Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive259

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

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

Appealing user

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SQL^{Query me!} 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Block applied here

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[1]

I am appealing my block on the following reasons.

• A-the page I was editing lacked the appropriate notice about editing restrictions on it as per [2] There was an editnotice ds/editnotice on the restricted page which specified the page restriction. No such notice was on the page.
• B-Sandstein didn't allow any discussion to take place and it took around 50 minutes to block me for a week.No other admin was able to comment in such time nor any other editor.The amount of time between user asking to sanction me and reaction by Sandstein is questionably short.
• C-Sandstein himself stated that there is little reason for block(A) Only the first diff is actionable. As to the remaining diffs, it is neither explained nor apparent how they might violate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. I therefore disregard them.Yet the block is quite extensive-a week.
• D-I note ARBCOM source restrictions do not mention history notes published on University pages. Anna Cienciala was a professor and her history lectures are published on website of University of Kansas; this seems a reliable source and high quality one.Again-there is no mention about history lectures published on University not being allowed;this should be clarified.
• E-I also note that unlike Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek I never received a notice about the restrictions like this one[3],[4].
• In conclusion-in view of the fact that the page lacked necessary warning about sanctions, that I never received appropriate notice, that the alleged violation seems questionable and relatively very minor, and that no discussion was allowed on the subject. I find the block excessively long and appeal it.It should be either removed alltogether or shortened significantly

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Newyorkbrad, you asked me to comment during my appeal, but I am simply unable to due block, so I am sending you my response, a part of which is my statement posted earlier on my discussion page, which wasn't copied.

• I admit what I did wrong was not checking for the link to a blog in the revert-however my main concern was removal of Rzeczpospolita references which have now been determined to be reliable by admin blocking me.I wouldn't restore the link to blog, or revert its deletion-it was simply hidden away in numerous references to Rzeczpospolita, and to be honest I missed it.If somebody would point this to me I would actually be ok with deleting it myself.But again-there was no discussion, no chance given to discuss changes. As to course notes by respected scholars as source need to be verified-but it is clear they aren't mentioned as something not to be used, and I believe them to be a respectable, high quality source. To repeat-I would check for blog sources in any future edit and avoid putting them in the text, but to be frank I simply didn't notice this one link among dozens of removed references to what I fairly consider high quality sources-the block for such a small omission is highly disproportionate in my view. I also admit that my impression was that the source restriction was mainly for Jewish-Polish topics in World War 2-not about everything uncontroversial about Poland in WW2, a lot if not all information by Rzeczpospolita was relatively uncontroversial and not related to anisemitism.

We know how Wikipedia works, and Sandstein is already stating what seems to look like insinuation about a topic block for me in his statement-I have rather lenghty log clear of blocks for some time now, and blocking me for accidentely restoring a link to blog among which I missed among other sources in good faith considered reliable and quality ones-I consider this very harsh, and worry it will be used to block me even further. With the current state of vogue source restrictions this is a real threat if I were to edit further.

• Lastly the insinuation that I misinterpeted the source on Radzilow-this is really stretching good faith and quite frankly wrong. Why would I put the quote in the first place if I wanted to mislead anyone? The sentence about witness statement speaks about Radzilow only-the exception mentioned refer to other towns not to Radzilow. I will quote the full sentence

"I would like to to emphasize` that in the two main source groups, on which I base my thesis and which include accounts of the rescued Jews as well as trial records there is very little reference to cooperation of the Jewish population with the Soviet regime though frequently a sense of relief is expressed that a locality has not fallen to German occupation.Several opinions comprise an exception. Chaja Finkelsztejn wrote that some Jews in Radzilow abused their privileged position in relationships with Poles. Other Jews perceived and condemned this, fearing later retaliation from the Polish side.In addition Menachem Turek, relating events in Tykocin emphasized the relative advance of the Jewish population during the Soviet period." As you can see this sentence doesn't say exceptions are in regards to Radzilow, but that Radzilow is exception in witness statements in other towns. Since the article was about Radzilow-there was no reason for me to include other towns. But I won't mind including the full description that in Radzilow there was an exception in relation to witness statement. FR took the sentence completely out of context. Again, no discussion was made which would allow me to modify the sentence if others felt it needed to be modified. If it is believed it should be stressed that Radzilow was exception compared to other towns-I am happy to modify it accordingly. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This appeal should be declined.

