it his revert.Also if there are still any doubts please look at TGS case [54] it was ruled as violation
And if there some problem with user editing there are appropriate venues and its not talk page of RSN board by doing that he crated vexatious atmosphere --Shrike (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BellezzasoloMaybe I missed that we have a new rule that editors that under WP:SPI investigation could be reverted at sight? Shrike (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark

I urge you to look at the diffs presented by IceWhiz. Also do you think commentaries like "revert specialist" and "pov wariors" are acceptable in the topic area?

* No he didn't wait for 24 hours from the last revert, he was reverted at [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khan_al-Ahmar&diff=846303318&oldid=846174932 21:00, 17 June 2018] and then he reverted back 13:43, 18 June 2018

As it was noted the 1RR is very complex rule I was mistaken and I am sorry but the WP:NPA violation are still not acceptable in topic area

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

Sigh. Shrike,AE is not a venue to get rid of editors. It serves to deal with problematical behaviour that is obstructive of rational constructive and collaborative work to make wikipedia authoritative in its neutral presentation of the realities of the world based on a capacity to ascertain grounds for compromise. You well know that, as in the past, I have, save for one distant exception, when notified of a perceived 1R infraction either immediately reverted or consulted an expert to make a call, and adhere to his or her judgment.

What your interpretation is saying about 1R strikes me as bizarre. I must wait 24 hours after a bad edit is made before reverting it? I waited three days, watching Attack Ramon persist in restoring poor material against the advice of three editors?

I notified Attack Ramon that his sources were deeply defective, at 17:19, 15 June 2018‎, reverting him, and as is proper immediately (2 minutes). told him he was using an appalling source for a controversial edit. He added a further non RS source, ignoring my point that the Gatestone Institute cannot be used for facts, by adding two more very dubious sources, without removing the former. I told him to go to the RSN board (as I regularly do) if he doubts my judgement (based on this, to cite one of several. He persisted in reintroducing bad material, had no talk page backing, indeed was contrary to the provisory consensus there, and I reverted him 3 days later, advising him to take up the matter at the RSN board, which he refused to do. In Shrike’s interpretation of 1R, Attack Ramon (the name says it all) can break 1R, persist against consensus in restoring quarter baked opinion pieces from dubious sources in several edits over some days, and I must wait a full day after his last edit in order to revert him.

Without wishing to blow a personal trumpet, I go to great lengths on any I/P page I happen on to lay forth abundant academic textual material that would appear to lend weight to my edits. It takes hours to do this. See here, Here (regarding the extensive addition I made here, or at the page in question where I am accused of a 1R violation here.

If I have a big problem with an editor I try to avoid AE and reason it out with a neutral umpire, even if my request is met with silence. My revert warrior remarks merely annotate the reality: only Icewhiz appears to trouble himself with talk page arguments for his edits or mine. The rest sit round, turn up and either ‘vote’ against any edit I may make, or drop a one liner in favour of anyone whose POV they share. People who do not read up sources, who insistently restore notoriously bad sources into a text, or, rather than tweak, simply revert mechanically trusting that the 1R rule will block intelligent editorial changes are, in my book, not committed to wikipedia’s core policies. Our encyclopedic function is not to erase, revert, vote,or use egregiously bad sources to support a POV: it consists in the careful weighing of evidence fairly and its inclusion or exclusion according to strict standards of quality.I think of the score or more of people regularly editing the I/P area five or six understand this. The rest read everything in terms of which nationalistic POV is at stake.

‘no one in his right mind’ refers to anyone who who deny that a Palestinian murdering innocent people constitutes terrorism. Everyone on that page would agree with that, and my point was that, law is neutral as to acts like these, (and therefore if a Jewish Israeli group goes round murdering innocent people it logically falls under the same commonsense definition , as I evidenced by mustering 22 academic or quality specialist sources which define such acts committed by the Irgun as terrorism). I have personal matters to attend to for most of this day.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get into trouble here because I don’t report the daily falsifrication of sources or abuse of policy (WP:Undue apparently means in the I/P area WP:IDONTLIKEIT), while every p and q of frustration at the attritional war by revert warriors is noted in my ‘file’ and then duly brought up every few months to get me permabanned. I don’t care to waste time noting how many times frivolous reports against me have been made here and rejected, compared to the exiguous number that proved effective. But it is too regular to suggest that such reports have a driving concern for the integrity of wikipedia.

Most I/P AE reports prompt me to think of the following analogy, hyperbolic but that’s one’s only redress against a frivolousness that can, undetected, have menacing consequences. The I/P area is a bit like a Bronx ghetto, where the police don’t venture in, -too many shootings, rapes, general violence, theft, thrashings, destruction of property, extortion racketeering. -unless someone comes out of the daily inferno and complains of the law had been broken, i.e. – someone inside the infernal ghetto is named as being uncourteous, or impolite, or even insinuating that the plaintiff and friends accept the rule of disorder, except for observing only one rule in the code: watching one’s p’s and q’s while rampaging generally. At this, the Supreme Court is alerted, and an criminal indictment requesting immediate house arrest is laid by the plaintiff against the accused, who then has to hire a lawyer to show that, other than paying his taxes, assisting the poor and disadvantaged, etc., and having only a few minor motor car infractions on his police file, the plaintiff’s charges are taken out of context, and that a complete. Investigation should require her background and behaviour, arguably more serious than the instance cited, be closely examined. Even that strategy is a potential loser, because it’s not often deemed material to the case under examination.

I will refrain from wasting everyone’s time in a close examination of the contexts. But I should note that falsely accusing me of a 1R infraction at Khan al-Ahmar, when on that page Shrike was virtually absent from the talk page, and yetsimply reverted back material whose stark unreliability was agreed to consensually, was deeply problematical. He confirmed an edit made by someone (perhaps wrongly, but still) suspected of sock puppetry, including, without checking, a piece from the Gatestone Institute which ‘has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods.’ And you, Shrike, endorse that to prove that a people criminally displaced from their traditional pastures by settlers who want more room for comfortable suburbs on their land, and argue the Bedouin relocated to camps next to a foully smelling rubbish dump, got a good deal?

