Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive251

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Roscelese

There is a clear consensus to decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by Roscelese

Once again, the reason for the block is false on its face - I very much did defend and argue for my conduct. As I said at AE, I discussed the reverts with the users who had made the edits I was reverting, sometimes even getting an explicit statement of agreement. The restriction was put in place to prevent edit-warring and reverting without discussion, not to prevent the reversion of drive-by destructive edits - which, when I reverted, I still explained fully in the edit summary. In fact, Newyorkbrad has specifically stated in the past, a propos of my restriction, that a talkpage thread which merely duplicates the contents of an edit summary should not be necessary. Moreover, the filing was pretty obviously bad-faith to begin with (Slugger falsely claimed that I wasn't discussing reverts on article talk which I did in fact discuss, and had never edited any of those articles before). My conduct was compliant with WP policy and with my own editing restrictions, and AE is not a block dispenser for winning what other users, oddly, seem to be seeing as personal battles rather than collaborative encyclopedia-building. In light of the fact that this is not the first time that Sandstein is blocking me on the supposed basis that I did not say things that I in fact did say, and of Sandstein's clear misinterpretation of the restriction, I'm pinging the admins involved in creating the restriction and the discussion that led to it. @DeltaQuad: @Salvio giuliano: @Courcelles: @Euryalus: @AGK: @Seraphimblade: @Doug Weller: @Guerillero: @Callanecc: @Bishonen: @Newyorkbrad: @Thryduulf: –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend that the appeal is declined. I refer colleagues to the reasons for which I imposed the block in the thread above. Sandstein 17:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Roscelese

Result of the appeal by Roscelese

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

(Copied from Rosceleses' user talk) I've taken a look in detail at the four edits brought up in the AE report. The restriction specifies that Roscelese must discuss any content reversions on the talk page, with the exceptions of blatant BLP violations or vandalism. So, the question at hand is whether the reverts were discussed on the talk page, and if not, whether the edits reverted were blatant BLP violations or vandalism. (It would of course also matter whether the articles edited fall under the scope of the restriction, but Roscelese has not disputed that they do and they all seem clearly to be within it.)

*The first edit in the AE report was an edit to The Silent Scream: [2] on 24 April 2019. This edit was not followed by a discussion on the talk page, as Roscelese's last edit to Talk:The Silent Scream was on 11 November 2017. Roscelese's edit summary was "rv - neutral language". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this was a content revert and required discussion. This edit violated the restriction.

*The second edit was to LGBT rights opposition on 23 April 2019: [3]. The last edit to Talk:LGBT rights opposition was on 27 December 2017, so Roscelese did not follow up this edit with a discussion on the talk page. The rationale for the revert by Roscelese was "Even if it is decided to mention the "ex-gay" movement in this article, this promo is not the way to do it". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this would require a talk page discussion. This edit violated the restriction.

*The third revert was to Homosexuality and religion on 18 April 2019: [4]. The last edit to Talk:Homosexuality and religion was on 3 March 2019, so Roscelese did not follow this edit up with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert was "Rv - increases reliance on interpretation of primary sources, does not add any new information, just jargon". This is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.

The fourth edit was to Abortion and mental health on 11 April 2019: [5]. *The last edit to Talk:Abortion and mental health was on 21 January 2019, so Roscelese did not follow the revert with a talk page discussion. The rationale for the revert is "These claims are not in the NEJM article". That is clearly a content-based rationale, so this edit violated the restriction.

Roscelese's restriction requires that content-based reverts are to be followed up with a rationale and discussion on the article talk page, not somewhere else, so discussing it on a user talk page or a different article's talk page is not sufficient as the discussion on the article talk page is intended to involve anyone interested, not just the particular user who made the edit. These four edits were content-based reverts (even if judged only by Roscelese's own rationales for them) and all of them lack followup on the talk page, so they were correctly found to be violations. I would therefore decline the appeal and find the block to be valid. That you find the discussion to be "pointless" does not change the requirement to start it nonetheless. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I was pinged about this) I would uphold the block per Seraphimblade's reasoning, above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking this over, I concur with Seraphimblade's reasoning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was also pinged and I also concur with Seraphimblade. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not pinged. If the issue was purely related to the first two diffs (we use "anti-abortion", not "pro-life", and the second one's just promotional, even if it doesn't rise to vandalism) I might think a two-week block was a little harsh, but the second two diffs are fairly obvious. So, I concur. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I share Black Kite's assessment of the first two diffs. I also think that the fourth diff, viewed in its context, is quite defensible: it reverts a previously reverted deceptive IP addition using a bogus doi, and the IP restoring that edit just expanded that doi into a reference citing AGF. The only reasonable inference is that the second IP has neither actually looked at the linked reference nor even the previous IP's edit summary (which claims to rely on a 2017 review when that reference is from 2006). Even when viewed in the most charitable light, this is grossly irresponsible source misuse that would earn the user a topic ban from the area. I do agree with Seraphimblade's assessment of the third diff, though it was a week old at the time of the report. Taken together, I find the two-week block to be on the harsh side and would have preferred a lesser sanction. That said, I cannot say that the sanction actually imposed is outside admin discretion, and I therefore agree with my colleagues that this appeal should be declined. T. Canens (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dlthewave

Appeal declined. The requisite "clear and substantial consensus of [...] uninvolved administrators at AE" to overturn this discretionary sanction is not present. T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions being appealed: Discussion Log

Logged warning by Sandstein
Deletion of User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles by Goldenring

Administrators imposing the sanctions

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

Notification of those administrators

Sandstein

Goldenring

Statement by Dlthewave

I feel that the closing statement "Springee, Trekphiler, RAF910 and Dlthewave are warned not to misuse Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities.", which appears to be copy-and-pasted from WP:POLEMIC, is not an accurate assessment of consensus among the admins who participated in the discussion. Among other things, it implies that all four editors are equally at fault, which does not appear to be what the admins intended in their support for a logged warning. Although Goldenring did delete a page in my userspace under WP:POLEMIC, there was no discussion of my "attacking" or "vilifying" anyone and one admin even stated "Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion." There was no proposal to issue a logged warning to Dlthewave. (As a sidenote, I also feel that issuing a polemic warning to the other three involved editors instead of a warning related to talk page conduct was entirely out of left field, but that is something for them to address in their own appeals if they choose to pursue them.)
I feel that Goldenring's deletion of a page in my userspace, User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles, has a chilling effect on my ability to document and share what I view as a long-term pattern in the gun control/gun crime topic area. This documentation plays an essential role in addressing current problems that are, in my opinion, a continuation of that pattern. My intention is to demonstrate a pattern and not to attack the individual editors who have been involved in that pattern. This removal is especially concerning when the "opposing" attacks and accusations which I documented are allowed to remain in full view at WP:Firearms and other talk pages. I would be open to discussing ways to do this that would not be viewed as an attack page, since similar pages maintained by other editors have passed MfD.

Although this deletion may have been within Goldenring's editorial discretion, I would like it to be reviewed by other admins and preferably discussed by the community at Miscellany for Deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a Deletion Review here as suggested. –dlthewave ☎ 21:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: "If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc" I've done all of those things, and you can read about it in the Signpost if you like. I've taken pains to focus on big-picture patterns instead of individual editor behavior, and no editors are named in the userspace page, however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost. –dlthewave ☎ 20:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I'm not sure where you got the idea that there were no actionable requests. A few examples: [6] [for_72bikers] [7]. You will note that this appeal is actually directly connected to the most recent AE request. More examples can be found in the AE log under Gun Control. –dlthewave ☎ 22:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

After rereading User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, I agree with the appellant that the page was not (quite) a violation of WP:POLEMIC because it did not name editors and did not make allegations of misconduct, except as implied in the title ("whitewashing"), but that alone probably doesn't merit a warning. Because that page was the reason for my warning, I am striking it and recommend that GoldenRing (talk · contribs) undelete the page. A case can perhaps be made for its deletion on grounds of copyright / attribution, but that's a matter for the deletion process. Sandstein 18:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment here, I've also withdrawn the warning with respect to Springee. Clearly I should have read the enforcement request more carefully; sorry for that. I think that we should be more careful in the future as to whether or not to entertain enforcement requests directed at multiple editors. Sandstein 22:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Bishonen, GoldenRing is correct that an action that has been labeled as an AE action may only be reviewed by way of the process described at WP:AC/DS#Appeals, that is, here at AE, or at AN or ARCA – but not at DRV. Bishonen, I recommend that you undo your temporary restoration of the page for the purpose of the DRV, or you may be desysopped for undoing an AE action out of process, as described at WP:AC/DS#Modifications by administrators. Any admin who acts on the currently ongoing DRV by overturning the deletion may likewise be desysopped. Sandstein 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm clearly an involved editor. As I said before I think Dlthewave has a very strong POV on this topic and I frequently disagree with them. However, when push comes to shove, I don't think on good faith they viewed the page as a POLMIC. For what it's worth, I would support reverting Dlthewave's warning. Springee (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other than supporting lifting of sanctions for Dlthewave, I've largely stayed out of this discussion. However, I think Dlthewave is contradicting themselves. In reply to BU Rob 13 they said, "however I think it's fair for me to be able to maintain a list of examples to back up the assertions that I made in the Signpost". As one of the editors quoted in the article in question I asked that my comments be removed [[8]]. I specifically noted the link between the Signpost article and this user page. Dlthewave declined noting in part, "any link between it and our joint Signpost submission is tenuous at best." [[9]]. This contradicts the claims made in reply to BU Rob 13. Furthermore, it specifically accuses others of "whitewashing" vs simply making unsound arguments. I view it as something that either needs to be acted on or deleted. In a similar vein I take a dim view of the "firearms" reaction list on the "Hall of Fame" page [[10]]. Collecting material like this is needlessly antagonistic even though I don't think that is Dlthewave's intent. Springee (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I disagree with Sandstein above and stand by this action. Dlthewave has stated right here that the purpose of this page is to document long-term problematic editing and policy is clear that such material is allowed only for dispute resolution and when used in a timely manner. I don't see the practical difference between, "so-and-so said this" (which the appellant seems to admit would be disallowed) and "someone said this and here's a link showing who it was" which is what they've actually done. GoldenRing (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: I'm not sure why you've suggested deletion review here. AE actions cannot be overturned at deletion review, only at AE, AN or ARCA. Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action? GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I will reiterate here what I've said on the deletion review: if you wish to use this material for valid dispute resolution (probably either an ANI or arbitration case request) and can outline a reasonable timeline for doing so (either on-wiki or privately by email), then I will self-revert my enforcement action. GoldenRing (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add, for what it's worth at this point, that I agree a formal warning to Dlthewave was not warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have requested clarification from the arbitration committee regarding my deletion at WP:ARCA. GoldenRing (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

Marginally involved. I just found out about the removal of DLThewave's excellent summary of the challenges faced to bring firearms into compliance with WP:N including the way that a wikiproject has tried to present their MOS suggestions as policy. I've said as much at another venue, but this is definitely not a violation of WP:POLEMIC and should be undeleted for the valuable resource it is. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dlthewave

The matter of the deletion itself should be deferred to WP:DRV as that venue is much better equipped for such reviews. Whether or not the action itself was appropriate should be discussed here or in a more general manner at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee (where Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions redirects). — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Dlthewave

