Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:50, 30 January 2020

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	332

Notagainst

Notagainst is topic banned from all pages related to climate change, broadly construed, for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2020 (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 Notagainst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Femkemilene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBCC: Climate change

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

Examples of not trying to find consensus

Talk:Climate_crisis#Can_this_article_be_saved? Notagainst did a big rewrite of the article. Initial objections about POV were ignored and editing continued away from objections even after the discussion was started.
Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Sense_of_crisis This pattern continued: Notagainst added a subsection, and continued expanding it (e.g. 1 January) during a discussion on whether it should be removed for being off-topic/POV.
Talk:Bushfires in Australia#Significant redirection of content? Further continuation, with Notagainst performing some 35 edits after this concern was raised. After tagging them, they continued to ignore the concern about POV and added more information to the section under dispute (12 January).

Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources

19 December Inserting statement that climate change is already driving mass migration with four sources, two of which don't talk about the past/current state at all. Also falsely claiming report is from IPCC, when it's instead from IOM.
19 December Leaving out important context (worst-case scenario). Removed verification failed tag on December 29 without correcting various mistakes.
19 December Inserted five sources, none of which supported statement. Later corrected, but I think still in violation with WP:NPOV.
20 December Amended number, but source (UN) still explicitly states this number is guesswork and the report cites works that describe the number as apocalyptic.
2 January Other examples of wrongful attribution: not scientific American, but somebody published by them.

Examples of personal attacks

24 September Personal attack directed at me: "it seems you just run with the bullies."
9 September, 28 September, 6 November, 6 November Personal attack directed at group of editors "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers." and Sounds like you might be a climate crisis denier? and more.
12 January Personal attack at me: what kind of person does that?.

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

15 July 2019 notified on talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.

start of later contribution I'll respond to two of NA's points.

1. This reflects my concerns that NA isn't able yet to distinguish reliable sources from semi-reliable sources. Take the last source in the list, an article in the Foresight magazine. This article makes claims about what the UN forecasts about migration. The magazine doesn't quote the report they take this information from, but the numbers correspond to the 2009 IOM report. This UN report contains contains a literature assessment, in which they discuss these numbers. They make it clear that they have serious doubts about those numbers, so saying that the UN forecasts them is a clear mis-characterisation by the Foresight magazine, making this article, and possibly this source, unsuitable for Wikipedia.

4. Incorrect, I started formulating a request on 22 December. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Notagainst

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 Notagainst

The simple answer as to whether "wikivoice is not a principle" is that WP has a pillar called Neutrality. WP:wikivoice redirects to WP:NPOV. That page does not mention wikivoice in the list of contents. There is a section among the contents called Policies and guidelines. It contains dozens of related policies - but wikivoice is not among them. WP does not have a principle, a guideline or a pillar called wikivoice. This is not my belief. It is a fact. Notagainst (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) On her user Page, Femkemilene says she is “a PhD researcher on climate variability and change”. As such, she is required to employ academic standards of accuracy and verifiability to include material in her research. WP does not require the same level of accuracy as academic research and she and I have butted heads because she tries to impose her academic standards on Wikipedia. Other editors follow her lead. In the pursuit of accuracy, they ignore the WP principle requiring neutrality and balance.

For instance, in this discussion on the level of migration attributable to climate change, she says she “deleted two of (my) four sources because they did not support the statement…(which read: ‘Global warming is already driving mass migration in different parts of the world.’) That’s not to say they are wrong, but just that we can’t trust them at face value… Estimates of migration called primarily by environmental factors and specifically by climate change are highly controversial.” There were four citations for the statement in the article.

Migration and Climate Change, The IPCC

These are all reliable sources making somewhat different claims about how many migrants there will be. What they all agree on is that there will be millions and that these are largely attributable to climate change. But Femkemilene refuses to trust them because they don't meet her academic standards.

2) In this discussion, Femkemilene demonstrates that she deletes material she doesn't agree with or which doesn't reach her academic standards, instead of adding other material that would provide balance.

3) In this discussion on Sense of Crisis, she splits academic hairs over the difference between the effects and responses to global warming.

4) As an authority on the subject, Femkemilene seems to take personal offence at being challenged. In this discussion, I pointed out the inconsistency in her claim that she believes there is a climate crisis but that she failed to support this view in discussions on the climate crisis talk page ("what kind of person does that?"). She was clearly offended and initiated this arbitration. Notagainst (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5) RCraig claims climate crisis is just a value-laden term. And yet 11,000 scientists were happy to do so in a RS which means it meets the criteria for inclusion - but he and his 'half dozen' colleagues deleted it. They use the mythical wikivoice to ignore the principle of balance and neutrality. Notagainst (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6) In regard to seeking consensus with these editors, that's almost impossible when they consistently ignore basic WP rules about using reliable sources to achieve neutrality and balance - and kid themselves that wikivoice is a real WP principle which justifies their collective deletions.Notagainst (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RCraig09