As to your complaint, Icewhiz. A week or so ago, Yaniv’s in-your-face elision of sourced material as ‘not in source’ when it was patently so, met with no AE sanction. To the contrary was given the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. But this lack of equilibrium between hyper scrutiny of WP:AGF issues, and relative tolerance of false edit summaries, etc.etc., can set precedents. The other day, you went ahead and excised a chunk of material at Blockade of the Gaza Strip namely

‘Israel violated the terms of post-June 2008 ceasefire agreements on various occasions, amongst others by failing to comply fully with its accepted responsibility to lift the blockade on Gaza.[5][6][7]’ with the es: ’Not in cited sources, and probably not lede worth.’

That sentence was not well crafted (‘ease’ should replace ‘lift’ etc.) but reference to Israel’s failure to carry through with its commitments is in two of the three sources And further, every I/P editor knows this is an easily documented truism (here, here,here,(multiple newspapers cited), etc.etc., all googled within 30 seconds),

The first source alone, Nathan Thrall, states:

‘with the 21 November 2012 ceasefire agreement Israel undertook to ‘end attacks against Gaza by land, sea and air – including the ‘targeting of individuals’ (assassinations, typically by drone-fired missile) – and that the closure of Gaza would essentially end as a result of Israel’s ‘opening the crossings and facilitating the movements of people and transfer of goods, and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas’ but Israel therefore saw little incentive in upholding its end of the deal. In the three months following the ceasefire, its forces made regular incursions into Gaza, strafed Palestinian farmers and those collecting scrap and rubble across the border, and fired at boats, preventing fishermen from accessing the majority of Gaza’s waters. . . Israel had committed to holding indirect negotiations with Hamas over the implementation of the ceasefire but repeatedly delayed them . . The talks never took place. The lesson for Hamas was clear. Even if an agreement was brokered by the US and Egypt, Israel could still fail to honour it.

I know this evidence will be dismissed as irrelevant on the grounds it is a 'content dispute'. But it isn't. It is behavioural: consistently careless, discourteous or bold POV pushing, causing serious editors endless expenditures of time.

So you did exactly what Yaniv did, make a false edit summary. The difference is, I see this nationalistic POV pushing abuse every day, and don’t report it. I don't even have much time to fix a tenth of it. The Japanese for such chutzpah is tetsumenpi (鉄面皮). My occasional frustration at egregiously bad editing is constantly parsed to see if I overstepped the line about ‘assuming good faith’. Now, can I get back to actually doing something productive on wiki articles? Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Um Shrike, Nishidani isnt required to wait 24 hours from the last revert to remove material from an article. The restriction you are misreading says the original author of an edit may not restore that edit for 24 hours after the revert. Nishidani isnt the original author of that edit. In fact, if you were interested in actually enforcing the rules here, there is one violation of that restriction, but it isnt by Nishidani. Attack Ramon (talk · contribs) is the original author of the edit, and was reverted by Nishidani. Attack Ramon however did not wait the required 24 hours to revert the revert. So, if you are interested in a neutral application of the rules, perhaps you should refactor this request into one about Attack Ramon. nableezy - 22:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Youre also, either purposely or otherwise, misreading the no one in their right mind quote. nableezy - 22:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page reverts are reverts of a user making unsourced claims about a living person explicitly calling for terrorism. That a user sees that as evidence to bring for banning the user removing BLP violations rather than the user making BLP violations is I guess quaint is the most appropriate word I can muster. nableezy - 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He shouldnt have removed the other things though, Nishidani take care to not remove non-BLP violations when removing BLP violations. nableezy - 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo

It looks like the WP:1RR provision was technically violated, on the "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." clause. In my experience, it is this clause that catches people out, and I can see no evidence of a self-revert request before coming to AE. Whether Nishdani is aware of the intricacy of that clause or not is therefore questionable (although, given a previous block, they should have checked the details). The other factor here is that Attack Ramon has an attitude towards GAMING 1RR. Finally, there exists Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100, where Attack Ramon is listed, so we should allow that investigation to conclude before judging the 1RR violation, under WP:NOT3RR. Diffs 2 and 3, while not CIVIL, well, given gaming. 4 doesn't seem to be a directed attack to me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been pointed out that Nishdani is no tthe original author of the edit. In which case, I don' think there's anything actionable here. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: It's a dodgy area, and I'd only do it when I'm certain that the user is indeed a sock (and is being disruptive, even if it's not clear vandalism). But reverting edits by banned/blocked users is exempt, and that clause I'd say does apply. Of course, if you get it wrong, there's the double whammy of edit warring and treating the non-sock uncivily. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 09:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

(Disclosure: I am technically a Nishidani talk page stalker, but I rarely check in, but the notification of this report appeared on my screen after I saved an unrelated message I just left him, and I decided to check out of curiosity.)

Just noting that, regardless of whether a violation of 1RR technically took place, the other diffs are apparently bogus.