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

I commented in the initial thread, so I'm not sure whether my response should appear in this section, or above with GoldenRing's and Sandstein's. The deletion of Dlthewave's userspace subpage was arguably appropriate under WP:POLEMIC, and within reasonable admin discretion on GoldenRing's part. While I'm not sure I would have done the same, I'm comfortable leaving the page deleted. That said, I don't think a formal warning to Dlthewave is warranted; there wasn't really any support for such a warning amongst uninvolved admins in the previous thread, and it seems like overkill. The proper response to a potentially polemical userspace subpage is to delete it, which has been done. There wasn't any convincing evidence of a pattern of behavior warranting a logged warning on Dlthewave's part, at least not that I saw.
Regarding the logged warnings, I do take Springee's point that they perhaps paint the remaining 3 editors with an overly broad brush. There are clearly gradations of concerning behavior, with Springee on the mild end and Trekphiler/RAF910 showing a much more sustained and problematic battleground attitude. I'll leave it up to other admins whether we should modify the warning to exclude Springee, but it is worth considering while we're here. MastCell ^Talk 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. This is definitely a confusing situation. Reading the deleted page, it does seem borderline WP:POLEMIC so, perhaps, GoldenRing was right in deleting it. But, Dlthewave brings up a good point. If they do plan on making a future case then how else can they keep a record of the edits they see as forming a pattern? They could do it off-wiki of course, but isn't it better to be open about one's activities? While the deletion was within admin discretion perhaps, in cases of this nature, it is better to leave them as is with a note to the editor that they can't leave it sticking around for too long. Imo, the warning should be withdrawn. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about deleting the whitewashing essay; I can't seem to make up my mind. Suggest dlthewave take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. An admin should be asked to temporarily undelete the page for purposes of discussion as soon as the DR is opened. But I don't have any trouble agreeing with Sandstein, Springee, MastCell, and Regentspark that dlthewave's warning should be withdrawn and struck from the log, and Sandstein has already done so. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

@Dlthewave:, I've temporarily undeleted your page for the deletion review. Bishonen | talk 22:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Your deletion can't be overturned at Deletion review, GoldenRing? Are you sure? In that case, obviously I suggested it because I didn't know any better. A bit of bad luck that apparently nobody who did know saw my suggestion for Deletion review here at AE, some 20 hours before Dlthewave actually opened the deletion review. I'm not sure what should be the next step, considering there is quite a lot of discussion at the review already, and some disagreement about how to proceed. But whatever action is taken, rest assured I won't feel "undermined" by it, as somebody suggested there. I'm personally fine with whatever, although I want to apologize to Dlthewave for potentially complicating his situation. As for "Have you also not just unilaterally undone an AE action?", no, I haven't. If you're referring to my temporary undeletion of the page, for the deletion review only and with the front page covered by a template, per the instructions here, I can only ask you not to be so silly. If you're talking about my giving Dlthewave bad advice, well, I've explained how that came about (=ignorance on my part). Bishonen | talk 12:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What an absolute joy you are to work with, Sandstein. It's a wonder more admins don't flock to help out at AE, where honest mistakes get met with immediate threats of desysopping. I do want to point out that there's a pretty clear consensus at DRV that the page doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC. @GoldenRing:, do I understand correctly that you are not going to recognize that consensus because it is being discussed on the Wrong Page^(TM)? If this is the case, then I suppose we should tell everyone at DRV their opinions are not wanted there, re-delete the page, and then have the exact same discussion here. Or alternately, GR could rescind the deletion.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I not only agree that restoring the page for deletion review is not an abuse of process, but that deleting the page via AE would be an abuse of process. The way to remove userspace essays that are contrary to policy is MfD., and review of decisions there is at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, do you intend to delete under AE every page in an area subject to DS (such as AP or PIA) that you think might arguably be the result of an action that violation an arb ruling,? DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have just noticed, Sandstein, that your closing at the AE Discussion used the wording of the arb case "for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, " but the entire discussion above about whether it violated POLEMIC is irrelevant, because the page is obviously related to WP. And the arb com wording continued " attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. " I do not see any editors named on the page in question. It was discussing edits. (Of course the editors were implied, because the statements wee linked, but nothing about the editors is question is said on the page, only about the edits. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been stalled for a month, the deletion review was closed as consensus to overturn, and we need to proceed in one or other way. I see consensus to withdraw the warning, and this has been already done by Sandstein. The situation is more difficult with the deletion of the page, but if I take into account all opinions at DRV and also that all uninvolved admins here who commented after the close of the DRV supported undeletion, I would say there is consensus to undelete. I will wait a couple of days before closing, may be somebody wanted to comment and forgot or overlooked this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I support User:Ymblanter's idea of undoing the AE deletion of the page, based on the apparent consensus of admins in this thread. Arbcom is still debating whether 'AE deletion' can ever be considered to be an option, but there is no risk of any conflict with Arbcom if the present deletion is simply undone on the merits. (We would be closing as though AE deletion was really allowed, but this *particular* deletion was reversed through the normal AE appeal process). It appears that a deletion review has already occurred which supported restoration of the page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I indeed closed it as overturn, and subsequently got strong objections from Goldenring concerning the restoration of the page (see their talk page), which I disagree with, but it is good to give another administrator a chance to deal with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given the votes on the pending motion, we must proceed on the assumption that deletion of a page is allowed as a discretionary sanction. In my view, POLEMIC falls on the conduct side of the conduct/content divide: deciding whether a user page violates that guideline does not require one to make decisions regarding any encyclopedic content. Therefore, deleting a user page under POLEMIC does not fall into the category of deletions that may impermissibly settle a content dispute. Having considered the comments at the DRV to the extent they addressed POLEMIC (as opposed to the process issue), and after independently reviewing the page, I cannot say that GoldenRing's interpretation and application of that guideline is outside reasonable admin discretion, and that's all that is needed to sustain a discretionary sanction. Decline as to the deletion. As to the warning, the appeal is moot. T. Canens (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this. I think it is within administrator discretion to consider this a violation of WP:POLEMIC. In particular, I note that the editor who create the page has stated that they intend to use it as background for an opinion piece in the Signpost. The spirit behind POLEMIC rather clearly is intended to prevent editors from putting others "on blast" without making a formal report at a noticeboard. I believe compiling a long list of diffs on-wiki in order to write an opinion piece that attacks a particular editor or group of editors is plainly at odds with this spirit. If there is supposed misconduct here, take it to ANI, file a case request, hand out DS warnings and then take it to AE, etc. Compiling a list of supposed wrongdoing and then litigating it in the court of public opinion at the Signpost is contrary to the spirit behind POLEMIC. All of this is without comment on whether the editor is correct in the pattern they're highlighting; it doesn't particularly matter whether they are correct when it comes to whether it violates POLEMIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There’s definitely been no case request during my time on the Committee, unless it came during a period of inactivity for me. But ignoring that, if all venues have not found those diffs to be actionable, turning to the Signpost to make assertions about a behavioral issue - whether editors are named or not - goes against the spirit of POLEMIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... and if they were actioned on, then the issue is resolved, and the list of diffs shouldn't be stored forever in user space to further litigate the issue unless new behavior emerges. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This appeal has been open for more than two months now and needs a resolution one way or the other. It takes a "clear and substantial consensus" of uninvolved administrators to grant an appeal at AE, and I'm not seeing it. Barring objections in the next 24 hours, I'll close this as declined and re-delete the page. If arbcom wants to do something about deletion and DS, we can revisit this when they have actually done something. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevertBob

RevertBob is blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning RevertBob

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RevertBob (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:BLP, Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018 - "Jeremy Corbyn is placed under 1RR indefinitely. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC). Note that page has a 1RR edit notice.

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

Revert1: 22:01, 2 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" from newly added content describing an antisemitic passage in a 1902 book. Note edit summary - "ce" - this is not a copy edit. (as noted by SWL36 who reverted)
Revert2: 22:42, 2 May 2019 - removing "praised", again edit summary "ce" + (consecutive) 07:43, 3 May 2019 - removing "antisemitic" again this time with "let the readers decide" - which is somewhat mind boggling in and of itself - the passage reads "Jews dominated journalism and the world of finance and hence government policy" - so per RevertBob's reasoning (contrary to all sources here) this is up to interpretation? (reverted by Absolutelypuremilk [11])
Revert3 - 22:28, 3 May 2019 - removing "praised" and "antisemitic", this time with the edit summary "more neutral, allow readers to decide and shorter".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn.

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

13:13, 1 September 2018 - blocked for violating 1RR on Jeremy Corbyn.

12:00, 31 August 2018 - alerted BLP.

19:07, 14 August 2018 - alerted ARBPIA (may be relevant for other conduct described below).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(Some of this may or may not fall under ARBPIA broadly or reasonably construed (always a topic of debate) - however I feel it is relevant for context here is any event). RevertBob is essentially a WP:SPA that only edits topics revolving around the antisemitism crisis in the Labour party (ignoring a mass of rapid fire minor edits back in July 2017). He also does quite a bit of reverting. I would like to point out the following behavior:

19:56, 10 February 2019 - restoring content that multiple RfCs (see Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7 (RfC.8, RfC.6, RfC.4, RfC.2) determined should be removed. Asked to self revert - [12] - did not. See subsequent discussion in Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 8#Edits against RfC consensus - Where RevertBob chooses not to respond. He does show up after a month (on 5 March) to challenge the RfC close.
20:48, 11 March 2019 - again - reinstating content rejected in RfC (Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 7#RfC.4 IJV/JSG/JVP / Oryszczuk).
19:54, 12 March 2019 - requests to self-revert and informing them of the RfC result were left unanswered on their talk page and removed with "taking out the trash"
18:14, 30 April 2019 - blanket revert including of content removed - 09:44, 29 April 2019 - per this RfC. See Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party/Archive 9#RfC consensus, random op-eds - where this is discussed (RevertBob still absent).
Communicating with RevertBob has been difficult - see 19:16, 27 March 2019 (3RR warning issued as a pre-requisite to a (not filed) EW report after he revert 3-5 times (depending how you count) in 24 hours on 26-27 March - removed with "usual unhelpful contributions".

In summary - the 1RR violation above is a redline and clear violation. Misleading edit summaries are also clearly in BLP DS. Admins may also consider taking wider action in light of RevertBob's general editing practices and patterns.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: notified

Discussion concerning RevertBob

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

Statement by RevertBob

The diffs on the Jeremy Corbyn page are in relation to long-standing content dispute where editors are placing POV/opinion as facts. It's very difficult to engage with editors when the same arguments conflating RS with NPOV come up time and time again[13]. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding additional comments by editor filing complaint:

1. This wasn't clear from the RfC close as they were closed as no consensus - no consensus for keeping or removing?

2. This was different text to the RfC as it had mixed outcome where for part of the text there may be potential consensus and part has no consensus. After seeking advice on ANI as further RfC was started here.

3. Already answered on point 1.

4. This was in response to blanket removal of content by here - a bit difficult to see the good faith removal amongst the blanket removal when done at such a brisk pace.

5. Icewhiz has templated me numerous times and gets a bit weary after a while. RevertBob (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RevertBob

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

@TonyBallioni:, this is your sanction, want to take a look? Sandstein 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 1RR violation is bright line and I agree with Icewhiz that the edit summaries make it worse. Blocked for a week. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon

No action taken. Sandstein 16:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Tagishsimon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Natureium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tagishsimon (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

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

[14] Here is the first time I've ever interacted with them that I can recall, where I bring up a concern at ANI and they respond to rudely dismiss me outright.
[15] I'm not sure how to describe this insult.
[16] Here they respond to me saying that I've been going though and improving some of the articles started by Jess Wade by pointing out faults with an article I just created, which turn out to be incorrect.
[17] Here I asked Tagishsimon to stop harassing me.
[18] Here they refused.
[19] Here they allege that I'm in a club with two other people they've been harassing. example allegation here
At this point, he was alerted about DS.
[20] Here, among other things, they say that it's my fault that Wikipedia is being dragged through the gutter as a hang-out for misogynists
[21] Here they say that their harassment is my fault
[22] Here they respond to me by telling me that I should go away and think about that.