I encountered substantial and repeated violations by Notagainst in Talk:Climate crisis, ignoring repeated civil explanations by multiple experienced editors of how Wikipedia must be WP:NEUTRAL in describing climate change and not characterize it in WP:WIKIVOICE as a "crisis". (The Climate crisis article is about the term "climate crisis".)
Notagainst's posts include:

22 Sept: "Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist."
28 Sept: "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers"
29 Sept: "Your lack of logic is simply astounding"
7 Nov: "That's nonsense."
21 Nov: "There is no discussion of the climate crisis on the global warming page" — (In fact, Global warming neutrally describes what Notagainst characterize as a crisis, and discusses the term at Global warming#Public opinion and disputes)

I concur with Femkemilene. Notagainst is a prolific, methodologically careless, and stubborn author who plays loose with facts in service of an outside agenda, and engages in incivility in the face of constructive reasoned comments by experienced editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental (21 Jan): Notagainst's comments, including fresh ones on this very AE page, demonstrate an ongoing inability to distinguish between an encyclopedia that describes a topic neutrally (global warming and climate change) versus a personal opinion characterizing the topic using a value-laden term (climate crisis). He even criticizes subject matter expert Femkemilene for taking a properly different approach with respect to that encyclopedia article versus at her university. And to this day (21 Jan 2020), Notagainst continues to dismiss the important distinction between (objective) effects of GW/CC and humans' (subjective chosen) responses to GW/CC. An editor seeing that "half a dozen or so editors" deleted his content, might step back to reassess his own actions in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. — 23:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Springee)

I had only limited interaction with Notagainst when editing the Climate Crisis page. Like RCraig09 I found they failed to listed to the concerns of others and didn't follow CIVIL in the face of pushback. I'm not surprised they ended up here. I do think they have good intent but they should learn the ropes on less political topics. Ideally I would suggest they get some mentoring as to the best ways to handle topics like those related to climate change. Absent something like that, perhaps a self imposed 1RR restriction? If this comes down to a topic ban I would suggest something like 6 months or a demonstration that they understand the issue and it won't happen again (edit: by or I mean a 6 month tban but the ability to appeal any time so it could be lifted right away). As I think they are essentially acting in good, if misguided, faith, I would suggest any editing restrictions be lifted with minimal effort if/when they can articulate an understanding of the problem. Springee (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clayoquot

@Notagainst:, I am concerned about your statements regarding the WP:Wikivoice policy. Can you acknowledge that this policy exists, and commit to following it? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot, Please provide a link to the policy section on WP where it describes wikivoice. There is a redirect to WP:NPOV. I cannot find anything anywhere which describes wikivoice as a policy. Notagainst (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notagainst:. The link you are requesting is the link I provided. I am not understanding why, after being given this link several times, you still say you can't find a description of wikivoice as a policy. The link that multiple people have given you is to a section of the Neutral Point of View policy called "Explanation of the neutral point of view". This section uses the phrase "in Wikipedia's voice" twice. Is it not clear that when people say "wikivoice" this is an abbreviation of "Wikipedia's voice" and that the Neutral Point of View policy gives guidance on what is appropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Notagainst

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

Notagainst, the editor against whom this request was filed, has not put in a statement but has since edited and was properly notified. Accordingly, I think this request should be reviewed since they have apparently decided not to provide their input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade that Notagainst needs to understand that a report at this noticeboard is not a routine matter that will go away if ignored. Naturally a volunteer is not required to do anything, but collaboration is particularly important in topics under discretionary sanctions. Perhaps Notagainst could start by responding to a couple of the items raised in the request, and I would like to hear if they still believe that "Wikivoice is not a principle" per the diff above mentioning that text. Continuing to edit in the topic area without responding may lead to a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Notagainst: Thanks for your comment about "wikivoice is not a principle". You have been editing for nine months and it would be highly desirable to ask questions about procedures rather than dictate your own interpretations. WP:WIKIVOICE points to a policy that requires editors to "Avoid stating opinions as facts...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice." Also see WP:ASSERT. If you were more familiar with other topics you would know that the community relies on the wiki voice principle in numerous discussions, and policies follow standard procedure, not the reverse. I have not yet examined the evidence or your response (apart from the wiki voice issue)—does your response above address the evidence or is it claiming problems with other editors? If the latter, please be aware that such comments are off-topic here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Notagainst: Editors posting in the #Result concerning Notagainst section of this report are administrators and a good starting point would be to assume that they are experienced and their comments should be carefully examined. For your information, with certain conditions that are satisfied in this case, any uninvolved administrator can issue a topic ban or other sanction without consultation. My posts immediately above raised certain points. Since then you made two edits here (1 + 2) to add your point 6. I also mentioned that claiming problems with other editors is off-topic here—what is wanted is a response to the evidence presented. If you think another editor should be sanctioned, start a new report on them (I would not advise that in this case). Do you want to qualify your above responses? If so, please do it very soon because this has to be closed.
  I have now looked at most of the evidence. The mass migration issue can possibly be excused as enthusiasm backed by enthusiastic sources. Some of the diffs (example) show minor battleground behavior which is not sustainable in an area under discretionary sanctions. @Notagainst: Do you want to make a commitment regarding how you comment in the future? Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am closing this with a topic ban as Notagainst is not taking advice:
  - In diff I reminded the user that all responses must be in [the user's] section, yet their next edit was to comment in another user's section.
  - I gave strong hints at User talk:Notagainst#WP:AE procedures that Notagainst should review comments here—I wanted their response to my above explanation regarding WP:WIKIVOICE but that did not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksha

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 Kmoksha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

24 Janary 2020 (8283 bytes), 25 January 2020 (5494 bytes) – excessively long posts
20 January 2020 – neither agreeing nor disagreeing with my attempt at summarisation
20 January 2020, 25 January 2020 – refusal to admit subsectioning - see also this User talk discussion
23 January 2020 – refusal to participate in DRN
17 January 2020, 23 January 2020 – Repeatedly ignoring the secondary sources that have been cited, and arguing based on PRIMARY sources or inferior secondary sources.
27 December 2019 – Asking questions and turning the answers into arguments (as in a court room cross-examination)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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 26 December 2019
Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(426 words, 2584 characters, 19 diffs of the user conduct)

This conduct is occurring at the page on Citizenship Amendment Act, a controversial piece of legislation enacted by the Indian government last month, which gave rise to country-wide protests that are still ongoing. The Press has been pretty critical of the Act, and it is hard to find any views sympathetic to the Government. Kmoksha's first edit was on 25 December, which made multiple changes with a contentious edit summary. The edit was reverted and he was told that the Government's own published material (FAQs, in this case) are not acceptable sources. He has created multiple talk page threads to discuss the issue: 27 Dec, 29 Dec, 6 Jan, none of which succeeded. He still continues to push for the government point of view through other means.

One example of this is the issue of the beneficiaries of the Act, which he raised first on 12 January using some out-of-date information from Intelligence Bureau. I asked him to look for sources by a sample google search, the very first of which explained the subtleties of the issue pretty clearly. However, there are five more mentions of "beneficiaries" on the talk page as of today, including this proposal on 23 January.

Kmoksha's second action on the mainspace was to revert my edit where I expanded a one-sentence summary of an important topic ("Relationship to NRC") to a fuller discussion. After considerable prodding, Kmoksha produced an explanation for his revert, whose long and tedious discussion manifested the majority of the problems listed above. Other than those surface issues, the discussion has been essentially one of stonewalling, diverting the attention from the content by bringing in extraneous issues, and refusal to get the point. The most blatant example of this is from yesterday. After I conceded, "I am willing to live with that in the interest of collaboration", he wrote two more posts, arguing the same old point. Even when I specifically asked, which of of the three bullet points are you responding to, his answer is "all of them"! This is a completely unhelpful attitude.

Kmoksha's long rambling posts have blocked the consensus-building process by discouraging other editors from participating. He has been told by El_C to condense his posts. He has also been told by RegentsPark that he is coming across as being tendentious. None of these had any effect. His refusal to even participate in a DRN discussion is mystifying. So at this point I have no option but to ask for him to be sanctioned from this topic.

It is ironic that the editor states here once again that "Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content", whereas I pointed out above that I had conceded. This is an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Also worth noting is the continued allegation that "there was an ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC"" when I expanded the section. There was, but it was regarding some content that the editor wanted to see added. It had nothing to do with my expansion. This kind of obfuscation and gaslighting pervade the entire discussion of the editor, making any collaboration essentially impossible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

26 January 2020

Discussion concerning Kmoksha

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 Kmoksha

Constant flip-flops of Kautilya3 are visible even in his submission here - complaining of "long posts" but where concise and proper answer was possible and given, he still complains instead of responding to it. From day1, Kautilya3, editors toeing similar lines with him are putting vague, false accusations on me while themselves violating several Wiki Policies like WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS. Real issue is content disagreement between various editors at Talk page regarding relationship of CAA law to NRC, after which false allegations increased. All this can be seen here.

False Allegations previously successfully refuted by me - with no response to my refutations by El_C etc. -

"Pushing Government viewpoint" - My response - My concern is to improve wikipedia articles. I raised Government FAQs because it was prominently covered in Indian media including by source referenced in article. Kautilya3 thanked me for raising that link and said it can be used to expand "Government response" section. My proposed critique along with Government response. proves my effort of NPOV, disproves repeated allegations of "pushing Government viewpoint".

Stonewalling, "Multiple threads" - Response1 , Response2

Response to Tendentious editing

Long posts - Response

Response to accusations regarding ignoring secondary sources, using primary sources for argument - See here Even though I have quoted Kautilya`s own referenced sources for argument, Vanamonde still falsely accuses me of using Primary sources for argument.