"revert specialist" refers to an editor of whose mainspace edits roughly 50% include edit summaries beginning "Undid", "rv", "restoring", etc., and the other 50% would need to be checked to determine how many are manual reverts or had their edit summaries altered from the automated ones that giveaway whether they are reverts.
"POV warriors" does not refer to any specific named editor, and in context clearly only applies to editors who themselves make an arguably worse accusation against the "other side", calling them "activists" which carries implications about off-wiki activity. Basically this is not a "personal attack" but an assertion that there are POV warriors in the topic area, which is a truism, and is the reason this stuff is reported in AE.
"No one in her right mind" refers to editors on Nishidani's "side" who insist that Palestinian terrorism should not be called "terrorism"; it is not an attack on "other editors that don't agree with him". These kind of bogus reports are what makes it so difficult to get sanctions against people when they actually are constantly questioning other editors' sanity.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: Haven't clicked on your diffs, since you probably wouldn't provide quotes that, out of context, looked more benign than the actual comments. None of the quotes you provide seem particularly egregious, and in fact most seem like fair descriptions and are quite polite given the context. As above, there are POV pushers; if there weren't, this wouldn't be a problem area on which ArbCom had to place sanctions. The Khazar comment in particular is completely benign, and actually very even-handed and reasonable. I don't know how "right" he is on the substance (I personally have never heard the theory cited by anyone but antisemites, but I don't read as much as I perhaps should on medieval Jewish history), but the fact that he "attacks" (to use the language of those who apparently want to sanction him) both sides evenly actually argues against the claim that he is a POV-pusher who attacks editors who disagree with him. That, plus the fact that the Khazar theory is only very loosely related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; neither Khazars nor Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry is apparently subject to the general prohibition as neither appears to be under any level of protection, let alone EC protection. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Describing, for example, the removal of this apparent BLP violation as prohibited by TPO is extremely questionable. If you believe there are legitimate content concerns being raised by the SPAs in question, then you should raise them yourself. Nishidani did not invoke the General Prohibition in his blankings, so there's no indication that he has misunderstood it as applying to talk pages as you imply (non-extended confirmed users are permitted to post suggestions on talk pages); those kinds of blankings would be justified -- or at least justifiable -- on any BLP's talk page, ARBPIA or no. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that 1RR applies to talk page removals is questionable -- has the Committee ruled on this? I ask because removing multiple different questionable messages over any period of time is not "edit-warring" by the traditional definition, especially if the messages were by multiple editors. Additionally, if at least one was a BLP violation, then it was not a 1RR violation since only one of the reverts counts. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shrike, it should be noted that you have not addressed the fact that your accusations of NPA violations have been questioned and you have not responded, and per WP:WIAPA your accusation that Nish broke some kind of 1RR restriction with the weak evidence you provided is itself an NPA violation. This is your fifth ArbPIA AE filing in the last two months, and your third that specifically cited 1RR; you should be more familiar with it by now. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Huldra's advice is good. You should take it to heart. If you had mentioned this on the talk page first, someone might have pointed out to you that the 1RR concern was invalid and what you were interpreting as "personal attacks" definitely are not such except if one assumes a high degree of bad faith (per, for example, my and BK's notes on "revert specialist"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Some additional diffs:

Revision as of 18:40, 19 June 2018, Revision as of 18:48, 19 June 2018 - removal of posts of others in violation of WP:TPO, the posts by the new users user:Brileiweis user:Charlotte253 were addressing possibly valid content concerns, and non-extended confirmed users are permitted to post suggestions on talk pages.
Revision as of 14:27, 17 June 2018 - You are a serial POV reverter of fair and balanced information - against a different editor (myself) than the one labelled above.
Revision as of 14:43, 18 June 2018 - I discount Shrike’s mechanical edit, which was meaningless policywise.
Revision as of 07:42, 18 June 2018 " As you readily admitted several times, you are a beginner unfamiliar with the niceties of policy, and this practice, with false edit summaries, is called drive-by reverting".
Revision as of 09:07, 16 June 2018 edit summary Patently silly revert POV pushing.
Revision as of 07:09, 12 June 2018 "This is the usual POV-driven nonsense reverting.".
Revision as of 13:54, 7 June 2018 " Despite the best efforts of politicized POV pushers, who have tried to wreck this article in order to equate the Khazar theory with anti-Semitism, or who have argued to the contrary that the Khazar theory has nothing to do with anti-Semitism".
Revision as of 13:08, 7 June 2018 There's a cognitive or stylistic error in 'repeated lack of responses'

These comments are directed towards at least 7 different editors (some are general comments on a group of editors - so that's why I'm using "at least" - others are specific).Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to claims that the talk-page removals were BLP violations - some of them definitely weren't. Tamimi was convicted for violence (and a few incidents were filmed), and incitement. Renaming the "Slapping incident" has some merit (due to the conviction, and indeed it included more than just slapping - though the slapping has been the media focus). The connection (which goes beyond blood - e.g. travelling to the wedding in Jordan) to Ahlam Tamimi (of Sbarro) and Nizar Tamimi (also convicted) is source able - and has been covered in RS - e.g. [56][57]. The ""Slapping incident" should be retitled" section definitely wasn't a BLP vio, and the other section - should have had perhaps soruces next to each assertion - but sources could've been placed next to each one. I'm not sure I support the editing suggestions of the new users (this article is on my watchlist - and I choose not to reply) - but there is a potential discussion to be had. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers is a guideline - and removing a new user's talk page posts (without even a followup to their talk page) is not very friendly.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the talk page removals (2 reverts - 8 minutes apart, intervening edit by other user) are 1RR violations beyond just TPO - the exception would be removing a BLP violation perhaps - but they don't look like a BLP violation and that hasn't been asserted in the edit summaries.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheGracefulSlick

As of late, Shrike has seemingly been waiting to pounce on "violations" committed by editors he does not like. True, my cases were violations, but editors make mistakes and Shrike gave me no opportunities to correct them before running to AE. What would make it irritating for someone like Nishidani, a dedicated content creator, is that Shrike hardly contributes to content or discussions. His comments are synonymous with a yes-man, and his edits to the I/P area are largely reverts that contribute to edit wars "within the rules". I can provide diffs of this behavior if the spotlight shifts on Shrike's behavior, but I would much rather see him just change his behavior and walk away from this.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Shrike seem to have developed a habit of reporting users, without discussing it on the relevant talk pages first, and without asking them to revert first. (Disclosure: I was reported by him last year Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220#Huldra, also without any warning) (And there are two report by Shrike, of TheGracefulSlick, closed without action, presently on this page)

Mostly these reports end in nothing...just a massive waste of everyones time. Shrike should be gently reminded that he shouldn't report editors to WP:AE, or WP:AN/I, without having discussed the problematic edit(s) on the relevant talk page(s) first, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS, and calling someone a "revert specialist", is pretty accurate, when 150 to 200 of each of their 500 edits is an "undid" edit.