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 [23].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Tagishsimon: I did not ask you to stop talking to me, I asked you to stop accusing me of things, which you have continued to do even here. Natureium (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped momentarily only because he hasn't been on Wikipedia. His last edit, after all this started, was more of the same. Natureium (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. Is there no template for this?

Discussion concerning Tagishsimon

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

Statement by Tagishsimon

I think it's fairly clear that Natureium does not like receiving criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. You're determined to have drama. Well, let's go for it.

There was, as you're aware, an ANI thread in which Netoholic was taken to task for targetting Jess Wade's work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Netoholic's_response

Natureium turned up to specify that, on the basis of nothing much, that all of Jess Wade's work should be subjected to close scrutiny. I objected to that, pointing out that Natureium had submitted no evidence to support their view, and asserting that exactly the logic they applied to Jess Wade could be applied to their own contributions.

Natureium seems to have become upset about comments I made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Canvassing_allegations_for_Sarah_Tuttle in which I lump together the three editors who have taken it upone themselves to police Jess Wade's work.

Natureium then turned up on my talk page; it seems clear they're happy that they can criticise people, but I cannot. Oh wells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#Simple_request

And finally Natureium turned up ona thread I had started in WiR talk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Jess_Wade - and addressed themselves to me as the initial poster.

None of this is me going out of my way to harrass Natureium. All of this is me reacting to Natureium's harrassment of Jess Wade.

I don't accept Natureium's bogus framing, and neither should you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be very clear, TonyBallioni, that I have not been targetting anyone. I responded to Natureium's ANI contribution; pointed out eslewhere that Natureium was one of three editors targetting Jess Wade; and responded to Natureium on my talk page and to their insertion in a thread I started, and more specifically responding to a post they made to me as thread starter.

and what exactly are these "horrible things personally"? I pointed out in the ANi thread that Natureium had provided no evidence; I provided some stats on Jess Wade's work, and I pointed out that an analysis of Natureium's work might yield the same conclusion about their work as they had reached about Jess Wade's work.

@TonyBallioni: May I insist, since you have raised it, that you produce diffs for the alleged "horrible things personally". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have contempt for Natureium's framing of the issue. I have only sympathy for anyone who has to wade through this. It appears that Natureium feels it is fine to wander around denigrating Jess Wade's work & calling her a liar, but wants an admini-drama when on the receiving end of rebuttal criticism. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not think accusing Jess Wade of lying is deplorable, then your milage varies from mine. [24] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's weak on both counts, TonyBallioni. Please supply a diff for the alleged "horrible things personally", or withdraw the allegation. And, as I say, I have contempt for Natureium's framing of this matter. I don't find this a good faith report of harrassment. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And with the best will in the world, one cannot accept a person saying "please stop" on page A [25] 18:51, and then addressing comments to me on page B [26] 18:56 "Did you not notice that that's untrue before reposting it here?". This is what I mean by having contempt for the framing. Natureium feign's a wish to stop the discussion, five minutes before wandering along to accuse Jess of lying, and me of being credulous for reporting on Jess's lie. And you can see none of this? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

El C, I think the issue is that Tagishsimon has been specifically targeting Natureium with personal attack based on their involvement in a gender related controversy where there are very strong opinions on both sides. The ANI isn't directly related to that, but was originally about Netoholic and Jess Wade. Natureium reviewed that thread and had some concerns, and when they expressed the concerns, Tagishsimon lumped them together with two other editors and started accusing them of horrible things personally. This kind of behaviour creates a chilling effect: it makes it seem so that any editor in a topic area who interacts with a high profile editor who has been covered by the media cannot review their content work. That is unacceptable.

On the broader ANI question, the failure of the original ANI thread (about a different, but related issue) in my view actually shows why AE is a better venue: this is a politically fraught topic area with editors having strong opinions on both sides, and all parties having allies. It is the type of situation that ANI is not designed to handle, but AE is. I would also add that if the original ANI thread were made here instead of at ANI, we likely could have avoided some of the drama of the last few days.

I'd urge other admins to take this complaint seriously: a good faith editor who is questioning content of a high profile editor in a politically charged topic area is being subjected to personal attacks on multiple pages, and when they ask the person to stop, all they get are more personal attacks. This should not be tolerated. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I’ve been asked, I find this statement to be particularly inappropriate, but I agree with Natureium’s analysis of all the diffs they have presented and find your response to El C in the results section really disturbing. You’re personalizing a content dispute and admit to having contempt for the fact that Natureium even bothered to request someone look at this as harassment particularly disturbing. Good faith allegations of harassment should be taken seriously, not treated with contempt. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of the diffs presented by Natureium speak for themselves and my comment was my analysis of them, which I believe to be fair. I will not be striking my statement. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, the policy is WP:HARASSMENT. Specifically [...]repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project. They were asked to stop making aspersions and accusations, they said they wouldn’t, they were given a DS alert after this, and they continued and continue to paint one person as the reason for Wikipedia being perceived as misogynistic and as creating a toxic culture, and even accusing them of making this report in bad faith. AC/DS gives admins the clear authorization to issue interaction bans, and that is at a minimum what is called for here. Natureium should not have to tolerate this simply because they did not cite a policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, (I cut this for size and because there is a clearer explanation) ArbCom has clarified that the GamerGate sanctions these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one. Saying that other editors contribute to the perception that Wikipedia is a misogynists paradise pretty squarely falls within the recent clarification in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, since this has died down and there doesn’t appear to be opposition to your warning, I think now would be a good time to close it as a warning logged at WP:AELOG/2019 so there’s a record of it if the issues go on (which hopefully they want afterwards). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lepricavark

It might also be useful to note this comment, in which Tagishsimon claims to be extending good faith to Netoholic while simultaneously arguing that his behavior is pretty much indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling. It seems to be a way of making a personal attack while also trying to maintain plausible deniability that no such attack was made. With no further context, this comment might simply be dismissed as poorly-phrased yet well-intended. But Tagishsimon's aggressive battleground responses to Natureium make it much harder to see it that way. I will also add that I found the attacks on Natureium to be unwarranted and frankly bizarre. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DoubleCross

I came across this because I browse AE from time to time - I figure I should clarify that I have no idea who Natureium and Tagishsimon are, and (as far as I know) have never interacted with either.

From what I've read in the provided diffs, and per Lepricavark, this is a good-faith request from Natureium, and Tagishsimon's posts toward Natureim are extremely aggressive and personal attacks. Referencing WP:AGF and WP:NPA while simultaneously saying Natureium's "creating a toxic environment" and calling his edits "indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling" and "toxicity" - farcical beyond words. DoubleCross (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

And it continues here [[27]], they clearly do not get it (whilst accusing others of doing it). Yes this is creating a very toxic environment, but not in the way they mean.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush

Something has gone wrong with Natureium's diffs. #7, which says it refers to WP being dragged through the gutter, is actually this diff. I've not checked all of the others but have been involved in this farrago and there is little doubt in my mind that the words of Tagishsimon (and at least one other person) have a chilling effect on discussion. - Sitush (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clayoquot

I share TonyBallioni's concerns about a chilling effect. Cross-checking by peers is fundamental to Wikipedia, especially after serious factual errors were found in an editor's past contributions as is the case here. The key is that cross-checking needs to be done with competence and sensitivity, and I haven't seen any evidence that Natureium's actions have been lacking in these respects.

In the past week, social media has come up with some interesting rumors about what's happening at Wikipedia, e.g. I heard someone say on Facebook that someone had nominated for deletion recently-created articles on "every woman scientist". My reading of some recent on-wiki discussions is that outrage fomented at Twitter, based on inaccurate and misleading stories, has surged back over here and is creating an environment in which Wikipedia is not a safe space to work. I would hope that something is done about that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

(involved obv. due to GG case). I have to agree with the point made by Clayoquot. There was a series of AFDs that were all female academics by one user (Netoholic) but all those were created by a different user in a type of "Women in Red" approach. From what has happened since with Netoholic, its pretty clear Netoholic did not target those article due to any type of misogyny, but a lot of editors jumped on this to cry out about gender-related AFD issues. (Which is a valid concern... just not in this case, or at least specificly to Netoholic). Statements like those highlighted by Tagishsimon do not help this situation, and because off-wiki observers do not recognize all the steps we use for such discussions, the cry of "WP hates women academics" is being amplified. (We already saw this with the GG case itself eg [28]). Editors have to be aware of the type of claims they are making and how that reflects on WP as a whole particularly when the case has grabbed attention in news and social media. I definitely feel Tagishsimon's statements "assume the worse" in terms of how WP was handling the situation, which is simply not helpful and leads to slippery slopes and increased battleground behavior. --Masem (t) 23:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tagishsimon

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

I thought this was being discussed at AN/I. Do we need to have it addressed at two admin noticeboards at the same time? (Not to mention the Rama RfAR.) El_C 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, WP:CIVIL and WP:ASPERSIONS still apply to criticism. El_C 23:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I can appreciate that, on pragmatic grounds alone, AE may be more suited to this than the current AN/I. I suppose I was just concerned with discussions being superfluously duplicated. On closer examination, sanctions may, indeed, be due in this case. I confess to not being too impressed with Tagishsimon extremely terse reply. It seems to be deflective and exhibits contempt for the process. El_C 23:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, melodrama is exactly what we're trying to avoid here at AE. I, for one, do not think calling someone's behaviour "deplorable" is especially civil. If that's characteristic of your manner of discourse with Natureium, then we have a problem. El_C 01:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, I'm not seeing Natureium accusing her of lying—always an act of bad faith. A claim can be invented accidentally, in good faith. El_C 01:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can reasonably cite NPA and at the same breath say that someone's behaviour is "indistinguishable from misogynistic trolling" — that doesn't work for me. I, however, suppose I could support a warning, but only if lessons are shown to have been drawn here. El_C 23:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32, because the GG/DS pertains to "any gender-related dispute or controversy," which this is. So either venue seem applicable. El_C 23:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is claiming "that Natureium was one of three editors targetting Jess Wade" — and that whole saga has GG all over it. I have also raised concerns with it being brought here (see my first comment), but I've since come to see that this venue is fine, too. El_C 00:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would take no action because the complaint does not make clear which conduct policies, if any, the diffs at issue are supposed to violate. And it's not readily apparent, at least in the post-notification diffs, what the grounds for action might be. Sandstein 17:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandstein: WP:HARASSMENT ? Nick (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that these comments are impolite and that Tagishsimon should attempt to personalize disputes less. I wouldn't oppose a warning for that, but I don't think this reaches the point where sanctions are required. Three edits (after the AE notification) in the course of one discussion thread do not amount to "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior", as we describe harassment. Sandstein 20:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have some questions about the venue for this sanction request: Why is this at AE rather than ANI? This looks like garden variety WP:CIV and WP:NPA type complaints, not obviously specific to WP:ARBGG editing. I'm not saying one way or the other whether or not the behavior is sanctionable or not, but I do have questions about why this venue is being used to request sanctions rather than the normal, wider, community-based methods such as an open ANI discussion? --Jayron 32 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
El_C: How so? I don't see any tendentious editing or the like at articles or talk pages regarding gender-related controversies. I see some garden-variety rudeness and insult and assumptions of bad faith, but these don't appear (at my looking at the diffs) to be related to articles around gender-related controversies. Can you clarify for me how this is related to that? Again, I'm not excusing behavior here, but I am questioning why we're using a process for dealing with dispute-related behavior when this just appears to be garden-variety NPA type stuff. --Jayron 32 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was unable to read the background from what I was seeing, and thanks to everyone who explained their position. My only concern is that we don't over apply the "gender-related dispute" thing to mean that every dispute between people different genders automatically becomes an AE-level sanction, or that any time a gender-related personal attack is leveled, it comes here first. Most of that stuff should still be handled at ANI, and we really should be saving AE for disputes where gender issues are part of the content dispute rather than simply part of basic civility issues. I understand though how this specific one is related. In the future, it would help if the initial complaint laid that out rather than just asserting it to be so. These things are not always self-evident, and uninvolved admins such as myself who don't know the background find it hard to assess a dispute when there is no context provided. Again, thanks to everyone who helped explain it to me. I'll have to take some time to think on this. --Jayron 32 03:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have died down; reviewing the diffs and contributions from both editors, and based in part on the comments of most admins here, it seems there is a rough consensus for formal warnings. Would anyone object to closing this as follows: "a formal warning is issued to ~~both parties~~ Tagishsimon to avoid casting aspersions, to remain civil, and to avoid personal attacks in heated discussions" --Jayron 32 12:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Natureium has not engaged in personal attacks or incivility. Tagishsimon has, and is the only participant who needs reminded/sanctioned. Nick (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So corrected. Please reasses my proposal now that I have corrected my mistake. --Jayron 32 15:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now ideal. I was notified yesterday [29] of further issues with Jess Wade's work which reinforces my belief that Natureium was engaged in nothing more than the discussion of legitimate concerns surrounding BLPs. Nick (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The battleground behaviour on display in this discussion definitely needs to stop, but I'm unsure what the best remedy is. An IBAN between Tagishsimon and Natureium would address some of it, but I'm concerned that the disruption is wider than that; nonetheless, I think this would be a good first step. GoldenRing (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this without action because no admin seems to want to take action. Sandstein 16:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph

Sir Joseph is banned from all pages and edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, for three months. El_C 08:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Sir Joseph

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles :

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

22:10, May 9, 2019 A shocking display of ignorance toward Palestinian people.
20:30, May 9, 2019 The above is apparently in response to a question about this edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 February 2019 Most recent AE action
Block log

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not involved in this dispute – I'm just raising these comments here for review. Saying that Palestinians would "rather continue killing people" is at best an ignorant oversimplification, and at worst blatant racism.

Just to be clear, I did not report the edit warring on the talk page as there is no page-level restriction on the talk page. Nevertheless, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors covers the kind of behaviour I reported above, which still warrants a response. – bradv🍁 03:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Sir Joseph

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

Not sure why someone not involved is coming in and starting something that is already resolved, and in the case of the second diff, already hatted and commented on as a miscommunication. I obviously didn't mean that O300 is funding terror, but rather BDS. On my talk page, I clearly respond to O300 and clarify that to him and the filer should have seen that before filing this report so the fact that he is trying to obfuscate this from the admins or trying to pass it off as something else is wrong and should be boomeranged. diff

As to the first diff, yes, I believe that the Palestinians, as in the government, the PA, Hamas, the WB, Gaza, as a whole, not individually and not as a race, so not sure where racism comes into it, is not interested in peace, they had many opportunities for peace but choose instead to launch rockets, take US, EU and UN funds and build tunnels. I will not apologize for that, as Golda Meir famously said, "Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." I find this AE action vexatious and just trying to stir things up. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And since Nableezy mentioned BLP, there is no BLP violation, I brought sources to my edits. I added them to the hatted section as well. You can take a look where Barghouti is quoted as saying it is OK to kill Israeli settlers. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:I don't want to wikilawyer, but I am a little confused. The notice on the talk page, says article. And I always assumed talk pages are different. Also, the arbitration ruling says page, but says can only be enforced with an edit notice, which the talk page doesn't have. In any event, I did not know a talk page doesn't have 1RR, and it should be clarified since the ARBPIA notice on the talk page is not clear. (I also did not know who the IP was, I just knew he was an IP that was reverted, as is usual in the IP conflict area.) Also with regards to the BLP, regardless of what you think of Canary Mission, they link to their sources, and there is the Algemeiner Journal, and the Forward, and again Barghouti's forward of a book and his own statement that it's ok to kill settlers. To me that's a lot of leeway in saying he supports terrorism, especially on a talk page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:I'd say no, because the editnotice has to be visible when you edit the page, incidentally, the whole area is a fustercluck as my local rep would say, almost 90% of the pages in the area don't have the required editnotice on the article page. And bringing this to Arbcom would most likely screw it up even more since that is what usually happens. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:as I told El_C, I didn't know that. And also, the filer didn't mention 1RR, so I also think this is out of scope. In addition, yes, even if I knew 100% that 1RR did apply to the talk page, then it's not actionable because it clearly says that it requires an edit notice on each page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:I'm sorry you feel that way. I didn't do anything wrong. I don't know why every interaction with you seems to be negative and that you have it in for me. There is no technicality, I'm just mentioning other reasons why there is no actionable event on this AE action. You can pick from several if you want. That is on top of the obvious that I did nothing wrong. Some people like technicalities and some people like real reasons. It's your call. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I never said he's involved or insinuated it, just that whenever we communicate, and it's usually on an admin board it's always negative. In this case, I mentioned it because of his, "dot dot dot". Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: just to clarify, my talk page is not under discretionary sanctions. Further, talk page is not the same as mainspace editing and I don't think anyone here will say they are not biased in one way.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I keep finding issues with arbcom rulings. Firstly, I'm not sure how my page is broadly construed as being part of the conflict. Also, as per DS, I was never warned, so you can't issue discretionary sanctions without an initial warning. Regardless, as was pointed out, I was responding to Huldra. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how my talk page is under DS and also please show me where I was warned for the supposed DS violation. In addition, please tell me how to respond to someone who just said it's ok to kill civilians. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 11:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

More concerning than the soapboxing is the edit-warring to restore a BLP violation made by an IP sock of a blocked editor. 1st revert, 2nd revert, and 3rd revert. If I am not mistaken, that is a violation of the 1RR for ARBPIA and a violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. nableezy - 02:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "sources", Sir Joseph brought this Israeli government publication that does not anywhere say Barghouti supports terrorism. Following that he posted this link which I cant see where it says anything about Barghouti supporting terrorism, and then this YouTube link that fails to load and then Canary Mission, a website that has been described as a McCarthyite blacklist that engages in slander. Sir Joseph edit warred to maintain a BLP violation, violating both WP:BLP and the 1 revert rule. nableezy - 02:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: remember this? Case in point. Do we need to get the edit-notice added to talk pages of articles that already have an edit-notice too? nableezy - 02:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I personally disagree with the thinking that having a belief, any belief really, makes one incompatible with editing in the topic area. I hold plenty of beliefs that many people may find objectionable. What matters here though is do my edits betray such beliefs, do they push POVs at odds with the balance of reliable sources. Sir Joseph can believe the Palestinians are whatever he thinks they are. He shouldnt make those feelings known on talk pages obviously. I still think the most serious thing here is edit-warring to maintain a BLP violation. And given the previous blocks for gaming on this board (example) I think the game playing about its not enforceable because it doesnt have an edit-notice, for an editor obviously aware, is evidence of why the new requirement was, while well intended, misguided. Whats important is that people know about the 1RR and that it is in place for a given article. This talk page has an ARBPIA template. Are we really pretending that people dont think Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions is covered by ARBPIA? Do we really think that calling Omar Barghouti a supporter of terrorism is not a BLP violation? Or that it is not covered by ARBPIA? Extended-confirmed protection and the 1RR have done wonders for this topic area. Yes, I realize given its current state that this is not saying much, but lest we forget there was an arbitration case in this topic area that had 2 socks of one banned editor in it (ARBPIA2 and NoCal100 with Canadian Monkey, socks of Isarig). The new requirement is allowing editors who know what is covered to play these games. That he edit-warred to restore a BLP violation for an edit he knew was covered by the sanctions and is arguing that because the frickin talk page doesnt have the edit-notice that it cant be enforced is the problem here. That he said something that I personally find disgusting makes it just another day on the internet really. nableezy - 05:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You all are taking this too far. Huldra said armed settlers, and yes she should not have said that just based of the soapboxing rules, and yes when they are not actively engaged in military action they are civilians and yes under the laws of war they may not be attacked and they are not valid targets, lets get all that out of the way. That entire discussion from start to end had things that violate WP:SOAPBOXING. But you ban her for stating an opinion, even if you disagree with it, or Sir Joseph for doing the same, you are going to hurt the encyclopedia. Yall ignore the only thing that really merits anything besides a stern warning to avoid stating personal opinions on Wikipedia in any context and jump on views on either side that you dont like. You are going to hurt the encyclopedia. nableezy - 08:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Sir Joseph was asked a political question on his own talk page (the context being diff (in the question) - whether Israeli civilians in the West Bank are a "legitimate target" per Huldra). I'l also note that Huldra - diff - !voted "Oppose, resisting occupation is legitimate" recently (in the context of whether attacks on Israelis in the West Bank should be included in the article).

Use of the "the Palestinians" as a contraction for a long list of Palestinian political and militant organizations (e.g. Category:Palestinian militant groups (which is not up to date on all the small factions in current Gaza): Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Abu Ali, Mustapha Brigades, Abu Nidal Organization, Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades, Alliance of Palestinian Forces, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Arab Liberation Front, Army of Islam (Gaza Strip), As-Sa'iqa, Black September Organization, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Fatah, Fatah al-Intifada ,Fatah al-Islam, Fatah Hawks, Force 14, Free Palestine Movement, Hamas, Holy Jihad Brigades, Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Jaljalat, Jund Ansar Allah, Liwa al-Quds, Mujahideen Shura Council in the Environs of Jerusalem, Al-Najjada, Palestine Liberation Army, Palestinian Freedom Movement, Palestinian Liberation Front, Palestinian Liberation Front (Abu Nidal Ashqar wing), Palestinian National and Islamic Forces, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front, Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (1991), Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, Popular Resistance Committees, Al-Quds Brigades, Galilee Forces, Sabireen Movement, Swords of Truth, Tanzim, Tawhid al-Jihad (Gaza Strip)) is common in everyday speech. Sir Joseph is far from making a novel claim on his talk page - e.g. this recent op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer: ". The peace process has been frozen for years and the Israeli public soured on it after Palestinian terrorist attacks in the 2000s and the Hamas takeover of Gaza."[30] Icewhiz (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sir Joseph