Improvements in article due to my efforts* -

First and second edit had useful parts like spelling corrections. My suggested sentence was added to article - see here. But edits were reverted within minutes, without trying to conserve useful parts.

Beneficiaries of the Act - Only because I pointed out inconsistency of text of accepted sources` article and wiki article, Kautilya3 changed article sources, made changes even today.

Consensus in talk page on expanding sections from article using accepted sourced link in article and modifying second sentence of lead

While there was ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC", Kautilya3 removed present text of section having word "concerns" and made it more definitive although all his referenced sources were having words not definitive like "not clear", "worries" etc. and own POV pushed for that. Other editors - YN Desai mentioned haphazard manner in which content was edited and holding addition of proposed content. Abhishekaryavart also agreed. Leaving discussion at Talk page, Kautilya3 went to DRN. I requested to continue discussion at Talk page to which DRN volunteer agreed saying other involved editors should have been invited. Coming back to Talk page discussion, Kautilya3 again moved my posts to start new discussion subthread. I wanted to have discussion in one thread since other editors had already commented in previous thread.

Despite consensus against him, Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content and making section definitive, with contradiction by his own given references. To stop POV pushing, I request uninvolved editors to ban Kautilya3, Vanamode93 from this topic.

@El_C, I have already put my statement in the assigned space in under 500 words. It is not clear what is your exact request. Besides this, this section says that this section is to be edited only by uninvolved persons. You and me are both involved in this case. But since you have pinged me, I am forced to respond here. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, You had been pinged by the involved editors and you took part in the dispute discussions. So, you are certainly involved in this dispute. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources in the CAA 2019 article which are quoting text from Primary sources when needed along with analysing them. See example - here When needed, I used similar secondary sources for argument at article Talk page since I did not find any Wiki policy prohibiting that nor did other editors show it to me even on requesting them. I sincerely tried to follow Wikipedia policies, see accepted content and links in the wiki article itself and adjust with other editors as much as possible.-- Kmoksha (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Update - Even Today, I was pinged by another editor at the Talk page and asked a question which I happily answered and also corrected format errors in that thread. See here

* Despite all my efforts which lead to improvement of Wiki article and is clearly helping other editors, I am being repeatedly blamed for "Tendentious Editing" etc. Seriously ? And no proper response was given to my refutations. To be really helpful, the specific wrong which editor is doing should be pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior should be given. That is what really works instead of just copy pasting link of a Wiki policy and vaguely accusing others.

* The accusing editor says that he had "conceded". But did he really concede ? Because after that he wrote a comment with 3 bullet points and expected a long answer from me. When I gave a concise and proper answer to that, the editor came here and started multiple accusations including "long posts" instead of replying to my clear and concise comment.-- Kmoksha (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

Sanction a PartialBlock from the article, as an AE action. One of the reasons, as to why I took the article off my watchlist. ∯WBG^converse 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abhishekaryavart

As I was pinged, I am writing here my views. Dismiss the AE request on Kmoksha. I found his posts perfectly readable and without any issues. This AE request on Kmoksha has no substance whatsover and is clearly a harassment tactic. And put a topic ban on the persons harassing. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 is putting his own words regarding what the Intelligence Bureau deposed to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, pushing his own POV and violating WP:SYNTHESIS. See - here -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand Kmoksha's talk page posts, and I've generally been unsuccessful. I think this is less a case of egregious POV-pushing, and more an inability (or unwillingness) to understand how we use sources of different kinds to construct a neutral and coherent article; for instance, an inability to see that a paragraph in a reliable secondary source that the source attributes to the government is the equivalent of a government press release, and not the same as a statement of fact made by the same source. I'm not going to recommend specific actions here, because I've gotten a little deep into this, and Kmoksha hasn't been engaging in edit-warring or similar; but their ramblings on the talk page are a genuine pain in the neck. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kmoksha

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

A topic ban from WP:ARBIPA may, indeed, be called for due to lengthy and tendentious editing. El_C 23:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be repetitive, but Kmoksha, please condense your statement in this very request. El_C 07:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksha, I was uninvolved and I remain so. El_C 07:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksha, no, that is not how it works. Also, please limit yourself to your own section for the remainder of this request. El_C 07:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editor. Too much wikilawyering ("I do not see any Wiki policy restricting a source which is just quoting the website which is what this link is doing"), not enough understanding of Wikipedia's policies,[2] and much too much lengthiness and bludgeoning (compare immediately preceding diff). @Kautilya3: the user is not obliged to participate in DRN, per your point 4, whether or not their rationale for refusing makes sense, but I agree with all your other points. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from Indian subjects, to be appealed no sooner than after six months. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Adrummond67

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 Adrummond67

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Adrummond67 (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