Statement by K.e.coffman

I believe that Shrike should be cautioned against filing frivolous 1RR / 3RR reports. I was the subject of their misunderstanding in the past: April 2018, where he more or less confused normal article editing with reverts. Then he filed 3RRN report anyway. It closed as "no violation" [58]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

The 1RR restriction is frankly too complicated for me to figure out and so I leave that aspect to others. (If I were an active editor in that topic area, I'd probably inadvertently break it on a daily basis.) The "in her right mind" is harmless hyperbole. The "revert specialist" and "POV warrior", though, are battleground-like conduct if not personal attacks, and I could see sanctions for that. Some of the diffs by Icewhiz are also of concern. Waiting on other admins to comment. Sandstein 11:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein that the 1RR sanction is way too complicated. The way I read it, Nishidani had to wait 24 hours after the first revert after removing the material. Which they did (they waited three days). So that's not a violation. (The text reads may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit, note the first (emphasis mine) rather than last that is stated by the complaint. So we can forget about that one. --regentspark (comment) 18:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the other ones. Frankly, I find it hard to take seriously a complaint that interprets the use of "no one in her right mind" in an argument as an accusation of insanity. I would deny the appeal made by Shrike. Admins with more patience are welcome to look at the diffs provided by other editors but I think we need to put a stop to this culture of throwing trivial stuff at AE, perhaps with the hope that other editors will emerge with more diffs. --regentspark (comment) 18:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Regentspark. Oh, and calling someone a "revert specialist" if a very large proportion of their edits are reverts is not a personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's definitely no 1RR violation here. Nishidani hadn't edited the article for 3 days before his revert on 18 June. His talk page commentary does not show the level of courtesy I would expect, but isn't blockable; the folks he's arguing with are behaving just as badly, and if we blocked editors for calling others POV-warriors, we'd have to block most editors editing topics involving socio-political conflict (including most of the opposition at my RFA). I would close with nothing more than a suggestion to Nishidani to take it easy and stick to commenting on content, and possibly a trout to Shrike for being overeager to bring someone to AE. Vanamonde (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Volunteer Marek will voluntarily refrain from editing the Donald Trump article for a week. They are prohibited for six months from adding any article-level maintenance tags to any Trump-related articles. They are also strongly warned against casting general aspersions against editors who they see as "pro-Trump". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:03, 21 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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Power~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Volunteer Marek (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) : standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

For Donald Trump, a variety of other restrictions apply, including civility and "consensus required".

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

2018-06-20 18:28 Adding despite the fact that it has resulted in several indictments and guilty pleas of Trump campaign aides and associates. to the lead of Donald Trump.
2018-06-20 16:37 Adding the {{update}} tag to Donald Trump.
2018-06-20 13:51 - on Talk:Donald Trump - More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article. - a reasonable statement, but evidence he is fully aware of the dysfunctional editing situation here.
2018-06-19 15:58 Adding the {{NPOV}} tag to Donald Trump. This tag had been removed by L293D less than 3 hours earlier.
2018-06-19 14:46 Adding what I believe to be an absurd-on-its-face amount of content regarding the Trump Foundation to the lead section of Donald Trump
While any single diff between Atsme and VM is defensible, their recent back-and-forth at Talk:Donald Trump is troublesome. Some of Marek's hostile comments towards Atsme include [59], [60], and [61] (though some of Atsme's comments are equally problematic).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2017-11-15 1-month TBAN from Trump-related topics

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2017-11-15 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

American Politics has been a contentious area for some time, and the recent actions of President Trump have escalated it further. Volunteer Marek is making WP:POINT-ed edits, and additions to the lead that have no chance of obtaining consensus. This makes it more difficult for normal editing to find consensus, and requires an interminable series of lengthy talk-page discussions. Throwing maintenance tags at the article to try to get one to stick is so far from constructive behavior that some action is necessary.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: - that diff is evidence of his awareness of the editing situation, presented in context with his perpetuating that situation in other diffs. I can move it to "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" if you prefer. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Discretionary sanctions are discretionary; I'm not claiming there's any specific remedy breached that requires enforcement. This is the forum to request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors. I feel Marek's edits violate the expectation to follow editorial and behavioural best practice and refrain from gaming the system. An editor of his experience should know that tag-bombing Donald Trump is entirely un-productive, and I get the sense that his recent additions to the lead were deliberately controversial to create a pattern of "reverts of additions to the lead". power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would have considered it needlessly bureaucratic to propose "Non-inline maintenance tags should not be added to this article (Donald Trump) without prior discussion on the talk page" before opening this thread, but that may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [62]

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

Am I missing something or is this whole request just a "he edited the article" type of complaint? None of these edits violate any of the discretionary sanctions.

Like the first one - yeah, I added it. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?

The second one - yeah, I added it. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?

Third one - talk page comment. Am I not allowed to comment on the talk page? And while the comment makes a general criticism, it's perfectly civil.

Fourth one - I added the tag for a different reason then another user. The tag I added was because of the POV coverage of the issues related to the Trump Foundation. Somebody else apparently had a problem with some other, unrelated part of the article. Incidentally, User:L293D broke the 1RR restriction with his two reverts but I decided to let it go. As always, no good deed goes unpunished and I'll remember for the future that any opportunity to file a WP:AE report should be seized as quickly as possible else, someone else will do it to you (sarcasm)

Fifth one - I'm sorry that the user feels this content is "absurd" (it's not - in fact the complete absence of any mention of the foundation is a glaring POV problem), but regardless, there's no violation of any sanction here. Am I not allowed to edit the article or something?