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

Sir Joseph, ARBPIA says: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict — that means also talk pages. Which is to say, it's not by accident that the Committee didn't write articles instead of page. And it doesn't help that in that instance you're reverting the edits of a user who states I warned you admins that I will edit as I see fit when I was blocked against the rules. El_C 02:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, you could be right. Template:ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice/doc does say: the visibility of this template is a prerequisite to sanctioning an editor for violation of the 1RR restriction. But if there is an editnotice on the article, does that not mean that 1RR on its talk page automatically becomes applicable? I suspect that yes, but I'm not sure. Perhaps that is something the Committee could clear up. (Or has already cleared up and I just missed it.) El_C 02:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, I'm sure Drmies would have recused himself from the uninvolved admin section if he wasn't uninvolved. El_C 03:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, to me, saying that he has it in for you sort of intimates it, but I may have misread. El_C 03:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's hard to argue that Sir Joseph would somehow not be aware of these restrictions... Drmies (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sir Joseph, that's the kind of technicality that makes all this so tedious. You may well get off on a technicality, but that comes at a cost. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why anyone is focusing on 1RR and talking about getting off on technicalities here. An editor has said one side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is interested only in killing the other side. Whatever their motivations for saying that, this is incompatible with editing in this topic area. At best, it is exactly the type of thing that will prompt disruption and make consensus-building regarding article content harder. At worst, it reveals a severe bias against one side of the issue that makes it impossible for the editor to edit neutrally in this area. Either way, allowing the editor to continue editing this topic area at this time is a net negative. This is a topic area under discretionary sanctions, and so any administrator can implement a topic ban if they feel one is warranted. I do feel one is warranted, so I support a three-month topic ban. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sir Joseph: It is, actually, broadly construed, if you are editing about the topic area on that page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BU Rob13: I'd support a three month TBAN for Sir Joseph. However, in the same discussion we have Huldra advocating violence against civilians (diff, diff). IMO this merits an indef ban from ARBPIA; I'm frankly considering taking it to AN to argue for a site ban. GoldenRing (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, let's action this under regular DS. I'm not in favor of time-limited topic bans, however, and would prefer an indef ban with appeal allowed after 3 months. Since Huldra isn't a participant here, I think that matter should be dealt with outside this thread, after they are notified and given an opportunity to respond. T. Canens (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree we need a topic ban with a possibility of appeal after 3 months, and we also need to open a new AE request against Huldra.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This has changed significantly in my time at AE; several years ago, short topic bans were a commonplace way to give editors a break from a topic for a bit. Their use is disappearing. Why? GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I concur with the proposed topic ban and the examination of Huldra's conduct in a separate request. Sandstein 10:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Joseph: Your edits are clearly within the ARBPIA topic. You can try to wikilawyer this if you like, and it will end just as badly as it did last time. Since you yourself have brought a request here under ARBPIA DS and also had a DS notification in July last year, you clearly meet the requirements of WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. Accordingly, I am imposing a three month topic ban from ARBPIA topics. I recognise some are arguing for an indefinite ban appealable after three months and that I am going against that opinion; I am doing so because (a) some of the opposition is to time-limited bans in general, but they are clearly a sanction open to us; (b) although it doesn't excuse the conduct, they were clearly responding to fairly egregious behaviour themselves; and (c) in cases where intend an editor take a relatively short break from a topic, I think it's better for the ban to expire automatically than to require an appeal, as an appeal only means that their re-entrance to the topic is immediately preceded by controversy and bad blood. I will open a separate request regarding Huldra shortly. GoldenRing (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the total mess I made of this situation last week, I'm rescinding my topic ban and leaving this for another admin to deal with. GoldenRing (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra

Huldra is topic-banned for three months from everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 16:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Huldra

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles:

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

23 Apr (1) Well then, I ask those genius admins who have put this in place to ASAP place edit notices on each and every article ...
23 Apr (2) And as for you having a 'good conscience', yeah, well, that does not convince me. When I was younger, I read a lot about the Holocaust. The one thing that terrified me about the Holocaust more than anything was this: some of perpetrators had a 'good conscience'...(basically saying that the people they killed were "lesser human beings" who would have died out, anyway, so they were just "helping nature", or speeding up the process a little..) So no; since then I have taken having a "good conscience" as not being a good excuse of anything.
4 May My point is that if you have no better source than those who depopulated (or "ethically cleansed") the Palestinian villages, then you might cut it out completely.
5 May Heh, I see all the "usual suspects" are here, with 100% predictable opinions.
7 May Oppose, resisting occupation is legitimate.
9 May (1) Any people has the right to oppose occupation. (Btw, by your standard, my beloved late father was a terrorist, from 1940 to 45 (the authorities that ruled our land in that period thought so too)).
9 May (2) And shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets? (original)
10 May (1) I am advocating my right (and anyones elses right) to oppose any illegal occupation.
10 May (2) I was arguing about occupation, and resisting occupation.
10 May (3) To repeat: what I wrote was in connection with an illegal occupation. I fully support my father taking up arms in 1940, and if any such situation arose again, I would do the same. And again, international law support this point of view.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

17 Apr 2019: User talk:Huldra#DS Alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Asking admin to review these diffs and take any appropriate action. Thank you. Leviv ich 08:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Apologies for the malformed request. At the recent AN thread, Jayron32, the closer, wrote: On the issue of Huldra's general behavior in the area of contention, many editors above agreed that Huldra behaved poorly, and may require sanction. If you think Huldra should be sanctioned, start a new thread and lay out your diffs. Others have made similar comments. I think these diffs violate the remedies, specifically the part of #Editors reminded that says ...all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies ... and the part of #Editors counseled that says For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Side X ... as follows:

Diff 1 ("genius admins") and Diff 4 ("'usual suspects' ...with 100% predictable opinions") sarcastically insult the intelligence of admins and the opinions of editors. WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:Casting aspersions.

Diff 2 says "you having a 'good conscience', yeah, well, that does not convince me" because some Nazis ("perpetrators of the Holocaust") also "had a 'good conscience'". This is Godwin's law, comparing an editor's "good conscience" to that of Nazis. Diff 6 is the same thing: saying that "your standard" is the same standard as "the authorities that ruled our land" in 1940–45, which is comparing an editor's "standard" to the standard of Nazis (or perhaps some other WWII fascist occupiers). WP:AGF, WP:NOTAFORUM, CIVIL, BATTLEGROUND.

Diff 3 ("ethically cleansed") accuses a living person of ethnic cleansing ("ethically" obviously a reference to "ethnically"). WP:BLP, NOTAFORUM, CIVIL, etc.

Diff 5 is an !oppose with the rationale that "resisting occupation is legitimate" in response to an RfC asking whether the West Bank occupation article should include Palestinian violence against settlers. One editor replied saying the vote should be discounted because it violates NOTAFORUM. I agree, and I also think this statement comes very close to saying that Palestinian violence against settlers is legitimate.

Diff 7 ("shouldn't armed settlers be legitimate targets"), I won't go as far as to say it advocates violence against civilians, but it's soapboxing, and again the suggestion that violence against settlers is OK (because they're "armed", though the original diff, calling them "settler thieves", was a Freudian slip). Diffs 8–10 are Huldra's own words explaining Diff 7, that this was "advocating my right", "arguing about occupation, and resisting occupation", and what Huldra personally would do if she were ever under occupation. Huldra should not be advocating her political rights, or arguing about the legality of resistance to occupation, or advocating anything concerning politics, on article talk pages. NOTAFORUM, and also I do not see how one can edit articles about a political conflict in compliance with WP:NPOV while openly advocating for one side of that conflict on talk pages. Leviv ich 16:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Huldra

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

Statement by Huldra

I am not sure how to answer this, as I am not sure what I am accused of. But firstly: all of the above diffs are from talk pages, or WP:RS/N ..none of those 10 diffs are edits of articles (and more than 75% of my total edits are to articles). Also, WP:NOTAFORUM clearly makes an exception of user talk pages (“You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles.”) And the expression "usual suspects" come from this movie, Casablanca, it is taken to mean the editors who regularly edit IP area, and who regularly meet each other at WP:AE, or WP:AN or WP:AN/I. As for noting 100% predictable opinions; that is not very original, I think it was Kingsindian who first said it years ago (at ARCA, I believe), that he could with 100% certainty predict how editors would vote in the IP area, only by seeing their names.

As for using depopulated (or "ethically cleansed") (You are correct, it should be “ethnically”): The Palestinian side normally say “ethnically cleansed”, the Israeli side normally say ”abandoned “ about the villages empty since 1948. As a compromise, we have come to using “depopulated” in all the 1948 village articles: that is a word none of us like every much, but all of us can live with. However, if I am to be punished for using “ethnically cleansed” on a talk page, shouldn’t we also punish editors who use the word “abandoned” on a talk page? There are plenty of examples of that, start with Talk:Lifta. (PS: I have never asked any of those editors who used “abandoned” there to be punished)

As for the recent AN, (and my talk page): I had never in my wildest imagination thought that my words could be taken to mean what they did, but that is obviously my fault. Mea culpa. It is my job to make my opinions clear, and not open to misunderstanding.

As for WP:NOTAFORUM: yes, I see that I have used article talk pages too much, so to speak; my only excuse is that it is rather common in the IP area. As Black Kite mentions: if all were to be sanctioned for this, then there will not be many editors left in the area, Huldra (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:BATTLEGROUND: some editors were saying that Omar Barghoti "support terrorism", as he said Palestinians were in the right to use force against occupation, and stating that his views were in accordance with international law. I am not sure how you can argue for or against this without "importing the conflict to Wikipedia", Huldra (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

Fyi all, the context (ommitted here by accident, I assume), is this AN thread.

Re. the case itself, at first glance—and somewhat apropos Sandstein—some of those diffs don't seem to be discussing Arab-Isreali relations at all—some are surely referencing Axis-occupied territories during WWII: par example. ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: It looks as if someone else has noticed too :) ——SerialNumber54129 10:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #7, cited by Mr Ernie as "particularly inappropriate" is in fact the one single diff that can honestly be said to have been dealt with: it was the immediate cause of the block that was summarilly lifted. ——SerialNumber54129 14:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

The AN discussion covered diff7, not the other 9 diffs (or most of them at least). The diffs here are on:

diff1 - Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests in relation to ARBPIA.
diff2 - on User talk:Davidbena in the context of ARBPIA.
diff3, diff4 - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussing a source on the 1948 war - ARBPIA.
diff5 - Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank - ARBPIA.
diff6, diff7 - Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions - ARBPIA.
diff8, diff9, diff10 - User talk:Huldra discussing ARBPIA block.

Possible comparisons (given context) between Israel/Palestine and resistance to Nazis in WWII does not make things better here.

The relevant policy here would be WP:BLP (diff3 - the author is a living person who per hewiki filled an education/PR staff role in 1948 - the diff seems to accuse him "ethnic cleansing" without sources backing this up), WP:ASPERSIONS (diff1 - "genius admins", diff4 - "usual suspects"), and WP:NOTSOAPBOX/WP:NOTFORUM (other diffs).Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC) clarify source for this.Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In diff3 - no evidence (sources) has been provided that Zvika Dror was a participant in the operation (which seems unlikely per what I see in sourcing). Icewhiz (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - my understanding of diff at RSN + reply to diff at RSN (in which they stated this wasn't against Israeli sources in general - and that they never challenged Benny Morris for instance) - was that the comment of " no better source than those who depopulated (or "ethically cleansed")" was directed at Dror specifically (as the sole author of the book under discussion).Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Ha-Har was also a battle between Egyptian regulars and the Harel brigade (and the end result was also a change in some territory). The book - a brigade history - relies on archive data, not just interviews - and is used for instance for quoting ordinances from the archives: " the Har’el Brigade published a combat ordinance, which read: "The enemy is planning...." page 267. To my understanding, Dror served in a PR/culture role in the national Palmach HQ (itself, at this stage, mainly in charge of recruiting/training troops - control of combat troops had been transferred to the IDF's command a few months prior. The Palmach (and its HQ) were to be dissolved the next month (November)) - and AFAICT was never attached to the Harel brigade in Jerusalem nor any other combat unit during the 1948 war. Even if he were involved in the operation - this would be a very serious charge towards a BLP, that should be backed up with evidence. In this case - it seems he was entirely un-involved in the operation, nor did he hold a high-ranking role in the IDF.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Apparently it is "get Huldra" time.