18:39, 29 January 2020 Adds monarch field to someone who held one of the positions of First Minister and deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. Editor was specifically pointed here to Talk:Martin McGuinness/Archive 2#Monarch/ appointed by, regarding the consensus regarding FM and dFMs not being appointed by the monarch.
18:39, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:41, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:43, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:44, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices
18:45, 29 January 2020 As above, to a different person who also held one of the offices

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Based on articles edited and the edits made, they also edited as Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:AB9C:F100:C592:536:29F4:4D2F prior to creating an account. They are a single-purpose account dedicated to adding "monarch" fields to infoboxes. They were requested here to stop edit-warring and discuss their proposed changes on the relevant talk page of the articles concerned. They ignored this and made the edits noted above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Adrummond67

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 Adrummond67

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Adrummond67

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

Volunteer Marek

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: 007Леони́д (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 30 January 2020 (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Gdansk vote as laid out in Talk:Gdańsk, Talk:Gdańsk/Vote, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). According to Gdansk vote, changes against it are treated as vandalism. Foul language showing disrespect against Wikipedia:Five pillars.

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

[3] Against Gdansk vote that says after 1308 is Danzig. Also poor writing as "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" is inconsistent with itself.
[4] u.s..
[5] Against Gdansk vote. Wrzeszcz joined to Danzig hundreds years ago, when German. Rich German history. Became Polish in World War II after Red Army took city, expelled Germans, and gave to reborn Poland. Gdansk vote says shared locations should mention the other name form in parenthesis in first time in article. Marek removed.
[6] Also removal of (Danzig) in first mention against Gdansk vote.
[7] Against Gdansk vote that tells "use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945". Also against article title Danzig rebellion. As described in vote, the city was a Germanic city then.
[8] Foul language at users.
[9] World War II denialism at different article against NPOV. Warring against other users. The Polish INR's work on World War II history was described so by professor Georges Mink in scholarly paper.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: I searched in archive, and saw many hits, but not sure what to place here.

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on June 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dear sysops, I am sorry if I formatted this wrong or am acting wrongly. I met Marek at Polish INR article, that was in the news because of the Polish boycott of the Auschwitz liberation ceremony. Polish president boycotted as speaking slots were only given to world powers that liberated Europe. Marek was hostile at me, and started accusing me of being here back in 2005 because I changed in one article a Gdańsk to Danzig. I told this to my family, and they had big chuckle as me being on Wikipedia in 2005 is impossible in so many ways. When I made this first change, I did not know Gdańsk vote. I did this change based on my intimate knowledge of the Bay of Gdańsk (Danzig) and its history, and since the sentence of "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" was inconsistent with itself.

While posting on Polish INR, Marek linked [10] to Gdansk vote. I then read the vote carefully and acted according to it in some articles. After that, he accused me on my talk page of being here back in 2005 because of the vote, when he told me about the vote!

Marek told me of Gdansk vote, that is how I learned. Talk:Gdańsk tells in force. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) tells: "likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page)". Wikipedia pages tell it is in force. I reported here because I saw this board on Marek's talk history. The Gdansk vote says edits against it are like vandalism, should I have posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?007Леони́д (007Leonid) (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [11]

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

If anyone here believes even for a second that this is genuinely a brand new account who just “happens to know” about an obscure vote from 2005 (which is no longer in force anyway having been superseded by WP:MOS) and who knows to go running to WP:AE when they get in a dispute, then I got a bridge to sell you.

This is a sock puppet of indef banned User:Icewhiz (who was very active at the IPN article) or one of his friends (also indefinitely banned users Jacob Peter or Kaiser von Europa - the three have been talking on off-wiki sites like Wikipediocracy and previously Reddit’s WikiInAction)

For the past three months, ever since Icewhiz got indef banned, Poland related articles have been inundated with literally more than a few dozen (more than 30 by my last count) of brand new, transparently sock puppet accounts, which have basically picked up right where Icewhiz left off when he was banned. The situation is freakin’ ridiculous. It’s too many for SPI, many of them have been editing from behind proxies and as soon as one gets banned, two more pop up.

The whole thing feels like a sick joke or at least a complete abdication of responsibility by people who created this mess. I think it’s time to go to ArbCom (again!) and ask them to address this situation.

