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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Santamoly (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 :

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

1. 3 August POV edit against consensus
2. 18 August Shows the attitude
3. 18 September POV edit, against consensus
4. 19 september POV, edit-warring against consensus

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

[1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: Crimea is a territory which was annexed in 2014 by Russia. The annexation, as described in this article, is recognized by a small minority of countries and not recognized by a large majority of countries and all international organizations. There is a de-facto consensus that in articles related to all aspects in modern Crimea we mention that it is administered by Russia but is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. I am sure there was a discussion on that, I can not easily find it now, but it is sufficient to state that this has been implemented in all articles in 2014 and still stands. In particular, Crimean Bridge (Crimea) connects Crimea with mainland Russia, and the article mentions that from POV of Russia, it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international.

In February 2018, administrator Acroterion placed a DS EE notice on Santamoly's talk page adding that "As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources..." On 28 February the user was blocked by Drmies for harassment.

On 3 August, Santamoly removed info about Ukraine from the article [2]. I reverted them, citing de-facto consensus. They reverted me [3] saying the text has noting to do with the bridge, and were eventually reverted by another user. They were unhappy and went to the talk page discussion but failed to gain consensus. On 18 August, they went to my talk page and essentially said that Ukrainians are not capable of building bridges. I replied that with this attitude they should not edit articles related to Ukraine. They continued to support their view at talk pages. However, recently they edited the articles again, introducing POV edits [4], [5] and again removing mention of Ukraine [6] saying in the summary that my edits are "ideologically driven". Note that this is factually incorrect. I am here to enforce consensus, and not to introduce POV, and I am accused on a regular basis by pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, and anti-Ukrainian editors in edits advocating POV opposite to their views.

Given the behavior of Santamoly, I believe they are not able to constructively edit articles related to Ukraine and should be, well, topic-banned from editing these articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

An unlikely topic that seems to concern some editors is the matter of the "service ceiling" of an airplane [[8]]. The incorrect term was used, and many other aeronautical engineering types jumped in on the discussion [[9]], as one can see, and the discussion was EXTENSIVE. It seems that there is a political side to the topic of aircraft performance which, to me as an engineer, seems a bit over the top. I haven't edited this page for months after it appeared there were three active partisans with an agenda lurking nearby. Upon checking, I haven't edited this Talk Page since May 2018; it is now the end of September. One engineering-type editor (not I) remarked,"It appears that consensus among those same (politically-driven editors) is to keep deleting talk page comments presenting reliable data and lock the talk page." It's apparent that the Talk Page comments are being edited and manipulated to someone's outside agenda, and I haven't been there for months simply because it's too difficult to engage in this type of pointless partisan discussion.

The point I made on march 25 is,". . . we shouldn't be reluctant to discuss it in a polite and civil manner. The entire point to be made is that what is shown as the Service Ceiling ought likely to be explained as the Practical ceiling."

On March 29, I asked,"Can you please sign your comments? It keeps the discussions at a polite and civil level. Thanks!"

Shortly after, I suggested,"I feel like we're making progress on this topic. BilCat holds that we can only accept Reliable Sources in this matter, and that manufacturer's certification data is in the realm of "original research". Fair enough. So can we then focus on which sources are acceptable as Reliable Sources? After a brief search, I have found two sources offering detailed technical data on aircraft of the world, published 15 to 20 years ago, long before the Su-25/39 became politicized, and I can offer them to this group for discussion . . ."

As you can see, I was looking for some level of consensus, but the partisans didn't want this.

Although I have edited thousands of Wikipedia articles over the last 10 years, I don't have the heft to engage in active Wiki-combat with powerful admin-type partisans who are able to block me or ban me from editing. As you can see from the SukhoiSu-25 Talk Page, they continue to aggressively menace other editors, not just myself.

I can appreciate that some partisans feel an imperative to interfere with some of the details of articles that touch on their concerns, but the edits I made are simple, technical items concerning engineering topics. The Crimean Bridge (Crimea) article is about a significant engineering achievement. It's not about the political status of the adjacent territories. Those will be sorted out in the fullness of time. In this example, I worded the change of administration of Crimes from "annexation" to "accession" which is the term used in the statutory documents here:[[10]]. What's interesting to me as an editor is that the same active partisan types that appeared in the Sukhoi Su-25 page, objected to this change.

Again, I registered a mild complaint, and in turn was threatened with a lifetime ban. A bit aggressive, it appears to me. When I'm totally retired from academia, I may return to organize a bit of sensible discussion on some of these partisan details. But I'm there yet. It's a lot of work responding to emotional remarks such as the complainant's unsourced statement that "it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international". Where is the source for such an aggressive statement?

The question that stays with me, then, is,"Why this sudden urge to ban me from a couple of fringe, esoteric, topics?" I may persist for a short while in order to see if there's any consensus. I always provide sources for discussion, and request feedback. My edits are always sensible and well-sourced. Further to this question is that, below, a comment by "AGK" says,"Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing." I'm not sure what constitutes a "Pointed change to prolific articles" but I always provide sources to support my edits, so my edits can hardly be described as "disruptive". In summary, even though various political partisans may be briefly shocked by a different point of view, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is just normal academic discussion. "AGK" suggests an indefinite topic ban, but what would that look like? Any topic concerning airplanes? Or bridges? There may be 50,000 articles under each topic!

And lastly,at the end of this page, there appears to be some remarks in Hebrew, but I'm not sure what this is about and cannot comment.

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

• This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice. Sandstein 18:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with @Sandstein with respect to II (18 August).

  (A) However, I also consider tendentious editing to be evidenced by some aspects of III (18 September). Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing. Consequently, I disagree with my colleague and consider this type of edit to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions.

  (B) The repeated restoration of content as in IV (19 September) appears to be a sustained failure to seek consensus. Reference is unhelpfully made in the edit summary to the prior version being against consensus, but the relevant talk page activity is at best a spill-over of existing tensions. As normal in this type of topic, the dispute is protracted and consensus has been elusive. Editors are expected to genuinely build consensus, and tolerate The Wrong Version where needed.

  (C) Finally, I would otherwise regard I (3 August) as an unactionable content position. It is not for uninvolved administrators to make comment on those. However, when read in the context of the other conduct, the diff also begins to appear part of the same pattern of behaviour demonstrated elsewhere.

  I will pause for a short time to allow comment by the respondent (offline since this enforcement request was filed). However, given the conduct in evidence, I am minded to impose an indefinite topic ban. AGK [•] 17:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Decided: I am topic banning Santamoly from Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with AGK, especially after reading Santalmoy's response which, imo, is a classic non-response (and is, at 800+words, way too long anyway). I support an indef topic ban from Eastern European articles. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Appeal of Censorship ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

@AGK: Notifying you of this appeal in lieu of the appellant. Sandstein 07:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been "topic banned" from all topics by an involved administrator. I'm not sure that it's proper for involved admins to be securing permanent topic bans against occasional editors.

It was always my understanding that admins should not get involved in consensus-seeking discussions on talk pages, so it's indeed disappointing to find that discussions on Talk Pages should be subject to such draconian censorship by active political admins. The involved admins appear to be focused on any article related to Ukraine, even though I am not directly commenting on Ukraine.

The censorship imposed on me is not only "topic" related, but the partisan complainer has actually secured a "broadly interpreted" level of censorship. I've heard of this happening on Wikipedia, and feel in my heart that I should object to this sort of blanket censorship.

During the discussions, I emphasised that I was looking for "consensus" which seems to be manipulated by involved admins. In the discussions I note that those in favour of looking for consensus were in the majority, but I was overwhelmed by the three involved admins. The involved admins appear on any Talk Page I was editing.

I'm not sure how to proceed with an appeal against "involved admins", but I suppose I could start here. I note that my response to the notice was attacked by one of the involved admins for having too many words. Is this a serious offense in Wikipedia Appeals? Is this the quickest way of defeating an appeal (too many words)? What other errors am I making? Even though I have been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since the first days, I am new to the topic of Wikipedia political censorship, so I'd like some consideration. The involved admins seem to be very experienced at securing bans against those they disagree with, so some guidance would be appreciated.

Most of all, I'd like to clarify if an indefinite topic ban, "broadly interpreted" means a total, permanent ban from editing articles on Wikipedia since it appears that the involved admins (for example, AGK, Ahunt, Acroterion, Ymblanter) appear to be following me from one article to another. Is it likely they will always be on my various Talk Pages, "broadly interpreting" the topic ban? For instance, my specialty is aircraft engineering - does that mean I'm banned from aerodynamics discussions from all east Europe aircraft? Only ONE "east Europe" airplane has appeared in the discussions, and it's not even an "east Europe" airplane, it (Sukhoi Su-25) is a Georgian airplane, made in Georgia SSR. Can this airplane be "broadly interpreted" as being "east European"?

I'm particularly concerned that I have been topic-banned, even though I'm not involved in this discussion since early in the year (March 2018). In essence, I was staying out of the topic due to respect for Wikipedia decorum. It seems to me that the active admins are seeking out anyone who was ever involved in a discussion and requesting immediate topic bans. In other words, it looks like unwarranted political censorship.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)

Nobody's arguing over whether it's "Russian or Georgian" -it's not a valid question, I'm just uncertain of how the topic ban is applied, and that's simply an example of how I'm banned from a discussion even though the topic is not banned. I hadn't participated in the original discussion since last March which shows I was respecting Wikipedia protocols, so I'm not sure of how to respect the ban, especially if activist admins are digging through my edits from the past. Santamoly (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the aircraft, but arguing over whether it's Russian or Georgian certainly would be in the scope of the ban. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would decline the appeal. Santamoly's principal argument is that the sanctioning admin is "involved", but Santamoly does not provide any evidence in the form of diffs for this argument, which means that we have to dismiss it. Also, Santamoly does not address their own conduct that was the reason for the sanction. However, that conduct is the only thing that matters in this appeal, and a statement of appeal that does not address it cannot be taken seriously. – Any questions about how to interpret the ban are outside the scope of an appeal discussion; please direct them to the sanctioning admin. Sandstein 07:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

פֿינצטערניש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2018

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[11]

Since the ban was applied, I tried to bring to the attention of a number of other editors information that was lacking in the article on Dareen Tatour. Much of this came from the Hebrew Wikipedia, was well-sourced, and contradicted many claims in the article. Since then, none of these errors in the article have been corrected, none of this extra information has been applied, and the article continues to assert, contrary to the information I brought to the attention of other editors, that she is merely a self-published author who has only appeared on Facebook and Youtube, rather than having appeared in an English-language anthology of Palestinian writers as well as having published a print book in 2010.