MyMoloboaccount barely contests the substantive reasons for which they were blocked. In particular, they do not contest that they introduced a very unreliable source - a blog - into an article, in violation of an ArbCom decision (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations, "the decision"). Their objections are mainly procedural. They are meritless:

• A: No notice or warning was needed. These may be needed for discretionary sanctions imposed by administrators. But the decision enforced here was made by ArbCom. It is binding on all editors. Because it does not provide for any prior notice or warning, it is directly enforceable.

• B: Arbitration enforcement actions require neither discussion nor consensus. Moreover, any further discussion might have been to MyMoloboaccount's disadvantage, as JzG's comment indicates.

• C: The applicable enforcement provision allows first blocks for up to a month. A week is little in comparison. The block may even need to be extended, as MyMoloboaccount does not seem to understand how their editing was problematic, and is therefore likely to reoffend.

• D: It is precisely because the decision does not mention lecture notes that they are prohibited. Only the types of sources mentioned in the decision are allowed.

• E: These editors were presumably notified because they were parties to the case. But the decision is binding on all other editors regardless. Sandstein 18:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As concerns the issue of awareness: I agree that it raises questions of fairness that the remedy provides sanctions for users who are unaware of the restriction. But whether a remedy is fair or not is is for ArbCom to decide, not for the admins who enforce it. I myself would deal with this, as I wrote on my talk page, as follows: If an editor credibly argues that they were not in fact aware of the restriction, that they understand what they did wrong and that they will henceforth observe the restriction, I would probably apply only a warning instead of a block. But no such assertion was and is made here. As others note, MyMoloboaccount must be assumed to be very well aware of the restriction, which makes their procedural complaints here look disingenuous. Sandstein 20:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I agree that source misrepresentation can be a reason for discretionary sanctions. But the enforcement request made no mention of discretionary sanctions, did not establish that the notification requirements for them were met, and did not substantiate the respective allegations well. In short, as submitted, the request was an insufficient basis for discretionary sanctions. I therefore chose to focus on the clearly actionable aspect of the matter. Of course, any other admin remains free to more closely investigate these allegations and impose sanctions if deemed necessary. Sandstein 20:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone involved in previous discussions on WP:AE about this editing restriction, I was 100% sure than no one can be sanctioned for this violation without previously placing a notice on the affected page per this notice by Arbcom. I am certain that Molobo thought the same. This is the reason his appeal I think should be granted. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Be aware of two WP:ARCA discussions touching on this appeal: WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland and WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland (2). François Robere (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure why there would need to be additional notice or discussion in the case of Molobo, who posted evidence, posted analysis of evidence, made workshop proposals, and commented on the proposed decision of the Antisemitism in Poland case. After the case closed, there was even more extensive discussion about Molobo's editing on their talk page and on my talk page (here, here, and here). After that, Molobo took a month-long wikibreak, and in their first edits back, they violated the sourcing restriction, misrepresented a source, and look at these other edit summaries: "restore to last version before edits by now indef banned user", "removed cherry picked source added by indef banned editor ...", "restored deleted information removed by now indef banned editor", and "restore content deleted by indef banned editor". Molobo and that editor had many content disputes. Removing content solely because the editor who added the content later got indef'd is not something we do on Wikipedia (we would lose a whole lot of FAs if we did, eh?). Molobo has been here long enough to know that. Worse, the content he removed wasn't even all content added by an indef'd editor – it was added by multiple editors in good standing. Molobo's return post-wikibreak shows (a) their extreme battleground mentality, and (b) that they will completely ignore any and all concerns from other editors, and even Arbcom rulings. Sandstein saved us a lot of time, and prevented a lot of disruption, with his swift and correct action. – Levivich 19:36, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thryduulf, Molobo was 100% aware of the sanctions. He even mentions them himself in an edit [5]. Not only that but he was directly involved in the case that led to them.