The diffs here don’t violate any DS. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid was making edits based on the Gdansk vote before I said anything (for example [12]). In fact, that's why I said something. On top of that he files a perfectly formatted AE report only after a week of being on Wikipedia. There's several phrasings in his report that are typical Icewhiz-ism (believe me, I had to deal with the guy for almost three years, and then he went on a campaign of harassment against me and my family - I know). It's a freakin' sock. Just like the other 30 or 40 socks that have appeared on Poland related articles in the past two months. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone still have doubts? Ok. Here is 007Leonid making his first edit at IPN [13], barely a week into his new found Wikipedia career. It's to restore an edit by another sock [14]. At this point ShoooBeeDoo was called out for being a sock, and User:Reaper Eternal blocked him on a check user check, so I figure this is when Icewhiz figured "it's time for another sock to jump in since ShoooBeeDoo is burned". This is how ridiculous the situation is. The sock puppets have sock puppets who have little sock puppet grandchildren. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - yes!!! In 15 years here I've never seen so many socks and SPAs flood a topic area but checking the history of other contentious topics it looks like the exact same phenomenon occurred in India-Pakistan topics after that case was settled and in Palestine-Israel topics when that case was closed (interestingly, Icewhiz was involved in that topic area too though I don't know enough about it to know if there's a connection). Same thing is needed here. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also a quick note to User:Piotrus - while Icewhiz, User:Jacob Peters and User:Kaiser von Europa (all three indef banned) were indeed all discussing this stuff on Wikipediocracy (and reddit going back to March of last year) I do want to note that most other people on Wikipediocracy ridiculed or criticized them. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Francois Robere. I've asked them previously NOT to post to my talk page. The reason for this is very simple and straight forward: Francois Robere's main buddy and Wikifriend has doxxed me, made threats against me, contacted my employer and threatened to hurt my children. He has subjected me (and also several other editors) to really nasty harassment off wiki (on wiki too but that's why he's indef banned). This harassment was ongoing since at least March of 2019 although it wasn't possible to tie it directly to Icewhiz until November. All along, Francois Robere ... "collaborated" with Icewhiz on several dozen articles [15] always supporting Icewhiz and reverting on his behalf. In addition to ... "cooperating" on articles, as far as discussions go, during the ArbCom case evidence was presented [16] which showed that Francois Robere and Icewhiz had together participated in over a hundred discussions on Wikipedia and in all but one instance they strongly agreed with and supported each other. Francois Robere was also very active in the Icewhiz ArbCom case [17], supporting Icewhiz 100% and agitating on his behalf. Ever since the end of the case, as mentioned above, several dozen brand new suspicious SPA sock puppets accounts have popped up in this topic area. Francois Robere was there along with them every step of the way:

In this latest episode you have two socks (one already banned) (User:ShoooBeeDoo) and the filer of this report) which showed up to an article. When their edits and fake status as new users was challanged, Francois Robere was immediately there to defend them and revert on their behalf [18] [19] [20] (and subsequent) and [21] [22]. Of course his comments are all couched in terms of "let's discuss (the sock puppet's) content rather than pay attention to the obvious sock puppeting" but they all amount to same thing: "let my banned friend sock puppet in peace".
This isn't the only instance. FR supporting a likely Icewhiz sock AstuteRed (on an article and topic heavily edited by Icewhiz previously): [23] [24].
Francois Robere supporting the harassment of User:My very best wishes by another sockpuppet (User:Batbash, now banned) - MVBW was another of Icewhiz's targets, with help from FR - [25]
Francois Robere supporting another throw-away likely Icewhiz sock (on an article Icewhiz heavily edited) [26] [27]
Extensive support and tag teaming between Francois Robere and another brand new sock puppet looking account [28] [29] [30] [31] AGAIN making edits very similar to edits Icewhiz made prior to his ban.

This is just off the top of my head and on short notice. There's at least half a dozen more instances where suspicious looking accounts have showed up, made pretty much the same edits as Icewhiz, then after they were challanged, Francois Robere showed up to defend them and facilitate them. I should note explicitly at this point that my interaction ban with Icewhiz was specifically rescinded so I could address the issue of Icewhiz sock puppeting given the harassment that he was engaged in. That's what I'm doing here.

So to anyone with half a brain it's obvious what's going on. Before Icewhiz and Francois Robere closely "cooperated" on several dozen articles, always agreed with each other in discussions and unquestionably supported one another. Then ArbCom happened and Icewhiz got banned, while Francois Robere managed not to get sanctioned. Consequently Icewhiz began socking on mass scale and this socking was/is being enabled, protected, facilitated and coddled by his old Wiki friend, Francois Robere. Before FR tag teamed with Icewhiz. Now FR tag teams with Icewhiz socks.

Now. If somebody threatened to harm YOUR children (and I'll spare you the disgusting details) would you want to have their close buddy post little passive aggressive taunts on your talk? Hell no. How would you feel if that person followed you to several articles just to mess with you by reverting you and encouraging the socks that come for you? It's odious shameless behavior. FR needs to stay as far away from me as possible. You are who you hang out with. You are who you support. Maybe FR didn't make the threats himself but to this very moment he cheerfully supports the guy who did.