What's more, when I tried to bring this new information to the attention of other editors, I was banned from editing even my talk page, as though I were the one who was harming the project. Punitive measures are one thing, but it's ridiculous to leave information out of an encyclopedia for punitive reasons.

I am not sure what to conclude from this, other than that the only purpose of this ban is to keep information out of articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of anything I might have done, the sanction is being used as a form of intellectual dishonesty; otherwise, this new information would have been discussed and added to the article. On this basis, I have to appeal the ban as unjust and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, and being used expressly to harm the project. Granted, I would be entirely satisfied if people would simply make a less intellectually dishonest article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other information that has not been added: statements in favor of Tatour by winners of the Israel Prize, protests across Israel, condemnation from a number of leading Israeli writers, academics, and intellectuals... and further information (which needs further vetting) that a professional translator gave a translation of the work of Tatour and that their testimony was dismissed as "bias," as well as literature professors testifying that Jews had not been so harshly punished for writing much more inciteful things under both Tsarist Russia and British Palestine. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this ban had anything to do with my conduct, it would not be being used to keep information out of the article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Since no one else seems willing to add relevant information to the article, and everyone else seems to want to ignore relevant information, the ban is obviously not being applied for any reason other than political censorship. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the sanctioning admin, I recommend that this appeal is declined, because the appellant does not address the reasons for the sanction and their own conduct as a result of which the sanction was imposed. Sandstein 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Declined. See closing note. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the topic ban against me editing anything to do with East Europe is clumsy and over-done. I was only one editor of many who were looking for some sort of consensus in the Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft discussion. This discussion that seems to have excited the involved administrators included the following from another editor:

It seems that the lowering of the article's service ceiling neither has consensus nor has had consensus for years. Consensus seems artificially maintained through Talk Page comment removal and (threats of) administrative sanctions for disagreement. Given this last point the numbers of those in favour of the original specs vs those in favour of the lowered specs should be seen as a lower bound for the former, since it seems reasonable that some editors won't risk getting their accounts blocked for expressing disagreement with the latter. 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH 17:

Regarding the claims of documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH-17:[70] A total of 4 editors have framed their arguments in terms of maintaining a narrative relating to MH-17, 3 of which[71][72][73] expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a government conspiracy is responsible for the original specs because of MH-17, and 1 one of which[74] expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a Su-25 plane can not fly at the altitude of MH-17, a narrative which the editor in question (not Santamoly) was apparently promoting on a different forum. The latter editor's efforts include quickly repeated edits to the article's specs[75][76][77][78][79] and requesting the page to be locked[80] (which was granted[81]). 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can see that I was not alone in trying to sort out the political interference in this highly technical article. It was clearly unfair for the activist admins to single me out for a ban as they have apparently singled out other engineers who have sought to correct the enforced errors in speed calibration. I'm appealing the topic ban because I had apparently stumbled into a long-standing dispute (and a quite reasonable dispute), and was picked off by the political-activist admins because I was an easy target. If the ban is lifted I can promise that I will never stick my nose into this particular political dispute over this airplane's Service Ceiling value, ever again. Hopefully other editors can take the heat on this article instead of just me alone. Santamoly (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the role of administrators acting within arbitration enforcement. I am not a political-activist admin, and indeed the rules are very clear that such users cannot enforce arbitration decisions. I am not following [you] from one article to another; indeed I think I had never heard of you until someone brought your conduct to this noticeboard earlier this week.

Please stop making statements like these, because it will appear to administrators like you are assuming bad faith and you shall quickly find yourself in bother. I have no desire to see that happen. Some topics are now off-limits to you; please select one of the very many others and contribute there. AGK [•] 11:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

Appeal against the topic ban of "eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

@AGK: Notifying you of this appeal in lieu of the appellant. Sandstein 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal against the topic ban imposed as it's clearly overly broad and unjustified. It seems more than a bit extreme since it appears to be "topic ban" but it's actually a permanent total ban. The advice notes under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Talk_about_yourself,_not_others are good advice except they don't mention a permanent total ban portrayed as a "topic ban", so it's a bit of a challenge to figure out how to appeal the ban. I've clearly been unsuccessful so far as my requests have been turned down twice.

The advice notes appear to advise that I should amend my offensive behaviour and carry on, but in this inatance I have offended nobody. The offense was a political offense of discussing a verboten topic (a Ukrainian airplane, I believe) against the advice of an activist admin who had been advising other editors also to stay away from the topic. Nobody was offended, and nobody was insulted. Therefore, a total edit ban is a bit extreme (the ban was against editing anything to do with "eastern Europe"). Eastern Europe is half the civilized world. Is it possible to have the "eastern Europe" topic ban mitigated to a "Sukhoi Su-25 ban"?

I'd be pleased if someone could actually point out the reason for such an extreme ban. One of the judges said my response to the ban was too long (800 words). This might be a good reason to impose an appeal ban, but a civilization-wide topic ban against me for an editing error on an airplane's performance where I was trying to get an indication of consensus seems unbelievably extreme. There was no bad behaviour that anyone has pointed out, just inadvertantly straying into a political argument that appears to have been going on for some time.

Please forgive me for persisting with this appeal, but it genuinely appears to be unfair. I sincerely apologize for exceeding the word count in my first appeal. But I'm genuinely puzzled by the reason given by judge Sandstein: "This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area [Sukhoi Su25?] because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice." In other words, I had stumbled onto a politically sensitive Talk Page. Am I correct? Or in error?

A reasonable defense against me being somewhere that I ought not to be would be a ban from editing anything about Sukhoi airplanes, not "eastern Europe, broadly interpreted".

Thanks for hearing me out. Santamoly (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When enforcement was first requested, I set out my thinking in some detail. In the evidence concerning Santamoly that was submitted, I found:

• Pointed changes made to prolific articles without obvious context
• Repeated restoration of content and failure to recognise when the time is ripe for consensus-building (not reverting)
• Battleground mentality; eg referring to other disputants by terms like "the partisans"

By way of a statement, and unless there are specific questions for me, I would simply refer colleagues back to that thinking. AGK [•] 17:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, for "politically activist admin" who follows their edits Santamoly most likely means me, because it was me who warned him that their edits are not constructive, and who submitted the enforcement request. I obviously reject this aspersion. I am sorry that Santamoly still does not understand what happened and does not see any problems with their editing, and feel that they were a victim of injustice, but this was why I filed the enforcement request in the first place, and unfortunately I do not see that anything changed in their behavior so far.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What on earth do you mean by your assertion above that "Eastern Europe is half the civilized world"? Try as I may, I am struggling to discern a non-racist meaning to this; please explain and reassure me that such was not your intention. RolandR (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think he should not be denied the right to appeal here at WP:AE but he should wait at least 6 month to appeal again --Shrike (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that Santamoly should take the advice of the admins below and to ask an admin for permission in the future if he/she wants to file an AE appeal again. JC7V-constructive zone 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of the ultimate reason for the topic ban, I'd suggest that Wikipedia is improved when there's less nationalist POV editing, rather than more. As such the topic ban seems to be in the best interests of the project. Simonm223 (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is the third appeal by Santamoly at WP:AE against the same sanction. I recommend that we keep this open a bit longer than the previous two to obtain a clear consensus of AE admins. The appeal indicates that Santamoly still does not understand what a topic ban is, why it was imposed, and how Wikipedia and WP:NPOV work in general. And I don't think teaching them all this via an appeals discussion would be workable or a good use of our time. I would decline the appeal and additionally ban Santamoly from appealing this ban in any other venue than WP:ARCA, to be enforced by blocks if necessary. Sandstein 10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sandstein. This appeal fails to show that Santamoly understands what was wrong with his editing and, again, runs counter to our policies and best practices concerning appeals. Santamoly, as I have already pointed out to you, if you want to have a sanction lifted, you have to concentrate on your own conduct; casting aspersions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith are not going to get you what you want. Describing your 'offense' as the "political offense of discussing a verboten topic" and calling the administrator who sanctioned you an activist are enough to justify declining this appeal as well without further review. Also, Eastern Europe is most definitely not "half the civilized world", you're overstating the breadth of your topic ban there. My personal advice to get the topic ban lifted would be to edit outside of that topic area for a while, showing you can follow policy and edit constructively and in a collegial fashion. In conclusion, I also support Sandstein's proposal for a ban on further appeals. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Trying to focus the appeal on an old edit instead of the ones for which the topic ban was actually imposed shows that lifting the ban at this time would not be productive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Baseless and unevidenced accusations of bias do nothing to undermine the soundness of this sanction. If anything the tone of the appeals underlines the conclusion of agenda-based editing. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline this appeal, and prohibit further appeals for a year (obviously with an exception for ARCA, but only because it would be overstepping our jurisdiction to ban an appeal there). The user is unable to see what went wrong, and has made no attempt to address it. Vanamonde (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, and based on the other appeals here, I'd recommend a ban on any further appeals (except at ARCA) for another 12 months (or at the least six months) and this should be enforced via escalating blocks. This appeal itself highlights why the sanction is necessary. I don't believe this lack of understanding is something we can address here or via discussions, the editor has to read and understand our policies and guidelines and evaluate their own behavior in context. —SpacemanSpiff 07:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, this is not a "an editing error on an airplane's performance", nor is this or this. The topic ban is appropriate. Fish+Karate 14:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

WP:ARBIPA: Indefinite topic ban from the conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed.[12]

Administrator imposing the sanction

BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[13]

I believe, the reasons provided by BU Rob13 for topic banning me are not valid and my discussion with him on his own talk page still did not bring up anything worthy of such a sanction.[14]

Below are the 2 incidents that were used for the topic ban.[15]

1. "involved in chilling SPIs that were found to be unsubstantiated, such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital.": As I already told BU Rob13, there has been no involvement in "SPIs" by me, with the exception of the Liborbital SPI, which was about more than 2 months ago, and that had ended up with CU checking for the accounts and, fwiw, I never pursued the matter any further.[16] But BU Rob13 says he "personally would not have checked"[17], however other CheckUser already checked.
2. "unnecessarily included information about the topic area .... an apparent attempt to exclude ... silence or remove the opposition"

There's some big misunderstanding here. BU Rob13 seems to feel that I included details about "India-Pakistan conflict" only for barring someone, which is simply untrue. This same thing was discussed before as well, as can be seen in the preceding thread on the talk page (e.g., see here) The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 is an intrinsic aspect of the rise and fall of India and Pakistan in terms of regional power, and it finds mention in a large number of academic and scholarly reliable sources when discussing the topic in question (e.g., see [18]); and so it is not possible to omit the details of this particular war when deciding if the said countries are a regional power or not.