Likewise my comments with Atsme were perfectly appropriate. She posted a source claiming it supported her views, whereas in fact the source was actually contradicting everything she said (hence, she probably didn't read it past the headline). She explicitly stated that she regards reliable sources as "propaganda" and that they shouldn't be used. I have no idea how you're suppose to achieve consensus with someone who takes that position - that they just not going to observe Wikipedia policy because it doesn't fit in with their POV - but at the very least the position should be noted. Likewise, claiming "WP:RECENTISM" in regard to an edit and subject matter which goes back to ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... 1988 (no, there's no typos there, it's a one, followed by a nine, followed by two eights - so, you know "recent") is in fact ridiculous. Actually it's worse than that. It basically shows that Atsme was struggling to find an excuse to perform a blanket revert and couldn't find one, so she went with just some random one. Which is pretty clearly WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:GAMEing.

Again, there isn't a single violation here, it's just power_wiki complaining that I had the nerve to make edits to the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN actually I wasn't aware of this discussion (I searched the talk page for any thing related to the topic before making the edit but missed it). If you look at my edit history, you can see that my editing fell of sharply between May 15th and May 28th. I made only a few edits in these two weeks and none of them were Trump related. This is because I was travelling, had only sporadic access to the internet and stopped following all but a few pages. The discussion you reference occurred between May 20th and May 23rd, so yeah I missed it. I would not have made my edit if I had known about it.

Coincidentally, that discussion is another example of how the "consensus required to restore" provision is so easily WP:GAMEd by certain editors. No matter how reasonable and how well supported by sources, it only takes a few voices (and it's always the same few voices) to sabotage discussion and veto any proposal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NeilN - as JFG notes below, there is a list of "Current consensus" items [63] and in fact I checked it prior to making that edit. There's nothing about indictments on it. The relevant discussion was buried in the archives. I'm not quite clear what you expect here - that every user memorizes the entire archive of the talk page so that they don't accidentally restore something that has been removed prior?

As for the POV tag - I put the tag in in good faith, because I believed and still believe that not including any information about the Trump Foundation in the article on Donald Trump is a POV violation (and removing such information under the pretense of "RECENTISM" is ridiculous). The "consensus required to restore" restriction can't apply to inclusion of tags for different reasons. Otherwise it would mean that once somebody removes a POV tag from an article, it can never be put back (without a lengthy process), which is of course unworkable. And in response to User:Sandstein - we have top level articles tagged all the time. This is the first I hear of such a practice being considered "disruptive". If I had restored the tag after it was removed, you'd have a point, but I didn't (L293D did violate 1RR in removing it though).

And sure I can refrain from making any edits to the article for a week. I'm pretty sure there'd be blind-reverted anyway, since that what happens to pretty much any attempt to update that article, all thanks to the stupid "cannot restore" restriction which gives anyone a veto power over content.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, want to note that it's not true that I "tag-bombed" the article. That would involve adding numerous tags for spurious reasons, see WP:TAGBOMBING, or adding a whole bunch of tags to whole bunch of articles. I didn't do that. I just added a tag in two different instances and explained the rationale each time. This is standard procedure actually, it happens all the time, and it's the removal of the tag that is disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem, the discussion from June 5th started by Ellen was about including "his administration's record number of criminal indictment". That's not what I added. My edit just provided context to the "witch hunt" part that's somehow included in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

How is a talk page post that even you admit is reasonable, does not in any way constitute a personal attack, and is a cogent, non-judgmental summarization of the issue at hand, in any way evidence which justifies sanctioning someone? If we're sanctioning editors for saying the words "vocal minority," we better be ready to sanction every editor on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question. The fact that you disagree with their edits, and the fact that consensus requires "lengthy talk-page discussions," are not grounds for sanctioning anyone. I could probably scour through the article and talk page histories and find enough reverts and talk page posts by you, JFG or any number of other people highly active on that page that I could use to declare that you are "making it more difficult for normal editing to find consensus". But that's not how the discretionary sanctions should be used. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your first "evidence" diff is VM adding something to the lede of the article which is provably true and arguably relevant. The fact that you have reverted the addition is evidence that you disagree with VM, but it is not evidence of any DS violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: If I felt like editing that article (and I don't, really), I would not have known to search a month (or more?) deep in talk page archives to try and deduce what there has and hasn't been consensus reached on. The revert is eminently reasonable on the "Consensus required" grounds, but it seems to me that articles with "Consensus required" sanctions should have a talk page header box with quick references to talk page discussions where such consensus has been reached, so that editors don't unintentionally run afoul of consensuses long ago reached. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved editor MelanieN

VM, I see that you did the same thing at Presidency of Donald Trump: Added a {{POV}} tag to the article because a portion of one item got removed. [64] I’m not sure if this was before or after this kind of edit became an issue at this AE report, but this kind of spite-tagging is something you need to stop doing. IMO it amounts to petty vandalism of the page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I think more to the point would be something like “Volunteer Marek is prohibited from adding maintenance tags to Trump-related articles” - or “to articles he is actively editing” - or maybe “in retaliation for one of his edits getting reverted”. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by L293D

Thanks for the ping, VM^[sarcasm], I had no knowledge of this thread. But since he decided to ping me, Ill comment here. VM clearly broke DS because the {{NPOV}} tag had already been added to the article here. I contested the addition of the tag, and then VM added it again. VM has long history of disruptive editing and POV-pushing, as seen here, when he added an {{update}} tag to the article simply because he was not happy with a detail of it, or here. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

NorthBySouthBaranof wrote: it seems to me that articles with "Consensus required" sanctions should have a talk page header box with quick references to talk page discussions where such consensus has been reached, so that editors don't unintentionally run afoul of consensuses long ago reached. That is exactly what we have on this article: Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus, and it has tremendously helped to avoid rehashing settled issues, while leaving changes open per WP:CCC (which happened a few times, see documented amendments and stricken items in the consensus list). I would agree that such a summary should be applied to other high-profile articles under DS/CR with a long history. — JFG ^talk 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits of each cited diff:

