Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive249

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SashiRolls

Appeal unanimously declined. Sandstein 09:07, 13 March 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: SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~~~

Sanction being appealed: "SashiRolls is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party." (16 December 2016) source

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

Notification of that administrator: [1]

Statement by SashiRolls

Recently, I saw somebody appealing on this board and I thought back on the fact that I've been banned for 750+ days from this board for my comment in ~~Sagecandor~~ v. Tlroche. That effectively stopped me from commenting. I'd also recently received some IP abuse ("fascist" diff) and from a sock named ~~Dan the Plumber~~ (more name calling:§) who turned out to have serious Syria issues and to be a sockpuppet of ~~Sayerslle~~. The person who exposed this sockpuppet now appears to have left Wikipedia in disgust. Finally, a recent case seemed to suggest that here and now the feeling might be that it is excessive to prohibit people who provide actual evidence of an established pattern of behavior from speaking at AE. Two people have suggested making my case here.

Here are the details of the original case: on Saturday, 3 December 2016, Sagecandor insinuated I was a "Russian propaganda agent" at NPOV/N, while misrepresenting my contributions. (diff) On 10 December 2016, someone I do not know opened an AN/I case about Sagecandor and left me TP-notification that they had done so. In that AN/I case, the contributor currently known as GMG insinuated (in small letters) that I should be banned from all noticeboards for asking Cirt why they were so reticent to respond to another contributor's questions about their pre-Sagecandor identity. (NB: occurrence 20 of 34 for ~~Timothyjosephwood~~ at AN/I in that archive: diff. )

On 15 December 2016 Sagecandor accused Tlroche of being disruptive for creating a reference sub-section with {{reflist}}, then {{reflist-talk}} at NPOV/N (diffs 10-12), and for responding to SC having falsely accused them of "forging signatures" in diffs 4-5. At this point, Cirt had brought 3 cases to AE as Sagecandor in the space of a week and I thought I should provide diffs showing that 1) they were extremely averse to being transparent about their history and 2) they were making things up about the person they were currently prosecuting. I did not comment in the other two AE cases they had brought. (Cf. archive 204) As a result of the above, on 16 December I was indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which I am not a party. I have never broken this prohibition. Within ten days of receiving that prohibition, I was blocked from en.wp entirely when Cirt prosecuted me with his Sagecandor sockpuppet.

Over a week ago, I asked Timotheus Canens to reconsider whether he thought his current ban was justified or not. He did not wish to do so (edit summary: no). I asked him for diffs supporting the view that a topic-ban from AE was necessary or desirable. I have, to date, not received any.

I have no intention of "casting aspersions" on anyone, nor do I have a "battleground mentality". I've made 2500 edits or so since returning around Toussaint (2018), quite a few of which were in controversial areas editing alongside editors whose reputations for, let's say, having "strong opinions" are well established. Two pages that I was the principal author of have also appeared on the en.wp front page (both nominated by others) during that time. The time-consuming process of reliving some of these moments to fill out the form here has been a bit of a wp:pain, which went beyond the bureaucratic question of filling out forms.

It is entirely possible that I will never have reason to comment on an AE case that I am not a named party to. In other words, I believe I wandered into the middle of a heated battle surrounding Cirt's mission as an undercover editor without knowing what I was getting into, and will seek to avoid having that happen again. I have no intention of using AE as a soapbox in the way that it has been used in the past. I would like my full wiki-zen-ship privileges restored, and have the last active sanction against me removed about the CIRT affair, as it serves no purpose and discourages me from participating in this legendary land of socks and honey.

My wikiscans: en | fr (this data is based on the "individual edit" rather than "substantive edit")

Thank you for reading this, and sincere apologies for any damage I've done: I make awkward editing mistakes. Too many. that's why my edit totals are so high, because I fix it when I make a mistake. Unfortunately prior to 2016 my experience with mediawiki was overwhelmingly on a personal wiki where nobody cares if you make 8 edits to get a paragraph right. I'll try to improve in this area.

MrX, you were the first commenter on ~~Sagecandor~~ v. Tlroche and on this request. Concerning your comment generally, I'll just add these two WMF diffoscopies : (x-Sage) | (x-Snoog). Association is no crime. Demonstrating one isn't either.

For the connection with your AN/I case, please glance back at this talk page section that ~~Dan the Plumber~~ opened on the BLP we recently ran into each other on. The WP:DEWitude of that BigBlue^TM 4-word-link-button that Dan added about the chemical attack on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP is a question we should probably ask about on the TP one of these days. But, yes, this is indeed the same Dan whose edits the long-term editor you were seeking to have indeffed was reverting. I opened my statement with links to their peppy PA. I sekritly suspect (assuming nothing) that the anon. IP may have been ~~Daniella the Electrician~~ but I've been wrong before.

Your typing is convincing, though. Letter by letter you've re-scoped a reminder as an accusation (which I grant, magnified 200x through spectral diffoscopy, it does rather resemble... that's why I provided a link to document the reason for my concern in the first place). Your decontextualized zoom-blur-up of (go tempora, go SnooX!) into a 2nd degree snark-crime is fair enough, too, I suppose. Is there a don't joke with the regulars! essay somewhere? In any case, that page has calmed down a bit, don't you think? On a more personal note, I had no intention of bringing up your actions on Ms. Gabbard's BLP or your recent actions at ANI, as I am not bringing any "request for action" against you. Since you're here though, I'll send you some wikiwiki aloha!

Cullen: I first read the comment I alluded to about wildebeests extracted from its original context off-wiki, so yes there is a sinking edge to its echo. I was just stealing BHG's word (beasts, actually) to describe "attack socks" (which she was not) and trying unsuccesfully, I fear, to morph/anonymize her into Dahl's famous "the BFG". In point of fact, though, I had assumed the comment had been excerpted from a completely unrelated recent AN/I drama-fest. Instead, it was said at AN in still another completely unrelated case; as it turns out, one you were involved in. I actually didn't know that because I'm not "watch-listing" (subscribed to) either board. I hope you will take this into consideration.

Jorm: I believe part of why admins found me annoying back in the post-2016 landscape was the number of times I gnomed my statements at AE, that is why I've done my gnoming in my sandbox before posting here. I also felt/feel it likely that defending ~~Hidden Tempo~~ got me in trouble with some admins. As for why I was blocked, specifically, on this page related to Sagecandor, I think only the blocking administrator could say. And I hope he does.

More generally, thanks to everyone, too, who has spent time reading through this appeal carefully and taken the time to comment.

Levivich, Mr Ernie, JFG, I really appreciate knowing there are some people out there who think I'm worth doing that for. :D SashiRolls ^{t · c} 19:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Statement by MrX

Admins should duly decline this appeal. There is no benefit to SashiRolls commenting in AE requests for which he is not a party. The comments in this AE request by SashiRolls were indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with respect to SageCandor/Cirt.

As evidence that SashiRolls continues to take a battleground approach with content disputants, I give you these diffs:

For context, this discussion at ANI involved me reporting a user for violating 1RR community sanction restriction on an article about a chemical attack in Syria; an article which SashiRolls was not involved with, in any way. SashiRolls simply followed me to ANI to cause trouble because he did not like the direction that another content dispute was taking on an entirely different article.

If that is not enough, I invite you read his recent snipes on talk:Tulsi Gabbard directed toward Snooganssnoogans and me. If necessary, I will provide diffs of some of the more aggressive comments, however this one stands out as being a not-so-clever attempt at accusing Snooganssnoogans and me of tag team editing, which he did previously here.- Mr X 🖋 21:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

There's really no reason for this sanction to remain in effect. The whole thing revolved around SashiRolls and Sagecandor. Since Sagecandor has since been blocked, this sanction can be removed. It was enacted solely because of the perceived disruption at AE's by and about Sagecandor (which SashiRolls was actually right about). If any problematic behavior resumes, then it will be easy to re-apply the ban. People deserve second chances. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

SashiRolls wrote a balanced and thoughtful reflection on what happened two years ago. In hindsight he was correct about Sagecandor, who I remember as a highly battleground-y and tendentious editor. Outside of this old dispute, SashiRolls is a constructive editor who manages to keep a healthy distance from his own point of view, while pointing out lapses in neutrality at various contentious articles. The sanction should be lifted without prejudice. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SashiRolls

First:

I think some consideration should be given to the fact that SashiRolls was actually right about the socking concerns.
— User:Boing! said Zebedee

Second, I've been editing with Sashi at Yellow vests movement for a few months and it's been very enjoyable. Sashi is fun to work with. I think anyone checking out Talk:Yellow vests movement/Archive 1 and Talk:Yellow vests movement will see it hasn't all been rainbows and unicorns there: we've had good-faith disagreements as well as vandalism, edit warring, POV pushing, claims of anti-semitism, and more wikiwonders, but even during the high-drama times, I've never known Sashi to be anything other than a helpful, productive editor. He's also answered my questions, helped me out and encouraged me as a new editor. Two years is a long time to ban anyone from anything. I hope admin will accept and remove Sashi's remaining sanction. His record since being unblocked, combined with his record at the sister wiki projects before that, demonstrates he deserves to be an editor in good standing here. That, and what Boing said. Leviv ich 04:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single thing in this appeal that indicates that Sashirolls understands why this restriction was applied, nor any kind of comment about what they will do to change their behavior going forward.--Jorm (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although this comment: "Is this just tigers churning in the night, or is it another sign of what the BHG has identified as a wiki-wildebeest syndrome?" may have a certain literary merit, it is indicative of an ongoing battleground mentality. Accordingly, I cannot support this appeal at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the opposite conclusion reading that comment. The heading, "Collateral damage", and the preceding lines, "Looking back into this matter a few days later I see that it (or events surrounding it) seems to have had the effect of causing the retirement of one of the people who made a statement (Fitzcarmalan). This does not seem to me a positive outcome..." made me understand it to be a statement of reflection, sympathy and lament, not battleground. Leviv ich 14:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by SashiRolls

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

Judging by the sound of crickets in this section I'd wager that I'm not the only admin who has had trouble building up the motivation to wade through the appeal above. It's like, "Here's a contentious meandering wall of text. Please grant this appeal so you can get more."</exaggeration> All I really want to see in an appeal is an understanding of what the problem was and a plan to fix it. Bonus points if it doesn't blast through the 500-word limit.

Briefly addressing the substance of the appeal, I can't say I'm convinced that the battleground mentality is gone, but perhaps my view is being colored by my previous interaction with them [2] where they asked me to investigate 5-month-old "aspersions" made by an ideological opponent. ~Awilley (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Awilley. SashiRoll's request strikes me as battleground-y enough that I'd decline the appeal. While it might not be battleground-y enough to create a new topic ban, it's battleground-y enough to give me reason to think removing the restriction would be unwise. It might be a more difficult decision if this was a topic ban preventing them from editing particular topics, but this is just preventing them from jumping into unrelated AE threads. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Awilley as well. An initial 750+ word statement followed by another ~500 words of replies is not the greatest way to appeal a restriction in a forum with a 500 word limit. That said I don't see a demonstrated understanding of the reason for the sanctions, but I do see continuing unhelpful contributions to admin discussions at least some of which show a borderline battleground mentality. Not enough to sanction for, but enough to make it clear that removing this restriction now will not be a net positive for Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Awilley, and am accordingly closing this request as declined. Sandstein 09:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfman12405

Indeffed as a normal admin action. GoldenRing (talk) 13:16, 25 March 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 Wolfman12405

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Zero0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :

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

21:16, 24 March 2019 First revert. Note aggressive edit summary "Seems like this guy's political agenda is getting the best out of him, such foul language as he used demands a ban"
10:34, 25 March 2019 Second revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Feb 28, 2018 48 hour block for "persistently making disruptive edits"
Sep 7, 2018 Blocked for 1 week for 1RR violation and refusing to self-revert after warning
Dec 27, 2018 Three month topic ban from article due to "continued uncollegiality, edit warring"
Jan 5, 2019 One month block for "persistently making disruptive edits, including edit-warring, breaking 1RR restrictions, and being abusive to other editors. This is your third block; it is almost inevitable that if another one is necessary it will probably be indefinite."

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

Standard ARBPIA alert
In addition, prior involvement in his own multiple sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor seems incapable of editing in a collegial manner. His manner towards other editors is insulting and offensive. You can visit User talk:Wolfman12405 to see that it is full of complaints about his personal attacks.

Moreover, his attitude to the rules is arrogant in the extreme. His reaction when I gave him an opportunity to self-revert was LMAO look who's talking, hypocrite. Do u practice what u preach? I can also report you, with edit summary "crybaby who doesn't practice what he preaches". Earlier responses from his talk page in similar circumstances include "Nobody but u had violated anything u hypocrite crybaby" and "Lol, hell no, the truth will be heard".

Due to the history of this editor and the singular lack of improvement despite many sanctions, I believe that an indefinite ARBPIA topic ban is appropriate. Zero^talk 12:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, Black Kite imposed an indefinite block while I was composing this report. Please officially close it. Zero^talk 12:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Wolfman12405

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 Wolfman12405

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wolfman12405

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

Comment I blocked Wolfman12405 indefinitely five minutes before this AE was filed; their editing is so egregious (persistently violating AE sanctions and then abusing people when this is pointed out to them) and this is their fourth block. Obviously, if there is a consensus to replace this with an ARBPIA topic ban I can unblock; just ping me. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain157

Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action by GoldenRing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:35, 22 March 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 Mountain157

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrClog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mountain157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

3 March 2019 After someone originally removed the content, which was then reverted, Mountain157 reverts it again without any explenation (not on the talk page, nor in the edit summary), violating WP:TALKDONTREVERT. This issue had been raised by another user on the talk page on 26 Feb already. Mountian157 also removes Pakistan as opponent of ISIL, whilst that edit had been sourced (including an article of The Indendent).
6 March 2019 Here a user removed Pakistan as ally, but got reverted by Mountain157 again. Whilst the user that originally removed Pakistan as ISIL ally didn't provide a good reason to do it (but at least attempted to), Mountain157 provides no information, whilst the listing of Pakistan as alledged ally was backed up by 3 articles of 1 Afghani news site (and Mountain157 also removed Afghani as the country that alledged Pakistan of supporting ISIL in diff 1) and seems pretty WP:UNDUE to mention as alledged ally in the infobox, whilst actively removing many other countries as alledged ally (see diff 3).
28 February 2019 Here the user removes India, Afghanistan and the US as alledges allies, keeping Pakistan in the infobox, whilst at least the US's allegation was backed up by the Washington Post and Al Jazeera.
26 February 2019 Here, the user that is being reverted by Mountain157 explained there edit on the page's talk page, whilst Mountain157 reverts the edit and doesn't respond to that talk page message.
13 December 2018 Here, the user removes sourced information regarding possible human right violations against Pakistani citizens, falsly claiming there is no evidence and calling the alledged killing of 2,000 citizens "neglectible".
2 January 2019 Here, the user tries to keep Pakistan as a confirmed ally of Al-Qaeda, reverting other people's sourced edits based on a false accusation of being a sockpuppet.
18 December 2018 Here, the user adds Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia as confirmed allies of ISIL, citing questionable sources for at least Pakistan and Turkey allegations.

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

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 23 February 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I, as a West-European, really had no opinion on the India-Pakistan(-Afghanistan) conflict and didn't touch the issue until I saw a dispute on WP:DRN about it. This issue has been closed because it is premature (no discussion, as Mountain157 refused to discuss it) and because it seemed like the user wasn't interested in participating, as they removed the message informing them of the dispute from their talk page ([3]). Whilst no mediation work was necessary from me as a result, I did decide to dive into the issue and it became apparent to me that the user I am filing an enforcement request for had been editing disruptively, whilst WP:AC/DS are active on the page. The user has been blocked for editing disruptively before, for 48h at Dec 25 2018 by Black Kite.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4] (- The user has removed the notice from their talk page. It is unclear if Mountain157 wishing to make a statement. 08:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion concerning Mountain157

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 Mountain157

Statement by Legacypac

Based on Mountain157's general conduct against other users (mainly I've seen issues at ANi) it ie time to do something. Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikiemirati

Reported user has multiple occurrences of abusing infoboxes, which is itself a sanctioned action. Diffs:

[5] 5 February 2019 - Removing Pakistan as opponent of Haqqani Network
[6] 24 January 2019 - Adding Pakistan as allied to Taliban
[7] 17 December 2018 - Adding Pakistan as allied to Al Qaeda

I discussed OR changes extensively with reported user, he has demonstrated to be able to cease edit warring behavior. However, user clearly demonstrates battle ground behavior User_talk:SharabSalam/Archive_1#Wikiemirati and I was reported by him at both ANI and AN3 but reports were taken down with no action. Wikiemirati (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mountain157

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

These diffs are quite concerning. Adding the claim that Pakistan supports ISIL, based on statements from within the Afghan government, is already questionable: contentious claims require exceptional sourcing. Removing similar claims about other governments based on similar sources is unacceptable after having added such material about one government smacks of editing with an agenda. I would like to hear from Mountain157 before proposing any specific course of action. I will note that this editor has been a regular at the admin noticeboards, and that their editing there has frequently demonstrated a battleground attitude. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've indeffed this user as a normal admin action for disruptive editing following their rage quit; before they return to editing, they will need to display some understanding of what the problems have been. GoldenRing (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox RfC on Fermat's Last Theorem

In line with "request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions", I'd like to request that the Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem page be explicitly placed under discretionary sanctions, specifically sanctions relevant to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions #Standard discretionary sanctions, and particularly the injunction by ArbCom, "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.", while the discussion about whether or not to include an infobox is taking place.

The earlier debate on that page was characterised by repeated personal attacks, and the current RfC is being turned into a battleground, along with snide remarks, sarcasm, and straw man arguments with the obvious intention of derailing the RfC. I'd like an uninvolved admin to impose whatever sanctions are needed to restore decorum, civility and productive debate to the RfC. Thanks in advance. --RexxS (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning discretionary sanctions for Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem

Statement by Bishonen

@RexxS: your request for placing Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem seems reasonable and even-handed. Doing so wouldn't target any group, or any opinion in the RfC as far as I can see, so I could probably do it. I wouldn't feel comfortable, though, simply because you requested it, and you and I are friends. You have helped me and my pesky socks with endless requests that stem from my technical incompetence. Hopefully another admin will do it, and I'll add that I don't see any reason to confine the DS to the talkpage; they should apply to Fermat's Last Theorem as well, since it's perfectly possible to edit that in an incivil way. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

FeydHuxtable

No action taken. Sandstein 16:44, 27 March 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 FeydHuxtable

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FeydHuxtable (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#Casting_aspersions : An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. . .
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions: 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.

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

March 14 2019 GMO aspersions principle violation (more in comment)
March 21 2019 I don't trust you on insect decline at all.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Jan 29 2019 Warned for violating GMO aspersions principle and uncivil behavior.

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.[8]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background

In the last AE concerning FeydHuxtable, they cast WP:ASPERSIONS in violation of the GMO/pesticide behavioral DS. Because disruptive editors frequently used things like shill gambits to cast doubt over editors in content disputes or further battleground behavior, a principle was passed in the GMO/pesticide case. Admins, please be sure to read that in the listed sanctions above. ArbCom specifically said this is a problem in this topic area and cannot be dismissed as non-sanctionable behavior when it continues. That especially goes for when editors have been notified of the DS, including trying to game the principle by not "exactly" calling someone a shill, etc.

There was also confusion in that last AE, so let me be clear that the talk page content did involve pesticides, and these were the types of edits that do involve pesticides as main cause for insect declines, the center of the underlying content dispute, being worked on at multiple articles. More on application of the DS here.

Current issues

After that, I'd been trying to work with that same battleground behavior I reported that absolutely did not let up. Feyd filed a declined ArbCom case request against me accusing me of pro-corporate POV editing and linking that to pesticides with absolutely no evidence. Arbs pointed out that it was largely meritless and that a motion for sanctions against Feyd could be considered. Feyd also said there, I'm not suggesting he's a shill. But one doesn't need CoI to make overly pro-corporate edits., and accused me of "weaponizing" the DS which is also clear gaming of the GMO/pesticide aspersions principle. Editors who bristle at the DS in this topic like that has usually are the ones that need to be removed in some fashion. Ironically, I was saying in the underlying dispute that pesticides were actually a cause of insect declines, but it seems like their battleground mentality kept leading to Feyd repeatedly painting me as some pro-pesticide or pro-corporate editor and encourages others.

I could go into more on gaming the 1RR restriction and dealing with a litany of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior from them. For brevity unless asked, I'm going to stick to the blatant violation of the aspersions principle since that establishes the continued battleground mentality most succinctly. Due to being warned in the last AE and continuing it yet again in an ArbCom request of all places, I'm formally requesting either a topic-ban from topics where pesticides and insects are involved or else a one-way interaction ban in order to prevent future disruption and harassment. I have never run into Feyd before this, and I don't expect to see them outside this topic either, so either might work without future issues.

Feyd has made a very clear battleground mentality known here for this subject, so some sort of sanctions are needed to prevent additional disruption from them so the rest of us can actually get back to work on content since these issues above scuttle attempts at doing that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comments

Sandstein, admins cannot override Arbcom and call a direct violation of the aspersions principle "frivolous". The case was declined, and arbs said to take to to the admin boards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Joe Roe did say it was fine to file this at AE too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, the aspersions principle was crafted to be very strict to prevent comments exactly like yours because some people would always waffle on it. Arbs at the declined case also mentioned that the evidence was lacking to justify the claims, violating the principle. The original GMO/pesticide case was started in part because ANI does not handle these violations well. It was meant to be explicit that such behavior is not tolerated anywhere where pesticides/GMOs come up because not removing it makes the environment toxic and disrupts content discussion (or dispute resolution), but instead encourages the battleground behavior I've been receiving here trying to paint me as also disruptive for following the DS and getting battleground behavior removed. We're reaching a point if admins keep ignoring that and contradicting ArbCom, this will become an ArbCom matter to discuss ways to further prevent what's happening in this discussion (including what it does to editors who report the violations). It shouldn't need to be though since this is supposed to be a cut and dry violation as we hammered out at the original case, so I'm only asking for the standard protection editors who are following the DS are supposed to get from that principle, which has so far failed. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, my position is quite clear the the DS and related principles are supposed to be enforced with some things that are not really debatable here without ArbCom changing certain motions (that discussions on pesticides are covered by the DS, and no aspersions, especially of the nature mentioned here). Arbcom's wheelhouse is defining the scope and what behavior is severely disruptive to the subject, and this discussion is running directly into issues with some of that. There is nothing battleground about that (don't shoot the messenger afterall), and I've made it clear in my comments at Goldenring's talk page that I despise any sort of cry WP:INVOLVED tactic. As for the declined case, arbs did not consider the aspersions principle as that was not the focus of what Feyd filed. That's why we are here as recommended since AN is not particularly for DS requests.

My comments to Goldenring are about direct misrepresentations accusing me of trying to drag a DS topic into an unrelated conversation in order to win a content dispute. I have to call that out since it is accusing me of something blatantly false with any reasonable understanding of the topic (and already mentioned as a good faith mistake that can be fixed). Pesticides came up almost right away in edits that had to be proposed because reviews covered, and Feyd mentioned, environmental stressors causing insect decline. The page already had plenty mentions of insecticides too prior. Feyd had been calling it "Fringe POV pushing" at the time, but once we started discussing what reviews actually said, then they switched to a you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV. That's when I knew I had to stick to the DS strictly, and Feyd has been egging on these misrepresentations I mostly try to ignore up to this day.

I'm the last person to say I'm immune to criticism, but there's been too much directed at me that's also way out of line in this admin discussion. In addition to the sniping I've been subject to by Feyd, both those create an illusion of battleground behavior when one simply sticks to the DS and related principles. If the tables were turned and I as a long-term editor in this topic was the one casting aspersions about a "pro-corporate editor", I would be quickly sanctioned not only for that, but also for trying to game the DS by claiming things mentioned here like the DS not applying, especially if I did it at an admin or ArbCom board, a related page not having pesticide in the title, etc. Please be mindful of that double standard I'm currently being placed in because I've been following the DS carefully, so while I have very reasonable frustration over the current situation, calling that battleground, frivolous, or otherwise is not appropriate here. All I can do here is be extremely clear on what we worked on at the original ArbCom case so I can get back to working on the topic without these disruptions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I never called you WP:INVOLVED by acting at AE even before I fixed my typo that you would have seen before your post. I was saying an uninvolved admin should not be directly misrepresenting an editor as I explicitly told you that you were doing, and that it was fixable. Continuing down that path is what causes problems. We're at a point though that so many aspersions (shill-type or more general) have been cast about me and not been tamped down per the principle that I cannot address them with the current word limit outside of these procedural comments. I'm just asking the principle be enforced due to the explicit violations so I can go back to editing those articles again and work on fixing some of the underlying issues there (including some of Feyd's edits) without having to deal with the toxic behavior Feyd has been following me around with there and here already outlined at the declined case Feyd made. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Later procedural comments

Admins, we're getting more problems in the topic again now. We already had two plain as day violations of the GMO/pesticide aspersions principle with the pro-pesticide pro-corporate comments and no action yet, essentially encouraging ignoring the DS remedies and pursuing battleground behavior in topics where pesticides are covered since it won't be enforced. I've added a new diff above, but Feyd continues to make their battleground behavior they've already indicated was centered around pesticides extremely clear. Their responses at these AE (mostly focused on me rather than their behavior), and now at a talk page explicitly saying I don't trust you on insect decline at all. as well as interjecting language about me being a denialist somehow for saying the insect declines are occurring[9] show a type of personal vendetta and attempt at a needlessly inflame the topic and blame the other editors approach that was supposed to be tamped down hard when it shows up in this DS area because of how it disrupts content discussion. I shouldn't need to go to ARCA with blatant stuff like that.

Couple that with the "factions" comment at the last AE, that diff summarizes the personal battleground behavior Feyd has been repeatedly directing towards me throughout the talk pages I've been trying to respond to as civilly as possible and stick to the DS despite all that. It should be clear to admins that Feyd's behavior isn't going to stop and will keep disrupting attempts to build content or follow consensus-building procedure. That's especially when it's like pulling teeth trying to encourage them to even start on proposing specific content like I did here. I didn't immediately run to AE when this all became clear, but there's a point where there's been enough disruption I've dealt with patiently that the DS were specifically crafted to protect us from. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UninvitedCompany: a short response since I fee like I've overextended my extension, but the principle was crafted to make it clear making up such stuff about editors was not appropriate in any forum, and I'm getting really concerned admins are dismissing ArbCom on the seriousness of the principle crafted because editors and admins alike already weren't taking the problem seriously prior to the case. The principle specifically states actual evidence is required, not bald-faced aspersions. We already had one AE where editors had to be sanctioned for direct aspersions at a board like AE, so we can't say it's now ok to do that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning FeydHuxtable

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 FeydHuxtable

I see King's just made an excellent talk page post concerning the subject of our dispute. IMO it's a different class to anything I've seen him post before. King had telegraphed he was going to launch this AE, so I already have diffs ready that hopefully demonstrates much of the above is not entirely accurate. (And possibly to make a case that King's the one who warrants a topic ban. In fairness Im unsure about this, my own conduct hasn't been perfect, it's hard to be objective when you're personally involved.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden Ring
FWIW, IMO DS is now applicable to Insect Decline. I've no objection to a 2-way iban, though I agree with Sandstein it may not be needed. Other editors have started to weigh in strongly for the mainstream view. and I doubt even King will try to edit war against the emerging consensus. I don't think there's been much personal animosity in the dispute. That said, Im also not impressed with yesterdays edit to your talk. If this goes to round 4 I'd switch to supporting sanctions for King. Considering his past conduct, I can't see a trip to ANI ending well for him. That said, King also has many fine qualities, and IMO he doesn't quite yet warrant a sanction. ( I can post a more detailed diff rich expansion if you're interested in my take on this.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have a general concern, as opposed to a specific comment about this filing. @Sandstein: as a long-time watcher of AE complaints in the GMO area, it seems to me that you have a blind spot when it comes to GMOs. I'm not questioning your good faith by any means, but I think that this has become a problem in the way that you have been responding to these kinds of requests. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, thank you, yes, I'll go to your talk page soon. @All admins, if you have questions about whether or not insecticides fall within the scope of the GMO DS, perhaps the best way to resolve that would be for me to file a request for clarification to ArbCom. I was thinking about doing that, and will if you would like me to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Thank you for clarifying that, as well as for saving me the trouble of filing a request for clarification, which I can see is now no longer useful. I was going from where you had just said here that I am still dubious that the content at the base of all this actually falls under the scope of GMO DS. I do understand your point that the content did not include explicit mention of pesticides. However, that content was summarizing source material that attributes a large percentage of the decline in insect populations to the agricultural use of pesticides (which are obviously "agricultural chemicals" as the words are used in "genetically modified organisms, agricultural chemicals, and the companies that produce them, broadly construed"). And in fact, there are GM crops that have been designed specifically for the purpose of changing how insecticides are used on those crops. Consequently, it is inescapably true that any dispute between editors about how to summarize that source material must necessarily get into what the sources say about agricultural chemicals. And therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that an editor who points that fact out is somehow "weaponizing" the GMO DS to be used outside of their intended scope. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FeydHuxtable

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

This is a frivolous request. The alleged misconduct consists of filing an arbitration case request. If arbitrators find the request problematic, they or their clerks will take appropriate action. We should close this without action. Sandstein 20:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Your comment surprises me. I'm not aware of treating GMO issues that come to AE (which is not often the case) different from any other issues. Please contact me at my talk page to explain your concerns. Sandstein 10:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are generally given more latitude with their language when filing requests for arbitration, because such requests necessarily involve allegations of misconduct. If every allegation was accurate, ARBCOM could be dissolved, because there would be nothing for them to examine. I do not see FeyHuxtable's comments straying beyond what is acceptable for an ARBCOM request. Furthermore, ARBCOM is able to impose sanctions (via motions) on editors filing vexatious requests. Only one arbitrator suggested such an action, and a motion was not even proposed. Even if I found merit to this request, I would hesitate to second-guess ARBCOM. Kingofaces: the request was not declined as "meritless". It was largely declined because other forms of dispute resolution had not been tried yet. AE is not a form of dispute resolution; nor have you brought evidence here from the original dispute. In conclusion, I see no basis for action here. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces, your last comment is concerning, because your language suggests that any admin who disagrees with your interpretation of what happened is neglecting their duty, which itself smacks of a battleground mentality. You've also initiated or participated in discussions with six editors involved in the arbitration request or this one, essentially asking them why they didn't support your position in its entirety. We are not ignoring the evidence you've presented; we're judging it differently from you. Additionally, your comment is missing the point of what most of the arbs said. Most of them did not comment on the evidence at all; they recommended that other attempts at dispute resolution be attempted first. This isn't such an attempt, because you haven't brought forward any evidence from the initial dispute. Finally, since you ignored this point above; AE is not meant for policing the arbitration pages. The arbs and the clerks are more than capable of acting on any violations there themselves, and have done so in the past. This dispute needs to be examined in its entirety. I recommend that that happen at AN, but if you wish to present additional evidence here instead, please feel free. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sandstein and Vanamonde93 above - there is no basis for action in this particular request and the clerk team is capable of maintaining order at A/R/C without needing requests at AE. I'm also not particularly impressed with the claim that somehow having acted at AE makes me involved. However, stepping back a bit, there is clearly a dispute between these two that needs resolving. An interaction ban seems a good outcome to try; my only query is whether it can be done under GMO DS or whether we should send this back to the community at AN. I am still dubious that the content at the base of all this actually falls under the scope of GMO DS. @Sandstein and Vanamonde93: what say you? GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interaction ban is perhaps within scope of the DS, but I'm not seeing clear evidence that it is required - i.e., that the conflict between these two is disruptive to the work of other users. Sandstein 10:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I would hesitate to impose an interaction-ban here, because I do not think the behavioral issues have been explored in enough detail. Furthermore, behavioral and content-related issues tend to run together in some topics where reliable sources are not unanimous; this is one such situation. As such I think the community is better equipped to deal with this at the moment, and I think kicking this to AN would be the better option. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I don't see any question over whether insecticides fall under GMO DS; they unquestionably do. My hesitation here is that the content that kicked all this off was a strict, quantitative description of insect population decline without any mention of pesticides. Since both parties now accept that DS covers the discussion, it's a moot point. GoldenRing (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Vanamonde93's first point above. Users editing arbitration committee case pages in accordance with arbitration policy are generally given wider latitude because the abitration process relies on statements that are straightforward, short, and blunt. I do not believe that the other comment in the original request (the one related to insect decline) rises, by itself, to a level where enforcement action is called for. Uninvited Company 19:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because discussion has ceased and nobody seems to want to take action, I am closing this as no action. Sandstein 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb

No action. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 28 March 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 Joefromrandb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Joefromrandb (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/Joefromrandb and others#One-revert restriction (Joefromrandb restricted to 1RR)

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

Edit-warring on Big Time Rush (band) in violation of 1RR restriction

18:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "it's not an independent clause, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, but I'll leave it to others to fix; meanwhile fixing mid-sentence capitalization of definite articles beginning a band's name"
Consecutive edits made from 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1. 18:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2011–12: Elevate and film */ lc"
2. 18:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2013–14: 24/Seven */ lc"
3. 18:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
4. 18:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ nowhere does any of that MoS claptrap say to capitalize a dependent clause following a colon"
Consecutive edits made from 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) to 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
1. 10:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "no, a dependent clause following a colon is lowercase"
2. 10:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
3. 10:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Public image */ lc"
05:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2009–10: Formation and BTR */ lc"

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that editor Joefromrandb is edit-warring with is not me, but User:Amaury p b p 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are a number of personal attacks by Joe on other editors. Examples include here and here, among others. He is continuing past behavior of claiming any disagree with him is trolling. There was a finding that Joe's personal attacks were problematic, but no specific enforcement was given to them. p b p 16:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: @Awilley: @Floquenbeam: This is not about me, this is about Joe and the ArbCom restrictions imposed on him. We either have rules or we don't. It shouldn't matter whether or not I filed this: this is a violation of Joe's ArbCom restrictions (I might add restrictions that were the result of a discussion I had no part in), and there should be enforcement. And I'm not really buying this whole "it's better" attitude: he still is incivil and dismissive of people who tell him to stop edit-warring, and he's merely gone from behaviors that would get 90% of editors blocked to behaviors that would get 50% of editors blocked. p b p 03:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 1 2. (Note that related user warnings to this topic on Joe's own page have been dismissed as trolling by Joe).

Discussion concerning Joefromrandb

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 Joefromrandb

(Note: I am posting this at User talk:Floquenbeam and asking him to copy it to WP:AE. I have taken this unusual step for the sole purpose of continuing to, as I have for years, voluntarily refrain from any interaction with the filer of this report. It should not be taken as a slight against readers of this page by refusing to answer directly, nor should it been seen as an endorsement of the content by Floquenbeam.)

In short: mea culpa. I let my frustration get the better of me. I should have stopped after the first revert and left it to others to correct the errors I found. Going forward I will strive to do so in the future. I do feel the need to note that the complainant in the AN3 report was my counterpart in the edit war. That doesn't exonerate me, nor does it mitigate my culpability in edit-warring. Still, I have to say I find it outrageous for a user who performed three reverts within a period of several hours to show up at AN3 acting like the injured party. It's true, I broke WP:3RR and he did not. However, as far as both the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia's overall policy on edit-warring goes, he was every bit as guilty as I. Whatever the case, I acknowledge my part in this edit war, and pledge to strive to refrain from such behavior in the future. This is an isolated incident, occurring more than six months after I resumed editing following the ArbCom block. I don't see a new block being particularly productive, but of course, that's not for me to decide. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IJBall

I'm going to support a block in this case, based on edit warring, WP:NPA, this editor's long previous block log, and this editor's assuming bad faith and unwillingness to collaborate (based on their comments to Talk:Big Time Rush (band)). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a Level 3 WP:NPA warning at this user's talk page for this egregious edit against Geraldo Perez (who has been remarkably patient with this editor – maybe too much so). As far as I'm concerned, their behavior in this whole situation shows that they are clearly WP:NOTHERE to work in a collaborative manner. So I think an indef is fully in order in this case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam: There is no "settling old scores" on my account – I have never seen this editor before this. But what I have seen of them here is not good at all. Frankly, the project is not served by allowing long-term disruptive editors, no matter how "well meaning", to continue unabated. (This especially true about rigid "MOS warriors" – no single group of editors ends up causing more disruption than these.) And the behavior of this editor in situation has been to my mind egregious. On the "merits", the editor may have had a point on MOS:THEBAND (though I gather this MOS is itself controversial, and the result of a "compromise", and generally MOS's like that aren't worth the pixels they're made out of...), but was actually wrong on the header issue (Geraldo quoted chapter on verse on the general practice of how to handle headers after a daterange, but this editor not only ignored that but insulted Geraldo to boot). Frankly, I don't care what pbp's "motivations" were for filing this report – disruption is disruption. And if ARBCOM is simply going to ignore their own previous rulings, what is the purpose of ARBCOM at all?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amaury

Support block per reasons by IJBall. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I hope this is correct and how replies are made to other users here, as I've never been here. Anyway, FWIW, if you haven't already, see this ANEW report which is what led here. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RhinosF1

Looking at this from an uninvolved point, It's clear there's NPA issues and a breach of WP:1RR. The editors block log and previous ArbBlock shows he won't change so Support Indef. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 08:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I can't argue that a block of some kind isn't allowed here; that was certainly a 1RR violation. However, I recommend not blocking, mostly to prevent giving the emotional reward to the filing editor here. For reasons I can no longer recall, PBP and Joe have been at odds for years; eventually Joe stopped interacting, and PBP didn't. I've blocked them for such harassment in the past. PBP has nothing to do with this dispute, but saw an opportunity to get an old rival in trouble and jumped on it. I can't sanction them for reporting a clear AE violation, but this kind of behavior should not be rewarded. Considering that the dispute that led to the 1RR violation hasn't flared up again, I'd recommend only a warning/reminder to Joe this time. Ironically, I'd have likely not commented in Joe's favor at all at WP:ANEW, because the reporting editor there was not motivated by an old feud. But using AE to continue old unrelated feuds should really be slapped down hard; that is much more damaging to our culture than a 1RR violation. By now I'm probably "involved", and PBP certainly wouldn't value advice coming from me anyway, but if some uninvolved admin wants to make it clear to PBP that AE isn't for settling old grudges, that would be great too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was clear before, but based on IJBall's comment, I just want to be safe and say it again: I'm not claiming IJBall or Amuary are feuding with anyone. I saw the now-closed ANEW report, that's what I was talking about; it's ironic that the ANEW report was closed in deference to this forum, since that report was filed for legit reasons, this one isn't. I disagree with the mindset of "disruption is disruption" without considering context. And finally, a lack of a block here would not be "ArbCom ignoring their own warnings"... ArbCom doesn't do anything here at AE, uninvolved admins do, and they exercise discretion. They may very well impose a block anyway, but if they do I want them to at least understand the background of this AE filing, and understand the behavior they're unintentionally encouraging. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

Not the first time we're here for Joefromrandb, and I hope it's not the last time--that its, I sure hope the admins here are not going to follow the advice of a user with 500 article edits and indef Joe. And Purplebackpack, why? what? This is not cool. I hope the patrolling admins show some leniency. I'm not going to be one of the admins below the line since I just don't know what to do here. I do think that Swarm is right and that we are having fewer problems with Joe's occasional outbursts. I recommend leniency. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Joefromrandb

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

I remember that RFC mentioned on the Beatles talk page, and basically at the end of the day, where a band that starts with "the" should have it capitalized or not all depends on several factors but there is certainly no one logical rule for all lower-case or all upper-case. As such, trying to conform all to that rule is a problem, and there's certainly no allowance for edit warring over that that would qualify here on the 1RR ban. That 1RR restriction is clearly broken here. --Masem (t) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was initially reported to AN3, where myself and another admin were leaning towards no action, on the condition that Joe drops the dispute and does not breach the 1RR again, which he agreed to. Perhaps by AE standards, such a voluntary resolution would not be considered to be enough, but it should add some context that this is a minor edit war over capitalization, that normally wouldn't even be actioned. FYI, as far as I can tell, the "The/the" issue has been settled from an MOS perspective, with WP:THEMUSIC agreeing with Joe's edits. MOS is not rigidly mandatory, but that's not a good defense when reverting MOS-compliance for no reason, particularly when the MOS guidance in question has settled a long-term dispute. So, Joe was right in terms of that specific issue, and while that's not an exonerating defense, it may be seen as a bit of mitigation. Also, Joe has a long-term history of incivility. When I look at this dispute, I don't get the impression that it hasn't improved. I get the impression that it is still not perfect, but is not on the level that would have led to the previous extended blocks. Anyway, even given the history, I'd be in favor of restraint and keeping the sanction proportional to the offense. Also, just a procedural note, Arbcom reserved the right to indef if necessary. It is not on the table here. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others#Enforcement of restrictions, the 1RR violation here can be enforced with a block of up to one month, if we're feeling particularly draconian. ~Swarm~ {talk} 20:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this just now as the matter is new to me. I think it is important that arbitration remedies are actually enforced as written. The fact that the subject user's conduct was serious enough to warrant a 1RR remedy from the committee indicates that a serious problem exists. To ignore the remedy undermines the work of the committee. Given the minor overall severity of the behavior that is the subject of this request, and the unusual circumstances of the request, I do not believe that a lengthy block is appropriate. I propose a 24 hour block. This would be enough to provide effective enforcement of the remedy and to provide a starting point for escalating sanctions should that become necessary. Uninvited Company 19:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was on the fence but was pushed off by Floq's comment above (not wanting to reward forum shopping/score settling) and then shoved even further by Joefromrandb's statement. So I oppose a block, and think the best path forward is to just move on. ~Awilley (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Note: I just noticed that the filer was Purplebackpack89. That didn't influence my original statement in any way and wouldn't have even if I had noticed before commenting. I don't consider myself involved with PBP or have strong feelings in their direction, but I do recall consistently coming down on the opposing side of several AfDs they initiated, and I want to avoid the appearance of involved adminning. I almost moved my statement up out of this section but held back since I'm not favoring any boomerang warning, but if PBP objects to my participation here I will move it anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also get the impression that Joe's civility has improved since his arbcom block expired six months ago. It's not perfect, but it's better, and his comment here in this discussion is positively zen. I too would go with no block, also because I share Floquenbeam's reluctance to reward the OP's use of AE to continue unrelated old feuds. Bishonen | talk 00:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Probably technically sanctionable, but I would agree with no block, because (as has already been said above) I - and I suspect many other admins - am completely sick of people using AE to further petty feuds, especially when they're not involved in the situation at all. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence here. On the one hand, I largely agree with UninvitedCompany and have been considering a block between something symbolic and 24 hours. On the other hand, Joe's reaction here is exemplary and this would be the first block since his six month block expired in September (and as far as I know there hasn't been any drama in that time?). Like others, I'm deeply unimpressed with an uninvolved editor using this to further a prior dispute, but I don't think that should influence us either way on enforcing the remedy; if sanctions are justified, then we should apply them. Were this a DS area, I'd be considering at least a logged warning to the OP as well. GoldenRing (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a block. The situation seems to be improving, and I don't think this trivial violation over an utterly trivial matter is worth a block in any case, and should never have been brought to AE. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as no action. There isn't consensus amongst administrators (not required for AE, but it is a good thing to have) and this report has been open for days and a 24 hour block isn't exactly preventative at this point, and that seems to be the most people are considering. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Raymond3023

Appeal declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 28 March 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: Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Raymond3023 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. [11]

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

Notification of that administrator: [12]

Statement by Raymond3023

I was sanctioned per this AE discussion in May 2018. I was also involved in mass ARCA appeals which were declined in June 2018.[13]

Since the topic ban I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned. This is why I am now appealing the topic ban. Furthermore, I have not violated the topic ban. I pledge to continue to contribute in a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate the understanding of what the issues were or how they will be avoided in future, I am noting I was sanctioned for battleground conduct which I recognized and evidently rectified since there have been no further sanctions or warnings all this while. I reiterate what I said above that I will continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I don't have a strong view on this either way. I think I said at the time that appeals after six months should be granted on a showing of productive editing in other areas and I stick to that. For various RL reasons, I don't have time to go digging deep into this editor's history. That said, I don't view Ivanvector's stats as encouraging, and I don't think the appeal as it stands demonstrates a lot of understanding of what the problems were or how they will be avoided in future. GoldenRing (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think these bans should be overturned on the basis of "time served." GoldenRing (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

The mass topic ban last year was necessary essentially because a number of editors had shown themselves unable to work collaboratively in a contentious topic area. Were I evaluating an appeal of such a restriction, I would want to see evidence of collaborative editing in other topics. Raymond3023 has not violated his restriction that I am aware of; but he has also done precious little content related work at all. His last 500 edits go back to before his topic ban. As Ivanvector says, the majority of these edits are reverts, of vandalism or sockpuppet accounts; a number of the rest are edits to AfDs. What content work there is is mostly copy-editing or blanking promotional language. The appeal also does not acknowledge any behavioral problems. As such, if this were granted it would be for "time served", which I think is a bad idea for topic bans from contentious areas. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Raymond3023

Of the user's last 500 article-space edits, 350 are reverts, including 29 which are explicitly WP:BANREVERT reverts. That's a lot of reverts. However, I don't see any obvious violations of the restriction, and don't recall seeing them involved in any significant dramaboard dust-ups in this topic (and there have been plenty). I support the request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Raymond3023

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

GoldenRing, your view? Sandstein 16:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would decline the appeal based on GoldenRing's concerns. Sandstein 18:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also decline, largely per Vanamonde. As this has been open for five days without attracting any support and it lacks the clear and substantial consensus of administrators at AE, I am closing this as declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thenabster126

No admin is currently interested in taking action. Sandstein 12:38, 3 April 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 Thenabster126

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Thenabster126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS

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

March 28, 2019 Restored previously reverted material without obtaining talk page consensus after first inserting it here, in violation of the editing restriction.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@DGG: I'm taken aback by your dismissive response. This editor has a history of disruptive editing of which this is just another example. They have circumvented BRD and crossed a bright line established under Arbcom's direction and an admin's discretion. Over the past few days, numerous newly minted and newly activated editors have been adding unsourced content and original research to articles because of their apparent strong feelings about Barr's summary of the special counsel investigation. All this has taken place right under your collective admin noses and you do nothing, leaving the rest of us to politely follow the rules while blatant misinformation is added to highly visible articles.

This is discouraging, to say the least. - Mr X 🖋 18:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning Thenabster126

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 Thenabster126

I wanted to add this attribution because the wording of the introduction of the article was not neutral. I thought that adding this attribution would answer the question of who investigated this. I acknowledge the mistake I made and apologize for breaching it.Thenabster126 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Nabster also made this edit on March 25th to the same content [15], which makes it look like their edits are less about clarity and more about casting doubt on Russian culpability. It is regrettable that the Wikipedia admin corps is no longer capable of enforcing editing norms. Geogene (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Thenabster126

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

Trivial violation. No action is needed. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should let Coffee decide this, since they placed the edit notice. But, uh, they're blocked, so... I don't see much enforcement happening here. Sandstein 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese

Blocked for a week. Sandstein 17:40, 4 April 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 Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (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/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :

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

Roscelese has three restrictions against her that are, as far as I know, currently in place. They include being indefinitely prohibited from:

making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page;
making rollback-type reverts that fail to provide an explanation for the revert;
engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes.

I offer here a few representative samples. First, reverting without discussing the issue first on the talk page:

It is also worth noting that 25 of her last 100 edits have "Reverted" in the edit summary. Some of these are clearly reverting vandals, but many are reversions not discussed on talk first.

Next, casting aspersions and personalizing disputes:

[21]
[22]
[23] See edit summary
[24] See edit summary
[25] See edit summary

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For what it's worth, I tried extending an olive branch to Roscelese about a month ago, but it was rejected.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Roscelese

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 Roscelese

The restriction doesn't require that reverts be discussed first, and all of these are things I've discussed on the talkpage when Slugger/Brian continued his tendentious and disruptive editing, which I noted previously at WP:DR (and which generally took the form of editing against explicitly established consensus in order to push a point of view about Catholicism and homosexuality - actually, Slugger has even linked to one of the situations where he was trying to push language against which an explicit consensus had developed!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pudeo: I see where you're coming from, but ultimately the situation you're linking is one where (if you'll look at the rest of the bit you quoted) Slugger is ignoring sources from all over the POV spectrum because it seems to be his personal opinion that the Church's position on homosexuality is not one of condemnation. This isn't some grand nemesis conflict here, nor a situation where I can say "your side of the dispute is wrong" because there is no "side" - I'm just dealing with an individual user who is editing tendentiously, against sources and consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Pudeo: Yes? Slugger is insisting there that we can't describe the RCC's position as "condemnation", despite the fact that even extremely pro-church sources describe it as such; additionally a consensus had already developed on the talkpage against Slugger's addition about how, actually, the church loves gay people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

The diffs that represent "engaging in conduct which, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, casts aspersions, or personalises disputes" at Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality#Condemnation of homosexuality seem very valid.

Roscelese wrote: This is an encyclopedia read and used by everyone, not the personal encyclopedia of Briancua Slugger O'Toole. Your personal caviling about how homosexuality being inherently a tendency towards sin and a moral evil--. I can't think much of a worse way to personalize a dispute.

This motion is from 2015, so perhaps it's hard for Roscelese to always keep in her mind, or then she's just being harsh with new editors who aren't aware of these personal sanctions. In any case, this sanction should be either enforced or rescinded, because it's pointless otherwise. --Pudeo (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Roscelese: unless I'm mistaken, the dispute that led to the comments were the contents in this revert. So here's it for easy accessibility. --Pudeo (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slugger O'Toole

It is true that the restriction does not say that reverts need to be discussed first on the talk page, but they were not discussed by you at all. Additionally, when you call me out by name, and use my former username to boot, that is personalizing a dispute. So is talking about my "personal caviling." I am not saying I am blameless. There are surely times when I could have acted better and for those times I apologize. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser

I think this request should be rejected since it was made by an editor who has admitted to not having clean hands. In addition, I do not think that mentioning Slugger/Brian by name has "personalized" the conflict, as claimed. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

The request has merit. While the restriction does not require discussing reverts first, Roscelese does not argue that they have made any attempt at discussion even after the reverts. Additionally, some of the diffs at issue do personalize disputes in violation of the restriction. In consideration of Roscelese's block log, I am blocking Roscelese for a week. Sandstein 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Debresser (talk · contribs) is banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:57, 7 April 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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA :

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

[26] WP:HOUNDING violation. Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before. In addition, his edit was poisoning the well.
[27][28][29] Using the f-word. Nishidani does so even after he was asked to stop this: [30]. In the past he has been warned at this same WP:AE to stop this behavior: [31] and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200#Nishidani. In addition, his appearance on this article was likely also a case of hounding, as Nishidani had never edited that article or its talkpage before.
[32][33] Repeated and deliberate violations of my request not to edit on my talkpage. The second edit was made after I reminded him of that: [34].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: Nishidani has been a regular guest here from early stages onwards, with topic bans and more bans, blocks, and warnings like the one cited above from archive 200, and even a few self-imposed periods of penitence which failed to last long.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't seen Nishidani around in a while after his latest announced retirement ended (admittedly not after a week but after 6 weeks), but he unfortunately has still not mended his bad ways. His inflammatory and insulting language, consciously or not intended to intimidate his opponents, coupled with hounding and harassing me on various pages, including my talkpage, are unacceptable battleground behavior on this project, and especially in the IP-conflict area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

@Huldra

Wow! Three examples in more than 10 years and 100,000 edits. Compare that to the 3 edits of Nishidani made within 10 hours, and you more or less made my point for me. And please also see this reply. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, by the way, that was only one of the three issues I reported. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite The hounding and general battleground mentality are a result of Nishidani's problem with me, which is rooted on our disagreements in the WP:ARBPIA area. If this forum would, however, decide, IMHO mistakenly so in view of the larger picture, that this is the wrong venue, I will indeed take your advice and report him at WP:ANI. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

You are confusing the content issue with the behavioral issue. This post is about the behavioral issue.
I really think you should take back the statement or implication that I oppose certain images because of my personal believes. That was unwarranted and severely out of line. Debresser (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a big difference between being aggravated by an especially unpleasant editor once every 3-4 years and then using the f-word in the heat of the moment, between using it systematically to intimidate other editors and in spite of several requests and warnings to refrain from doing so! Debresser (talk) 12:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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

Statement by Nishidani

I don't think I need comment, after Cullen's palmary reflection. If I were to, it would be easy to show Debresser's behavior in my regard has been persistently vexatious. But since on principle I refrain from whingeing, I won't do so even under provocation (unless of course an admin thinks I need to defend myself from the 'evidence' given above).Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'especially unpleasant editor'. Many things are forgotten, and mountains are made of molehiles. Once, Debresser, you violated a 3 month ban by editing a page, Temple Mount, and correcting my edit. You self-reverted when alerted to the technical risk by Sir Joseph. Noting this, what did I do? I reassured you with an undertaking I have stuck to, that I would never use petty slips to try and get at you in an administrative forum. O tempora o mores!.Nishidani (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Debresser to an editor: "Go fuck your righteous self."
Debresser to another editor: "If, however, you care to read a few basic Wikipedia guidelines and FUCKING DOES AS OUTLINED THERE,"
Debresser to a third editor (me): "why the fuck wouldn't you use the word "evacuate" unless you had a pro-Palestinian POV from here till Ramallah, huh?"

Pot.Kettle.Black, Huldra (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Debresser, and I hope you take this as honest advice, but I would suggest that inviting scrutiny to the editing history of Eliezer Berland would likely not be in your own interest. If you do however want to invite that scrutiny then this cannot be the place for it, as this page is very specifically about enforcing arbitration decisions. Neither of the articles here are covered by ARBPIA (or any other arbitration case), making them irrelevant on this page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this seems relevant here. nableezy - 03:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: youve attributed noble pursuits to me that I regretfully cannot take credit for. nableezy - 03:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I am involved in discussing the content issues at the talk pages of both articles. Debresser brought the Eliezer Berland dispute to ANI, incorrectly accusing another editor of refusing to discuss the dispute at the article talk page. Debresser was edit warring on that article to include promotional self-published puffery from a website controlled by a convicted, self-admitted rapist. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, there was an active RFC underway there, which draws in previously uninvolved editors. Surely Debresser knows that processes such as RFC and venues such as ANI draw previously uninvolved editors such as Nishidani into the discussions. This is not hounding. I do not like use of the f-bomb in conversations among editors, do not use it myself and recommend that other editors refrain from its use. But there is no consensus that this word is banned from spirited debates among editors. Debresser seems to be advocating a stranger standard here: it is OK for him to drop f-bombs every 33,000 edits or so, but not OK for other editors to do so more frequently. As for ARBPIA, these are both topics related to Judaism but neither has any connection to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. If Eliezer Berland was related to that conflict, then Debresser's edit warring there would have been even more egregious. As for Talk:Jewish religious clothing, Nishidani is advocating for genuine improvements to that article, while Debresser is dragging his feet, because he does not like images and content that deviate from his admitted personal ultra-Orthodox Jewish identity. I recommend that Nishidani dial back use of the f-bombs because I consider that counterproductive. Nishidani should also be advised to stay away from Debresser's talk page, with the exception of standard required notifications. In my opinion, the real cause of this report is that Debresser resents the fact that a pro-Palestinian editor is making cogent and incisive observations about articles concerning Jewish topics. That is nothing to be concerned about and instead should be welcomed. No formal action is required here other than mild admonitions to the two parties. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy, I apologize for my error in confusing the usernames of two editors whose usernames begin with N and both of whom I respect. I could blame my smartphone's AI spellchecker, but instead I accept the responsibility. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Nableezy properly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Note there was a recent RfC at WP:CIVIL regarding "fuck off" - Wikipedia talk:Civility#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not! that concluded that "This discussion has been open for long enough that there is a coherent outcome. Namely, most of us agree that "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions ....". Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

For fuck's sake. Debresser was formally warned against filing any more "vexatious" arbitration requests. Less than six months ago. So there is some enforcement to be done here. Here is what the closing admin said of Debresser's ongoing pattern of behavior at the time:

"On a number of occasions, Debresser has improperly presented requests for arbitration enforcement. Taken as a pattern, Debresser's actions are an abuse of process that is serving to inflame tensions in topic areas that already are heated. Furthermore, whilst Wikipedia process pages are internal, conduct such as abuse of process itself, indirectly, affects the external topic area that is subject to arbitration enforcement. Conduct such as Debresser's is therefore equivalent in seriousness to tendentious or disruptive editing of content pages. I therefore formally warn Debresser that continuing such conduct will result in enforcement action, such as restrictions from requesting enforcement, blocks, and topic bans."

You'd be foolish just to punt on this problem. His dissembling and dishonest presentation of disputes only grows worse when he isn't disciplined.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

Um, surely this is the wrong venue. The talkpage posts are irrelevant to ARBPIA and the two articles on which the edits took place aren't covered by it either. If you want to complain about Nishidani's general behaviour, ANI is thataway. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Black Kite says, I do not see this dispute falling within the scope of ARBPIA. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these edits have nothing to do with the I-P dispute, and are therefore clearly outside the scope of sanctions. Dan Murphy notes that Debresser has been warned not to file vexatious AE reports such as this one. I also agree with Huldra's observations that complaining about expletives cannot be taken seriously from users who use expletives themselves. I am banning Debresser from filing AE requests in the I-P topic area or commenting on them unless they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 16:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galathadael ‎

Blocked indef as a normal admin action. Sandstein 20:19, 13 April 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 Galathadael ‎

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Galathadael ‎ (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/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014 :

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

12 April Makes unsourced, unsupported claim that a living person is a "spy... sent in by the Obama administration" to infiltrate the Trump campaign
12 April Reinserts material after being warned to review the Biographies of Living Persons policy
12 April Again reinserts the material after being warned.
12 April Reinserts material yet again after being reverted and warned by another editor.

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, here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Brand-new user immediately jumped into unsupported conspiracy-mongering attacks on a living person despite being warned to review policy and avoid such behavior. Seems pretty clear-cut. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is now just literally repeating the BLP violation here. Claiming that Halper was "sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign" is, at best, a conspiracy theory. Making unsupported negative claims about a living person is an actionable BLP violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: here

Discussion concerning Galathadael

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 Galathadael

Are you serious? You're reporting me? Who's the living person I'm attacking? Stefan Halper was sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign. That is a fact. You don't get to just report me and try to shut me up just because you disagree with me. If anything's clear-cut, is that something needs to be done about you editing my comments. Galathadael (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rusf10

Technically, it is correct to say that Stefan Halper spied on Trump Campaign members. Of course, to be clear just because he was spying does not mean he did anything wrong or illegal. He was sent by the FBI which at the time was part of the Obama Administration. Here's a source [35] We could also use the term informant, here's a piece in an rs that discusses the use of the term spy being applied to Halper [36]. Basically both terms are interchangable, but one sounds more serious than the other. Regardless, since this can be documented to an RS, there's no BLP violation. Frivolous request.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: Just wanted to point out Volunteer Marek's edit summary which I believe is a WP:PERSONALATTACK [37] which says "jfc, how many times have we been through this same song and dance? With Peter Strzok, with Seth Rich with another dozen articles that were subject to these external attacks with goofy administrators enabling and ass kissing the trolls until it got completely ridiculous. Stop wasting our time"--Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dumuzid

While the general allegation here is true, that Mr. Halper indeed had some kind of intelligence gathering role with regard to people associated with the Trump campaign, in such incendiary areas it pays to be specific with one's language. I think "gather intelligence" or some such is preferable to spying, and I think "people associated with the campaign" is preferable to "the Trump campaign" or (as I have sometimes seen it) "Trump." But those are really fairly minor quibbles, I think. For me, the real problem is reference to having been "sent in by the Obama administration." For all I know, this may be true. But all I see in the RSes is references to the FBI. While technically you could call this part of the "administration," I think it gives the impression that elected officials or high-level political appointees outside the Department of Justice were involved. That, at this point, violates BLP for me pretty glaringly. After all that, I think there's a reasonable area for compromise here. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

User:Masem, a statement that " Stefan Halper was sent in by the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign" is most certainly a WP:BLP violation, especially if no sources are provided to back it up. And sorry but your #3 is nothing but Whataboutism, or as we like to call it on Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF. You also don't actually provide any evidence that this is indeed true. But at the end of the day, if someone violates BLP with regard to some Trump official or something, that does not make it ok to violate BLP for other people and you should deal with that OTHER case.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article is semi-protected, and if you're worried about battleground on the talk page, well, gee, maybe that has something to do with the fact that there has been a large influx of SPA accounts, coordinated and "called to action" off Wiki on a troll subreddit. And most of these accounts look a lot like the subject of this report. So if you are really concerned about it, perhaps directing your energies - by, like, say, semi-protecting the talk page - towards the source of the problem, would be more appropriate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Masem, would you please move your comments out of the 'Results concerning...' section per the italicized instructions. You are involved in the recent disputes on the article.- Mr X 🖋 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are involved. In fact, you initiated a content dispute over the title of the page, giving your (incorrect, evidence-free) opinion that "This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction."[38] It doesn't matter how you arrived at the page, or that you "made no other discussion regarding content" (you have frequently weighed in on content disputes related to Donald Trump). You initiated a content dispute and now you are attempting to adjudicate a conduct dispute about participants in the content dispute. You can't do that. Is it going to be necessary to request clarification from Arbcom on this? By the way, this is not first time that I have protested about you violating WP:INVOLVED and ignoring the instructions on this page: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators..- Mr X 🖋 14:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Sandstein everyone is a "single purpose account" during their first few edits. This guy made an account yesterday, and probably has no idea what AE is. How is an indef the appropriate first step? Unbelievable. It is not difficult to go to Stefan Halper's article and read about exactly what he did. Here's a handy article that summarizes it well. No BLP violation. Harper also ran a spying campaign during the 1980 presidential election. If the shoe fits... Mr Ernie (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Masem

(The following content was moved out of the uninvolved admin section. I still strongly disagree that in this specific content dispute I am involved for discussing the question of the article title, but rather not divert the discussion from the matter raised at AE --Masem (t) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Given 1) the rough state of the media discussing this person and this claim that certainly makes the claim contestable but not novel and still the subject of debate in the media, and 2) that there's other places on the same talk page where the same claim is made but no action has been asked against these, and 3) this is far from the same hyberbole that often comes up about discussions of BLPs related to Trump or other right-wing figures in the AP2 area which no one typically raises any concern of, this feels like a unactionable case. 100% absolutely that if this was in mainspace, that would be a problem without full consensus, but not on a talk page. (Tempted to say we need to TNT and lock down this article as it seems impossible to get any type of non-battleground behavior happening on this in real-time news coverage.) --Masem (t) 02:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - - To response to Mr. X above (and repeated from previous notice), I reiterate the point here: I do not consider myself involved in this specific content dispute: the only contribution on the page I did was when I saw the page title (as "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" appear at the edit warring noticeboard, and expressed concern that the page needed to be renamed to something shorter to meet naming policy and avoid the potential BLP. I'm also writing this response before I go to responde to a ping that named me regarding a name change on that page. I have made no other discussion regarding content and certainly not around the specific disputed area here. --Masem (t) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Galathadael

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

(Response moved to section above --Masem (t) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
- This is somewhat of a mirror image to the complaint regarding BullRangifer above as concerns the WP:BLPTALK issue. I generally agree with Masem above that, as a matter of discretionary sanctions, this is a bit below the threshold for sanctions. However, there is a material difference to the case above: Galathadael ‎is a single-purpose account, and every single one of their 11 edits so far is dedicated to one thing: edit-warring to promote the view (without citing reliable sources) that a particular living person committed serious misconduct. We do not need editors like this. I am indefinitely blocking Galathadael ‎per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action. Sandstein 13:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]