The principal reason why I sought clarification from BU Rob13 in the first place was because he had himself blocked Mar4d sometime ago along with 3 other editors after they had similarly participated in a thread about NadirAli's site ban,[19] and to me Mar4d's further participation in this thread struck as a breach of the topic ban imposed on him. Mar4d had then denied violating topic ban as well,[20] after which Bu Rob13 had detailed that how it was indeed a topic ban violation.[21]

I informed about a new edit by Mar4d on Talk:Regional_power#RfC:_On_quality_of_sources to BU Rob13 and I only sought clarification[22] from him about this apparent violation (without requesting any sanction or block or warning) and BU Rob13 had agreed that "Topic bans are broadly construed, and this fits within that."[23], not to mention he told Mar4d for another time not to contribute in that RfC because of "mention of the conflict as a relevant factor in deciding the question under discussion".[24]

However, after more than 24 hours, BU Rob13 changed his own stance on the topic ban violation from a "violation" to "no violation" without indicating how this is no longer a topic ban violation or violation of the actual warning added to Mar4d's topic ban notice that "testing of the edges of the ban" will be dealt with sanctions.[25]

Similarly, I could be topic banned from WP:ARBEURO, because I included the mention and sources about "Ukraine" in my RfC and this RfC can be similarly construed as attempt to "silence or remove" editors topic banned from Eastern Europe or Ukraine under WP:ARBEURO.

I was also thinking if one should be seeking clarification about this from WP:ARCA about the scope of a topic ban violation (not limited to this area) since this is more of a general confusion that if commenting on the thread concerning the restricted subject is violation "or" only making specific mention of the restricted subject is a violation. But anyhow, this topic ban in my opinion doesn't seem justifiable given there is a lack of any evidence of any policy violation or any misconduct. If there was a problem, I believe it could be easily handled with a dialogue. Sdmarathe (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: I have removed nearly 300 words now, I shall trim further, let me know if I should or I should not.

@BU Rob13: One 2 months old SPI and one recent query about a topic ban violation does not show I am "repeatedly" trying to get other sanctioned "through various abuses of process". Sdmarathe (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sanction was the result of the same type of behavior that led to a "end of patience" mass topic ban of 10 editors in this discussion. This topic area has seen a pattern of behavior emerge where editors repeatedly try to get each other sanctioned through various abuses of process in order to remove "opponents". I believe this editor is a part of that pattern. This pattern is disruptive, and I will refer to my lengthy responses to the editor's complaints on my talk page for my explanation of why their behavior fits it. Note also that this editor came up in the previous AE discussion, but narrowly escaped a topic ban at the time. Instead, they received an interaction ban with Vanamonde93 for baselessly trying to get them sanctioned at AE. Again, the same type of behavior. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Narrowly commenting on why I went with this specific sanction without an AE thread, it's because I see this issue as having already been brought to AE, essentially. I mirrored the approach to very similar conduct at the previous AE thread because I think it's quite important to have even enforcement across the board in a topic area where editors are trying to get each other sanctioned to remove the opposition. I may not have gone with an indefinite topic ban had similar topic bans not already been handed out at AE, and I certainly wouldn't have gone with it without an AE thread if that were not the case. It's also worth noting that I already said I would be open to an appeal to me in three months. Indefinite is not infinite. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged to Sdmarathe's topic ban inquiry on BU Rob13's talk page by Mar4d, although I'm not otherwise involved since I don't really have an interest in the topic, but I am aware that defining Pakistan as a regional power has been an ongoing debate. Here is a basic timeline:

1. Mar4d (and several others) were topic banned from the India-Pakistan conflict in May this year. Although the topic ban is broadly construed, the definition is a narrow subset of topics within ARBIPA (specifically, pages related to the specific conflict). It seems to me that Pakistan's status as regional power is outside the ban's scope, as it does not concern a specific conflict between the two neighbours, but I see that this may be subject to some interpretation.
2. In July, Mar4d participated in a discussion at Talk:Regional power specifically about whether or not to include Pakistan in the list of regional powers (Talk:Regional power#Pakistan, [26]). Sdmarathe also participated in that discussion, which was mostly between the two editors. Several others also argued against Pakistan's inclusion, but none made any reference to Mar4d's participation being in violation of the topic ban, nor SheriffIsInTown, who is banned under the same sanction and also participated.
3. This week, Sdmarathe formed an RfC on a general question of source context, but it's hidden behind an off-topic reference to the 1971 India-Pakistan war. The reference has no relevance to the question, which originally was whether or not at least three sources should be required for inclusion in the list. They also listed a series of examples of countries which were mentioned in passing as regional powers, in which Pakistan was the only one actually listed on the page. It seems pretty obvious that the motivation behind the RfC is to create a list inclusion criterion by which Pakistan would be excluded from the list.

In short: Sdmarathe's new RfC, whether deliberate or not, is a discussion on whether or not to include Pakistan in the list. Adding a tangent related to the India-Pakistan war does not make the RfC about the India-Pakistan war. I also agree with Bishonen that Sdmarathe's original post on BU Rob13's talk page was not seeking clarification, it was seeking sanction; if Sdmarathe wished to request clarification they would have done so at requests for clarification, and would have asked "is this a violation?", not run to an admin and declared "this is a violation". Restarting an unresolved discussion on a controversial point and then running to an admin to get your primary opponent from the same discussion sanctioned is, to put the best possible spin on it, not ideal behaviour in a collaborative environment.

And, given Rob's explanation here, which I endorse, even if I might not have not gone to a topic ban solution without pursuing an AE discussion first, I can find no reason why the sanction should be overturned. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sdmarathe: At 980 words, your statement is well over the 500 word limit. Could you please trim it down? Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. After checking out the discussion with Mar4d and Sdmarathe on Rob's talkpage, I find it difficult to take this request in good faith. Firstly, Sdmarathe's opening post there was in toto "Hi BU Rob13. It seems that Mar4d has violated his topic ban[1] by commenting in a thread that concerns India-Pakistan conflicts", posted under the header "Topic ban vio". There is neither in spirit not actuality any sign of a question mark or doubt there, so Sdmarathe's statement above that they "only sought clarification from him about this apparent violation" [italics in original] is misleading. Further down the userpage thread, Rob first asked Mar4d to disengage from an RfC at Talk:Regional power. Then, when Mar4d protested that the RfC had nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan, from which Mar4d is topic-banned, Rob responded "I do take your point and will dig into this further". 24 hours later, having dug, Rob said "@Mar4d: After a complete review of the situation and a review of your sanction itself, I do not object to your participation in that discussion." To me, this is just how an admin should act: listen to the sanctioned/warned user, do some more research, and if new facts emerge, change your mind. I love seeing that, especially after some experiences I've had of admins doubling down, listening to nobody, and defending their original stance to the death. On this board, Sdmarathe tries to twist this exemplary, prestige-free, admin approach into an implication that Rob doesn't know his own mind and contradicts himself. Bah. Bishonen | talk 16:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• In fairness, this sanction does appear to me to be fairly heavy-handed; that said, taking into account Sdmarathe's previous conduct (see here and here) and the well-known fractiouness of the topic area, I don't think that, in this case, Rob has exceeded the margin of discretion that administrators are afforded in respect of the imposition of discretionary sanctions. For that, in my opinion, this appeal should be declined. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:36, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I probably wouldn't have imposed a topic ban in response to what looks like a non-frivolous enforcement request. But the banning user's references to the user's prior conduct in the topic area make it clear that the ban passes at least rational basis review, so I don't think it is necessary to overturn the sanction. Sandstein 18:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with declining. This area is plenty toxic enough as it is, and I don't see how this request really addresses the reason for the sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rhoark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PeterTheFourth (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

1. October 1 Trying for a 4th attempt on deleting this page with no new analysis, saying only, "no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" despite sources on the page including Nature and the New York Times. PeterTheFourth has no prior involvement with the page, or physics/physicists generally. There's no reasonable explanation for this action, except that a high-follower Twitter account today called for the deletion of the page following an argument with the page's subject. PeterTheFourth is thereby importing an offsite disagreement and using Wikipedia as a battleground.
2. August 5 August 26 2:34 August 26 5:58 Multiple restoration of BLP-challenged claims sourced only to a student newspaper. The second restoration claims restoration is supported by consensus at a point in time when no talk page discussion had even taken place.
3. August 6 Removing text close enough to the source that it might be plagiarism, along with removing the source entirely, with the edit summary, "Not supported by source used"
4. September 18 October 1 Restores deleted talk page comments that called another editor a liar; deletes a talk page comment that calls the article subject a liar with 3 citations.
5. September 26 Removing sourced facts explicitly for the reason the facts are favorable to one side of a dispute.
6. March 2 March 4 June 12 June 15 June 15 again June 25 June 27 July 1 July 3 July 8 July 18 July 19 July 28 At least 13 times removing the original English-language definition of "baizuo" from the page on baizuo. No explanation except to link WP:UNDUE despite 6 editors on the talk page finding that reason insufficient without further elaboration. Later reverts dispense with reasoning altogether, just giving variants on "Last good version" as edit summaries.
7. August 28 Responds to a request to stop wikihounding with non sequitur "This is not neutral and way too much detail"

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The issue with Motl is what prompted this filing, but PeterTheFourth is an editor I've been acquainted with for some time. I've provided additional evidence of less stale behavior that's nonetheless representative of what I came to expect from prior years, namely: opaque claims that consensus or sources support something without being willing to substantiate that, misleading edit summaries, double standards on applying policy, and general battleground attitude. An overview of his editing history shows he is exclusively active in pages related to the alt-right and gender politics, mainly whatever is trending on Twitter. This is basically his original mission as a Gamergate SPA exported into a larger sphere. There is a lot of right-wing misinformation, non-RS, and general shenanigans inserted into articles daily so it's good to have sentinels against that sort of thing. That doesn't mean a need for equal and opposite disruption, which is the nature of PeterTheFourth's campaign. Bringing the dispute about Motl on-site when there previously was none here is no isolated mistake. He edits with a battleground mentality whether or not the other side is on the field. It was simply his normal modus operandi accidentally straying across a red line. I have no specific remedies to suggest, but this at least needs the attention of the community.

@Black Kite: Peter's origins as a SPA are not in dispute, being he self-identified as such[27]. I would not characterize myself as a SPA though I have generated a large volume of text on the same subject; I have other interests. All of that is beside the point, as single-purpose accounts are not inherently an infraction. What matters in this case is that tendentious editing motivated by the single purpose is overflowing into other topics. Per the arbitrator's decision in American politics 2:

• "This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to political and/or social issues in the United States." (emphasis mine)
• "Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another."
• "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited."