This sentence was discussed extensively during the Andrevan debacle from 23 to 29 May, and no consensus was reached to keep it in the lede. I understand that VM was not paying attention at that time, so he may well not have noticed. However, the same discussion was re-ignited (with a broader scope) by EllenCT on 2 June, and VM actively participated in that thread, making 13 edits in 3 days. Specifically, he expressed on 4 June his frustration that indictments of Trump-connected people were not included in the lede,[65] so he was definitely aware on 4 June that this addition was under debate and had not gained consensus. This context places his bold edit today in a poor light.
Nothing wrong, just an unhelpful tag that I reverted, asking VM to specify what should be updated. He hasn't responded yet.
Along with numerous prior edits to the talk page, this shows VM's disdain for the DS restrictions in place. Wrong venue to debate them.
Bright-line DS/CR violation. That another editor had added[66] the same NPOV tag for another reason does not give VM a free pass against restrictions in place. The correct attitude would have been to open a talk page thread, stating what is purportedly non-neutral, and suggesting paths to improvement.
Fine as a bold edit, but it was rather pointy to add so much material smack in the middle of the lede, given VM's good understanding of the editing caution advisable on this article. In the ensuing talk page discussion after this was reverted, VM's proposal faced near-unanimous opposition, and was rejected by a WP:SNOW close.
Testing the limits of civility and assumption of bad faith (see also MONGO's list of inflammatory diffs below), but we all know Marek is a good editor despite his abrasive language. In the November 2017 case closed by GoldenRing, in addition to his Trump TBAN, VM had been warned to edit collegially and assume good faith.[67]

Overall, this string of edits looks like the result of VM's personal exasperation with the way Trump is covered in his BLP, and our DS restrictions that prevent him from righting great wrongs unilaterally. No idea whether any of this is worthy of sanctions. I'll leave admins to ponder this remark by VM on 3 June: So you have a situation where one side acts in good faith, the other side acts in bad faith... guess whom an absolutist sanction such as this one benefits most? It's a no brainer. It's a bad sanction. It kills articles. It goes against spirit of Wikipedia. And the 5 pillars.[68] — JFG ^talk 22:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I would strongly object to lifting the DS/CR editing restriction on this article. As I wrote in a recent thread[69] where VM and another editor complained about it: The "special DS arrangement" is here to improve article stability; it does not prevent any solid content to be added. In fact, the current lede section is the product of extensive discussions involving hundreds of editors, so that virtually every word in there has gone through scrutiny by the community, ensuring neutrality, due weight and encyclopedic tone, irrespective of individual editors' opinions. This is Wikipedia working at its finest. — JFG ^talk 05:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Frequent aspersions about the motives, editing and other perceived issues VolunteerMarek has with those he disagrees with do absolutely nothing to help the articles. It definitely comes across as bullying and it is not in the least bit conducive to a collaborative editing environment:

[70] "Yup. More evidence of how dysfunctional the situation is here where a vocal minority obstructs to prevent obviously relevant info from being added to the article."
[71] "...I'm going to say it again. It's simply impossible to arrive at WP:CONSENSUS with people who live in an alternative delusional reality and refuse to even agree on some basic facts, or who refuse to respect the Wikipedia policy of reliable sources. It's simply idiotic to give such individuals veto power over any edit made to the article in the way that the "consensus required to restore" provision does."
[72] "...You're trying to excuse the inexcusable and should really reevaluate what kind of a person you want to be."
[73] "...Oh this is ridiculous. It's the biggest story of the past two weeks, it's reported on everywhere, internationally, domestically, in conservative and liberal outlets, and yet... Wikipedia is not suppose to mention it because... a couple users realize that it's making the president look bad so they start with the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT."
[74] "WP:NOTAFORUM|NOTAGODDAMNFORUM" (removed the links to show he swapped NOTAFORUM to well, what he said.)
[75] "there are actually compassionate reasons why the separations are done" <-- only a certain kind of person could say something like that with a straight face."
[76] "...I'm always amused by the logical pretzels some people will come up to justify their WP:IJUSTONTLIKEIT."
[77] "...Oh, nonsense. It's pretty clear from his statement that he indeed meant it literally. You are demanding that he say "I mean it literally" at the end of his every claim, or it's not meant literally. Again, this is just lame ass excuse making for an obvious lie. Oh, wait. For "speaking figuratively". Hey, I guess some people enjoy being lied to."
[78] "...Oh jebus freakin crust but this is dumb. No, there's no fucking ISIS camp on the US-Mexico border [79] (and this is why JudicialWatch is a garbage source)and I'm sorry but anybody who believes in that nonsense is a total fucking idiot. Senators or reps or secretaries included. And it's precisely by treating people who say dumb ass shit like that seriously and pretending like this stuff can be part of regular discourse among intelligent people that we get into a situation like this, where obvious bullshit is being presented on part with established facts, and where absurd conspiracy theories are treated as possibilities, and where people walk into pizza parlors with the intent to shoot them up cuz they heard something somewhere. Enough. COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and that applies to the very basic ability of being able to differentiate between plausible phenomena and obviously witless conspiracy theories."
[80] "Oh BS. And a good thing that Wikipedia users' ridiculous personal "testimonies" are not considered as reliable sources and have no bearing on what content we include or not include. This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING and belongs in some conspiracy subreddit, not on a talk page of an encyclopedia article."

Statement by My very best wishes

I simply think the "consensus required" restriction should never be used on WP pages because a contributor must be well aware of all previous discussions and previous editing history of the page to follow such restriction. This is very difficult even for the most experienced and well intended contributors. See an example here [81]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

Only one (off-topic) comment here, otherwise I'm a disillusioned lurker on this one.

@My very best wishes: - I simply think the "consensus required" restriction should never be used on WP pages because a contributor must be well aware of all previous discussions and previous editing history of the page to follow such restriction. - If an editor got sanctioned solely for making what could be reasonably seen as a good faith mistake, you would have a point. In practice at Donald Trump, at least, such an editor is reverted citing the restrictions and we move on. The reverted editor is free to seek more information on the talk page, if necessary, and nobody would fault them for doing so.

Thus the current system does not require every editor to be familiar with the history, it only requires one to be. The objective here is not to prevent all uninformed, good-faith mistakes and the resulting reverts, which are fairly common and not a problem.