I am 100% happy to revisit this with ArbCom since it's their failure to include Francois Robere in their decisions that has led to this situation and why the topic area of Poland is STILL the freakin' mess as before - the ArbCom case didn't actually solve the problem. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(as for the t-ban violation - yes I accidentally violated it here. But how did that happen? Well.... that's actually interesting in itself. The original text about this Kurtyka guy had no mention of ANYTHING to do with WW2. In no version of the article prior to Jan 28th did the text concerning Kurtyka mentioned the Warsaw Uprising Museum [32]. The Kurtyka text was indeed under dispute (it was originally added by the other sockpuppet User:ShoooBeeDoo) but it concerned ONLY modern day Polish politics. Here is me removing that text previously - note again, nothing about Museum or WW2. So... how did the part about the Museum get in there??? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! That's right, in his edit warring, [33] 007Леони́д snuck it in. Basically 007Леони́д added a completely irrelevant tidbit ("such as the Warsaw Uprising Museum") to a sentence which otherwise had nothing to do with WW2. Why? Well, gee, maybe it's because he's not a new user and he knew damn well about the topic ban??? I mean, if you weren't convinced before that this was a sock puppet, his awareness of the topic bans pretty much gives the game away. So he added just some irrelevant text about WW2 to a piece of text under discussion so that I couldn't remove it without violating the tban or wouldn't notice (which true, I didn't, my bad, I should expect this kind of sleazy tactics by now).

And then.... Francois Robere comes running to AE to bring it up. Did I mention how FR facilitates and supports Icewhiz's sock puppets? Volunteer Marek 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(btw, I have already self reverted that edit awhile ago once I realized what 007Леони́д and Francois were up to) Volunteer Marek 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

All things considered, it's a good opportunity to get rid of another obvious sock (WP:BOOMERANG). While I don't think this is a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz (I think all of his socks got hit by a wide range VPN block a few weeks ago), I concur with VM that this is a very likely a sock of some old warrior from ye old days, probably one with neo-Nazi leanings (something for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jacob Peters or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa, good bet). What I find shocking is that such account wouldn't realize how obvious what they are doing is - but on the second thought, given the recent multitude of socks in the given topic area (post-Icewhiz ban few months ago), I guess they are just trying to bait/block shop some other editors. It's not like when this account is banned anything will change, a new one will join the fray. But if they could convince some admin to block VM, finally, what a payoff, all those years of trying, all those socks burned, would finally have a meaning. Ugh. I do not participate in the off wiki forums about wiki, but on several occasions I was sent links that do strongly confirm what VM is saying, i.e. that some banned editors are using them to exchange tips/discuss targets in their war on 'normal' editors. I wonder if this is part of such coordinated strategy? Disgusting/scary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FR, you really should know better then to support ban-baiting socks, particularly given who is likely affiliated by them and your connections to that indef-banned editor. One would expect you'd distance yourself form someone who has been indef banned for harassment and such, and not continue being their partisan. How hard is it to admit one was wrong? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

A couple of days ago VM left this vaguely threatening comment in an edit summary,[34] in response to me reminding him of WP:CIVILITY after he made some baseless accusations against me[35] (and didn't WP:DROPTHESTICK later [36]). I considered filing an ANI, but I realized admins will be completely fine with this, even if VM has a long record of this sort of abusive comments[37][38][39][40][41][42] (and don't even mind that this subject is under DS).

As for the T-ban violation[43] - he's banned from article on the history of Poland during WWII,[44] yet he removed content mentioning a WWII museum in an article that's all about WWII and Communist-era historiography. It's a clear vio of his T-ban, and not the first one[45][46][47] (nor is it the first time he violated any ban [48][49][50]).

Oh, and the TA is crawling with "socks", as evident by this comment by Reaper Eternal. In case you're wondering, the thread was opened by VM after I got the page protected to stop him and several others from "edit warring". François Robere (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above: This did not start today. VM has been attacking my integrity for almost two years,[51][52] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations.[53] None of them was ever accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with zero evidence. That's harassment par excellence, and that too not for the first time. And now he tops the cake with these rancid insinuations? For two years he's been throwing dirt in my (and everyone else he disagrees with's [54][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vo==== lunteer_Marek&oldid=816871362#WP:NPA][55][56]) direction, and now this? Please, for once, show him the door. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccunt

The ongoing obvious sockupuppeting in EE area needs to be dealt with, not only in regards to sockuppets but also in regards to sockpuppeting on behalf of infamous Icewhiz, who openly bragged about falsfying sources and his ethnic prejudices; nothing good comes from such a hateful editor being allowed to hurt Wikipedia by manipulating some many pages and sources in the name of ethnic hatred. Since I have been trying to protect some content with varied success I have too been subject to harassment and attacks to such degree that I have largely withdrawn from editing Wikipedia, despite knowing that several articles edited by Icewhiz contain false information or manipulate sources. What's the point when the crusade by another sock is being allowed to continue? In regards to FR I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour towards these who disagreed with Icewhiz and his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my withdrawal, this led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[57] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[58]. FR needs to finally stop waging this this battle on behalf of Icewhiz and let other editors edit in atmosphere of cooperation and scholarly friendship, and not in battleground one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

So many new EE SPAs lately! My first instinct would be to close this request without action and checkuser the filer. Anyway, I think the ARBEE topic area could benefit from a vigorous application of 500-30—I'd encourage participants to request the Committee to formally enact this via motion. Enough is enough. El_C 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: applying 500-30 to EE articles is an option that is available to admins right now. I suppose it would help if the Committee were to state that this ought to be done more systemically, like in ARBPIA. But one of the problem is that there are not that many active admins for that topic area (myself, for example, I'm much more active with administrative intervention at ARBPIA — a topic area, where I am more familiar). So the question of enforcement would still be an issue even with that 500-30 motion enacted. I know you suggested the Committee appoints some sort of rotating EE panel of admins —as far as I know that has never been done on Wikipedia— which I suppose is something worthy of brainstorming, though I'm not sure how practical it would be. But who knows. Ultimately, what the EE topic area needs is more admin boots on the ground. El_C 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Having 500-30 EE requests at RfPP, like we do with ARBPIA, may well be enough to turn the tide. El_C 15:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence

Having issues, obviously a long story. But here's the latest kerfluffle.

Talk:Race_and_intelligence#I_went_back_to_that_old_version

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_and_intelligence&diff=938262947&oldid=938262297

Basically article seemed to be OK. Editors came along to change it. After a while people didn't like the changes. We seeked consensus on which version should be preferred. The one before the recent changes, or the one after. People seemed to agree the older version was the better one. I made that older version live. Was reverted. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |algo = old(7d)
+|archive = Wikipedia:Arblunteer_Marek&oldid=816871362#WP:NPA][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=823254644#Civility_restrictions_-_friendly_note,_hopefully_not_to_be_taken_as_anything_but_help][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=848733531#Call_for_decorum]) direction, and now this? Please, for once, show him the door. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
-|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
+====Statement by (username)itration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
 }}
 {{TOC left|limit=2}}{{clear}}
@@ Line 390: / Line 392: @@
 Oh, and the TA is crawling with "socks", as evident by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reaper_Eternal#I_know_I_know this comment] by ''Reaper Eternal''. In case you're wondering, the thread was opened by VM after I got the page protected to stop him and several others from "edit warring". [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
-'''In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above:''' This did not start today. VM has been attacking my integrity for ''almost two years'',[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=831107513&oldid=831105713&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=832449691&oldid=832447591&diffmode=source] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Fran%C3%A7ois_Robere] None of them was ''ever'' accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with '''zero''' evidence. That's harassment par excellence, and that too not for the first time. And now he tops the cake with these rancid insinuations? For ''two years'' he's been throwing dirt in my (and everyone else he disagrees with's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=794089412#Warning:_Unsubstantiated_accusations][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=816871362#WP:NPA][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=823254644#Civility_restrictions_-_friendly_note,_hopefully_not_to_be_taken_as_anything_but_help][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=848733531#Call_for_decorum]) direction, and now this? Please, for once, show him the door. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
+'''In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above:''' This did not start today. VM has been attacking my integrity for ''almost two years'',[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=831107513&oldid=831105713&diffmode=source][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=832449691&oldid=832447591&diffmode=source] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Fran%C3%A7ois_Robere] None of them was ''ever'' accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with '''zero''' evidence. That's harassment par excellence, and that too not for the first time. And now he tops the cake with these rancid insinuations? For ''two years'' he's been throwing dirt in my (and everyone else he disagrees with's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=794089412#Warning:_Unsubstantiated_accusations][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vo====
-====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+lunteer_Marek&oldid=816871362#WP:NPA][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=823254644#Civility_restrictions_-_friendly_note,_hopefully_not_to_be_taken_as_anything_but_help][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Volunteer_Marek&oldid=848733531#Call_for_decorum]) direction, and now this? Please, for once, show him the door. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
+===Statement by MyMoloboaccunt===
+The ongoing obvious sockupuppeting in EE area needs to be dealt with, not only in regards to sockuppets but also in regards to sockpuppeting on behalf of infamous Icewhiz, who openly bragged about falsfying sources and his ethnic prejudices; nothing good comes from such a hateful editor being allowed to hurt Wikipedia by manipulating some many pages and sources in the name of ethnic hatred.
+Since I have been trying to protect some content with varied success I have too been subject to harassment and attacks to such degree that I have largely withdrawn from editing Wikipedia, despite knowing that several articles edited by Icewhiz contain false information or manipulate sources. What's the point when the crusade by another sock is being allowed to continue?
+In regards to FR I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour towards these who disagreed with Icewhiz and his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my withdrawal, this led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMyMoloboaccount&type=revision&diff=926679984&oldid=926674100] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fran%C3%A7ois_Robere&diff=prev&oldid=930927257]. FR needs to finally stop waging this this battle on behalf of Icewhiz and let other editors edit in atmosphere of cooperation and scholarly friendship, and not in battleground one.--[[User:MyMoloboaccount|MyMoloboaccount]] ([[User talk:MyMoloboaccount|talk]]) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Volunteer Marek===

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