So while some of the pages themselves are not obviously related to American politics on the face of them, they are being edited with a a propagandist slant related to American politics. That's rightly more concerning than wikifights happening squarely within the confines of obvious battlegrounds, and that facet significantly informed the decision to emplace discretionary sanctions.

The arbitrators may consider whether Gamergate discretionary sanctions are more apropos, since it also claims jurisdiction over gender politics. My personal assessment is that the effect is on a broader area, and that's why it's important. Rhoark (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants:I regret my high-handed manner in bringing those complaints about you to AE. Rhoark (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MjolnirPants: The issue is furtherance of outside conflicts using Wikipedia, regardless of what position one takes on those conflicts. I'm not advancing any sentiment different from your first reply to Masem re: objectivity. I think Motl's politics are terrible, and that AfDing him was a behavioral infraction. Similarly with the other incidents noted. Rhoark (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: It came to my attention via an offsite forum for Wikipedia criticism. Rhoark (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification[28]

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.

Man, that Baizuo article was annoying. I should've stepped away earlier, but I got frustrated when editors wouldn't engage with me. I totally deserve a trout for that.

I'm not going to pretend I don't have political opinions - if this makes my editing worse, I hope somebody steps in and lets me know. In the case of Luboš Motl, I'm not sure it has negatively influenced my editing. I first heard about him on Twitter very recently, and I checked out his wikipedia page. I was stunned that the dude had an article at all, as it didn't seem like he passed GNG - the most coverage of him appeared to be in the NYT article about a web-based archive which I would disagree satisfies the significant coverage part of GNG. It looks like consensus is against me due to interpretation of the more specific notability guidelines found at WP:PROF, plus some studious editors finding additional sources, like some interviews in Czech (a language I don't speak.) I wasn't blindly following instruction from some nefarious controller when I nominated it for deletion, I was just following my own boneheaded thoughts.

@MjolnirPants: I'd love to do the whole angry 'parade of grievances' with Rhoark where we fling diffs about and say mean words, but I'm not feeling it right now. Besides, he hasn't edited in 5 months - I couldn't find diffs even if I wanted to. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I won't speak to the behavioral complaints directly, but any science nerd with even a passing interest in physics should be well aware of Motl. He's been quite influential in the field, and there are lots of good sources about him. I'm sure I have absolutely no idea why anyone would nom him for deletion claiming there are no sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Hmm. I guess that explains it. I agree with your conclusions about the article, FWIW. Furthermore, I would say that the absolute best thing we can do to further the causes of social reforms (including fighting against sexism and achieving more diversity in the STEM fields) is by doing our job here with as must objectivity as possible. Any overt activism here is tantamount to the admission that the views we share are not based in reality, and any steps that appear to be overt activism will also appear to be said admission. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: My disclaimer about not discussing behavior only extended to that edit. I agree completely and I think this was a bad move on PTF's part.

That being said, Black Kite raised a serious point: This is almost certainly bearing on PTF's social views, but that's a very different subject that Post 1932 American Politics. Just because we call the large subject "socio-politics" doesn't mean it has anything to do with the actual practice of politics, it's just an acknowledgement that it's a subject that politics loves to harp on. And of course, just because this probably has something to do with PTF's social views doesn't magically make the topics under discussion politics. To say that this filing is a stretch is an understatement akin to saying that the Hindenberg suffered a little hiccup on landing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem:Oh yeah. Once again, I'm not saying that PTF was perfectly kosher here, I'm just saying that this filing looks more like it stems from an agenda than from concern for the project. See their response to Black Kite, which pretty much confirms it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: <sarcasm>Clearly only a filthy lib'ral would do such a thing.</sarcasm> Note that Rhoark has a history of abusing this forum for making socio-political points. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I'm glad to hear that. For what it's worth, I haven't seen you make a habit of it and I won't say that you have. But it still looks like a phenomenally bad idea to pursue this, especially considering that your response to Black Kite makes it quite clear that you're going after another editor due to their sociopolitical views. Establishing oneself as an editor pursuing a particular political agenda is generally a bad idea, but that's what you seem to be doing to yourself here. We all have political views, especially those of us who deny having them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhoark: I get that, and I'm not saying you're wrong about that. The flippancy of my remark to Black Kite was not a dismissal of your position, but rather a simple satire of it for the sake of humor. What I'm talking about is the way this filing reflects upon you. The way you went about it speaks to a political agenda of your own, especially given that you should have been well aware of the GG DS, yet you chose to cite the AmPol DS instead. You might be surprised to hear this, but I think you do make an effort to be neutral on WP. I've seen you make edits that go against your apparent (and sometimes, but not always obvious) POV. But this filing just screams "partisan bickering", even though there's some meat to it. Note that Peter is likely to point out some problematic edits of yours, so a boomerang or a mutual smack-down remains a possibility. If I were you, I would back out of this and offer to withdraw. If the admins think Peter's edits are bad enough, one of them will sanction Peter on their own. Right now, this has mostly been a discussion between me, you and Masem. But pretty soon here, it's going to turn into a parade of grievances. You'll want to make sure you're not stuck behind the horses when that happens.

P.S. I skimmed over your filing the first time, hence the end of my initial comment. Having read the whole filing now, I do understand why someone would do it and I agree that it demonstrates partisanship. I agree with Masem below that a reprimand is warranted. If there are further problems of the sort, sanctions should follow. Note that I too, have responded to outside calls to fix WP from partisan outlets, though I made a point of verifying that their complaint was valid, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PeterTheFourth: Oh, I'm sure you could dig up plenty of dirt on Rhoark, but I commend you for declining to do so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: Social issues are not an offshoot of Gamergate. Quite the opposite, in fact. Your argument is even more of a stretch than the applicability of AmPol DSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving myself out of uninvolved to involved, only due to past interactins with PTF on Gamergate and now commenting on behavior

• Zero comments on editor behavior here, but background here: from keeping a watch on various forums outside WP, the history of the situation on Motl starts with Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University defending his statement at a CERN conference that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation", which led Dr Jessica Wade to strongly criticize this stance, and where Motl came to defend Prof. Strumia's stance on Twitter. This led to Dr. Wade to call him out on that on Twitter, subsequently calling for deletion of Motl's WP page because she claims he wrote his own page in 2004. (Twitter thread here [29]). I don't think that if there were COI issues from creation, they remain at this point (prior to this weekend) (changes since creation).--Masem (t) 22:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: This is one concern I have in behavior. It is one thing to react to a Twitter message related to one's WP article to fix a small mistake or make a small improvement, but acting on behalf of a Twitter user to make significant changes like deletion is bordering on meatpuppetry or brigading. And this was an issue in the GG situation, even if one could argue that it was a net improvement to WP. --Masem (t) 22:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: under AP2 this is a stretch, but at least two of these - Sealioning and the Columbia U. rape controversy - fall within the GG's DS area (which includes gender-related controversies). Proud Boys might too, if one considers a mens-right group under that too (though the group appears more notable for the right-wing elements). The other diffs corroborate a certain behavior that is not desirable. Whether we can take action, I don't know. --Masem (t) 23:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: Ah, see what you mean, hence while I don't know if we can take action or not. If anything, definitely a formal reprimand to PTF not to jump on actions requested from social media on Twitter without good reason and to Rhoark to not use AE if their complaints seem driven by a POV element. --Masem (t) 01:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: hardly ludicrous to call PeterTheFourth a Gamergate SPA when their 13 first edits in Wikipedia were directly on the evidence and workshop pages in the on-going Gamergate ArbCom case. The only other topics edited by PTF, like social justice/alt-right/Jordan B. Peterson, are extensions of the same culture-warring and it's hardly surprising that the Reddit et. al. communities that were into Gamergate follow these topics too. But yes, it's pot calling the kettle black because Rhoark is the same, they both even registered in December 2014 when the controversy was at its peak. Maybe the ArbCom should have blocked editors whose only interested was to participate in the ARBGG drama.

And indeed, this is a gender-related topic, with its discretionary sanctions, as the scientist has been nominated for deletion because of his comments on gender diversity in the field of physics based on an off-wiki request, as pointed by Masem. --Pudeo (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Um, without going into the actual issues presented here, what have most of the diffs presented here got to do with WP:ARBAPDS? Genuine question, I don't see how you can present a DS as the reason for sanctioning someone when most of the diffs are about subjects not related to it at all. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's quite ludicrous that the filer calls PeterTheFourth a "Gamergate SPA" given their own contributions. [30] Now that's what you call a Gamergate SPA. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions for Rhoark: you haven't edited for 4 1/2 months, yet here you are with an AE filing, where you state that "the issue is furtherance of outside conflicts using Wikipedia" by PeterTheFourth. My question is, how did you even know about the AfD of Luboš Motl and other recent activity by PTF? Have you been attentively reading Wikipedia all this time? Or might your AE filing be another example of importing outside conflicts? Have people been contacting you off site to urge such a filing, provide you with diffs, etc? Are you a mule? I don't know, I'm asking. I don't follow Twitter or the "criticism" sites much. Bishonen | talk 11:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm not convinced that action is warranted here, at least not against PeterTheFourth. The complaint is a veritable grab-bag of diffs, most of them either stale or content disputes or both. It looks like somebody tried to throw whatever they could find at the wand in the hope that something would stick and thereby remove an opponent from content disputes. This isn't what I think what AE is here for. We are here to protect the community from serious, normally repeated and recent misconduct, and I'm not seeing that here. That's not to say that I think that all of these edits by PeterTheFourth are unproblematic. Many of them are questionable, but at least PeterTheFourth has recognized that as regards the most problematic series of diffs concerning Baizuo. Sandstein 13:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to the edit war over at Baizuo, I also find the edits made to Gibson's biography problematic; they are pretty much a textbook violation of BLP, in that contentious information concerning a living person was removed from an article on BLP grounds and Peter reinstated it repeatedly without getting consensus first. I agree that, as formulated, this complaint is unlikely to be actioned, because it seems to be an attempt at throwing basically anything at the wall to see what sticks. That said, speaking personally, I think Peter should be cautioned to be more careful when making edits concerning living people. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't object to that. Sandstein 14:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Userwoman (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/GamerGate#Final_decision:

six month topic ban from "editing articles about gender issues".

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

1. 00:36 28 September 2018 In the current context, the Brett Kavanaugh article certainly concerns a "gender issue".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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 12:59 10 August 2018 by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17:37 18 July 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't filed one of these before, so I have tried to fill everything out correctly. I saw the apparent violation by accident; I hope I am construing everything according to policy. Newimpartial (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan and Seraphimblade - my nose won't be at all out of joint if there is no enforcement action. However, the terms of the GamerGate sanctions, "any gender-related dispute or controversy" and of the topic ban "articles on gender issues" seem to me to make the edit a clear breach, even though there is nothing against policy of the edit in itself, if it had been made by an editor who was not topic-banned. If there's a salient factor I've missed, I'd appreciate knowing what it is. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

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.