Anyway, there are better venues for such a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I concur with JFG in strong opposition to the idea of eliminating DS/CR.

Too often we focus on the downside of something and fail to fully consider the downside of the alternative. The restriction was not put in place without a demonstrated need for it, and removing it would be a step backward. There will always be widespread gaming no matter what we do—until we become better at showing the door to the editors who do it constantly—and I don't see how DS/CR makes gaming easier than does any other rule or process.

Show me a real-life example of this stonewalling and I'm confident I can show you how it wasn't stonewalling or wasn't the fault of DS/CR. If I can't, I'll change my opposition to support. The DS/CR does slow down the editing process, which is not a bad thing. Some editors lack the patience, and some editors are very quick to see bad faith in any opposition on content, particularly from editors who are on the other side of the political center.

But again, such a change should not be made without a full hearing, and I don't see how that can be done here. Surely the views of the editors who have extensive experience with DS/CR should weigh heavily in such a decision. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

The first diff came up on my watchlist and caught my eye as it seems to be an obvious violation of consensus-required. The only thing saving Volunteer Marek from a block was I couldn't find any indication they were aware of this discussion. If anyone can provide evidence that VM was aware they were restoring contested material then harsher sanctions are in order. Otherwise, I'm considering an editing ban for article space on Trump-related articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Your tagging of the article isn't great behavior, either. It distinctly reminds me of editors, frustrated at not getting what they want, resort to tag-bombing the article. Will you voluntarily refrain from editing Trump articles for one week (you can still use talk pages)? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I don't disagree with you but almost every thread is a discussion about content and there are tens/hundreds of sentences being discussed. These discussions either achieve consensus for something or peter out with no consensus being achieved. Documenting this would probably be less fruitful than telling an editor to go read the archives. If it's any consolation, I don't think I've sanctioned any editor yet for (credibly) unknowingly violating consensus-required. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These look like content disputes, which are not AE's business. The request does not indicate how exactly these edits violate which specific restriction or remedy. Looks not actionable to me so far. Sandstein 19:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now that the tagging of the article with such tags as {{NPOV}} or {{update}} is disruptive. Top-profile articles do not need these kinds of tags to draw editor attention because there's already a lot of attention on these articles, and adding such tags nonetheless looks like a case of WP:POINT. I wouldn't oppose an article ban of some kind in response to this. The rest I still think are content disputes. Sandstein 19:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandstein (again!). I don't see a battleground behavior or gaming of the system here. Content disputes are best handled on the article talk page and that's where I suggest this be redirected. --regentspark (comment) 19:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN: The discussion in your question "ended" on May 29 (date of seemingly latest comment) and was removed and archived on June 6. VM did not edit the talk page during the period the discussion was had (May 23 to May 29) but did edit on June 2 [82] and several days after. In other words, that un-hatted discussion was visible on at least on the version of the talk page that VM had to edit.

To try to give VM the benefit of the doubt, EllenCT raised the question that included why the other indictments weren't included, and said they could not find where in the archives this was decided. No one appeared to provide a link but clearly it was there (and as I see, the "Peripheral_indictments_in_lead" section is still visible on the page as of June 2). But giving benefit of doubt towards VM, there is still this closed discussion about adding, among other things, the indictments to the lead that was closed as no consensus by Galobatter on June 5, during a period that VM was active on the talk page (eg June 4 edit - June 8 edit). In other words, that closed but non-collapsed discussion was there when Marek was editing the talk page.

Granted, the method for tracking "consensus required" additions or omissions in a situation like this is woeful, but if we're working on the principle that an editor has edited a page that had some obvious message or caution in the specific edit that they have thus must have knowledge of it, VM definitely should be considered to have been aware of this one. And thus, of course a June 20th change that countered that would be out of line. --Masem (t) 20:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this request is pretty ... I'm not sure how to express this ... thin. If you have to go back into the history of multiple articles to work out what was visible when and where, then to be honest I don't think it rises to something that has to be dealt with here. The tag-bombing is not ideal but as Sandstein said in his original post, this is mostly a content dispute here. Black Kite (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit flagged by Neil is not good behavior, and neither is the tag-bombing. That said, a lot of the editing on that page is sub-par. I don't think we need to do anything more about Marek besides warning him that tag-bombing an article when his edits have been objected to is disruptive. But we should seriously consider lifting the consensus-required restriction, which both makes stonewalling very easy, and leads to enormous amounts of drama. Vanamonde (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, specifically not complying with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines in regards to Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - due to entering information citing a source, which does not appear in the source (or in any reliable source).

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

Revision as of 09:12, 24 June 2018 revert to 27 Aug 2017 version.
Revision as of 09:15, 24 June 2018 revert challenged as "gross misrepresentation of sources" + talk page Revision as of 09:18, 24 June 2018 post explaining the problem of misrepresentation.
Revision as of 09:20, 24 June 2018 - re-revert to August 2017 version (+breaking cutting out infobox of the article - resulting in a -4 byte diff - but the article body. was a simple re-revert.
Revision as of 09:30, 24 June 2018 + Revision as of 10:08, 24 June 2018 - refused request to self-revert.
User made some additional edits after this - but did not self-revert, and article continues to contain serious misrepresentations which are strongly defamatory.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Revision as of 14:44, 26 April 2018 - blocked 72 hours for edit-warring in EE.

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

Revision as of 10:41, 19 February 2018 alerted + previous AE discussions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is beyond not following WP:BRD, and previous conduct on this article (by a different user handle) has been covered outside of Wikipedia here - by Morris S. Whitcup.

This is the second re-revert - diff. This version contains a number of sentences sourced to Rossino. Rossino, however contains a single sentence mentioning Stawiki - After passing through Stawiski on 23 June, Radziłów and Jedwabne on 24 June, and Osowiec on 25 June, these units moved to the north and east of Białystok.. No Jewish communists. No Ethnic Polish families being rounded up by Jews. No Poles hiding in the forest (~6 emerging from the forest to join the Nazis in killing Jews).Other sources have been misrepresented as well. This version is in WP:HOAX territory - conveying Jewish repressions of Poles, and a German massacre of Jews (just ~6 Poles joining in) - as opposed to Poles massacring Jews which is what RS report.