This is an unacceptable example of forum-shopping. The essence of this case was already handled at ANI.

Also, Huldra is absolutely entitled to question the bias of sources that are proposed for use in articles. In the RSN case that Icewhiz indicates, Huldra expresses the opinion that an article on a military operation that depopulated several villages should not be primarily based on testimony from ~~a participant~~ participants in the operation. This is a perfectly valid argument. If we can't debate the reliability of sources without being accused of BLP violations, we might as well give up on WP:V.

Note also that Huldra did not refer to the author of the book in question personally, but to the book's sources (using the plural "those" without naming specific people) so even by rigorous reading of WP:BLPGROUP this cannot be a BLP violation. This charge is ridiculous on its face. Zero^talk 13:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #1. How can anyone imagine that to be an actionable violation?
Diff #2 is extracted from a private discussion that is largely amiable.
Diff #3, see above. Note that OP is misrepresenting this diff, as I described.
Diff #4. Lots of people grumble when their questions at RSN only attract involved editors. They even use the phrase "usual suspects" fairly often (try searching for it).
Diff #5. Gave an opinion on an RfC. This is actionable now?
Diffs #6 to #10. This is the subject that the ANI case dealt with and there was a clear consensus which led the admin who had initially imposed a penalty to withdraw it and apologize. I suggest that second-guessing that other case without substantial additional evidence would be a violation of natural justice.

Zero^talk 13:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Sandstein: So the double jeopardy doesn't bother you? How many times is it reasonable to report someone for the same offences? Zero^talk 12:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: So you are saying that if we can't get rid of someone we don't like on the first attempt we can just keep trying until we find a sympathetic admin. That might be in the letter of the rules, but I don't believe it is in the spirit of them and it is not a community standard. Besides, as I wrote in the two sentences below this one, you haven't actually identified an offence. Zero^talk 13:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Sandstein: Maybe you don't realise that the legitimacy of resistance to an occupation was only introduced into the discussion by Huldra to defend a living person against a charge of supporting terrorism diff 6. Robust enforcement of the BLP rules is not something that should be punished. Zero^talk 13:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor El C: No, it isn't so simple. There is an article about an operation of the Palmach in which multiple villages were conquered, with those residents who hadn't fled being expelled and nobody ever being allowed back. Huldra was disturbed by the fact that the main source used in the article was a book written by a member of the Palmach based largely on interviews and memoirs from Palmach members who were direct participants. The review that Huldra cites in evidence strongly associates the author with his witnesses "Once a Palmachnik, always a Palmachnik" and even if he wasn't there with a gun he was a member of the organization (intelligence officer?) and shares responsibility. I strongly agree with Huldra that the book is dubious as a source, because both the author and his witnesses have an obvious conflict of interest. Anyway, Huldra wrote "if you have no better source than those who depopulated" which can refer to the witnesses, or the author, or both. Huldra stated her objection using the word "depopulated" which is neutral and accurate, and added in quotes the phrase "ethnic cleansing" that is the usual Palestinian way of referring to such events. There is no rule that we have to use Israeli euphemisms when we discuss sources. Zero^talk 10:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Just reading the list of diffs, I’m not understanding the violations other than some sounding a bit forumy or soapboxy. In context, they appear to be arguments by example. Perhaps some comments could have been more polite – but then, look at what they are in response to. I don’t see anything sanctionable. Frankly, it looks like retribution for the TBan directly above this filing, which would be sanctionable. But, I’m not suggesting a boomerang either. O3000 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For some odd reason, I tend to avoid the delightful repartee at a-i DS articles, and therefore haven’t run across Huldra until recently. It appears that she is a valuable editor in a difficult arena. Given that Huldra was blocked two days ago for diffs in this filing, and then unblocked with an apology after heavy criticism for the block; I wouldn’t think another filing on basically the same subject would be proper without a case that is so ironclad it is etched in lapis lazuli tablets. O3000 (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

A 3 month topic ban seems appropriate here, per the enforcement request above. Diff #7 is particularly inappropriate. I also note that the administrators commenting above did not seem concerned that the request didn't specifically spell out how the quoted diffs violated any specific sanction. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: if you look at the request just above this one, you'll see Sir Joseph was sanctioned for a comment on his talk page, and an article talk page, therefore it seems the admins broadly construe DS to also apply to those pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Am I missng something? "Editors reminded" above states that editors must edit from a neutral point of view, which clearly means editing of mainspace, not talk pages. Clearly Huldra has an agenda. That's been plainly obviious on the rare occasions when I edit in I/P and encounter her. One could argue that she has a battlegraound mentality. That too is evident. But I don't see grounds for sanctions in what has been presented. Unless I'm missing something, as I said. Coretheapple (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: With regard to your comment and IceWhiz's on my talk page: if the practice is to topic ban or otherwise sanction editors for political comments indicating an agenda, then my opinion would change. The question is to what extent AE will tolerate expressions of agenda to be proferred as arguments for inclusion or exclusion of text from an article. Obviously a political statement is improper, but is it actionable? I see improper arguments so often in RfCs I have lost count. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, upon reflection, Sandstein's reasoning is correct and that a three-month topic ban is warranted Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

So let's go through the diffs one by one:

I believe criticising admin's decision-making is specifically noted as not an issue; regardless, barely impolite, let alone a CIVIL breach
This is an analogy, rather than actually giving a direct implication link the targeted editor to the example in question. It's only risky because of misunderstandings of that point.
Factually incorrect to state as an attack - unlike the legitimate misunderstanding above, this is specifically in reference to the discussion around it about the extremely non-independent source used
See Point 1
Definitely not a justified !vote per NOTAFORUM, but also not indicating attacking civilians is legitimate. A NOTAFORUM breach does not warrant sanction
Again, another analogy which is legitimate, though misunderstandable. The first part is legally correct, but can be considered a NOTAFORUM breach depending on circumstances

7-10: These are bringing up already-resolved points in ANI, already handled in ANI. In any case: arguing legality certainly can be included in some talk pages, as it can be relevant to article content. Arguing what she would do may or may not be proper (depending on use to make a point vs political persuading/soapboxing) but again, wouldn't be sanction-able.

Nosebagbear (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

AE is not AN round two. A boomerang for playing the if at first you dont succeed try try again game is called for IMO. Huldra deserves at most a warning to refrain from violating NOTFORUM. Levivich deserves a warning for attempting to play the thought police on Wikipedia and for forum shopping. Is somebody not allowed to believe that resisting occupation is valid? Oh ok, I guess that settles that. Huldra would do well to keep her personal opinions personal, but thats it. nableezy - 17:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Levivich, I thought you were oh so concerned with the 500 word limit. Huh. nableezy - 18:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I think you are misreading the discussion. Sir Joseph argued that a living person is a terrorist because he supposedly said that such and such is a legitimate target. Huldra's response to that is and are they not legitimate targets? Somebody else made an issue of who is or is not a legitimate target, a discussion that I agree does not belong on a Wikipedia talk page. Huldra responded to that. You are really going to sanction somebody for responding, with a question at that, to somebody elses argument? Huldra didnt even say that they are legitimate targets, which you appear to be saying she did. nableezy - 22:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

Just to clarify, I have no opinions one way or the other on whether or not Huldra did anything sanctionable. In closing the prior discussion, I noted that some editors felt so, which was evident and apparent from their own comments. I am officially neutral on the matter. --Jayron 32 10:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Huldra

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

I would decline taking action because the complaint does not make clear which, if any, conduct policy or guideline each of these diffs violate. The request template requires complainants to provide "an explanation how these edits violate" a sanction or remedy. Sandstein 09:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on a statement by Huldra. Sandstein 18:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because Huldra doesn't seem to be active, here's my view: There's clearly a WP:NOTFORUM problem, but I'm reluctant to impose sanctions for that alone, because the fact is that talk pages are very frequently misused in this manner without sanctions. However, there's also a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue. Even without expressing a view about whether it is appropriate to argue on a talk page that certain persons or groups are legitimate targets in a violent conflict, we can determine that doing so imports the conflict into Wikipedia, and misuses Wikipedia as a vehicle for the prosecution of the conflict. This is clearly prohibited by policy. I would therefore impose a three-months topic ban against Huldra. Sandstein 12:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Double jeopardy is a concept from criminal law that does not apply to Wikipedia. (And if it would apply, something akin to the dual sovereignty doctrine would need to be considered with respect to sanctions considered by the community, and by ArbCom or on its authority). Because discretionary sanctions are not consensus-based, but rather a matter of the individual discretion of administrators, any prior discussion or consensus at the community level is not binding (although it may of course be taken into account). My takeaway from the earlier AN block review was that the community concluded that the previously imposed indefinite block was inappropriate (and I agree with this). This has no bearing on the milder sanction(s) now being discussed. Sandstein 13:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only thing being obviously violated here is WP:NOTFORUM, which isn't something I'm willing to immediately sanction over. Huldra should have received a warning about that after the ANI block discussion; since they didn't then, they should do so now (or, you know, take that message to heart without a formal warning). I would take no other action. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, diffs #6-#10 have already been dealt with by the above quoted AN thread with its related admin actions; therefore bringing it here after the event does somewhat appear like forum-shopping. I don't see much else in the remaining diffs apart from issues of NOTFORUM, which if we were sanctioning people for here, there would practically be no editors left at ARBPIA and other hot-button venues. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, I wouldn't say for the sake of symmetry, but per Jayron32's closing remarks, I actually do think that this is something which is appropriate for AE to examine in its totality. El_C 20:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that GoldenRing has rescinded the topic-ban against User:Sir Joseph, which was effectively for the same issues as are being discussed here, so my inclination now would be to close this with no action as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just affirmed GoldRing's original closure. El_C 08:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expand: the reason I did so was because it looked like the sanction enjoyed consensus among uninvolved admins. El_C 08:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, I'm confused. What comments were made regarding Zvika Dror? — you seem to be missing some documentation there. I agree with Sandstein — the indefinite block lacked consensus, but that indeed has no bearing on milder sanctions which may be proposed here. El_C 01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Zero0000, but in the context of that discussion it seems clear that the reference is (also) to Dror, since he and his books are mentioned directly above her indented comment, El_C 06:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WookieInHeat

User is warned (2-day inactivity can be seen as time served had a block been issued.) El_C 19:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning WookieInHeat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: WookieInHeat (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

[31] First edit removing section. So far so good, no violation I know of.
[32] Reinstates a challenged (via reversion) edit without obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article
[33] Reinstates a challenged (via reversion) edit without obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article
[34] Does the above and also breaks 1RR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

Discussion concerning WookieInHeat

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

Statement by WookieInHeat

Procedural question from Mr Ernie

Is someone violating the consensus required provision an exemption for another editor to violate that provision and revert back? It's not clear to me per the edit notice, nor the guideline page (WP:CRP), which do not state any exemptions (although surely BLP would be one). If not, then Bradv, PeterTheFourth, and Nomoskedasticity also appear to have violated WP:CRP. Regardless, this appears to be a clear violation by the defendant. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter

I was in the process of filing a request myself when I saw this; noting that I told him that he had violated the restriction after the first violation on May 10 (along with the DS alert), yet he continued to revert on May 13. @Mr. Ernie, I haven't seen anyone regard reverting to enforce the remedy to be violation though indeed the restriction itself is not 100% clear there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WookieInHeat

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

Revert one (03:14, 13 May 2019), revert two (04:26, 13 May 2019) — version reverted to (12:16, 9 May 2019). Looks like a cut-and-dry 1RR violation. El_C 17:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Roem has not edited in two weeks — they may be unavailable for our immediate purposes. El_C 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Roem: you imposed this page-level sanction, would you like to attend to this request? Sandstein 09:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's my practice not to enforce page-level sanctions placed by other admins, and so I'll not act here, but others are of course free to take a different view. Sandstein 16:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls

Both SashiRolls and Tryptofish are subject to an indefinite IBAN. El_C 01:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SashiRolls (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.[36]

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

18:31, May 14, 2019 Removes "from documents..." (original edit)
13:19, May 15, 2019 Removes "lawyers litigating..." (original edit)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months
Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party.
Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
June 2017 1-year indefinite block.