While I see your point, I think this is more of a political edit than a gender one. There would have been edits that violated the sanction, but I don't think this was one of them. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Even with the broadest interpretation of "broadly construed", the material cited in the diff contained absolutely no material related to gender. I don't see this request to have any merit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newimpartial, for clarity on why I don't see it as a violation, the Kavanaugh article certainly has parts of it that would be forbidden to edit under a topic ban from gender related subjects, but this particular edit didn't touch those parts of the article. Userwoman is, of course, expected to stay away from those parts of the article that do involve gender-related controversies, but that doesn't render the whole thing off limits. The paragraph Userwoman edited only covered Kavanaugh's approval rating, and didn't mention or even hint at any issue of gender. I might somewhat question the wisdom of stepping so close to the line, but in this case at least, that line was not actually crossed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is not actionable for the reasons explained above. Sandstein 07:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that the cited diff is not a violation of the topic ban. Bishonen | talk 10:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA :

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

1. [31] Stalking or conspiring.
2. [32] and [33] Disruptive addition.
3. [34] and [35] Disruptive removal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [36] Shows many ban and restrictions.
2. [37] He has been the subject of complaints here many times.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nableezy had never before edited the Birthright Israel article, and came there only after he saw my revert from 10 minutes earlier, after he had at that same minute replied to a comment of mine on Talk:Palestinian right of return. This proves he decided to stalk me and "check" if I had made any other edits or comments he doesn't like.

The addition and removal are disruptive because they are major edits (the size of at least a whole paragraph), made whilst willfully ignoring the fact that the discussion on the talkpage showed that there is no consensus for them, with Nableezy simply forcefully imposing what he thinks is the right thing to do. That type of behavior in the sensitive area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inflammatory, as it causes edit wars, and is generally disruptive and most certainly not in the spirit of community editing. Even though these things are evident, I refer to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Principles for additional stress in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

@Nableezy If I am wrong about the stalking, I apologize. I was definitely under the impression that that is what happened. @Sandstein How is an editor pushing his opinion against apparent lack of consensus a "content issue"[?] and not[?] a behavioral problem? If it were a content issue, it wouldn't be grounds for blocking editors if they edit warred.

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.

I had indeed never edited Birthright Israel, but I had it in my watchlist as evidenced by my previously having informed Debresser of a 1RR violation there (here). The quotation marks around "security reasons" appears in the source, and not using the quotations makes Wikipedia accept as fact what the source does not. If anything, this edit by Debresser is disruptive in that it distorts the source claiming it accepts as fact what it does not. As far as the edit being a "disruptive addition", I dont see how thats possible. On that talk page section about this, both editors who had removed the material when only sourced to JVP seem to acknowledge with the additional Times of Israel and Haaretz source that the sourcing is no longer deficient. As far as the Palestinian right of return edit I removed material of dubious relevance and importance, and in the very next edit added the one bit from that section that I thought important (here). I am unsure how that qualifies as disruptive in any way shape or form. Finally, ARBPIA is not a sanction or a remedy. So what exactly am I accused of violating here anyway? nableezy - 17:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the edits highlighted by Debresser are well within the rules and in my opinion are good edits.

In the complaint, we see Debresser claiming it is a violation to edit in conformity to the source (by not stating in Wikipedia's voice something that the source does not claim in its own voice). Apparently, Debresser thinks that misrepresenting a source is his right. Debresser also believes he has a right to remove tags he doesn't like whenever he likes, even when there is ongoing discussion. His attitude to tag guidelines is shown by this edit that claims "Tags may be removed, if they are not justified. See WP:WTRMT#3" while ignoring that the exact same guideline says "if the issue appears contentious, seek consensus on the talk page" and there is an ongoing talk page debate.

To see what Debresser considers to be a good edit when he is the performer, we can look at this massive revert of his, which all at once

• Reinstated a clear SYNTH violation "even though the resolution was rejected at the time by Arab League members of the United Nations" (no source).
• Restored some journalist's opinion as a source for "Israel has always contested.." when the journalist doesn't even make that claim.
• Restored a dead link in place of a corrected link to the same document (definite vandalism).
• Restored Myths and Facts (a notorious propaganda publication).
• Restored the weasel words "foreign press, and officials present at the time" as if these unqualified classes of people in general support the claim being made, when they don't.
• Restored fringe claims cited to a NYT article that doesn't even contain them.
• Deleted a perfectly reasonable clarification tag on text that doesn't make sense (a clear violation of tag protocol).
• Restored a link to a copyvio on a student assignment page (more clear vandalism as well as a copyright violation; note that the nature of that source had been discussed on the talk page)
• Reinstated ungrammatical "Fordham University School of Law Law School" (definite vandalism)
• Restored a blog by a self-described "techie and a news junkie".

יניב הורון was topic-banned for (amongst other sins) immediately repeating this huge revert when it was undone. I don't see why Debresser deserves better. Zero^talk 09:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see nothing actionable here, don’t think that the allegations of stalking are anywhere near substantiated, and can’t believe that we’re actually having an AE based on a dispute over quotation marks. I would recommend closing with no action. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. I get that this is a very fraught topic area, but this just isn't anything significant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Just looking at another editor's edit history isn't wrongdoing; they're public for a reason. The rest looks to be a standard content dispute, which should be resolved via the normal methods. I don't see any grounds for a sanction here, and indeed would say that the request is on the verge of frivolous. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The request is meritless. We should consider sanctioning Debresser for trying to use AE to further their position in what are clearly normal content disputes. Sandstein 07:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ContentEditman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Augurar (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

1. [39] Reverting a removal of contested content discussed on talk page.
2. [40] 2nd Revert in single 24hr period.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [41] Not the first time he has edited in such manner and was warned previously as well.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#3rr_warning_and_MOS_alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I Pinged him on Brett Kavanaugh talk page and even gave him a heads up on his own talk page and time to self revert. 

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert

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.

• I have reverted my own contested edit, although I do not believe it violates the 1RR. I am composing some further remarks on this topic and will comment again shortly. Augurar (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Other considerations aside, as far as I can tell, Augurar was last made aware of the sanctions in the American Politics area in July of 2017. Application of discretionary sanctions requires awareness no longer than twelve months ago. I will caution Augurar that while it seems they might get off on a technicality this time, as it were, 1RR is placed on articles for a reason, and violations of it are taken seriously. And of course since this request has been filed here, Augurar is now aware for the purpose of discretionary sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Orientls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mar4d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

"You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to it between India and Pakistan, broadly construed."

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

I first asked Arbcom on WP:ARCA if editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts should edit Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as a regional power. Arbcom mainly said that I should instead file AE,[42] There was also some discussion with BU Rob13 on his talk page after ARCA, and he also said that I should use AE for soliciting community opinion.

In my humble opinion, I would hope that admins here won't consider this report as request for seeking sanctions, but more about identifying if this is a topic ban violation.

I think that this is a topic ban violation, when editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts edit this article by focusing on India or Pakistan since status of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source. Also see [43].

Keeping the above explanations in mind, I believe that these edits probably violate the topic ban:-

1. 28 September: Commenting on an RfC to defend status of Pakistan.
2. 6 October: same as above, though this time it was more clear.
3. 6 October: same as above.
4. 6 October: same as above.
5. 6 October: same as above.
6. 6 October: Same as above, but violation is clearer here. Mar4d makes detailed response to a comment that includes "Given Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 deeply affected Pakistan and India became a regional power following the victory in 1971 war".[44] In this diff, Mar4d further attempts to misrepresent chapter of "That source" by commenting on what the source "conclusively says", however the source itself makes multiple mentions of India-Pakistan conflicts in that same chapter.[45][46] It is not possible to decide what the source "conclusively says" without counting those mentions.

While I am sure that Mar4d (or someone else) would dispute this topic ban violation and say that there was no direct of mention of India-Pakistan conflict, I believe that it really changes nothing since these edits still impact the Wikipedia's coverage of India-Pakistan conflict as much as edits from those who are mentioning India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark: I read your comment here and the discussion on your talk page. You should note that Mar4d's last block was also over a topic ban violation where he had never mentioned India-Pakistan conflict but he was discussing an editor banned from the same subject.[47] On Regional power he is defending status of Pakistan which is tied to India-Pakistan conflict. I believe that activity on Regional power is more clearer when it comes to topic ban violation. He is also replying the comments that are discussing "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971".[48] I don't see how that doesn't violate the topic ban that is "broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Broadly construed). Even if Pakistan is the only thing being discussed, still it doesn't change that the country's structure and balance of regional power is tied to India-Pakistan conflict.[49] GoldenRing is not available for months, maybe Seraphimblade should share his opinion since he also drafted this sanction that included warning for "disruption or testing of the edges of the ban".[50] Orientls (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Block from August 2018 for violating this topic ban.[51]

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

[52]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

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.

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

• While close to the edge, I don't see this as a violation of the topic ban. I looked at all the diffs provided by Orientls, and Mar4d has very carefully avoided any mention of India vs. Pakistan in their responses. Frankly, articles such as regional power should not exist. They serve mostly as vanity articles because, almost by definition, you'd probably find a supporting reference for half the countries in the world. But, (sighs), this is the wikipedia we live with.--regentspark (comment) 14:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above. Sandstein 11:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions :

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

• Personal attack on a content noticeboard, this totally unncessary attack needlessly personalizes a dispute and disrupts the DR process by decreasing the likelihood that outside parties will get involved as they tend to avoid overtly hostile environments, which Debresser routinely creates through his personal attacks
• personal attack on an article talk page, yes not on a page in ARBPIA, but when doubling down clearly references an ARBPIA dispute ("anti-Israel propaganda spewing Lebanese professor")
• source distortion, POV pushing, same edit that resulted in the topic-ban of יניב הורון here
• personal attack on a talk page continues to ignore the entire point of NPOV, comment on content not on the contributor. Totally unprovoked and without basis.
• source distortion the cited source clearly includes quotes around "security reasons", removing it makes it so Wikipedia claims the source accepts that reasoning as fact when it very much does
• edit-warring against consensus: The talk page section shows three users, from generally opposing viewpoints, agreeing the material should be trimmed, yet Debresser continues to violate WP:ONUS, including straight up making up what it says (falsely claiming it only applies to new content) and restore contested material without consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Topic banned for 2 months for personalising disputes, personal attacks and battleground behaviour

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 07:57, 17 July 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 October 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Having previously been cautioned regarding civility, and having been topic banned for the exact offense of personilizing disputes and making attacks, and having repeatedly made unfounded AE complaints regarding others supposed incivility, Debresser continues to make outright personal attacks and uncivil claims in forums where they are wholly inappropriate. By Debresser's own standards he should be banned from the topic area as a toxic presence who repeatedly lowers the level of civility by making uncalled for personal attacks on other editors.

@Sandstein:, this was very much not a throw everything up against the wall request. You wrote here in a request filed by this user that calling him "POV warrior[...] indifferent to source control, the proper application of policy [...] and whose purpose in numerous edits is to cleanse pages of anything that might trouble a nationalistic POV" was grounds for a topic ban. In the above set of diffs Debresser has called Zero0000 a hypocrite, a living person anti-Israel propaganda spewing, me an an aggressive and pushy editor, who wants to use this noticeboard to get his way for having the audacity to take a NPOV dispute to the NPOV noticeboard, and on an article talk page accuses me of an anti-Israeli POV, an attack I take great issue with. Debresser was previously warned, indeed topic-banned, for precisely this behavior, for personalizing disputes and battleground behavior, and he has continued unabated since returning. nableezy - 16:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

1. Saying that an editor is a pushy editor is first of all not a personal attack, rather a remark regarding that editor's editing pattern, which is allowed. Which is why I was careful not to say "Nableezy is pushy", but "Nableezy is a pushy editor". This fact is unfortunately very true, to the detriment of this project, and was the issue of my recent post here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy. The fact that is was ruled not actionable, does not make it less true or less disruptive. In addition, this fact was relevant to the discussion, as I stated there explicitly.
2. The second comment was indeed, as I said in the edit commentary a "sharp reply", in face of User:Zero0000 applying a double standard. Do I really need to explain that applying a double standard is bad editing? That comment was therefore also to the point.
3. Content dispute, which was in the end resolved amiably on the talkpage. Not nice to "wave your fist after the fight". Also, my revert was a result of the aforementioned behavioral issue of Nableezy, that he insists on repeating major deletions or additions in spite of the fact that he is aware of editors who disagree with him and in disregard of ongoing discussion on the talkpage. Per WP:BOOMERANG this should go back to Nableezy.
4. Saying that somebody has a POV, which is well-known for years now, is not a personal attack. Especially when it is done for the right (=relevant) reasons, like in this case. If an editor doesn't like to be accused of having a POV, perhaps they should try to edit more conscientiously and be less pushy in their edits...
5. "Source distortion". Please... I explained this edit upon various occasions: 1. not a direct quote, so why insist on using the very same words and punctuation as the source? 2. Per WP:PARAPHRASE.
6. Content dispute, as ruled in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy above. In addition, as you can read in the edit summary and on the talkpage discussion, there is good reason for this revert: "I agree this should be trimmed, but the resulting paragraph as proposed can not be understood. Restore understandable version till such time as a better one is draw up."

In general, I can't deny that I have a suspicion this was posted in revenge for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy above, and that should definitely backfire to Nableezy.

@Nableezy "Debresser was previously warned, indeed topic-banned, for precisely this behavior, for personalizing disputes and battleground behavior, and he has continued unabated since returning." The same can be said about you! And in my report above I did precisely that. The only difference between the two of us is, that I try to make good edits, firmly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, explaining them as I go, while you have stated many times over the last few days, that you couldn't care less about other editors' opinions. And your language reflects your contempt for other editors and the consensus process laying at the basis of this project in general. See the evidence collected by the other editors commenting here. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Debresser's assertions on Nableezy's editing practices, please see the following evidence from the last few days with Nableezy's comments:

1. 19:40, 9 October 2018 " as you dishonestly claim here ... I really dont know why you insist on distorting these thing.
2. 21:06, 9 October 2018 Please yourself, kindly stop disrupting the purpose of the board. ..... you are again making deliberately false statements. Please stop.
3. 21:17, 9 October 2018 You have made outright false statements (this is an op-ed) and bogus arguments. I am here seeking other outside opinions. Is there some reason you are incapable of allowing that to happen without turning every attempt at dispute resolution into a mind-numbing clusterfuck that no sane person would come near? I am asking one specific question here, is this article a reliable source for this statement. As is the exact purpose of this board. If you would stop being disruptive and allow anybody else to speak on that issue that would be wonderful.
4. 16:55, 9 October 2018 You dislike what they based that off of, but that does not matter..
5. 16:46, 9 October 2018 - It is obscene for you to claim I have made a personal attack while personally attacking me. You are misleading people in both venues and continue to do so here.
6. 18:04, 9 October 2018 - Get off it, you know full well that EM Gregory is not an uninvolved editor in the topic area. You all are attempting to censor things ... It is an obscene abuse of process to claim a BLP violation when those are the sources used.

All this while edit warring in - 15:12, 9 October 2018, 23:36, 3 October 2018, 15:11, 9 October 2018 - content that has been disputed on BLP grounds, with an open RfC, and an interim editor consensus at BLP/n that either rejects inclusion or is no consensus - BLP content sourced to a description of a documentary that Al Jazeera decided not to publish, and segments of which were leaked (causing coverage of the leak and AJ's choice not to publish this).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a short one, but Special:Diff/862197737 by Nableezy comes across as a very unsavoury approach. There's no attempt at compromise, and it comes across as GAMEey. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was summoned by RfC bot to the discussion cited above by Icewhiz, and in some years as an editor I have rarely seen such tendentious editing behavior, and not by Debresser. I'm the target of the incivility cited by Icewhiz above. I have no idea who Debresser is and I don't generally edit in this subject area. But I do know that the user who commenced this case is threatening to bring an RfC at Talk:Canary_Mission [54] having failed to "win" on the identical issue in an RfC at Talk:Adam Milstein [55] that's been grinding along for a month, and two noticeboard discussions, both commenced by Nableezy [56][57], that are now winding down without consensus. All three repetitive discussions concern whether to add contentious, disputed material concerning Milstein. Rather than kick the can down the road I strongly recommend a boomerang. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To me this seems like it shoul be a tit for tat filing and that's something we don't need in this area.

I didnt want to participate in previous discussion regarding the report against Nableezy, but it was clear that many of his comments and reverts went beyond the borders of objectiveness. Unwillingness to reach consensus combined with strong POV and tit for tat attacks could be very problematic in sensitive areas. I also had a lot of disagreements with Debresser, especially few years ago when I was more active here. In overall conclusion I support WP:BOOMERANG in this case.Tritomex (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is another frustrating "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" report. While it is in fact often helpful to report several diffs to establish a pattern of conduct, I don't really have the time to filter through this potpourri of content disputes and (indeed) questionable ad hominem comments to determine which if any are actionable. I'd close this request without action, without prejudice to one that is clearly focused on problematic user conduct rather than content disputes (which I think the "source distortion" / "editing against consensus" issues are). Sandstein 11:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I sympathise with Sandstein's desire for clarity. In some instances I see disruptive or unacceptable conduct in some form. For instance, I (18:01, 6 October 2018) to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard was an unhelpful personal attack that unhelpfully increased tension among the editors who frequent this topic area. This pattern was perhaps evident in one or two other examples. However, this request is something of a guided tour through a topic area we already know is problematic. The request is not a focussed submission of evidence. I do not see much that plainly requires action, and would accordingly dismiss this complaint. AGK ■ 20:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ContentEditman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Markbassett (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

1. [58] Removes part that was discussed, and I thought settled, on Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination and Brett Kavanaugh
2. [59] Adds it back to a section it was removed from effectivley Revetting a prevuious edit he was not happy with and did not have support for on talk pages.
3. [60] Reverts it again without consensus after being made aware.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [61]
2. [62]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABrett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination&type=revision&diff=863318467&oldid=863316421

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Markbassett was aware and knew this was discussed before on 2 talk pages, yet he did multiple reverts/edits. He is also more than aware of the sanctions for these pages, esp right now with it in the news. I made him aware he was in violation of these on his talk page and the articles talk page. I also made sure he knew he needed to self revert or could be banned. Instead he just argumentatively posted again he is not in obvious violation after being notified and given more than enough time to self revert.

• • • I now see that the notice on the articles is not conforming to 1rr rules and someone must have a notice on their talk page before. I apologize for that as I thought the notice on the article was the warning as it pops up, at least it seemed obvious to me. I now know how to make the notice template so I will use that first from now on. ContentEditman (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert

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.

Bringing it to this level over placement of the exact same words at spot A vs B seems making a mountain out of a molehill. I think I'll mention I started a TALK for resolving this, and suggest we just let that run a bit in case the concern becomes moot.

User:Galobtter posted this article is not subject to 1RR in TALK a 12:57 10 October, and User:ContentEditman repeated the 00:27, 10 October revert on 16:50 10 October, so it is back to the lower position and in TALK.

Otherwise I'll point to what I previously put to his TALK page "- Thank you for your mention of the 1RR limit, and I felt I should offer you the same caution, though both of us have only done one revert here so are not actually in violation. Particularly note you have a history of prior reverts of various editors, prior 1RR claims (that may be taken as WP:THREATEN), and incorrectly claimed consensus before (which may be taken as WP:DISRUPT disruptive editing). How about lets just see what others say about where it goes and let them decide. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I will also offer from todays article TALK "I'm not aware of a previous TALK similar to this other than the 29 September Worst polling ever sentence of User:Obsidri, from you reverting it back into lead and issues of editing into LEAD without article content, plus side-noted it as having issues of factually incorrect and poor cite, and then question of WEIGHT. I agreed and snipped it out of lead and you then reverted it back in on 30 September, Obsidri removed it again and you then put it down lower. I only noticed it this week as looking misplaced and shifted it up a section without alteration. I'd tend to regard the earlier one as a LEAD or Delete discussion, but can see if you view it as an ongoing where-does-thisgo discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I do regret undoing his first 10 October revert, revert of revert was a bit bad of me. I will offer mitigating circumstance that I did initiate TALK after and that I was somewhat provoked by overly aggressive editing plus repeated posturing that his easy undo must be left and claims that his edits have consensus. I will continue the TALK over placement for a bit, but this all seems like a bit of excessive effort for small potatoes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• (1) Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination doesn't appear to be under 1RR. (2) Only one revert anyway (the first two edits were merely moving part of the article from one section to another). (3) The first "diff of relevant sanctions" was a short 3RR block in 2014 about a completely different subject, and the second "diff of relevant sanctions" is actually Markbassett getting caught in a rangeblock - looks like he was using a free wifi connection - and he was handed IBPE straight away. Please don't waste our time here. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Black Kite and would further comment that, in any event, we might take a more sympathetic view of 1RR on rapidly unfolding articles about current news events. The amount such articles need to change in just a few moments is often comparable to the growth expected in other articles over a number of weeks or months. Much of this scarcely matters because I see no disruptive conduct and the request is procedurally meritless. AGK ■ 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• ContentEditman has already recently made one request for which sanctions were not possible, as the editor in question was not made aware of them. At the least, I think a warning to ContentEditman is in order that repeatedly filing meritless AE requests is itself grounds for sanction, and to be certain that discretionary sanctions are applicable and merited before filing any future ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I was about to close this thread, but I think we should do something about ContentEditman's conduct. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:47, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree, and have accordingly formally warned ContentEditman. AGK ■ 18:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wickey (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_Prohibition :

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

1. 12 October 2018 Participating in ARBPIA conflict in noticeboard while only exception is talk page particiaption
2. 9 October 2018 Turning this article to I/P conflict article while writing on "Zionist propaganda" and "pro-Israel attitude" and writing about Gaza Conflict
3. 6 -9 October Creating the article about anti-Zionist newspaper
4. 4 October 2018 Editing article about Anti-Zionism

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• n/a

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 July 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• The user has less then 500 edits so he cannot edit I/P articles but its not main problem with this account.And he is well aware of the restriction see his edit summary in this [63]
• This account have the similar name and what most important he have similar POV with topic banned[64] Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).He ignored my question if he is the same account [65].
• I find comment by AGK are not consistent with ARBCOM decision the only requirement to enforce the sanction it so to be aware of it.The user obligation is to read the decision if he want to edit such contagious topic.--Shrike (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [66]
• I find view of AGK not consistent with part AE discussions.
• @AGK: He was notified specifically [67].:Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC).
• @Sandstein: What about calling other editors a " pack of mad dogs" in his response bellow?--Shrike (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is a bad faith action for which requester should get a firm warning. I am not aware of any misdoing. I found the Noticeboard while looking who is the guy who is hounding me since 15 July 2018, without some clear explanation.

As you can see, I have mainly been editing in the area of history, including Zionism. You may check the nature of them. In such an absurd broad interpretation you should also include all articles about Israel, Palestine, Judaism, Islam, Arabs, Arab countries en US and many history articles to censor.

User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs.Wickey (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I too have suspicions regarding wicky-nl. I alerted the user to the existence and applicability of the 500/30 restriction to their edits. See diff on their talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the rather bizarre hounding claim above, I interacted with Wickey on a single article as may be seen in the editor interaction tool (2 boards, 1 article he edited a year after I touched it, and 1 article with interaction). I will note that content related to the 2014 Gaza conflict, which Wickey edited, is very clearly ARBPIA. An editor that views his fellow editors as "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." - should not be editing the topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction is patchily notified to users, and I find sufficient doubt in this case that Wickey was aware of it. (A) The complainant says Wickey was "well aware of the restriction" per this edit, but that falls after all the other diffs cited here. (B) Wickey was previously alerted to ARBPIA's standard discretionary sanctions, but this alert is for an entirely separate remedy to the one being enforced here. (C) Finally, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the other articles submitted as being edited by Wickey in breach of the 30/500 general restriction are, as far as I can tell, lacking any edit notice or other notice that this general restriction applies.

  I am unwilling to enforce the expectation that editors ought to understand the 30/500 restriction without a notice being clearly delivered to them to that effect. That notice can be delivered by an eye-catching page notice, a clear notice sent to their user talk page, etc. I do not find that delivery took place here, and accordingly I would dismiss this complaint on the condition that someone make Wickey expressly aware of the 30/500 General Prohibition. AGK ■ 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shrike: I noticed that too, but I do not consider the sentence appended to the discretionary sanctions alert to have clearly enough made Wickey aware of the second restriction (the 30/500). It read like a helpful postscript, and was some months prior to these edits. What new editor would know what WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED or WP:ARBPIAINTRO meant? I am not splitting hairs here. We write standardised, eye-catching alert templates for a reason – they unambigiously communicate a message to the recipient, in plain English that new users can parse. I do not think you can formally warn a new user about one remedy, throw in a single line at the end to an entirely different remedy, and be assured that the user has understood both the very different things that you are telling them not to do. My view took that diff into account and remains unchanged. AGK ■ 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction does not necessarily need notification, but in my view the more important issue is whether Wickey is an alternate account of Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used to evade scrutiny or sanctions. Based on username and behavior, I believe this to be likely. Both accounts are focused on related topic areas (the I-P conflict for Wickey-nl, Judaism / Zionism for Wickey), edit with the same POV (anti-Israel) and are not native English speakers. If other admins concur with this assessment, I'll consider a non-AE indef-block of the Wickey account for ban evasion. Sandstein 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking only to the issue of socking and not the merits of this case, I see two accounts with only a handful of edits in the same time period, and no overlap within those articles. That doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the block log [68] of the (alleged) first account. If these are the same people, then notification is moot as they would have plenty of experience to know about 500/30 and about sanctions, seeing they have been sanctioned twice in this area of editing. Looking at the edits of these two accounts, my opinion is that it is very likely they are the same person, and the second account was created before the block, but used to bypass the block. That they avoided the topic area for the 3 month duration of the block is meaningless. At a minimum, an indefinite TBAN of the entire ARBPIA topic area is due and justified for bypassing and ignoring the restrictions previously. Even though the socking started a long time ago, it would seem reasonable to consider action there as well, as a non-AE action, per Sandstein, to include some kind of block to the original account as well. As the previous block was 3 months and was socked around, that seems to be the minimum to consider here now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein and Dennis Brown: Wearing my WP:SPI hat, the technical connection is  Stale but, in terms of behavioural evidence, I am not convinced the accounts are related. AGK ■ 17:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If other admins aren't convinced that this is a case of socking and ban evasion, then I'd close this with a warning to obey the 30/500 restriction. Sandstein 11:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is obviously the same editor as User:Wickey-nl; nl is an abbreviation for Netherlands, and they are active on the Dutch Wikpedia as Wickey. There is clear crossover between the current Wickey accounts on both en.wiki and nl.wiki (for instance, both editing the Gertrude Bell articles in mid-August [69][70]). Wickey on nl.wiki and Wickey-nl on en.wiki also have clear crossovers; both were both created in early 2008 and both accounts were writing about Chinese radical characters at the same time (Dutch wiki, 23 March 2008, English wiki, 24 March 2008).

Given that they've lied above about the accounts being linked and they were clearly aware of the topic restrictions, this should either be an indef block or an indef topic ban. Number 57 14:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional research, which is conclusive in my view. As the admin who topic-banned the original Wickey-nl account, I feel responsible for taking this one up. Wickey is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action for socking to evade their topic ban. Wickey-nl is blocked for six months as an AE action for the same. Sandstein 15:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3 :

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

1. [71] Undid an ARBPIA-related edit after 9 minutes instead of waiting at least 24 hours. Straightforward ARBPIA3 violation.
2. [72] Edit against consensus, or at least with clear lack of consensus, per Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jewish_Voice_for_Peace
3. [73] Another revert the edit history shows goes against consensus, or at least a clear lack of consensus.

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

• Three weeks old WP:ARBPIA alert template
• Five minute old detailed reminder

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have noticed that this editor is prone to edit warring in other areas as well: June 2016 notification of my report on WP:3RR.

In addition I find it especially worrying that he should violate the restriction just five minutes after I wrote him a nice and detailed paragraph about it on his talkpage.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

This report is totally meritless, users portraying the Jewish Voice for Peace as pro palestinian are to blame for those edits - our own page doesn't do that. Not long ago, just above here in a recent report Sandstein said, We should consider sanctioning Debresser for trying to use AE to further their position in what are clearly normal content disputes.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JVP is described in the source supporting the content as The controversial pro-Palestinian advocacy group Jewish Voice For Peace has launched a campaign to ... [74]. Nor is JVP shy of this stance - it is stated rather clearly on their website. There was significant editor support for the label (3 v 1) at [75].Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Govindaharihari: there's clearly an I/P 1RR violation here (re-revert 9 minutes after reversion, not 24 hours). So the report isn't meritless. The whole reason we have that restriction is to prevent edit warring and move content disputes to the talk page. While I personally consider that section to be a bit confusing, which may factor into a final decision, the report of a 1RR violation certainly isn't frivolous. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: The reverts 3 minutes apart that you indicate, namely this one at 17:03 and this one at 17:06, are consecutive edits without intervening edits by another user. Therefore they do not count as two separate reverts by our usual rules for counting reverts. Zero^talk 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this revert broke the "original author" rule according to one of the common interpretations of that rule. According to another common interpretation of that rule, VanEman didn't break it because he/she was not the original author (the same text having been in and out before due to other editors). Which interpretation is correct, I have no idea. However, I do have an idea about one thing: the usual penalty for an editor with a clean record who breaks a revert rule for the first time is something like 24 or 48 hours. It seems to me grossly excessive to consider a 1 year ban. Zero^talk 06:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear if Shrike's alleged example of an older 1RR violation really is, since the second version is very different from the first, and finding a word in common doesn't make enough difference. Zero^talk 09:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to stay well clear of Israel-Palestine stuff, but Zero0000 is correct. WP:1RR says The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". If we take WP:1RR as meaning just what it says, then the provision at WP:3RR stating A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert applies equally to WP:1RR. As a result, the two reverts three minutes apart count as a one, and do not constitute a technical violation of 1RR. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zero and Shock Brigade; those two diffs cited by AGK are not violations because they are consecutive edits. However, the revert 9 minutes later cited by Debresser is a clear violation of "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." Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the report was not frivolous as the user broke the original clause restriction as pointed by Galobtter --Shrike (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The user have history of violation 1RR. Example from the last month [76] and [77] --Shrike (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zero0000: In both version he introduced the phrase " terrorist organization in 1994'" in the same context ---Shrike (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The two reverts cited[78][79] are more than 24 hours apart. However, this edit, summary provide detail of criticism, was in fact a revert of an earlier removal. In conjunction with another revert 3 minutes beforehand, VanEman has consequently breached the general ARBPIA 1RR restriction. I am consequently minded to impose a 1-year topic ban from the topic area, and will pause for comment before taking action to that effect. AGK ■ 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with the above. Clear violation, reasonable sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the assessment by AGK. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you to the other editors who have made submissions about whether the second edit was technically part of the first one. In my judgment, the reverts I mentioned yesterday are sanctionable misconduct. This article is part of a protracted edit war, and there is scope for enforcement under general ARBPIA discretionary sanctions – whether or not the general 1RR restriction applies. Decided: VanEman is topic-banned for 1 year from content relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict. AGK ■ 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Muffizainu (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: "all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed".

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

I'm asking that Muffizainu be topic-banned from anything to do with female genital mutilation. On 14 October 2018 he created Khafd, an article about FGM named after an Arabic term for it. The Khafd page had been a redirect to Religious views on female genital mutilation. The new article is a poorly sourced POV fork of Female genital mutilation, a featured article. On 8 March 2018, I warned Muffizainu explicitly against creating a POV fork (diff), after he created Talk:Khafd; see his first version of that talk page.

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

I alerted Muffizainu to the DS regarding FGM on 7 March 2018 (diff).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A major interest of Muffizainu's on Wikipedia is the Dawoodi Bohra, an Islamic sect living mainly in India that practises FGM. They are thought to practise Type I FGM, which involves cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris and the clitoral hood. They perform it on girls around the age of 6–9, most of it done by traditioner circumcisers without medical training and using crude tools. There are no authoritative studies on the type and extent of the cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra, only anecdotal reports. See Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation (permalink). Also see Batha, Emma (5 February 2018). "'Heartwrenching' study shows FGM prevalent among India's Bohra sect". Reuters.

Muffizainu insists that the Dawoodi Bohra (and perhaps others) practise Type Ia FGM, which is removal of the clitoral hood only; that it is harmless; and that it should be called "female circumcision", not FGM. The WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA defined FGM in 1997 as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". [80] There are four types, Types I–IV, and several sub-types. It is not known to what extent Type Ia FGM is actually practised, especially outside medical facilities; when non-medical people use crude tools to cut the clitoral hoods of children, there is imprecise cutting. Therefore, much of what purports to be Type Ia is actually Type Ib (cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris). See WHO (2018): "Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)" (bold added).

Examples of problems with the fork

The new article (permalink) is problematic in its entirety, so these are just examples:

• The premise of the article is that khafd consists of Type Ia FGM. But the WHO says Type Ia is performed only "in very rare cases". A 2008 USAID paper, "De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam", defines khafd (which they write as khifaadh) as female genital mutilation/cutting; see p. 3.
• Muffizainu has sourced a description of Type I FGM to a non-MEDRS source from 1863. "In male circumcision the foreskin covering the penis is removed, and in female circumcision the foreskin above the clitoris is circumcised or removed" is sourced to Lane, Edward William (1863). Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Willams & Norgate.
• What khafd consists of is sourced to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, but it doesn't clearly support the edit. It describes khafd as "excision". [81] Excision is the removal of the visible part of the clitoris and of the labia minora (WHO 2018). But Muffizainu summarized this as: "Although the classical Islamic texts aren't explicit in their description of the procedure, these texts limit the procedure of khafd to the prepuce only."
• Non-medical, non-English sources are used, e.g. al- ahuti, Mansur Ibn Yunus In Idris, (1983). Kashshaf al- Qina’ an Matn al- Iqtinaa. Beirut: Aalam al- Kutub. p. 80.
• One source is https://femalecircumcision.org/the-practice-of-female-circumcision/. I can't see who runs this site, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. [82]

Other examples of problematic edits

• In July 2016 Muffizainu added to Khitan (circumcision) (the Arabic term for male circumcision): "Female circumcision is carried out on the prepuce, the foreskin over the clitoris. ... It ranges from a symbolic touch to a tiny excision." He also changed the heading "Female genital mutilation" to "Female Circumcision" (diff).
• His first edits to FGM were on 5 August 2017 (diff), when he created a new section called "Lack of evidence of complications or harm for Type 1a". Using sources such as Newsin.Asia, The Hindu, and Breitbart News, he wrote that Type 1a was harmless, "similar to ear piercing". He tried again in October 2017 (diff), where he changed that "[FGM] is praised in several hadith ... as noble but not required" to "Type 1a female circumcision is praised in several hadith ... as noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory)", sourced to islamonline.net.
• He removed from FGM (diff): "In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had 'no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions'."

• Other similar edits to FGM followed: 10 October 2017; 4 March 2018; 6 March 2018; 6 March 2018; 28 August 2018.
• See almost the entirety of Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16, where Muffizainu and Md iet, another Dawoodi Bohra editor, argued at length that FGM Type Ia is practised and should be called "female circumcision".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [83]

Length

I see that I'm about 300 words over the limit. I'd like to request permission to leave the extra words, given the complexity. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Winged Blades of Godric: WP:NONENG (part of WP:V) says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." There is a vast English-language literature on FGM, so there's no need to use sources outside it. Using Arabic sources means we don't know whether they're primary or secondary, religious or secular, high or poor quality, mainstream or fringe, or exactly what they say. There have been several editors wanting to use Arabic texts to show that Islam requires FGM, either because they think that's a good thing or because they dislike Islam and want to associate it with this practice. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Firstly, the page clear defines an Arabic term, namely khafd. I have mentioned this in the talk pages as well. In order to define a word, one must turn to Lexicons to show it’s usage throughout history. And that is exactly what i’ve done. This isn’t a medical article, neither does it claim to be, and the term “khafd” was used 100s of years prior to the coining of the term FGM. Wikipedia is full of articles describing Arabic and other language terms, including the male form of circumcision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision), hence this article isn’t anything new. Neither does she explain how the article is “poorly sourced” when it has relied on sources such as Britanica and the Encyclopedia of Islam. I have never stated that Dawoodi Bohras practise FGM. Whereas, on the other hand Sarah based her statements on anecdotal non reliable sources. I have also brought to her attention that a case in Australia categorically stated that the practice is not “mutilation”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#NSW_Australia_case

Next, she says “What Khafd consists of is sourced to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, but it doesn't clearly support the edit. It describes Khafd as "excision". [28] Excision is the removal of the visible part of the clitoris and of the labia minora (WHO 2018).” This is incorrect. It does support the edit, because that’s exactly what is written in the source. Here’s the text from that article: “minimal practice comprised excision of the prepuce of the clitoris”. She has just focussed on the word “excision” and ignored what was written in the source, namely “excision of the prepuce” . Also, by simply focusing on the word “excision”, she has overreached the her definition by directly jumping to the WHO’s usage of the word “excision” when describing Type 2. It’s clear that the Encycopeadia is using the word “excision” in its normal usage to mean “the partial removal of an organ” and isn’t referring to the WHO’s terminology. This is confirmed because the source mentions the “prepuce” and not the Labia. It’s clear that she is over reaching her allegations by playing on words.

My changes “ as noble but not required" to “noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory)" is also factually correct. I already explained that in the summary, because the text that was being cited did not have the words “noble but not required”, and I inserted the actual words. Is there any harm in being factually correct on Wikipedia?

About the 2007 Azhar ruling. I have stated it many times, that that is just 1 ruling. If one were to be fair on Wikipedia, then they must also be able to post the multiple rulings in favour of female circumcision. Why is that not being allowed? In order to be neutral, both sides of the arguments must be presented.

Referring to my edits on the khitaan page. I provided reference from Arabic lexicons, that the word “khitaan” is used in Arabic, for both male and female circumcision. But even this was unacceptable to her.

Since she wants to rely on the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” article cited by me, the first sentence clearly states that Khitaan or Khafd are referred to as “circumcision”. So why doesn’t she cite that instead? Further, the term “female circumcision” is also used by the Encyclopedia of Britannica, when defining the word “Khafd”. https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd The question arises as to, if a reputed source like Britanica can define the word, why can’t Wikipedia. It seems that Sarrah is only focused on her POV and is against any other academic dialogue on this subject.

I wouldn’t go to the extent of requesting a counter topic ban on Sarrah, however, I would request Wikipedia to monitor her extensive use of force and bullying to shutdown any academic dialogue on the subject.Muffizainu (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADDED: Here's an example of In between fair discussion, sudden inclusion of Topic ban seems giving a threat. When discussion is on Azhar university stand naming particular sect also looks like diverting the issue. All the stands taken by any one of Azhar to be taken care of and let the viewer decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_16#Azhar_University_Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation&diff=806453049&oldid=806279917

Further, there are a few comments from Admins about gender issues and sexuality. The Muslims who practice female circumcision do it because they believe Islam encourages Gender equality, that is why both male and females circumsised. Further, it's not an issue about sexuality, because neither do the original Arabic texts state that it's do do anything with sexuality. If there is an avenue to discuss all this, I would be glad to contribute. However, every time it's even hinted, Sarrah comes in with threats. This isn't a conducive environment for any academic discussion, nor the values of Wikipedia.Muffizainu (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support a topic ban of Muffizainu from any and all pages relating to female genital mutilation, broadly construed. Sourcing issues aside, the absolute last thing we need is an article that gives even the slightest trace of legitimacy to this "procedure". Kurtis ^(talk) 04:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sole problem with the report is that it has arrived over here, quite late.This pathetic edit ought be enough for a (POVpushing+CIR) Tban. Incidentally, Sarah, does there exist any active prohibition on using non-English high-quality sources, in the area, shall they exist?∯WBG^converse 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The cn-tags alone (in the lead, for the very definition) are worth a topic ban. Basing one on the GamerGate, while perhaps a stretch, isn't crazy given the scope, depth, and importance of the GG case and decision. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's a stretch and would recommend a DS topic ban. I see they have been given a DS alert for gender related issues. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand SlimVirgin's concerns, but this looks like a content dispute to me. Arbitration and AE do not resolve content disputes. If the article is problematic from a content point of view, such as regards neutrality, accuracy, content forking, etc., then the way to correct this is consensus-building on the talk page or, if needed, an AfD. Content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, but it normally takes a long history of problems or obvious, severe violations for them to rise to the level where AE action is needed, and I don't see this here. I'd therefore take no action. Sandstein 08:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I find Muffizainu's edits problematic, especially in terms of sourcing; however, I'm not sure that this is a "gender-related dispute or controversy". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• On the procedural point, I think SV should be indulged on statement length - it is a clear statement of a somewhat complex problem. FGM is clearly a "gender-rated dispute or controversy" and I am surprised at the suggestion that it isn't. POV-pushing is a conduct issue and this appears to be an egregious example. To avoid rules lawyering about the scope of the restriction, I would support a topic ban from circumcision or female genital mutilation, broadly construed. WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, FGM is more sexuality-related than gender-related. It's not a hill I intend to die on, since I agree that Muffizainu's edits are problematic, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a topic ban from circumcision and from female genital mutilation, both broadly construed. WJBscribe, I've copied your wording, except that I say "and from" instead of "or", to make sure it's understood that the ban applies to both subjects. Finicking, probably. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• I agree that sufficient evidence was presented of biasing content, selective sourcing, and other serious misconduct. I am indefinitely topic-banning (under ARBGG DS) Muffizainu from content relating to circumcision or to female genital mutilation (FGM). AGK ■ 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]