Following more editing - 11:13, 24 June 2018 contains the following misrepresentations:

During the Invasion of Poland in September 1939, Stawiski was ...administration was abolished and replaced with local communists.[5] - Cites Rossino - not in cited source.
The Soviet terror lingered until the Germans returned ... .[6] - citing The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust: Seredina-Buda-Z - which does not say "Soviet terror" - it does say "reign of terror with active Polish participation" in relation to the month long German occupation in 1939 (the Soviet/Polish border was adjusted after the military offensive). instigated is also somewhat inaccurate.
The the Germans set the Great Synagogue on fire.[7] citing a yizkor book (this is more of a PRIMARY source). This account does not appear in the source. The Yizkor book does not contain a synagouge burning account in August. It does contain one for June 1941, and for 1942.
Some 60 Jews remained, mainly skilled workers and their families, who were confined to a ghetto. On 2 November 1942, the ghetto was closed and its occupants were transferred to Łomża Ghetto, and from there sent to Auschwitz extermination camp and Treblinka extermination camp.[8] - sourced to a dead link on virtual shtetl (which is not a RS AFAICT - user generated Wiki) The details do mostly match the Jewish life Encyclopedia (with Łomża instead of Bougusze, and Treblinka vs. Treblinka/Auschwitz).
The fate of the Jews of Stawiski was similar... thus linking perpetrators and victims. sourced to this - The book is academic, but is a collection of translated non-academic newspaper reports (the purpose is covering the media discourse) - not a good source. It does not say what we are citing (nor do other mentions of Stawiki in this collection) - no "Stawiski a day earlier thus linking perpetrators and victims".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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 GizzyCatBella

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

All right. My first instinct was to decline action as a content dispute. But some of these edits by GizzyCatBella appear, at first glance, very dubious. In [83], GizzyCatBella removes an apparently reliably sourced mention of an anti-Jewish pogrom in WWII Poland. Instead, GizzyCatBella ascribes a 1939 deportation of "ethnic Polish families" to "Jewish communists" and "Jewish militia". I'm by no means knowledgeable about the history of this place and period, but this strikes me as very surprising to say the least, and would need very good sourcing. Instead, Icewhiz appears to be correct that Rossino, the source cited by GizzyCatBella (however reliable it may be - a web archive of a blog copy of a copyvio?) does not appear to mention anything of the sort. On the basis of this first assessment, I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies. Unless GizzyCatBella has a really good explanation for this, I can't see any other outcome but a long block and a topic ban. Sandstein 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] "Through the manipulation of numbers (...) the impression is created that Communism is four times worse than fascism and that the Holocaust was not a uniquely evil crime

[4] Hiroaki Kuromiya. Review Article: Communism and Terror. Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression byStephane Courtois; Reflections on a Ravaged Century by Robert Conquest. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 191-201. [1]

[5] Courtois enormous body count of Communism's victims certainly sparked the ire of some of his detractors - including Nicolas Werth, a contributor of the Black Book of Communism who broke over several aspects of the introduction, including the fact that Courtois used a figure of twenty million dead at the hands of Soviets, whereas Werth's own estimate, given in his chapter of his volume, was fifteen million

[6] More concretely, (i) the source says that a person X obtained general instructions from his supervisors; (ii) to implement these instructions, X had to do some technical step; (iii) however, the source does not say this particular technical step was a part of instructions X got from supervisors.

[7] The source says about Stalin's Great Purge. It tells about one person, Berg, who was accused of inventing the gas van. Berg explained that he was acting in accordance with the orders of his supervisors, who demanded his team execute (literally, "shoot") a huge number of people. The team was incapable of doing that, so he had to build a gas van. The source uses the word "shoot", not just "execute", which means the order to execute people did come from Berg's supervisors, but creation of gas vans was Berg's own initiative. Since MVBW is proficient in Russian, they could not make this misinterpretation just by mistake.

[8] Google translates this fragment as follows: "And - I call on the Jews. Repent not for Trotsky-Kamenev-Zinoviev, they are already on the surface, they can be brushed aside: "they were not Jews!" And - to look honestly at the depth of the early Soviet oppressor apparatus - to those "invisible" like Isai Davidovich Berg, who created the famous "gas vans", which killed the Jews themselves too, and even to more inconspicuous people who were doing routine paperwork in the Soviet apparatus and never went public." In other words, Solzhenitsyn directly accused Jews, as an ethnic group, in inventing gas vans.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 646: / Line 646: @@
 :''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. -->
-*
+All right. My first instinct was to decline action as a content dispute. But some of these edits by GizzyCatBella
+appear, at first glance, very dubious. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stawiski&diff=847297861&oldid=846042386], GizzyCatBella removes an apparently reliably sourced mention of an anti-Jewish pogrom in WWII Poland. Instead, GizzyCatBella  ascribes a 1939 deportation of "ethnic Polish families" to "Jewish communists" and "Jewish militia". I'm by no means knowledgeable about the history of this place and period, but this strikes me as very surprising to say the least, and would need very good sourcing. Instead, Icewhiz appears to be correct that [https://web.archive.org/web/20140222014730/http://myinternetarchive-recovery.blogspot.ca/2011/04/polish-neighbors-and-german-invaders.html Rossino], the source cited by GizzyCatBella  (however reliable it may be - a web archive of a blog copy of a copyvio?) does not appear to mention anything of the sort. On the basis of this first assessment, I suspect that GizzyCatBella is using Wikipedia to for anti-semitic propaganda by misrepresenting sources; all in violation of any number of policies. Unless GizzyCatBella has a really good explanation for this, I can't see any other outcome but a long block and a topic ban. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 13:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards