Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sfarney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction to be enforced

1. Purpose of Wikipedia
2. Neutrality
3. Quality of sources
4. Neutrality and sources
5. Biographies of living people

Diffs

1. 19:38, 26 April 2016 In this reversion, editor restored text that drew scandalous conclusions of criminal conduct based on cherrypicking, original research, primary source, and self-published blog, in violation of WP:REDFLAG. I drew attention to that exact policy on multiple occasions, but editor refused to discuss text in context of REDFLAG policy.
2. 23:32, 25 April 2016 Editor added original research and cherrypicking from primary source to allege criminal conduct. He also alleged that Hubbard told scientology ministers to advise the believers to commit suicide. I very much doubt that editor purchased the hour-long tape from Scientology and culled quotations from it himself. The allegation is not supported by secondary sources and is REDFLAG.
3. 14:24, 17 April 2016 Editor asserted that Hubbard published a death warrant in a Scientology magazine (which would, of course, be a criminal conspiracy if it had happened). No prosecutor has ever charged Scientology since the date of its alleged publication, and the improbability is strong on this one. The magazine was published in 1968 and there are no publicly accessible reprints, paywall or otherwise, so the statement cannot be verified. The allegation is not supported by secondary sources and is WP:REDFLAG.
4. 14:24, 17 April 2016‎ Editor extracted statements from Stephen A. Kent, a Sociology professor in Alberta without medical qualifications. In that article, Kent provided a highly derogatory medical diagnosis of Hubbard on the basis of anecdotes and 3rd party interviews without meeting or examining Hubbard personally. The article shows no evidence of peer-review, and in particular, no evidence of peer review by qualified psychiatric reviewers. The article was apparently published only in France in a magazine called Criminologie (Criminology). The diagnosis has no consensus among theologians or any other commentators.
5. 05:21, 12 April 2016 The editor restored an unverifiable statement sourced to a 1968 (primary source) publication (to which no one has access) claiming that it contains a death warrant on a list of people. It is not clear that the editor him/herself accessed the original document, and may be working from unverifiable inauthentic sources. The editor also cites to one author who made a similar claim about an earlier publication. Only that one writer has made the claim in the last 50 years -- no other critic or scholar of Scientology has forwarded the claim about any Scientology publication. (WP:FRINGE)
6. [1] (New page) In this page, editor cites and quotes the publishers of the book as a "a riveting insider's look at life within the world of Scientology" and other quotes from the publisher in violation of WP:RS and WP:PROMO.

Previous relevant sanctions : None known

Evidence the editor was warned:

• Editor was warned on May 20, 2016
• Article talk page includes warning in header of discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments

Over the last 6 weeks, the editor works with three others (Slashme, Damotclese, Feoffer) as a tag team to make the articles on Scientology polemical rather than encyclopedic. Working as a team, they synthesize mutual consensus to defeat appeals to Wikipededia principle, policy, and quality.

The article currently accuses Scientology officials of conspiring to threaten murder, publish death warrants, and counsel people to commit suicide. Scientology has been under study by major governments and dozens of theologians and other scholars, none of whom (with the exception of Kent) supports the allegations in this article. The allegations cite to data 50 years old and are obviously untrue because never, in all its history, has Scientology been accused or prosecuted for those crimes by any government. How could the page be so "factual" and yet be so obviously wrong? Just like an erroneous arithmetic problem, the error is in the process. The article has suffered gross deviations from many Wikipedia policies on how to write an encyclopedic article, including:

1. WP:REDFLAG: The article is heavily based on (a) primary sources that cannot be verified, (b) a blogger at tonyortega.org who has no editor or peer review, and (c) a Wikileaks page with a few seconds of taped lecture. Two book authors are also cited, but each outrageous claim has no more than once source, having no agreement from other writers, even among the harshest critics.
2. WP:OR: Citation to inaccessible and unvarifiable primary sources
3. Violations of WP:RS, including a Wikileaks page and the blogger at tonyortega.org
4. WP:CHERRYPICKING, restored cherrypicked text from alleged recording to make a statement opposite to the one in the recording.

Over the last month, I have repeatedly referred this editor to WP:REDFLAG and the violations above on the Talk:R2-45 page. Editor does not respond to the objections.

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.

Sfarney's complaints are baseless. The article alleges nothing - it reports, neutrally, a controversy between Scientologists and non-Scientologists about statements made in lectures and in print by L. Ron Hubbard. It was poorly sourced and non-neutral before I gave it a systematic rewrite a few weeks ago [2]. I have already explained (see [3]) that citing Hubbard's lectures and publications, which can be purchased online or accessed in a number of academic and research libraries, is entirely permissible under WP:PRIMARY "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - in fact, I've written featured articles which not only draw on primary sources but include images of them in the article (see Carl Hans Lody for an example). Sfarney's complaints are equivalent to someone complaining that one shouldn't quote from the Bible in an article about a biblical concept. I shouldn't have to point out how nonsensical that is. I've already told him what the relevant policies are, and he has failed to find any support for his complaints when he forum-shopped them to WP:AN/I and WP:RSN last month. This is just more of the same, I'm afraid. There will be a need to address his own tendentious and disruptive conduct and I'll raise that separately shortly. Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfarney is wrong again. The Auditor is available in the British Library, where I'm typing this - look in the catalogue [4]. I've personally seen the so-called "death warrant" (which it isn't, but I'll excuse Sfarney his hyperbole). Yes, I do have the lectures personally. I didn't look them up on the Internet. If Sfarney can't be bothered to get off his backside and either buy the lectures and publications or look them up in the research libraries and private collections that have them, he has no business whining about those of us who have taken the trouble to do that. As for his misguided WP:REDFLAG claims, the only claim being made "supported purely by primary sources" is that Hubbard said certain things in certain lectures on certain dates, without any attempt being made to interpret what he meant by those things. This is exactly what WP:PRIMARY permits: "an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source". Finally, the blog in question is published by Tony Ortega, a journalist and published author who focuses on Scientology and is widely cited by many reliable sources, but who Sfarney objects to for ideological reasons. Bottom line, Sfarney is too lazy to do any research himself and doesn't accept the WP:PRIMARY policy. This AE complaint is a (further) waste of time. Prioryman (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there's much to worry about in this report. One thing to consider is WP:SOURCEACCESS -- there's no requirement that a source be easily available (e.g. on-line). If a source is not easily available, that does not by itself mean that WP:V is not satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Contrary to what Prioryman says, the death warrants allegedly published in Auditor magazines are not available in any standard library or document source.
2. Prioryman does not justify using a blog as an RS.
3. Prioryman does not assert that he personally purchased the recordings and excerpted them, which prompts a question: In this case, an editor makes absurd claims about an inaccessible primary source without showing that he accessed the material personally. Must anyone who wishes to review the edits purchase the expensive materials? I understand WP:PAYWALL, but this is ridiculous.
4. Prioryman does not address the WP:CHERRYPICKING in paragraph 3 whereby a statement is made to say the opposite of the recording quoted.
5. Prioryman does not address WP:REDFLAG: challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources

Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can I suggest alternate text when no acceptable secondary source comments on the subject? The whole article makes outrageous claims that should be a roaring fire in the office of the FBI, but the only sources are primary, self-published, and fringe? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly improper for Prioryman to attribute motivations to my comments or edits ("objects to for ideological reasons") -- this comprises one form of a WP:Personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Prioryman has used PA throughout his reply ("too lazy", "can't be bothered to get off his backside", "whining").

WP:REDFLAG is a subtopic of WP:FRINGE. Since no consensus of secondary sources exists, an compendium of WP:PRIMARY and blogs is not appropriate for building an encyclopedia. ... articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. ... Fringe theories and related articles have been the subject of several arbitration cases. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases.

And no, Tony Ortega's blog is not a reliable source for exceptional claims. It is not clear why Prioryman brings up the subject -- Ortega is no longer a cited source for the article, though he has been in the past. And even then, Ortega says his evidence "suggests" that issuing death threats was a Scientology policy.[5]. Ortega based his "suggestion" on Food & Drug Administration documents -- not on police reports. Significantly, Ortega has not found a reputable publication for his speculations. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 19:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now is a parody of wikipedia. It states (or has recently stated) that Scientology publishes orders to kill people, uses death threats to intimidate people, and advises (or is instructed to advise) people to commit suicide. These are completely fringe theories. The suicide theory has with no support in secondary sources, and solid secondary sources are required for challenged claims under WP:FRINGE. The murder theory has only one critic to support it and no consensus among scholars and critics. It is also FRINGE. The intimidation theory has only a blogger with no support from RS. All the rest is derived from WP:OR of unverifiable recordings, except one that is disingenuous WP:CHERRYPICKING. I am sorry that some here do not see this as a violation of the earlier Scientology ARBCOMM, and I have no idea how any honest editor would approve this article as it stands. When I edit the article, I am reverted and told I should suggest new text on the talk page -- just exactly like the WP:OWN describes. Even one of the administrators criticizes me for NOT going along with the ownership program. So now boomerang is discussed because I ask for arbitration enforcement? Wow. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 17:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bishonen who has applied sanctions in an area that has a small overlap with the general Scientology topic. At least in one of the two cases I can recall the sanction was renegotiated in a mutual understanding. sfarney may be interested in negotiating a deal, preferable above the boomerang approach already suggested below? I don't say you'd necessarily have to choose Bishonen as an interlocutor, can only speak for myself: if offered the opportunity (which I don't say Bishonen will or even can offer) I'd know what to choose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't think I'm going to draw a conclusion based on principles in an Arb case, such as Purpose of Wikipedia, so you might be diluting the case a bit. Reading the talk page, it seems reasonable discussion is taking place and the article has been more or less quiet for a while. Yes, you have have quoted REDFLAG and CHERRYPICKING many times on the talk page but that alone doesn't mean much, it is the context that is at issue. Prioryman has restored material a few times, once a revert, and he probably would be wise to tread carefully, but unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything sanctionworthy. This is still more of a content issue than an AE issue. Sfarney (Grammar's Li'l Helper) seem to have doubts about sources you don't have access to, which isn't a reason to file, and when asked to suggest substitute text, you divert the discussion and start quoting WP:REDFLAG again instead of offering replacement text. I'm open to other interpretations, but not inclined to do anything here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Prioryman, please keep it a bit more civil. I know there is a lot of frustration, but we don't need to ramp up the stress level in this matter. Grammar's Li'l Helper / Sfarney always has the option of starting a neutrally worded RFC on the matter if he feels that a larger audience is needed, but what I see here is a disagreement regarding sources, not a violation of Arb restrictions on Scientology. I would also note that WP:SOURCEACCESS is pretty clear that not all sources need to be easy to access. You could start by asking Prioryman (who has already said where some came from) or ask others for help. If one or more of the sources didn't hold up, then you would have a case for removing information or even misconduct, but you haven't proven anything, you have simply doubted him without taking the steps to verify or disprove the information yourself. I recommend a close without action at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not saying Prioryman is correct in any assertion, but you are making sweeping claims that aren't entirely supported by policy and your tone is combative rather than cooperative. You keep wikilinking REDFLAG and FRINGE pointlessly, we know the relevant policies. If I could offer any advice (again) it would be to focus on one or two sources and start a talk page discussion only on those, or start an RFC. What is and isn't "fringe" is often (but not always) subject to interpretation, which is why we follow the sources and discuss on the talk page, then live with the consensus. AE typically isn't the place to make that determination because admin do not determine content. What is "represented fairly and proportionately" is an editorial function, not an administrative function. Saying "Since no consensus of secondary sources exists" is absolutist, and you can't prove a negative. If the source shouldn't be used (and the text that is supported by it) you need to develop a consensus on the talk page for it. What we shouldn't do (and I won't do) is have AE be the decision maker on content. As I don't see him acting in bad faith nor behaving egregiously, I'm unswayed from my previous comments and prone to close with no action if another admin doesn't come in soon with a different perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This request seems ripe for a Boomerang. The sources are an editorial matter, not a disciplinary one. That said, I have seen many "confidential" internal Scientology documents, own the Red Volumes, Green Volumes and (Incomplete) Blue Volumes, and have listened to many tapes, including some extremely rare and confidential ones. I also have much of the content of the unpublished OT IX and X levels (fascinating stuff). It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists. I have listened to the Exteriorization and Rudements tapes, and can confirm that Prioryman's edits accurately reflect their content. I don't have any copies of The Auditor, but I probably know someone who does and could look into it. I recommend no sanction against Prioryman, and at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Oatitonimly (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/CASENAME#SECTION :

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

1. [6] Explanation He keeps reverting back all of my edits and calls it vandalism before my ban. He doesn't even use the talk page for it. He does the exact same on almost all other articles I eddited
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would realy like it if something was done against this. I got blocked for a week because of reverting back my edits that was already agreed on earlier. He also keeps removing sourced content from the Greco Turkish war (1922). He doesn't use the talk page either.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dorpater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

[7] :

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

1. 15 March 2016 removing information sourced to a Western source with the meaningless edit summary "stopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111" (no explanation for reasons at talk)
2. 22 March 2015 removing information on the percentage of people that indicated Russian as their native language in Crimea, information on ethnicity, 2008 polls on joining Russia and a related poll from 2015 (sourced to Bloomberg); similar revert on the same day
3. 16 May 2016 removing neutrality tag despite the fact that a number of users have expressed views to the contrary and removing it was against guidelines (which state: "An involved editor should not remove the tag without consensus"). The same problem previously: 6 February 2015
4. 14 February 2016 any criticism of VM is "idiotic" (the comments referred to his editing on the Russian topic)
5. 19 August 2015 reverting constructive changes with the typical meaningless edit summary "yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn". (a multitude of users have expressed the view at talk that the present characterization of the figure is inadequate [8], [9]. The question is not, whether we find someone abhorrent or not, but rather how the consensus of sources describes them)
6. 12 January 2015 removing the German name of a village that until 1945 was part of Germany as well as sourced information on discrimination against Lutherans in the village. Andreas Kossert is a reliable author.
7. 12 January 2015 removing sourced reference on East Prussian plebiscite results and the centuries' old German history (edits similar to previous: [10], [11])
8. 19 January 2015 petty nationalist editing: removing hint to Lithuanian connection in case of a high official of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (in contrast he finds it inevitable to add Polish names to locations in Lithuania [12], [13])
9. 5 October 2015 part of his long-lasting crusade to remove German names from locations currently part of Poland but formerly part of Germany (the German name is available in the lead in the Polish Wiki, too)
10. 2 February 2015 Polish Army did not "capture" Czechoslovak territories after the Munich Agreement, no, they just "entered"
11. 9 September 2015 "Nominator is either an idiot or is trolling"
12. 14 November 2015 "For fuck's sake, this is suppose to be an article about a terrorist attack IN FRANCE [...] How about we keep the article on topic that it's actually suppose to be about rather than go off on POV tangents to pursue personal political agendas?" (bolded by me, needlessly rude and offensive: just one example out of many)
13. 27 February 2016 "nice attempt to WP:OUT somebody asshole"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 December 2009 part of the WP:EEML case

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: [14] (under his previous username).
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously blocked two times as part of AE: 10 August 2010 by Sandstein; 3 April 2012 by WGFinley
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date: Apparently no recent official message on EE, but a related warning by me on 25 March 2016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has engaged for many years in tendentious nationalist editing in Eastern European topics, notably Polish-Russian and Polish-German (recent example: [15] changing "city's majority of German-speakers" into "large numbers of German-speakers" claiming in the E/S this is "fixing POVish changes" (!)) common history/disputes, which is how he earned his previous blocks and sanctions. His more recent activities concentrate on topics related to Russian-Ukrainian disputes, Vladimir Putin as well as Russia's role in the Syrian conflict with disruptive edit warring, offensive mudslinging against editors who disagree with him and his POV pushing. He is always rude, keen on endless revert warring, contributes nothing to articles anywhere (cf his list of recent "contributions") apart from large unexplained erasures (typical for his editing style) with meaningless edit summaries like "basically junk" with no explanations given at talk. All of this justifiedly raises the question posed by an editor: „Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians, as opposed to building an encyclopedia. Why is that?“.

A topic ban from everything related to Russia is inevitable, a topic ban from the whole Eastern European topic would be of even greater use.Dorpater (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the 2 times when he was blocked as a result of the AE, Volunteer Marek has been reported at Arbitration Enforcement for at least 3 times during the recent years [16] ("This complaint is archived in the expectation it can be reopened when User:Volunteer Marek returns to Wikipedia editing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)"), [17], (16 February 2014). Dorpater (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this: "Nota bene - I didn't get sanctioned there, Russavia did and the whole thing was made moot by Russavia's infamous indef ban, which makes bringing that up here sort of ridiculous. This is very interesting. How in the world would you find that or know how to look for it?"

Extremely simple. I merely searched for your username in the AE 'search archive' field and that's what popped up. You see, I really took my time to prepare this report. No need to waste your time for concocting conspiracy theories there. Dorpater (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

First, User:Dorpater is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit (one of many). I filed an SPI. And no, it wasn't a "revenge" SPI - it's just that I've known that Dorpater was a sockpuppet for a couple weeks now and this spurious nonsense WP:AE request just forced my hand. Indeed I told him first that if he persisted in following my edits around and engaging in battleground behavior I would file an SPI [18]. My view on this is that if a indef banned user creates a new account but they don't cause any new trouble, I'm willing to look the other way. But if they do start causing trouble - returning to the kind of POV pushing and harassment that Lokalkosmopolit was indef banned for - well, there isn't much you can do, you got to report it.

Second, come on, these diffs aren't even objectionable. In fact they're improvements. Take the first one [19]. What's the problem here? Undoing an edit by a user who has been engaged in a year long slow motion edit war against several users (User:Iryna Harpy, User:RGloucester, others... it's been going on for more than a year so I can't even remember everyone that's reverted them) over a matter which has been discussed to death (literally I think - the discussion went on for so long that over the course of the period, my neighbor's hamster had babies, they grew up, and then one of them died). Or is the problem the edit summary which emphasizes that this edit warring user really should stop? Anyway, the same thing applies to the second diff too - there was consensus, one user refused to respect it, and edit warred. This is one of the instances of someone - in this particular case me - undoing that user's edit. This diff presented by Dorpater is me reverting an edit by a sockpuppet of indef banned User:Kaiser von Europa. And so on...

Anyway, all these diffs are like that. And holy crap, notice how OLD they are. Some of them are diffs that have been trotted out by various users multiple times already. Nothing there, just pretending that there's something nefarious going on where there isn't. I could go through all of them but it's just completely nonsense and it's a beautiful day outside and I already wasted an hour writing up that SPI so I'm gonna go outside do something more enjoyable rather than defend myself against ridiculous bad faithed accusations made by a sock puppet of a user banned for harassment. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, holy crap, just noticed that you're bringing up this WP:AE report [20] over my interaction ban with User:Russavia. Yes. THAT User:Russavia. Nota bene - I didn't get sanctioned there, Russavia did and the whole thing was made moot by Russavia's infamous indef ban, which makes bringing that up here sort of ridiculous. This is very interesting. How in the world would you find that or know how to look for it? Here is the probable answer: In the original SPI for User:Lokalkosmopolit I stated that that user (and their sockpuppets) was most likely not the overall sockmaster - that would be User:Estlandia (previously Miacek) due to the similarity in interests. At the time there was no way to verify that probability with certainty with checkuser tools since the Estlandia account had gotten stale (he "quit" Wikipedia after getting topic banned from all Eastern European and German topics - this would also explain Dorpater's bringing up Germany related edits - a topic he's never edited himself - in the above report). Estlandia and Russavia were close buddies and Estlandia proxied for Russavia during the latter's numerous blocks from Wikipedia. So this is probably as close to a confirmation - since we can't check user three+ year old accounts - that this is indeed Estlandia/Miacek.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some sort of joke, bringing up diffs from January and February 2015? I have it on good authority that as a teenager, Volunteer Marek once took an old woman's cane from her and tripped her. I think he should be sanctioned for that as well. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If to look into Marek's recent edits [21], the most part are controversial deletions of information without any explanations and consensus at talk pages. Marek was engaged in another editwarring at the scope of EE and AA. While the 2016_Armenian–Azerbaijani_clashes is under 1RR rule, Volunteer Marek made 3 reverts [22][23][24] during 4 days, deleting an entire section consisting of 11,000+ characters and 30+ sources/reports with very dubious and disaffected comments. OptimusView (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As MShabazz points out, most of this is way too old to consider. Under no circumstances am I going to sanction someone for actions over a year ago. Problems listed should be in the last 30 days, maybe 90 to show a pattern, except for extraordinary circumstances. I'm inclined to wait out the SPI in this case before looking deeper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• OptimusView, you evidence is contradictory, and simply linking to his contribs page adds nothing to the discussion. The three diffs you provided didn't violate 1RR by your own admission, and in spite of your opening statement, each provide a very detailed rationale in the edit summary. You might disagree with the edits, but AE is about policy violations, not someone's preference. Deleting 11k of information isn't a policy violation in itself, and is often necessary as part of the editing process. These are things for the article talk page. This case isn't about content, it is about behavior. Unless you can show how this is a policy violation, it is meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Dorpater has now been indefinitely blocked based on a mixture of technical and behavioral evidence. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the lack of hard evidence (and the whole socking thing), I would recommend simply closing without action, but would like another admin to look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AnotherNewAccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tanbircdq (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/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Neutrality and sources
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Sockpuppetry
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing
• WP:NEWBLPBAN - BLP violations

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

• 16:50, 20 April 2016 Tanbircdq's IP sock reinserts problematic POV material originally added by Tanbircdq that had been rejected by other editors.
• 17:31, 21 April 2016 IP sock attempts to canvas on the talk page of a totally unrelated article watched by significant numbers of editors known to sympathize with his agenda.
• 17:31, 22 April 2016 IP sock accuses Number 57 of being a "supporter, PR rep or paid Hasbara" [a snarl word used by anti-Zionists to denote a paid shill].
• Second IP sock canvasses a bunch of editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• 08:34, 25 April 2016 IP sock pings various editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• [25][26][27][28][29] General obstinate talk page attitude, and accusations of bad faith, censorship, etc.
• 21:00, 28 April 2016 Accuses other editors of being "acolytes" of the subject. Is otherwise obstinate and rude.
• 17:41, 29 April 2016 IP sock adds clear BLP-violating material: three misleadingly out-of-context quotes about relations with the Palestinian Authority, the subject's opinions about a Palestinian state, and a Knesset bill he intended to introduce. In the same edit, added a libellous mis-quote which implied very strongly that the subject advocated "targeted killings" of anti-Israel political activists. Sources provided are a piece by anti-Israel blogger Richard Silverstein, a piece by anti-Israel activist Omar Barghouti, and a news article by the reliable Ynetnews news site - from which it was very clear the subject advocated no such thing!
• 15:54, 30 April 2016 IP sock reinserted BLP-violating negative material previously added by Tanbircdq that was poorly sourced and had been rejected by other editors. A potentially libellous quote about deterrence is sourced to a Huffington Post clickbait piece; further potentially libellous material about bombing Gaza is sourced to the far-left Green Left Weekly publication and a less-than-temperate "analysis" piece from al-Arabiya.
• 11:21, 1 May 2016[30] Edit-warring. This is good overview of the sum total of material added so far - all of it negative. IP sock subsequently files an edit-warring complaint and is blocked himself!
• 15:30, 2 May 2016 In the edit-warring complaint, IP sock again pings multiple editors considered sympathetic to his agenda.
• 17:24, 8 May 2016 IP sock disrupts Wikipedia to make a point by removing unfavorable material from the article of the British Labour Party politician Naz Shah, per his rebuffing on Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955).
• 17:28, 11 May 2016 Tanbircdq returns with his main account some days after the article was long-term protected from his IP socking, and defends the problematic material per WP:NOTCENSORED. Accuses other editors of WP:DONTLIKEIT. "As a compromise," he essentially suggests that he should continue adding the negative material, and it's up to other editors the article to fill the article with neutral material to balance it out.
• 15:35, 14 May 2016 Tanbircdq commences an RfC on the inclusion of the problematic material. The question is framed to be about negative material on BLPs in general, rather than this specific material on this specific article, which is clearly what the other editors were objecting to. Furthermore, there is an attempt to prejudice the outcome of the RfC by again using WP:NOTCENSORED to justify the retention of BLP-violating material - and again on the BLP noticeboard.
• 14:13, 15 May 2016 Tanbircdq reinserts the problematic material in its entirety - in the middle of the RfC - as if nothing was wrong, expanded with additional material suggested on the talk page by one of the canvassed editors.
• 18:15, 17 May 2016 Tanbircdq performed this exceptionally sneaky edit where he moved my content about the subject's Knesset bill into a different section in the article whilst changing the source from the more comprehensive Likud minister submits bill to deport terrorists’ families article, to his preferred Minister Yisrael Katz welcomes effort to expel terrorists’ families article, hoping that nobody would notice.
• 21:08, 19 May 2016 The above source manipulation enabled him to later justify this edit, where he dispenses with the material entirely in favor of his preferred implicating quote version - or as his misleading edit summary puts it, "copy-edit content according to the source".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Here and here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tanbircdq added a slew of negative material to Yisrael Katz (politician, born 1955) in November/December 2015, and edit-warred over its inclusion with other editors. The material consisted of a series of cherrypicked quotes that depicted the subject of the article in an unfairly and unduly bad light, in violation of WP:BLP. Some of this material was potentially libellous and was sourced to weak or partisan sources. The matter was referred to ANI by Number 57 but the complaint lapsed and was archived without sanction.

Some months later, Tanbircdq returned with an IP sock and attempted to reinsert the rejected material ([31]). This was clearly a band hand sock as his conduct on the talkpage was uncooperative, rude and obstinate. He added out-of-context and cherrypicked quotes that did not communicate a fair or accurate assessment of the subject's views as a whole. He also added patently libellous material that falsely suggested that the subject of the article advocated murdering members of an anti-Israel political movement ([32]). He edit-warred over the above and was briefly blocked. Most of the actionable conduct relates to Tanbircdq's actions whilst editing as this IP.

A second IP sock canvassed various editors considered to be sympathetic to Tanbircdq's agenda.

After the article was semi-protected, Tanbircdq returned some days later under his main account. His conduct on the talk page can be summed up as "I didn't hear that". He suggested it was up to other editors to add balancing material to offset his negative.([33]) He began a biased RfC in an attempt badger consensus, reinserted the problematic material before the RfC was complete, and added further negative material of dubious source quality. In the "final straw" he sneakily manipulated a source ([34]) in order to justify the restoration of a preferred quote. ([35])

Taken as a whole his editing is a long charade of sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, disruptive editing and "I didn't hear that" involving severe BLP violations. I can only suggest an indef topic ban from ARBPIA articles and BLPs on politicians and political activists.

Further comments

Regarding "ignoring content", ArbCom most certainly does not ignore content if it violates Wikipedia's rules, and BLP violations are taken particularly seriously. The subject of the article is well known for making outrageous Donald Trump-like comments, but like Donald Trump, he makes himself extremely clear and leaves no doubt what he thinks and why he thinks it. Tanbircdq however added a series of chosen quotes intended to present the subject as a small-minded nutjob and his views as illogical and irrational. I am absolutely serious when I say some of the material was libellous - as in, WMF-gets-sued libellous - in its original form.

Regarding the sockpuppetry, I want to make it clear that this was not just 'logged-out editing', he deceived the community by presenting himself as an alternative person. In this edit, the IP suggests he is a drive-by random who merely "found" the material in the history, while in this edit he pinged himself, so this 'logged-out editing' was no accident. Not to mention the very clear and deliberate change in writing style, which is less literate.

Notwithstanding any block for sockpuppetry, I want to push for a topic-ban from ARBPIA and possibly political BLP articles as well. Tanbircdq has clearly engaged in tendentious editing here. I know it's difficult to "prove" that somebody's editing is tendentious. You have to look at the editing taken as a whole: this editor has stopped at nothing to insert this material into this article over the objections of other editors.

In summary, he has edit-warred, sockpuppeted, canvassed, edit-warred some more, made at least one personal attack, disrupted another part of the encyclopedia to make a point when he didn't get his way, disregarded the NPOV and BLP policies, ignored other editors concerns, accused them of "censoring" the article and of acting in bad faith, and started a dubious RfC to undermine the consensus against his additions. All this was done over a period of several months, and was clearly intended to wear the other editors down in order to force his POV into the article. People have been indef topic-banned for a lot less than this, and I'll tell you frankly administators, that topic area has enough difficulties without this kind of behavior from persistent and determined POV-pushers like Tanbircdq. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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

I will concentrate on the content issue; I have no comment on the sockpuppetry (I was canvassed by one of the IPs but I told them I had no interest in the article)

The root issue is whether the negative material (some of it well-sourced, some not) was WP:UNDUE or not. That is not a matter for WP:AE but the talk page.

The RfC was too vague: the question asked was almost a tautology, so the result was almost unanimous. Tanbirdq was a bit hasty in adding material while the RfC was going on; they should have waited a while.

Regarding the "sneaky" source change, I fail to find any substantive difference between the two sources. Both are from the same newspaper. The main point is that Katz introduced a bill to deport families of terrorists. One source talks about Katz's public statement before introduction of the bill - where he notes the Prime Minister's support. The other source is one week later, when he actually introduced the bill - which also notes the Prime Minister's support who referred it to the Attorney General to check its legality. I also don't see anything wrong with moving the bill to the "Political Career" section from the "Views" section. People can just move it back if they disagree.

Overall I don't find any misconduct here. I suggest reversion of the article to the state before all this material was added, together with a clear, short, neutral RfC which shows the new version (it could be a WP:DRAFT) and directly asks people whether it is undue or not. Alternatively, WP:DRN could be used. There could be full-protection applied in the meantime, though that is not necessary. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I am not sure what is going on: if the editor is blocked, how can they respond here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ignoring content as that isn't what we do here, I do see a problem. He was already blocked 5 days for intentionally editing logged out to post as a "bad hand account" as IP. This is an intentional manipulation of the system, bypassing canvassing policy in an Arb restricted topic. This isn't my field of expertise so I need to read up more on the details, but on the surface, it looks like some kind of sanction might be necessary. This isn't some new user, he has been here long enough to know exactly what he was doing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, I closed that RFC as null and void, as you can't modify BLP policy on an article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At a minimum, I am considering a 5 day block to run concurrent with his SPI block as an Arb sanction, which will allow us to log the event (after reblocking for the same period plus 1 second). Really, two weeks is more in line, but I'm willing to compromise. This means there is less rope in the future as he will have a logged sanction, and the SPI block alone is insufficient given the article type. I would like another admin to opine first, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering this user was warned by Callanecc that if they socked again they would face an indefinite block, I firmly believe that warning should be enforced. If a checkuser verifies that he actually used those IPs (pinging Bbb23), I think that is the only reasonable course of action here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Coffee: I can't publicly disclose the IP(s) of a named account. At the SPI, Vanjagenije blocked Tanbircdq for five days "because of deliberate logged-out editing." There's no reason to dispute that finding, so to the extent socking is an issue in this enforcement action, you should assume that Tanbircdq socked.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingsindian, they can use their talk page but they haven't. In this particular instance, the socking is the real issue as it applies to an AE case. After they were warned. There isn't a lot of reply to be had as there isn't much you can say to avoiding scrutiny in such a blatant way. The other issues might need responding to, but the socking really doesn't and is enough to pass the threshold for sanctions all by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prioryman (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction to be enforced

1. Purpose of Wikipedia
2. Biographies of living people
3. Decorum

Diffs

1. 18:05, 20 May 2016‎ Hijacks a GA review request and turns it into a rant against the article's content (see [36])
2. 16:26, 11 April 2016 One of several deletions of sourced content with a bogus rationale. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named)
3. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named)
4. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotation from primary source)
5. 17:58, 26 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotations from primary sources)
6. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above. One of several personal attacks against a source's author in an apparent attempt to undermine its credibility (see Dead agenting)
7. 10:01, 17 April 2016 As above
8. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above
9. 18:17, 25 April 2016 Refuses to discuss alternative wording with other editors

Previous relevant sanctions : None known

Evidence the editor was warned:

• Editor was warned on April 12, 2016
• Article talk page includes warning in header of discretionary sanctions.

Additional comments

I stepped in at R2-45 a few weeks ago to try to defuse an ongoing argument by rewriting and improving the article. I managed to greatly improve the article and its sourcing, but very quickly found that editing and discussions were being disrupted repeatedly by Sfarney. Among other things, he has sabotaged a requested GA review, repeatedly deleted cited sources for completely bogus reasons (Sfarney has had WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCEACCESS explained to him but does not seem to accept them) and repeatedly personally attacked the author of one particular source which he dislikes. His approach to discussion has been continuously combative and aggressive, and he has explicitly refused to contribute to improving the article (see the last in my series of diffs), instead preferring to delete content without prior discussion, post complaints or forum-shop (so far three times to WP:ANI, also to WP:DR, WP:RS and most recently here). He rejects sources because they are hard for him to find. The normal editing process becomes impossible when an editor won't accept basic Wikipedia content policies and refuses to collaborate with other editors. This kind of behaviour is exactly why the original Scientology arbitration case ended up banning a swathe of editors from the topic area. It's worth noting that his conduct, especially his GA review sabotage, continued despite an earlier warning from myself. Sfarney's behaviour here, particularly sabotaging a GA review - which I've never seen done before in 10+ years of editing Wikipedia - is a very clear violation of the arbitration sanctions. Prioryman (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Prioryman" is a longtime crusader against Scientology who likes to make Wikipedia content about Scientology as negative as possible and has been allowed to do so for a great many years. "Sfarney" may be, though I know nothing about him, the opposite of "Prioryman." If you tolerate the one, a symmetry of skew from someone else is about the best you can hope for. Enjoy the wargame.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sfarney was engaging in WP:IDHT behavior where he insisted that WP:NFCC did not apply to some external links here and here. Sfarney engaged in combative behavior with anyone who disagreed with them.--v/r - TP 03:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article R2-45 is a parody of Wikipedia. It accuses Scientology of

1. Issuing death warrants on lists of people
2. Using death threats against people
3. Advising believers to commit suicide as a form of therapy.

The article does not represent a consensus of opinion, even among Scientology's harshest critics. Instead, the editors have built those fringe theories by WP:CHERRYPICKING from primary sources, and citing a blog, a single book, wikileaks, and an unreviewed article by a sociology Professor. All of this editing is in violation of WP:FRINGE.

The Wikipedia article is a list of criminal charges -- But no government has ever leveled those charges against Scientology. The page is way out there on the fringe. Wikipedia is not a scandal rag or an investigative journal. Wikipedia is designed as a compendium of consensus, and this article does not satisfy.

Recently, editor Feoffer (talk · contribs) added a copyrighted image to the page in violation of WP:NFC#UUI #15. I reported it and had it removed.[37][38]. In the process, instead of supporting WP policy, editor Prioryman attacked me.[39] (WP:PA includes accusations with no evidence.) Other editors defended the use of the non-free image.

On 25 May, I asked for arbitration enforcement against Prioryman. In that action, Prioryman again PA attacked me and I pointed it out. The arbitrator acknowledged that it was an improper attack, but then ended the hearing by cautioning ME to be more gracious, kind, and gentle in my speech. Administrator The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) opined that the action was "ripe for Boomerang", though s/he did not cite a single violation for which I could be sanctioned.

The editors on this article have violated and are in violation of many principles of Wikipedia. The primary editors involved are Slashme (talk · contribs), Damotclese (talk · contribs), Feoffer (talk · contribs), and Prioryman (talk · contribs). Recently, Thimbleweed (talk · contribs) has joined the group and trimmed R2-45 of all maintenance tags.

This I quote:

• "Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics, it is crucial that all editors adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to maintaining a neutral point of view, citing disputed statements to reliable sources, avoiding edit-warring and uncivil comments, and complying at all times with the policy on biographies of living persons in reference to the various living people whose names come up from time to time in these articles."Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editing_environment
• "Administrators are expected to set an example, and more so under such circumstances, and not contribute towards making the environment in Scientology more hostile."Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Administrator_conduct
• "To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding;"Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed

Requests for rewording these fringe theories (cited above as one of my offenses) are a form of WP:OWN.

My edits to the article have been an attempt to bring it more in compliance with the principles of Wikipedia.Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me comment on this -- My use name keeps getting dropped in to this R2-45 article discussion, presumably because I have approved of and commented upon the latest cycle of updates to the article which has seen a successful improvement in the quality and accuracy of the article (to the point where what was once a disjointed effort by a number of editors over the past 9 years has now become quality enough to perhaps be considered something of a threat to the Scientology enterprise because the article is accurate) and I have asked that editors move on.

We currently have general consensus on the article quality (though we do have one serious and legitimate editor (user lava) who notes there could be more legitimate improvements made, something which is true of every Wikipedia article) -- except that we continue to have one problem editor -- who is the subject of this request to mitigate said editor's behavior.

It's important to remember that we are all volunteers expending time for a variety of reasons and motivations, and even the problem editor is a volunteer. What I don't want to see is sanctions imposed against someone who contributes successfully to Wikipedia since I don't want to see people get discouraged and walk away. Understandably when we have a problem editor like the individual who is the subject of this request, we have volunteer editors having their time and effort wasted, yet again we need editors to volunteer their time and not get discouraged.

Point being that I don't think we should sanction ^Talk unless there is serious need to do so, we need the editor to move on to other pages that need work done. Rather than ban the user for a period of time, let's be professional and politely request that the user refrain from altering the R2-45 page, and ask that he or she move on. We don't want to lose editors! Wikipedia needs more volunteers, not less. Let's ask the editor to stop being contentious on the R2-45 page and let's move on.

Oh, I would add that I find it disturbing that the individual claims I have been making changes to the R2-45 article. No. I have not. I have been discussing the improvements editors have made, so presumably agreeing with the improvements is being considered an offense by the subject editor. Damotclese (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Some of this is a little bit old. If this had happened after I gave my warning the other day, I would topic ban or block on the spot, but I did give a fairly detailed warning less than a week ago, so behavior since then is my primary focus. Not sure that to do here, would like to hear what other admins think. If other admin disagree, I won't argue against them as I don't have high hopes here. Grammar's Li'l Helper/Sfarney's talk contributions show a very binary view of policy that isn't consistent with consensus interpretation, and I think that is what gets them into conflict. And to Dan Murphy, the fact that many people edit Scientology articles with an ax to grind is why the topic is under Arb Discretionary Sanctions to begin with. We already know there are few angels at AE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Galassi (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

User_talk:Galassi#Arbitration_enforcement_discretionary_sanction:_Indefinite_topic_ban :

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

1. 31 May 2016 Edit in contravention of topic ban

1. 7 June 2016 Edit in contravention of topic ban

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 7 April 2013 Banned from all Ukraine related edits

1. 10 May 2016 AN/I report that resulted in a closure that said Galassi is already topic-barred from anything related to the Khazars including anything Kahazar theories based on a topic-ban from any Ukranian-related articles from 2013. (User:Ricky81682)
2. here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Galassi has a long history of reverting me at sight without examining the merits of the content reverted, or explaining himself on talk pages. This brought about the A/1 decision barring him from the Khazar-related articles. He was told not to edit any articles relating to Khazars on May 10. In an appeal to User:Sandstein regarding this, Sandstein recommended my taking Galassi to AE if he broke his topic ban. I believe the above 2 diffs violate that ban and repeat the behaviour (no talk page presence, reverting me at sight) that got him banned from those articles a month ago.

Galassi seemed in the prior case which led to his ban to be saying he can revert me anywhere on sight because he is convinced I am part of an antiZionist cabal on Wikipedia.

This is now clarified. here where he now asserts I am engaged in an anti-Zionist jihad

At least this last wild WP:AGF violation (one of dozens) had a tittle of ostensible evidential support, namely my edit here, which he claims is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. It happens to refer to an incident regarding the killing of a Palestinian. Perhaps that is not news, such incidents rarely are. By the same token, however, in my regular additions to the same page of harm done to Israelis here,here,or here, for example, I am (a) violating WP:NOTNEWS and engaging in a pro-Zionist jihad (sorry, that's an oxymoron) pro-Zionist hasbara. The simple fact is that I edit that page registering every act of violence done by one party to the other, regardless of the ethnicity of the assailant or victim.

As to the putative disconnect between the Ukraine and the Khazars I answered that exhaustively on the case that led to Galassi’s ban from Khazar articles by showing that it is customary in mainstream works on Ukrainian history to consistently cite the Khazars as part of that nation’s prehistory.

That, with other arguments by other parties, was accepted by the closing admin. Galassi was also informed he could ask for clarification. He did not pursue this, aside from a note to Sandstein, and simply came back to edit where he was clearly topic-banned, whatever the merits of the admin’s call on May 10. Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes: your point 3 is, I believe incorrect. Sandstein's advice to Galassi was :'if you continue this discussion with Nishidani, you will be violating your topic ban by doing so'. When I saw him breaking what I took to be his topic ban from Khazars by reverting an IP I too suspected of being a sock, 31 May 2016 with the first infraction, I let it pass. I didn't 'go after him' on a technicality. When he began once more to revert me at sight, repeating the same behavior he was sanctioned for (technically, banning me, by recourse to automatic reverts, from that page), as with the second diff, he forced my hand. I reported him, as Sandstein counseled me to do.Nishidani (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to the I/P connection raised, Roland has articulated exactly what I myself think, so I need not repeat it, other than confirming that most editors intervening on these two articles (Khazars, Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry) have no interest in the topics other than making rhetorical/political capital out of the spin they put on them. Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor notified here, and here

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

This is preposterous. By the same token I would be banned from the US Constitution because the tripartite government was originally a Ukrainian Idea. See Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk. User Nishidani is simply attempting to remove a voice opposing his tendentious editing.--Galassi (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that Nishidani is engaged in an anti-Zionist jihad, as evidenced by such diffs as [40], in clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS.--Galassi (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: No, it doesn't. There is 500 years of history between the end of Khazars and the beginning of Ukraine.--Galassi (talk) 23:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These edits/diffs are about ancient history of Khazars, a Turkic tribe, and about genetic studies of Jews. This has nothing to do with Ukraine. The page mention people "who had migrated westward from modern Russia and Ukraine into modern France and Germany", however as clear from the diff, Galassi did not change anything about it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. There is indeed a historical connection and a territorial overlap between the ancient Khazar Khaganate and modern Ukraine. So, for example, someone with a topic ban on Germany can not edit article Jesus Christ because it is about Jews in the Roman Empire (not to be confused with Holy Roman empire) that has a historical and territorial overlap with modern Germany. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. Why this is an invalid reductio ad absurdum? We are talking about someone who received a topic ban for editing modern-day country X. Should such topic bans be extended to articles about all different and currently non-existent countries A,B,C that were partly overlapped with country X in past and therefore have some kind of historical connection to X? Countries X and A,B,C are populated by very different peoples, different in the territory and different by centuries in time. This is general question and possibly an important precedent for further similar actions on WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sfarney. Yes, indeed, the Roman Empire is integral to the history of Europe, Palestine and so on. Every stone in Germany, Armenia and Judaea was some time in the Roman Empire. Does it mean that everyone with sanctions in these subject areas can not edit pages about Roman Empire and Jesus Christ? However, I must tell Khazars and Ukrainians are very different peoples, just as Khazars and Jews. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston. After ANI discussion mentioned by Nishidani above, Galassi asked for clarification from admin who imposed the topic ban and received a clarification that Khazars were not covered by this topic ban - see here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK. Let me clarify what had happen

1. There was an ANI discussion. It was proposed to "ban Galassi from editing Khazar-related articles" [41]. There were many different opinions.
2. The disussion was closed by admin who said that in his opinion this is covered by the topic ban and suggested that Galassi should appeal his case with admin who issued the ban (" I'm going to take this as Galassi is already topic-barred from anything related to the Khazars including anything Kahazar theories ... so I'll leave it to Galassi to argue on his/her own behalf to cut the topic ban to modern Ukraine or to ask for its removal, either by asking the original admin or ARE or any other methodology to have it reduced and shortened")
3. That is what Galassi did: he asked the appropriate admin and was told that in his opinion Khazar-related articles are not covered by the ban (he talked about one specific page, but this is clear), but that other admins may decide otherwise.

• At the very least, this is a highly confusing situation, when the user was not properly instructed by admins what to do. Moreover, I have no idea if the discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe cover all historical states that existed on the territory, such as Khazar khaganate, Mongol Empire, Ancient Greece, etc. Please instruct. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EDJohnston. I do not know if you have the authority to make a brand-new Khazar ban under WP:ARBEE or this needs a clarification from Arbcom, however if you do, that would be something instructive, so the user was clearly told that he can not edit in this subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how the ancient history of Khazars is related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It seems that Galassi did not actually edit anything in ARBPIA area during last two months, maybe longer. Yes, a lot of his edits are related to persecution of Jews (like here), but not everything about Jews is related to IP conflict ( Well, if you think that the Khazars are related, then obviously anything about Jews and Arabs should be related as well, but I do not think so ). His comment about Nishidani looks to me as an attempt to discredit contributor who brought a complaint about him on the AE. His comment is highly problematic and perhaps deserves a block for a personal attack, but I do not see how that justify a topic ban from the area of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RonaldR. The "Khazar hypothesis" is only about Ashkenazi Jews who lived in Europe. No one claims that all Jews came from the Khazar Khaganate. Yes, obviously, anything from the Jewish history (including Jesus Christ) and any negative information or conspiracy theories about Jews (like Blood libel) can be used in such disputes. OK, this is something for admins to decide, except that if the connection was so obvious, I am surprised that Nishidani did not bring this case under ARBPIA. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• One month block for the first-time topic ban violation by editing a subject that is not an obvious topic ban violation, in opinion of admin who issued the ban??? My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In conclusion. I think this is a battleground request by Nishidani. He constantly edit war on Khazar pages, even during this request [42],[43],[44],[45] (these are not consecutive edits), but he constantly reports his content opponents on the ANI, AE and 3RRNB for edit warring. Speaking of the subject, the "Khazar theory" is actually not supported by the most recent scientific publications, but it is indeed used in antisemitic polemics. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article Khazar is part of the "History of Ukraine" series, and that the map makes it clear that the Khazar empire covered a significant part of Europe that would become Ukraine, I'm not seeing My very best wishes' claim that the edits had nothing to do with Galassi's Ukraine topic ban, especially since an admin has ruled that the topic ban did cover the Khazars. BMK (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: So far, uninvolved admins don't seem swayed by your arguments; nor am I, since they appear to me to be examples of a straw man argument or an invalid reductio ad absurdum. BMK (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Galassi: "Anti-Zionist jihad"?!?! Two items about Palestinians being harmed by Israelis and one about an Israeli being hurt by Palestinians does not an "Anti-Zionist jihad" make. I would suggest that the block which is coming your way be extended for making a personal attack, since that's what casting aspersions without evidence amounts to. BMK (talk) 03:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) BMK (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual comment by Sandstein, cited by My very best wishes: "[A]t first glance I don't see a link between Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry and Ukraine, and therefore conclude that the article is not covered by the topic ban. However, should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later, I or another admin may come to a different conclusion." (emphasis added) So Sandstein should be good with three admins (at this point) having determined that there is a connection between the two subjects. BMK (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MYBW: Why would Nishidani bring a complaint under the more general ARBPIA = about which I don't even know if Galassi has been notified - rather than the specific individual topic ban on the Ukraine which Galassi is under? The latter is more directly and obviously relevant, the former much less so. BMK (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Louisiana Territory is integral to the history of the North America, and the Khazar Empire is integral to the history of Ukrainia. The same stones, the same grass, the same chain of events, and an important genetic line of the Ukrainian populace. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the banning admin stipulated that the ban did not cover the Khazar Empire, that should be sufficient to answer this enforcement proceeding. I disagree with that approach, since it is the same geographic area and much of the same history, but that was the ruling. Nice for the subject to have a strong partisan speaking on his/er behalf. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes writes "I do not see how the ancient history of Khazars is related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict". It is related because the putative origin of European Jews from the Khazar conversion is held by many, on both sides of the dispute, to be germane to Zionist claims to Palestine. It has been argued that, if it can be established that European Jews do not descend from the biblical communities who who lived in the area 2000 years ago, then this would invalidate modern Zionist claims to the land. Therefore, many supporters of Palestinian rights will seize on any scintilla of evidence in an attempt to bolster the thesis. Conversely, many supporters of the Zionist position will attempt to discount and discredit any hint that there is an element of truth in the thesis. Unfortunately, for many people in both camps this ideological imperative outweighs any effort to establish the historical facts and to assess their significance. So the argument over 14th century Khazar history has become to some extent a surrogate for argument over more recent events in the Middle East. RolandR (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MVBM, I am well aware that the Khazar thesis relates only to Ashkenazi Jews. But Zionism historically was a movement of Ashkenazis, which explains the significance placed on this argument by people on both sides of the dispute. But we are in danger here of straying into non-productive historical and political debates; I was simply replying to your earlier statement about the relationship of Khazar history to the current Middle East situation. The actual historical truth or fallacy is not the point, and does not need to be determined here. RolandR (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Per User:Beyond My Ken the topic ban from Ukraine does cover the Khazars as well. Unless there is an appropriate promise from User:Galassi I think a block is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about a one-month block for violation of the Ukraine ban. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. T. Canens (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the warnings previously delivered, a block appears in order. T. Canens (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein's comment is about a different article, based on a "first glance", and with plenty of caveats ("should any substantial links between the topics be pointed out later"). I therefore do not find it particularly instructive. T. Canens (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:My very best wishes -- AE is the right place to be discussing how to interpret the ban, and what should be done about Galassi's recent edits about the Khazars. If people think a Ukraine ban isn't a Khazar ban, they can make that argument here, but we have the authority to make a brand-new Khazar ban under WP:ARBEE is it is judged appropriate. We can even make an entry in the DSLOG that Ukraine bans cover the Khazars in the future. So far, there is nothing from Galassi to respond to Nishidani's original complaint that he was making blind reverts of changes about the Khazars with no actual analysis. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I was directed to come here but I don't consider myself involved. As the admin who closed this discussion, I think there is already a topic ban but my secondary concern Galassi's use of the term "Anti-Zionist jihad" against another editor for a benign content addition. We should consider expanding the sanctions to the IP sphere which would then double cover the Khazars issue but that seems to be the actual problem here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Galassi isn't doing himself any favors with his responses to this complaint. Instead of trying to convince us he is capable of making valuable edits about the Khazars, he continues with diatribes against Nishidani that seem unjustified by the diffs he gives. Although his Ukraine ban dates from 2013, it is worth recalling the statement of User:Sandstein in that AE: "…the general picture I get from Galassi based on this report is that they do not have the understanding or self-discipline required to contribute to highly contested topics in a constructive and collegial manner. They should limit themselves to editing in areas where they are not likely to enter into conflicts with others…" EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's not a good pattern. Support the one month block for topic ban violation and support expanding it to the IP sphere for say two months. The Khazars seem to be a dispute that is a mix of the Jewish influence and Ukraine, so it's like a mix of reasons it's not going well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I am willing to close with a one-month block of Galassi for violation of the Ukraine ban with his Khazar editing. Will wait to see if there are further comments. Sandstein's remarks were hardly a carte blanche to go ahead and edit Khazars. It is arguable that Khazars are covered by WP:ARBPIA, though The Invention of the Jewish People has an ARBPIA banner (and talks about Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry), it is a little closer to the A/I conflict and the tag is more justified. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing: User:Galassi is warned that he is excluded from the topic of the Khazars on all pages of Wikipedia due to his Ukraine ban. If he wants to, he can appeal using the steps in WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

OptimusView (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

Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

1. June 11, 2016
2. June 11, 2016

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)

[46] I warned him personally a few years ago, and there's a warning in the article edit window. Grandmaster 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes is placed on discretionary sanctions, and editors cannot make more than 1 rv in 24 hours. The warning is clearly displayed in the editing window, so everyone editing the article is well aware of it. OptimusView violated 1rr, but in addition, he wages a slow edit war over a description in the infobox, claiming a consensus (or lack of it), when clearly more editors at talk oppose to his version, and only one editor supports him. I see no real attempt at compromise on his part either. It would be good to have a community intervention into this situation, before it gets out of hand. Grandmaster 23:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OptimusView, removal of content is considered an rv. According to WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". In particular, this edit is an rv of my recent edit. So that was in fact 3 rvs within 24 hours. Grandmaster 09:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[47]

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

I reverted just one time here [48]. The next edit [49] is not even a revert, I just deleted (as far as I can see, for the first time in the history of the page) a phrase which wasn't explained at talk and an unreliable person (a political activist) is cited as an analyst. And my two edits have nothing to do with each other (so it is not a violation of 1rr), they are completely different edits, and I could made them in one action, but I made them separately to explain in editsummary, why Babayan shouldn't be mentioned. Nothing more. OptimusView (talk) 04:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Grandmaster mentioned that there is "a slow edit war over a description in the infobox, when clearly more editors at talk oppose to his version", but the real situation is different: the version is not mine, it existed since April [50] and a user just made changes in the wording thereafter. then user XavierGreen changed it to another version [51], 2 users (Grandmaster and Brandmeister) changed to a completely different version, starting an editwarring [52], and 2 users (Oatitonimly and me) are supporting the old version (and as I mentioned at talk, I'm not an ardent supporter of the old version, but it should be changed to a consensused one). User XavierGreenn never supported this [53] version by Grandmaster, so they have no any majority, as they claim. OptimusView (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • EdJohnston, in the diffs you provided I see that I really made 2 reverts during a one day period. my only explanation is that I returned another text on the same time and did not notice that there's also this part on "territories" [54]. but I agree that it is a involuntary violation by me. OptimusView (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It appears that User:OptimusView broke WP:1RR by reverting twice at 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes on 11 June. I hope that they will respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OptimusView: Here are two edits within 24 hours that both restore the phrase "Disputed Nagorno-Karabakh hectare losses" after it had been removed by others: First edit (June 10, 17:38), Second edit (June 11, 12:59). That's a total of two reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing: User:OptimusView has been blocked as a sock per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/OptimusView. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TJH2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jake vela (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:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant : ISIS and Syria

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

Broken 1RR on an article covered by general sanctions. Orlando Nightclub Shooting.

• Diff 1
• Diff 2

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Simple as 1, 2, 3 here, in my opinion. TJH2018talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Yes. TJH2018talk 20:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mo ainm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case :

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

1. 22:15, 16 June 2016 First revert, of what was in my opinion a correct and constructive edit, with no explanation in edit summary
2. 02:41, 17 June 2016 Second revert, rather hypocritically saying "undo unexplained changes -- pls explain in edit summary or on the article talk page" when he himself made no effort to explain what he considered to be wrong with the initial edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:09, 22 March 2015 Previously sanctioned for Troubles related disruption

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 12:35, 17 February 2014 by Thryduulf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mabuska's claims are baseless accusations possibly deserving sanction. That is not vandalism, neither is that, or that, or that, or that, or that, and that request was clearly not vandalism. Mo ainm~Talk 11:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Mabuska and OID have decided in their wisdom that RMS was reverting vandalism or biased editing when this wasn't stated by RMS in any edit summary. Mo ainm~Talk 12:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I have said is reasonable was this one, and according to Mabuska "I strongly disagree with that interpretation, especially as DanceHallCrasher's edits show a clear bias that denigrates articles". The edit is reasonable as at no place in the article did "volunteer" ever link to "volunteer", and the article had an inconsistent acronym usage with IRA used for the majority of the time and a couple of uses of PIRA. All the edit did was add a needed wikilink and standardize acronym usage, that is emphatically not demonstative of "a clear bias that denigrates articles". Mo ainm~Talk 12:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms your first edit summary in its totality was "(Undid revision 725615867 by DanceHallCrasher (talk))" Your second edit summary in its totality was "(Undid revision 725635554 by DanceHallCrasher (talk) undo unexplained changes -- pls explain in edit summary or on the article talk page)" Perhaps you can explain in which of those you "clearly stated what my concerns with the edits in question were" as I don't see it? Mo ainm~Talk 11:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms since when is filing a report of a breach of 1RR harassment? Love the battlefield mentality that you are showing, suppose you got lucky because no admins came to this report for days but as soon as @Newyorkbrad says what he says you personally attack me and accuse me of harassment. Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rms on what article have I breached 1RR? Also why should I AGF when you have history? Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like you AGF when you accused me of harassment? Mo ainm~Talk 23:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of action by admins here should not be seen as an endorsement if that was the case then the lack of action has essentially told editors that 1RR is no longer in place. Mo ainm~Talk 09:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

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

This is trivial nonsense, in my opinion, and an abuse of process. I clearly stated what my concerns with the edits in question were and asked the editor in question to "pls explain [the edits] in edit summary or on the article talk page", as that was something he/she had not done. I don't know how I am "hypocritical" in this regard as my edits are self-explanatory, those of @Mo ainm were/are not self-explanatory or transparent. PIRA and IRA are not identical and his/her reasons for changing them were my concern. Perhaps, in retrospect, I should have requested an explanation sooner and on @Mo ainm's talk page rather than via edit summary, and if so, I acknowledge my error in this regard.

This entire reporting action, however, is over the top and unwarranted. My edits were minimal in nature and dealt with the same narrow issue of acronyms. @Mo ainm had more than ample opportunities to de-escalate and explain why he was making these edits, given that it is related to a topic that can be extremely contentious, and thus seemingly innocuous but unexplained edits can take on greater importance than they perhaps deserve. This is a tempest in a teapot over trivia, IMO, a form of harassment and a patently obvious attempt to try to get me barred from editing on any Troubles-related theme.Quis separabit? 23:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Rms since when is filing a report of a breach of 1RR harassment?" -- well, since you violated 1RR yourself, the best you can hope for from this bad faith overreach is a Pyrrhic victory. Quis separabit? 23:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, it was User:DanceHallCrasher that violated WP:1RR. And we all have to abide by AGF. BTW: nobody who has edited for a decade or more has not garnered a "history". I did not coincide my comments with @Newyorkbrad's comments as I was composing my thoughts when he left his message and I didn't see it until afterwards (see [55]). Quis separabit? 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got "lucky"?? Has any other editor endorsed your version of events? Perhaps no admins got involved because the MO is tiresome and trivial. Quis separabit? 00:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because AGF extends only so far and you wrought this over-reaction (the most generous time I can think of) on me. Had I done the same over the same trivialities then I would not expect you to AGF, either. Quis separabit? 00:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Rms should have engaged in discussion with the editor over the edit after they reinserted their challenged edit, however the key point to remember is whether they were reverting vandalism, whichnis exempt from the Troubles restrictons. Looking at the edits of the editor in question, they do edit with a POV and agenda that is quite similar to Mo ainm's, which explains why Mo ainm sees their edit as reasonable, however I strongly disagree with that interpretation, especially as DanceHallCrasher's edits show a clear bias that denigrates articles. The reverting of such bias can be classified as reverting vandalism. Though that doesn't excuse the lack of discussion on DanceHallCrasher's edit. ThisMabuska ^(talk) 11:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your statement, however to clarify I should of stated "in Rms' view can be classified", or rather "to some, can be classified", though I'd more argue that they are instead POV pushing edits. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question for Mo ainm... why didn't you simply ask Rms to self-revert due to 1rr and/or asking for a proper explanation from them before going straight to here? More dialogue and less jumping the gun should have been the the way to go rather than knee-jerk reporting an editor who has a different POV to your own. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to correct Mabuska, WP:Vandalism is very clear on what is not vandalism. The relevant section would be here. Biased/POV editing is explicitly not vandalism and anyone reverting non-neutral edits *in the belief* they are reverting vandalism, needs to be corrected. (Due to the lack of discussion/edit summaries there is no indication Rms125a was using 'vandalism' as an excuse, even if they were it would not be valid) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only know Quis Separabit? because (s)he was the only editor I've come across as I plugged away on the obscure details of the I/P conflict, involving a tediously long list, who took the trouble to check minutely my sources, and edits, often finding slips that escaped what I thought was my close scrutiny. That is the only conflict of interest I have here. I like meticulous editors, even, perhaps esp.if, their precision causes me woe (making me pull my finger the extra inch). Under the Ir rules for this area, we read:-

Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

DanceHallCrasher started editing 10 days ago in this POV minefield and has made 22 edits, mostly with a redlinked handle. Though Don't bite the newbie has some relevance, the editor has all the appearance of an anonymous IP. To date they have only 3 talk page comments, and not on the Dolours Price page.In the equally tough I/P area, we have a rule that only editors with 500 edits elsewhere and at least a month on wiki can work there, otherwise such editors can be reverted without regard to the 1R rule. Something like that seems to apply here, though it is not policy. So I think Quis Separabit's revert can be read as reasonable, since the status of DanceHallCrasher is virtually indistinguishable functionally from an anonymous IP, and, by analogy with the other slough of despond, pop-up editors coming in out of the blue to make edits and then revert experienced editors who revert them, do look like handy extras throwing their brief weight in to support the POV of one of the two sides. I think therefore the complaint is trivial, and should be dismissed. AE is a court of last recourse for editors suffering extreme exasperation from obstinate abusers, not a trip-wire to be used for advantage (no doubt this is not the case here, but one should avoid giving even the appearance of frivolity).Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to go down the road of blocks, this SPI is relevant. Reverts of sockpuppets do not breach WP:1RR. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the usual AE-patrolling admins? Has everyone gone on vacation/holiday to Mexico/the south of France? BMK (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't perceive that any action is required here (especially since the report is now a few days old and no further issues have been raised). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• User:DanceHallCrasher, whose name is mentioned above, has now been alerted to the Troubles discretionary sanctions. In agreement with Newyorkbrad, I don't see a need for other action so I'm closing this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Safehaven86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

HughD (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/Climate change.

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

1. June 22 editing at Global Climate Coalition, clearly in scope of climate change topic ban
2. June 27 continued editing at Global Climate Coalition, clearly in scope of climate change topic ban
3. June 27 ditto

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 8 HughD topic banned from climate change-related articles
2. May 8 HughD blocked for one month for violating topic ban on American conservative politics

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Whether or not your edits are good or bad faith, improvements or not improvements, is entirely irrelevant. You're simply not allowed to edit pages that you're topic banned from, regardless of the perceived quality or intention behind such edits. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy action here as the user in question is not slowing down. See further obvious topic ban violation here Template:Did you know nominations/Global Climate Coalition and disruptive editing here. Safehaven86 (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

All edits obvious good faith improvements. No disruption. Vexatious filing. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This activity (especially the agenda on display in the latter two edits linked above) is an obvious and flagrant topic ban violation. Recommend a three-month block, and will be enacting such unless there is substantive disagreement from other commenting administrators. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. The violation is clear-cut and I don't see anything indicating that HughD is going to abide by the terms of his ban. Three months is fair. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Given how blatant this violation is, I'm almost inclined to indef, with the first year under AE. But if the consensus is for three months, I'll go with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem (I understand Im linking to an RFC here, however that RFC was mandated by ArbCom and is binding through July 9, 2016, and this topic area is covered by discretionary sanctions

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

1. 7 June 2016 Revert in violation of binding RFC

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 March 2016.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a binding RFC on claims to Jerusalem being capital of Israel and Palestine and its location that was mandated by the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem). That RFC resulted in the material currently in the lead of the Jerusalem article and per the Arbitration Committee is binding for three years. A user added material to the lead that violated that RFC, was reverted, which was also reverted. This was prior to any talk page discussion. I reverted that final revert and opened a talk page section detailing why (here, with the user I had reverted agreeing that the material shouldnt be included. Debresser then ignores the binding RFC and re-reverts, writing in the talk page Sourced, relevant, neutrally worded. The Rfc is expiring. The Rfc avoided the issue. All in all, ample reason to keep this addition. By the way, is there anything you think is wrong with the text, apart from bureaucratic arguments? When Debresser was reverted he or she posted to that users talkpage that their revert was "hothead revert" (here). Im not quite sure why this user thinks that binding means something other than all users have to follow this, but a reminder is surely in order.

Re the idea that this is a personal issue, no, not at all. Debresser is the only one to have reverted following the explanation that the material violated a binding RFC. And when asked to revert declined to do so. And then complained when somebody reverted him or her. Debresser's comment on the talk page of that article implied that he or she felt that a binding RFC did not apply to him or her. That is what brought me here. nableezy - 00:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Debresser, I guess an edit summary that says the RFC is expiring in a month, a comment on the talk page saying the edit should stand, a comment on the talk page of the person that reverted you calling their revert hotheaded, those things dont lead to the reasonable conclusion that a. you knew that you were prohibited from making said edit due to a binding revert, b. didnt care, and c. wouldnt self-revert. Silly me, where could I have possibly gotten that idea. You know what I find disruptive? Editors thinking the rules that apply to everybody else dont apply to them. Editors who knowingly revert against a consensus (thats what an RFC determines fyi). Basically, you. nableezy - 21:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@OID, I object to that edit on a number of grounds. However, the rule breaking is what is relevant on this board for a topic area that is covered under discretionary sanctions. Bright line rules only work if when somebody breaks them there isnt hand waving about well its only a technicality.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

Nableezy seems to have a personal issue with me, because of the three editors who made this same edit,[56][57][58] I am the only one he is reporting. Nableezy has a huge POV in the I/P-conflict area, and we have conflicted on many articles already. He is now trying to fight his personal vendetta against me through the editors at WP:AE. I think that is fair reason to dismiss this report. Recently he engaged in an edit wat at Ancient synagogues in Palestine,[59][60][61] for which I decided not to report him. I am disappointed that he should repay me in this way.

As to the actual matter at hand, I think Talk:Jerusalem#addition_to_the_lead is where the discussion is taking place, and where I have made my arguments, and have already stated, that I will not challenge the Rfc, which stands till July 9. At the same time, I think the issue will have to be re-visited in the near future, if only to avoid edit wars, blocks and a lot of bad blood, and the proposed edit is a very good NPOV candidate, summing up the issue well and along the same lines as the Rfc.

In short, I think this report should boomerang back on Nableezy for the blatant personal motives behind this report, as well as his own recent WP:ARBPIA violations on "Ancient synagogues in Palestine".Debresser (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnson The 9 July date comes from counting 3 years after the Rfc reached a conclusion. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy No need to say things you can't possibly know. I didn't refuse to revert. Somebody else reverted my edit even before I read your post on my talkpage. You continue with your bad faith assumptions, viewing Wikipedia as a battlefield, and me as the enemy. I find this attitude of yours disruptive. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing I know it is not advised to antagonize editors here, but I don't understand what further "backing down" is needed, after I have already stated both here and on the talkpage that I will not challenge the status quo? You did read my posts here and on the talkpage, didn't you? Debresser (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) @GoldenRing In view of the above, neither do I understand what you claim I am "doubling down on". Debresser (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing The Rfc specifically states that the consensus reached in it is binding only for a 3-year period. There is no rule on Wikipedia that an Rfc is needed to establish consensus, including to establish if there has been a change of consensus. A simple talkpage discussion, or even a bold edit that is accepted by the community, per definition can establish a new consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Newyorkbrad Ha, ha. That's a good one. Debresser (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade I don't think you are correct. See my comment above to GoldenRing, that there is no rule that an Rfc must be followed by an Rfc. Any way of establishing consensus is valid. The only exception could perhaps be, if such a stipulation were made specifically in the first Rfc, as in the current example provided by The Wordsmith below. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, dates from RFC's are always taken from the closure of an RFC as that is the point at which consensus has been determined by the closer. There would be no point in a fixed for 3 years consensus being valid until the actual consensus was determined. Saying that, it would still be up in a month anyway, so suggest close with trouts for everyone. Nableezy, if you have to rely on technical rule-breaking to revert an edit, rather than addressing the substance of the edit, it tends to get peoples backs up. 'Would this edit be controversial in a months time?' should be the question you ask yourself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Timoetheus has the right of it here; RfCs do not expire as such. Consensus can change, but the right way to go about changing consensus established in an RfC is a new RfC, not gung-ho edits to the article before the time limit established by the RfC has even expired and especially not in an article as contentious as this one. I suggest User:Debresser backs down and apologises and we let this lie; if not, sanctions are probably appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: Consensus is always binding. It doesn't expire. I read the three-year limit in that RfC as essentially the same as a moratorium on further discussion. But however you read it, the essential point is that it hasn't expired. Of course it doesn't take an RfC to establish consensus - but when one has been held, a change made without any discussion whatsoever doesn't cut it. Since you're doubling down on this, I can't see what else to recommend but sanctions. GoldenRing (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus-wise, where things will probably now turn ugly is that there are perceptions among some editors that consensus is established by carrying out a show of hands and that personal opinions, rather than the contents of reliable sources, establish what is factual and what is neutral.     ←   ZScarpia   17:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is not consensus. Simple as that. It is a ruling that must be followed but when that ruling is sunsetted, then there is no obligation to follow that ruling. General Wiki rules and policies apply but you can't say that once there is a temporary RFC, or injunction, then any change requires a consensus or new RFC. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think Debresser should be sanctioned based on this tit for tat edit:[62] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The original Arbcom motion was passed on December 27, 2012. It provided that the ban on changing the lead of Jerusalem 'will be binding for three years from the adoption of this motion'. To me, that implies December 27, 2015, so the freeze on changing the lead has already expired. The RfC closers stated that 'this decision is binding for three years' on 9 July, 2013 but I don't see that the closers were given authority to change the date specified in Arbcom's own motion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ed makes an interesting point. I do not recall any discussion about it, but then when we passed the appointments motion I don't think any of us expected the process to take half a year to conclude.

  That said, in my view, even after the three-year period ends, the conclusions reached in the RFC remain consensus until and unless the existence of a different consensus is demonstrated, and until then edits that are substantially contrary to those conclusions remain sanctionable under DS for failure to "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioural best practice" (see WP:AC/DS#guide.expect). T. Canens (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If we accept T. Canens' view, we should place a new banner on the talk page of Jerusalem. We should tell editors they are risking a block if they change the lead away from the 2013 RfC version before such time as a different consensus is demonstrated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears that extending the freeze at Jerusalem is an option that is within our power, under discretionary sanctions. See WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms where the committee is still considering a parallel issue regarding GMO. See the comments by User:Salvio giuliano and User:Drmies in that ARCA, though not everyone agrees with them. Why not keep this Jerusalem-related AE open until the ARCA finishes, and see if we want to propose something for Jerusalem. We could make a DS stating that the wording of the Jerusalem lead is still frozen until a new RfC is held. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reopened the thread, because that request for clarification has been dealt with. As I said there, as far as I'm concerned, a restriction along the lines of that one would be a cromulent use of DS. Tarapia tapioco (aka Salvio) (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Unless there is an admin who wants to give us wording for a new discretionary sanction reinstating the freeze, I suggest this be closed with warnings to User:Debresser and User:Plot Spoiler. They changed wording that was agreed upon in a large RfC in 2013 without providing evidence of a new general consensus in favor of their version. I doubt that anyone is looking forward to a new edit war on the lead of Jerusalem. Given data we currently have, it appears that Debresser and Plot Spoiler are risking admin action if they continue, which might consist of blocks or a page ban. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we need to reinstate or extend the freeze, which is best read as a moratorium on new discussions; I do not currently see a need to prevent new RFCs on this topic. However, it is elementary that a consensus reached after an extensive and well-attended discussion requires a discussion of similar caliber to undo. Editors who ignore the existing consensus do so at their own peril. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I perceive nothing sanctionable here, but I also would remind editors that "next year in Jerusalem" does not mean "next year more arguing about Jerusalem". Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree broadly with T. Canens. If the wording was agreed upon after a broad and well-attended RfC, a new RfC of similar scope would be needed to propose changes to it, other than minor edits that do not substantially change its meaning or content. I'd suggest closing with a warning that seeking new consensus would be required prior to any such change. I don't, however, want to see an extension of any moratorium on such discussions, as it is an evolving situation, and it's entirely possible that events have necessitated changes or additions, or rendered some of the current information obsolete or inaccurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since some editors seem to indicate that they do not intend to follow the RfC results or do not believe a new RfC is required for changes now, absent any significant objections, I'll be closing this with a page-level restriction that any significant changes to the lead would require a new RfC. For these purposes, "significant" would mean any change that adds or removes information from the lead or substantially changes the meaning of any part of it, but would exclude minor copyedits that do not substantially change the meaning of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EdJohnston: Yeah, you've got a point, especially with as potentially as explosive as this area is, you could get arguments over even a seemingly innocuous change. If someone just fixes a typo or something, and someone actually brought that here as a complaint, I think they'd get told pretty sternly to quit wasting our time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If it interests anyone, we're currently holding an RFC on GMOs based on the Jerusalem model, and the DS I logged to enforce it is as follows: "A moderated RfC is being held at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms to determine how to phrase the safety of GM foods across all relevant articles. Whatever consensus is decided shall not be modified or overturned without an equivalent RfC. Additionally, the RFC is under further restrictions listed on that page and in the editnotice, including WP:0RR." The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support User:Seraphimblade's idea of a page-level restriction at Jerusalem ruling out changes to the lead without a new RfC. I am unsure whether it will be easy to distinguish major from minor changes, so my preference would be to ban all changes, not just changes deemed to be significant. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PCPP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Aaabbb11 (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/Falun_Gong_2 :

(Disclaimer: I am current under a topic ban from 2011 over the FLG articles as documented here [63]. I have not edited WP in the years since, and currently I have no intention to edit the FLG articles or appeal the ban. I am writing this per WP:BANEX, where it refers to another user's conduct. I would be happy if an admin can clarify or notify me otherwise.)

Aaabb11 is a single purpose account, whose sole major edits relates to editing the Falun Gong series of articles, often pushing a pro-FLG POV. As indicated by his edit counter, his most edited articles include Persecution of Falun Gong, Epoch Times, Kilgour-Matas report etc. [64].

Aaabbb11's edit patterns are counterproductive, disruptive, and indicated has a serious problem with WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPOV, often pushing blatant POVs which even other non-involved editors question. His basic habits is to push the views of Gutmann, Kilgour/Matas et al on organ harvesting into basic China or communism related articles.

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

1) POV pushing on the China page: [65]. In spite of others questioning the amount of undue weight, Aaabbb11 has continued to edit war on the page, pushing Kilgour-Matas, and "genocide" allegations, and push personal attacks against users who reverted him.

• Problematic article edits - pushing a distinct POV: [66][67][68][69]

• Personal attacks, called two editors, including one long term editor on the China articles, as Chinese trolls, and called for them to investigated [70][71]

2) Soapboxing with the Gao Rongrong page [72]. The page, as noted by three different editors at AFC, has questionable notability [73][74][75]. Nevertheless, the article was created by Aaabbb11 on June 16, yet even per the article itself, the sources mostly date from 2005, and even the Daily Mail article from 2012 only gave a two pictures and sentences. Note his rationale for creation of the article, which has little to do with WP policies and guidelines, but to "embarrass the PRC government", "highlight the stupidity of the torturers", promote the FLG mouthpiece Epoch Times as "having strong focus on human rights", and interestingly, directly admitting that there is a lack of coverage of of Gao Rongrong's case, all highlighting an issue of competence.

Aaabbb11 also previously inserted the the disputed image of the deceased woman, plus FLG soapboxing, onto the page about the electroshock weapon and cattle prod, [76][77] and not to mention scrolling down his own talk page.

3) POV pushing on the Anti-communism page: [78].

• Problematic article edits - continued attempts to push WP:UNDUE, plus misusing an image of a deceased FLG practitioner [79][80][81][82]

• Note that his last edit on the article against is littered with WP:UNDUE, adding images that has little to do with anti-communism, more with FLG itself.[83]

4) Deletion of sourced material on the Epoch Times page: [84]

• Problematic article edits - deletion of sourced material referring to the paper as anti-CCP, pro-FLG [85][86][87][88]

5) Attempts to change the article Persecution of Falun Gong to genocide, a position which is not supported by reliable sources. [89]. He also resorts to further soapboxing [90].

6) Personal attacks, soapboxing etc.

• [91] Referred to STSC as "denying the Chinese people from accessing true information"
• [92] Later he called STSC a "propaganda victim" and WP would be better off without him.
• [93][94] Referred to Zanhe and 小梨花 as single purpose accounts who should be investigated

7) Notifications from other editors over behavior:

• [95] Notified by Benlisquare over disrputive editing
• [96][97] Notified by Benlisquare and Simonm223 over disruptive behavior at the China article
• [98][99][100] Notified by STSC over disruptive editing and the improper use of dead woman's image

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [101] Previous block for edit-warring at the FLG main article space, over a wililink to the term "cult".

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

• [102] Notified by JimRenge over discretionary sanctions on FLG.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Overall, Aaabbb11's edits are are littered with promotion and POV pushing for FLG, and his edits on the FLG related articles and Gutmann, Kilgour, Matas, et al. are filled with clear advocacy. Content disputes aside, Aaabbb11's editing patterns and behavior indicates that he's a clear single purpose account who is here to push views not consistent with scholarly studies on the subject. I request

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[103]

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.

Current editors such as Zujine and TheBlueCanoe should be asked for their opinion. None of the 3 people making statements against me is a current editor of Falun Gong pages, so I don't think their opinion counts as much as current editors such as Zujine and TheBlueCanoe who are extremely knowledgeable, experienced and respected in my opinion.

I'd also like to point out that I gave up editing the China page some time ago. I change what I'm doing as I learn more and get bored with what I'm doing. I made mistakes in the past but I learn from them. I don't enjoy the conflict that happens on some wikipedia articles. Some people find the truth very hard to accept but it should be on wikipedia as much as possible. The truth is shocking sometimes. I'd like to forget about some of the things I know. 00:41, 29 June 2016‎

The statements against me on 28 June by PPCP, Simon233 and STSC were made in less than 2 hours. It looks like collusion happening to me. Its probably time Happymonsoonday1 and Marvin 2009 were canvased for their opinions. They are current editors and have been editing longer than me. Aaabbb11 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A little background about me. About 10 months ago I drove a road car on a racing track for the first time. It changed my life forever. I now own 2 lightweight track only racecars (Juno SSE and Ralt RT35) and have driven a total of 6 cars on 2 racetracks. I don't spend much time thinking about wikipedia now, mainly racecars. So the number of edits I make has probably dropped a lot. I find articles about race cars interesting. I don't watch TV. If I want to know something I google it and read the wiki article. Aaabbb11 (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, tendentious and probably paid full-time editors with substantial and persistent biases, like Aaabbb11 are the reason I don't edit wikipedia anymore. And frankly, I'm not likely to come back to Wikipedia if Aaabbb11 is gone, because the problem is systemic and persistent. But if any of you care about Wikipedia being anything other than a propaganda vehicle for whichever person has the most time and energy to burn fighting pointless battles you'll ban this user from ever editing anything even peripherally related to the Falun Gong or China. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaabbb11's had indiscriminately inserted the image of Gao Rongrong in many articles (610 Office, Cattle prod, Electroshock weapon, Freedom of religion in China, Human rights in China, Anti-communism). When I complained about the inappropriate image inclusion [104], Aaabbb11 then deliberately posted 19 pieces of that image all over his/her talk page[105]. Just this disgraceful and disrespectful behaviour alone deserves a complete site ban. STSC (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the diffs and see no basis for complaint. The filer is topic banned from this area and has no connection to the issue at hand that would activate BANEX. STSC needs to stop dropping people hostile templates like he owns the place. Simonm223 should tell us more about how he was canvassed, since he doesn't edit anymore. Close this with no action. Rhoark (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rhoark is correct. Both PCPP and STSC have been indefinitely banned from the Falun Gong topic area, and nothing in WP:BANEX justifies their filing or commenting on this complaint.

Unless we want to set a precedent that would allow banned users to clog up the arbitration process to pursue ideological vendettas, it seems that this complaint needs to be thrown out. If any active users want to file a complaint against Aaabbb11, then they're welcome to do that—I won't protest.TheBlueCanoe 21:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm certainly seeing an aggressive pattern in the edits and actions undertaken by Aaabbb11, which is cause for concern. I think a topic ban from Falun Gong might be in order, but will hear what Aaabbb11 has to say if they'd like to explain what's going on here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You can now see Aaabbb11's response above. The page at Talk:Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China does not show User:Aaabbb11 patiently working toward a neutral version. As I stated when closing the June 2015 WP:AN3 complaint about this editor, it wouldn't take much more bad behavior to justify a topic ban. The time has come, and I think a topic ban is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked into Aaabbb11's conduct yet, but as a matter of proper process I'd side with those who have said we shouln't be rewarding the evident breach of the prior topic bans evident in the filing by PCPP and STSC, so my suggestion would be to speedily close this complaint, unless there are legitimate editors who wish to re-file it, or unless you have found something in his behaviour so glaring that you think spontaneous admin action even in the absence of a third-party complaint is called for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]