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 September 2016 by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.[37]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs above show a straightforward 1RR violation in Séralini affair, (1RR was partly why SashiRolls was topic-banned in this area before). However, they are still personalizing disputes over at the related glyphosate page too creating a disruptive undercurrent in the most controversial area of the GMO/pesticide topic currently.

Background

I suggest reading the 2016 AE where Sashirolls was topic-banned for behavior related to GMOs as we're essentially having a repeat of that behavior all over again. They are already extremely short on WP:ROPE already being topic-banned in this area, but this is best described by Dennis Brown's closing of the Dec 2016 block this is a last chance for SashiRolls to be a member of the community. . .[38]. Sashirolls' long block log is pretty telling of this behavior, and their 2018 block appeal was barely accepted it seems by RL0919.

Battleground behavior

Article talk page comments are often personalizing disputes fitting tendentious editing's definition of problematic as a whole rather than in isolation:

after Trypto insisted on rewriting the facts to paint Séralini as evil[39]
When discussing a tag for finding a medical source, Kingofaces43 wants to go farther, adding a tag of shame to that sentence for maximal rhetorical effect.[40]

Creates a chart on talk page to single out editors with no bearing on content, Look, everyone: data-driven analysis of who leaves the most K here in the glyposhate talkpage letterbox.[41]

Reaction to DS notification:I figured that you wouldn't be able to resist templating a regular if I edited your "Roundup" page. (my bolding) and I assume you just wanted to make a fairly vague threat without saying anything groundless.[42]

There also appears to be some wiki-hounding of Tryptofish (a regular in this topic) based on this ANI (another repeat from SashiRoll's topic ban) that's leaching into the GMO/pesticide topic now as SashiRolls hadn't really been around much in these articles before that ANI. I don't know the details of those interactions being outside my editing area, but it does show the community is plenty tired of this from SashiRolls in other areas.[43].

I for one want to focus on content in this area, but it's already very difficult content to try to craft as it is even without the pot-stirring behavior Sashirolls is interjecting since they jumped in recently. Given past sanctions, I'd at least suggest a full topic ban this time around so the rest of us can get back to work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to admins

El C, the DS notification Sashirolls got is explicit it covers all areas dealing with GMOs and pesticides, and ArbCom has reiterated the DS scope since it is often gamed for "ignorance".[44] 3RRBLP doesn't apply to any living person-specific material here, but do read Sashiroll's first edit summary showing they knew the information was true (and sourced elsewhere they've been working). That's still WP:POINTy reverting against the intent of 1RR.

Add in Sashirolls outright misrepresenting me in their above response claiming I had two reverts (they were two edits in a series), the battleground projection still continues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde quick reply since I'm at the word limit. Tryptofish already primarily answered your question, but at the time I was going by the AE filing that was under both GMO/pesticide and politics DS. There's no question GMOs were the locus. Admins could have flipped a coin for which DS to use for formal logging without excluding the other (can an action even be "double-logged"?), but that's getting into the weeds for this conversation since the end result is the same that the behavior heavily involved this DS area. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite El C's caution to Sashirolls below, they are still doubling down on pot-stirring behavior at glyphosate even today.[45] I'm not sure what admins expect when an editor is repeatedly sanctioned for battleground behavior, gets warned again at this AE, and just does it again, but it's disrupted this topic enough. The battleground behavior is the key problem here regardless of edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C, if it helps, it's the battleground behavior that's the center of the dispute, and I highlighted that section of my initial comments better. The 1RR question is only part of the problem, so you can technically set that aside and look at the other diffs I provided outside the direct 1RR remedy (and some people are ignoring that battleground problem and only focusing on 1RR). In short, do you see battleground behavior in those comments of Sashirolls I highlighted, and what should be done about that given they've been sanctioned for that so many times already? A one-way interaction ban for Sashirolls might help since the problems appear to be one way, but that also leaves some of the comments being directed at me too. That's why I mentioned they already had a topic ban related to GMOs in the Jill Stein topic, so it's probably better to just expand it to the full topic instead (see the DS language for scope). Basically, focus on my Diffs of previous relevant sanctions and Battleground behavior section if anything. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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

Statement by SashiRolls

I will make a statement Saturday now that the goalposts have shifted:

Trypto agrees 1RR claim is wrong

clicking on the text you can see that the text I reverted was not the same in the two instances (in the first case it was unsourced and in the second case it was overdone and contained errors: the date of the supposed release was inaccurate the second time)
I didn't notice a 1-RR DS template on the Talk Page. (going back I see it's because there isn't one). Since the text under contention is about a herbicide, and not in any way associated with genetically modified organisms, I did not think about the unrelated GMO case Kingofaces & Tryptofish were involved in.
the page is an attack on Séralini's reputation. Both edits I fixed contained demonstrably wrong information. The first time the info was unsourced; the second time the dates were wrong. The lawyers did not release the info on 1 August 2017. I did not revert the new text exclusively because of this error but because the text was undue.
Tryptofish & Kingofaces have been contributing to a negative atmosphere on glyphosate for quite some time now. See further KoF's 2RR (different text, as above) on glyphosate (1, 2) and Trypto's reversion against a 5-2 talk page consensus. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 07:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C: There is no notification in the TP header about 1RR. Nor do I see a template on the article page?? Please compare to the TP of genetically modified crops where the {{GMORFC notice}} template is on the page. On the other hand, I was mistaken about the actual study which -- rushing before work -- I mistakenly suggested was exclusively focused on glyphosate. In fact, my interest in the case was aroused by Kingofaces repeatedly saying how disreputable he thought Séralini was on the TP of glyphosate. This is the BLP problem. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you are talking about now.. it only appears if you edit the page, it is not on the talk page itself. I did not see that pop-up notice, but would not have thought it applied in any case because I was not reverting the same text. I did not realize I had fallen into a clever trap (first the info was added in a completely unjustified manner since it was sourced to text which said nothing at all about lawyers, then it was readded with completely different (and quite excessive) language the next day (but earlier)). Very clever. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 12:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish states he has not followed me around. This is blatantly false. On the colorful Strategic Wikisuit Against Public Participation page RHaworth cleaned off for me, I've listed a few of the examples of this, citing him at length to avoid accusations of cherry-picking (which clearly apply to the choice mid-sentence cuttings Kingofaces43 provided above). The details of Trypto's long history of following me to drama boards to try and have me disciplined is available here. I think you will agree that the truth-o-meter is in imminent peril of exploding it's so cold... 🎃 SWAPP 🎃 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, it was your evidence of GMO wrongdoing that was categorically rejected. Since you brought the first strategic suit against me the day the schoolyear began, you caused me to freak a little after 1 September. Please don't smile when you read that. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 22:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C: I assume you are not forbidding me to work on the glyphosate page or from objecting when Mr. K deletes the work of other contributors. Mr. K says that the talk page is a battleground. I have never used that metaphor, possibly because I was not involved in digging the 17 pages of "trenches"... I would suggest considering topic banning the trench diggers. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto has falsely claimed below that I edited no pages related to GMO / herbicides until March 2019. This is especially odd as he massaged my 16 January 2019 edit to the Roundup page as you can see by clicking next (§). Why does Trypto continue to say things that are false, deliberately ending his search 6 days before the news of Roundup360's ban was front page news in France? Saying that I am following him around because I added something that was front-page news in my region of the world is a very twisted and self-important way of misrepresenting my volunteer participation. -- SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template visible on the talk page saying 1RR. The fact that the 1RR template is hidden in a pop-up is strange. Why is the public not informed of this 1RR restriction?
I agree that translated into en.wp formalism, I was defending the BLP rights of Séralini against being written up as a bad guy because he hired lawyers that got results.
I did not directly revert Trypto and was engaged in trying to find a compromise text, which granted is usually not easy in the GMO area, but I was doing so in good faith. I have not been further involved on that page and am satisfied that my bold edit has been almost completely accepted.
The larger issues concerning this shoot-first-ask-questions-later filing are serious, and I have laid them out above and in my statement, which is as short as I could make it, while still citing TF completely. The fact that both KoA & TF have been demonstrated to be making up novel interpretations of old cases, cherry-picking quotes, posting misleading diffs, getting caught in howlers about harassment, and for long-term advocacy in the subject area is probably not entirely necessary to decide the 1RR question, which I had thought was already resolved in the negative as "no violation". ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El C... I was the only one (of the two of us) to have edited it in 2019 on 14 May 2019. However, I do believe he wrote on the subject much earlier (apparently his last edit was a little over 12 months earlier). This may explain the reaction, I don't know. For the record, the first time I wrote about the Séralini affair on Wikipedia was back in 2016. (on a TP) a few days before Trypto decided to take me to AE. ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do hope whoever decides this will set a solid precedent concerning the appropriate "contempt of wikicourt" penalties for TH and KoA telling transparently tall tales (TH: multiple, the most glaringly evident = January edits to Roundup, stalking my edits to post a link to my statement before I'd finished it, misrepresentation of previous decisions, failure to report their own past blocks, KoA = misrepresentation of Jill Stein topic ban as being related to GMO, reporting a 1RR violation that wasn't one, cherry-picking from sentences that almost invariably express a great deal of modulation around the cherry-picked items, etc...). ~~ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 01:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

The article is a BLP, and although the edit summaries don't explicitly cite WP:3RRBLP, they explain that the edits are removing unsourced material (which is obviously contentious, as the entire article is about a controversy involving a living person). Leviv ich 05:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: No doubt you're right about that.

While Sashi may have passed 1RR without citing an exception in their edit summary, it would seem that so, too, did Tryptofish (and I don't believe any exception would apply to his edits). I know I'm not an admin but in my view, if you look at the article history for May 14–15 in its entirety, neither of these editors are really "edit warring" in the sense of repeatedly replacing the same text. Rather, they're just editing: going back and forth, using edit summaries, making tweaks and changes that respond to the others' edit summaries, using {tags} at various points rather than re-inserting/removing text, etc. I think it's just good faith editing.

I have a hard time taking Tryp's complaints about Sashi's conduct seriously because he himself posts things like this (posting this picture with the edit summary "Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is just too good to pass up.") directed at Sashi. I said as much at the ANI thread Tryp opened against Sashi, which went nowhere (it was quickly closed, then Tryp unclosed it and later re-closed it himself). Like the 1RR thing, it seems like a mutual or two-sided problem. My personal opinion is that both editors should take a break from each other. Leviv ich 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: The section of this report titled "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" lists diffs of an alleged 1RR violation. Perhaps admin can rule on that and close this. Anyone who thinks there's another issue that needs to be looked at could file a new report (although Sashi and Tryp both opened ANI threads proposing sanctions against the other, which were closed without action, and neither editor brought the issue up again at any noticeboard, so maybe there are no issues). – Levivich 00:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: [47] Tryp edited from 2013–May 2018; then no activity for a year; then Sashi edits in May 2019. – Levivich 01:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cmt by SN54129

@El C:, re. the appearance of DS notices, it's a known bug that they don't, though, appear on the mobile view-------------->

——SerialNumber54129 11:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

We are far past the point where WP:ROPE would have reached its end. I can see both sides of the issue of 1RR, in that the second edit by SashiRolls did not purely revert me, but instead partly reverted me and partly created new wording in its place. I've been wavering over the last few days over whether I should come to AE over this, myself, and the 1RR issue did not seem to me to be sufficiently unambiguous to be a reason by itself. But that is largely beside the point. There has been an immense amount of disruption lately. I want to focus on how, in recent weeks, SashiRolls has been violating WP:BLP on GMO pages, and on what Kingofaces correctly describes as WP:HOUNDing of me.

Here: [48], SashiRolls has been quite blatantly posting BLP-violating content about a scientific journal editor, at Séralini affair, a page within the GMO topic area. I alerted WP:BLPN, [49], and editors who responded quickly came to the conclusion that material SashiRolls added needed to be removed: [50]. This was in service of battlegroundy editing to push an anti-GMO POV.

I've been editing the GMO topic area for years, and I was the filing party in the GMO ArbCom case. In recent weeks, SashiRolls has followed me there in a very hound-y way. He recently created a now-deleted attack page about me: [51]. (See also: [52].) A great deal of what he has been doing at GMO pages has been intended to mock me. After I said this at Talk:Glyphosate: [53], he posted: [54], clearly mimicking my "Look, everyone" wording while adding meaningless information, and then edit warred to keep that there over objections by other editors: [55], [56]. He had similarly mimicked me here: [57], [58]. He posts sarcastic comments about me and others with sarcastic edit summaries: [59], [60], [61]. Notice how he says antagonistic things, then disingenuously excuses them ("an offer of pie or cake").

His statement above that he did not know that herbicides like glyphosate are part of the GMO topic area ("agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them") lack credibility in light of his earlier comments to me: [62]. He describes above this edit of mine: [63], as "Trypto's reversion against a 5-2 talk page consensus", when that is nothing like the reality. He is single-handedly making the GMO topic area a very unpleasant place, especially for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About this: [64], I did not say the 1RR claim was wrong, but rather that it was ambiguous. And Kingofaces' opening post was about a lot more than that, anyway. As for me being all those things, well, no, I'm not. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich didn't know what he was talking about at the ANI thread, and he doesn't now: [65]. The ANI thread led to the administrative decision to delete an attack page; it just didn't lead to any further sanctions beyond that. And the logical outcome would have been for SashiRolls to leave me alone after that. Instead, he followed me to the GMO pages, where I've edited for years (and at WP:GMORFC, crafted the language that the community ended up adopting). I sure didn't follow him anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the kind words. You asked a question to Kingofaces, but I want to answer it myself, because I think there is a misunderstanding. In this prior AE sanction: [66], I was the filing editor, and the topic areas were both AmPol and GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I see what you mean about the logging. However, Jill Stein#GMOs and pesticides was the specific locus of the dispute, and I don't want to see anyone criticized for not having parsed the logging history. It is perfectly understandable for anyone to view that sanction as having been GMO-related; I would have thought that, myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls has said above that he is going to respond here once his work week is over. I have User:SashiRolls/SWAPP on my watchlist because it was the page that was previously CSDed as an attack page, and it just popped up on my watchlist again, recreated with different content: [67]. I'm fine with editors making userspace drafts for dispute resolution, so that's not a problem. But I see that he has taken my comments above, in which I said that he followed me to GMO pages after the recent ANI discussion about the attack page, and he should not have done so, followed by my saying that I, in turn, did not follow him anywhere, as an invitation to compile a list of "Tryptofish is mean to me", going back to 2016. It's a massively revisionist history, so let me make it simple. SashiRolls starts with an AE diff dated September 2, 2016, and says that I made an AE report about him that was rejected. Here is the permalink to that AE: [68]. Not rejected, was it? It's the same one that I discuss with Vanamonde just above. I'm pretty sure that that does go back to my first interaction with SashiRolls, and it's the origin of his antagonism against me. In any case, "Tryptofish is bad", even if it were true, would not be a refutation of the evidence from Kingofaces and me, and seems to argue that two wrongs make a right.

Earlier, we had [69] and [70], at Talk:Glyphosate. Today, he found time for [71] and [72]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional background information about the history of interactions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because SashiRolls indicates that he disagrees with my description of who has been "following" whom, here is a more detailed background.

I began editing in the GMO topic area in 2013: [73]. I was the filing party in the ArbCom case, and I crafted the community-chosen language at WP:GMORFC. In 2016, I observed that an editor who had been a named party at ArbCom and was later topic-banned from GMOs at AE had added content at Jill Stein that directly contradicted the community consensus from WP:GMORFC. That is how I ended up there. That, in turn, led to the first AE sanction against SashiRolls: [74]. SashiRolls was indeffed in June 2017: [75], and the community lifted the block in November 2018: [76]. From that time through ~~March~~ January of this year, he made no GMO-related edits that I can find: [77]. Throughout that time, I never went to any pages where he edited, full stop.

In late March, he showed up again ~~for the first time~~ at some GMO pages, to revert an edit by Kingofaces: [78]. Seeing that and a few subsequent edits, I gave him the DS alert, and he commented about it at the article talk page, my ~~first~~ GMO interaction with him since before the indef: [79]. A little after that, he opened an ANI complaint against another editor: [80], and I was unaware of the ANI discussion until the other editor pinged me there: [81]. This is how I responded to the ping: [82]. While that ANI discussion was still ongoing, there was this: [83], and over the last several weeks SashiRolls has almost exclusively edited GMO pages, culminating in the filing here.

As I said above, he should have tried to avoid conflict with me after that last ANI complaint, about the attack page, but he did not, and I never edited the topics that he edited between the lifting of the indef and the recent GMO disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There were also some GMO edits on January 16, that I missed when reviewing the edit history. Let's not distort what I originally and consistently said here at AE: that he should have steered clear of me after the last ANI complaint. That also doesn't change anything about what happened over the past few weeks, and doesn't change anything about my not having followed him to the topics he edits and I do not. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFD is simply wrong about that:

The first supposed "revert": On May 14, SashiRolls made this edit, after no edits to the page since a bot in February: [84]. I then made this edit: [85] and this edit: [86], the second of which TFD calls a "revert". Those are not reverts; I simply added more information.
The second supposed "revert": In the next edit, SashiRolls made this: [87], which is a revert of what I had just added. But that was him, not me. Please note that his stated concern in the edit summary was that I needed a source for the lawyers revealing the documents. In the following three edits: [88], [89], [90], which TFD calls my second "revert", I sequentially added a "ref name" to a source that was already cited on the page, then used that source to respond to SashiRolll's request, and then revised some of the wording and the order of the sentences to make the text better correspond to the source. None of that was a "revert", unless someone thinks that when an editor removes something due to "citation needed" and another editor adds it back with the requested sourcing is somehow a revert.
The third supposed "revert": SashiRolls then makes a series of revisions: [91]. I do not revert any of that. Instead, I tag some of the material for POV problems: [92]. That is not a revert.
The fourth supposed "revert": SashiRolls then makes this edit: [93], in which he accidentally introduces some stray text at the top of the page, and reverts one of my tags without addressing the concern underlying the tag (although perhaps he believed that he had addressed it). I then make this edit: [94], in which I fix the stray text, put back the removed POV tag – so arguably that part was a partial revert, but it was also restoring a dispute tag that had been unilaterally removed without first getting consensus – and, most importantly, added another tag in which I indicated that SashiRoll's intended fix did not reflect the cited source. My edit summary was poor, but it's a stretch to call that a revert.
The fifth supposed "revert": SashiRolls then provides a source that addresses my "failed verification" tag, but also removes the POV tag yet again: [95]. Once again, I restore the POV tag that had not been addressed: [96]. TFD calls that a "revert". In context, and with the clear edit summary I provided, I don't really think that it is. I think that there is a well-established community consensus that such templates should not be removed unilaterally without consensus. And, very importantly, I did this tagging while also carefully explaining why, on the article talk page. And also very importantly, I explained on the talk page that my edits grew out of WP:BLP concerns: [97], an assessment that was endorsed by uninvolved editors when I notified WP:BLPN about it: [98].

For an experienced editor like TFD, who should understand what is and what is not a revert, this seems to me to be a frivolous accusation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kolya Butternut

I don't know anything about the GMO topic area, but SashiRolls has brought my name into the discussion on User:SashiRolls/SWAPP. My experience speaks to SashiRolls' lack of credibility and his battleground mentality. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

By my count Tryptofish has made five reverts in a hr. period, although Kingofaces43 has not not brought a complaint against him.:

23:14, 14 May 2019[99]
16:28, 15 May 2019[100]
21:17, 15 May 2019[101]
21:23, 15 May 2019[102]
21:48, 15 May 2019[103]

I note also that Kingofaces43 did not ask SashiRolls to reverse their reversion before reporting the to AE.

While SashiRolls has a block history, I think their level of editing has improved since. I notice that Tryptofish also has a block history.

If this were Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, an administrator would either block both editors for 24 hours or provide temporary protection for the article. I recommend the same approach be taken here.

TFD (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

I'll await their response before making up my mind, but from what I read from the opening statement, ~~it doesn't look good. A new topic ban is probably due.~~ El_C 04:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Kingofaces43, if the page is not subject to 1RR (no DS notice), why are you reporting a 1RR violation?~~ El_C 07:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SashiRolls, that is not the case. There is both a mainspace and talkpage DS notice. El_C 07:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, edits which invoke BLP exemption ought to be spelled-out, exactly so all of this could be avoided. El_C 07:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SashiRolls, this is not helpful. Just make your statement here, and otherwise please avoid discussing the dispute elsewhere. El_C 22:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This report has become too lengthy. It's difficult to tell what's going on anymore. I'm not sure other admins would feel motivated to look into this. El_C 00:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is SashiRolls even arguing for WP:3RRNO? They seem to be saying that the text in the reverts was not the same, which would still be a 1RR violation, if there are two reverts. But it's been four days already, I'm not sure a block would be appropriate at this time. Maybe an interaction ban with Tryptofish? I don't know. If they could just make an effort to condense and get to the crux of it. El_C 00:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, if this was AN3, I would close those violations as stale. Anyway, can someone please answer me this: the article under contention, who started editing it first? Maybe this was already mentioned? You would forgive me if I missed it. El_C 01:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, that tool does not load for me, but I'll take your word for it. An IBan would probably mean SashiRolls would be ABaned from that article by default. El_C 01:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lengthy complaint, and I'm still working through it. At first glance, SashiRolls's conduct has been below par in several circumstances. However, I'm also unimpressed with some of the others editing the pages where this conflict seems to have localized at this time; Tryptofish is one of the few whose conduct I have no complaints about. For instance; Kingofaces43, why are you claiming that SashiRolls has been sanctioned under the GMO DS before, when that's patently untrue? All of this users DS sanctions have come under American Politics discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Kingofaces43 (fixing malformed ping) Vanamonde (Talk) 21:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: I did see that. You (understandably) filed the case linking to all the DS regimes you thought were relevant. However, the sanction was only logged under AmPol2, implying that that is the topic where misbehavior seemed localized. See the log here. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish: That is fair, and I don't mean to make a big deal of it unless there's a pattern; it's just that there's been a long history at AE of editors weaponizing DS and doing so by trying to make a situation look as bad as it possibly can; and I'm somewhat allergic to that (see, for instance, the most recent request about Philip Cross). Vanamonde (Talk) 21:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]