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Sandstein correctly interpreted the letter of the decision by Arbcom (his point A): that was not a "discretionary sanction" (this whole area was under DS already), but a direct ruling by Arbcom that affects all articles in the subject area and a lot of other pages where Poland in WWII was mentioned. That means any unsuspecting contributor who does not know about this specific restriction or simply thinks that his source was fine can be blocked at any time by any individual administrator when someone else complains here or even without such complaint. This needs to be fixed by Arbcom ASAP. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • MVBW, I agree with you, it would very unfair if a week-long block was imposed on an unsuspecting contributor. And, indeed, Sandstein agrees, too: he said on his talk page that if it were an unsuspecting contributor, he would have issued a warning instead. But me, you, FR, Piotr, Ermenrich, and Mymolobo, are not "unsuspecting contributors". It's a small group of editors who were very involved in discussing that proposed Arbcom decision, and you, me, and Mymolobo are among that small group. No way any of us can argue that we didn't know about the case or the restriction. – Levivich 20:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course we are not unsuspecting contributors, and Molobo should know better and do not use self-published sources. I am telling about this situation in general. It needs to be fixed. Even I, for example, could easily use a source somewhere (not a self-published of course) thinking it was fine and be suddenly blocked. Thanks to God, I am not interested in editing these Polish subjects. But even so, see this and this AE requests. And this is not at all about Poland. This sourcing restriction poisons everything around. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case I wouldn't even file. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Newyorkbrad The third diff int he AE complaint, [6], is a flagrant misreperesentation of a source in an area that Molobo could hardly fail to be aware was under scrutiny. A block was 100% warranted based ont he evidence. The only real question is whether the length of the block was excessive. Despite Molobo's long history of tendentious editing he has few previous blocks, so that is a matter where reasonable people may differ. Guy (help!) 22:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My concerns here are as follows 1) yes, Molobo was aware of the ArbCom case in general, but per AGF it is plausible he wasn't aware of the implications of particular remedy passed, particularly since as FR pointed in the first comment here, those implication are unclear and subject to two current clarifications requests at ARBCA. 2) I find it very worrisome that AE has now become a speedy RSN with power to block editors for the first infraction for 'up to a month'. I am an experienced editor and academic, and I thought lecture notes were ok, because 'in professional setting' they are extremely unlikely to have been challenged if I were to use them for a reference in a peer reviewed journal. IN FACT for this particular source, those notes by Anna M. Cienciala ARE used as references for academic works ([7]), and are well reviewed. Ex. I was pleased that she mentioned Sarmatian Review in her excellent compendium of works on the history of Poland and Eastern Europe available online (http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/hist557/bibpt1rev.htm). T So a source is good enough for numerous other academics, but is sufficient to warrant a block for an editor that uses it? This should not be disallowed without a RSN discussion or RfC. To say that am admin can now summarily block people for a week because in their opinion a source like this is unreliable is extremely worrisome, which is why I proposed at ARBCA that no editor should be blocked for a first violation, which should only result in a discussion of a particular source and adding it to a blacklist that should be linked from relevant warnings about this remedy. 3) Overall, I want to thank User:Newyorkbrad for being a voice of reason here. PS. Just to be clear, I agree that the source "pw25" was unacceptable, but it should merit a warning and addition to a blacklist. If it was to be shown that Molobo repeatedly uses this or similar quality sources after having been warned not do so, I'd support a block. But those steps (warning, etc.) need to happen first. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Numerous" is really stretching things. Only two of the citations that pop up are actually for Conciela's notes, the rest are completely unrelated occurrences of Hist 557 (e.g. "Postbellum South, 16 EXPLORATIONS IN ECON. HST. 31, 37 (1979); Ralph Shlomowitz, The Origins of Sharecropping, 53 AORIC. HIST. 557 (1979); Nancy 2007 Vol. 50 No. 3 Page 2. Howard Law Journal most of the white store …", "The Pop Cultural Significance of Marathon Dancing in the 1920s and 1930s Fred Altensee HIST 557 Professor Jon Carleton August 21, 2011 Page 2. 1 The study of American Pop Culture during the 20th Century reveals several constants …"), including a list of elective courses and other things. At any rate, we are not scholars in the field, so applying the same standards to us and then is not reasonable. There is no "opinion" involved here. Either a source is peer-reviewed or it isn't. Molobo has repeatedly misused and abused sources, please don't pretend you don't know about this. He was completely aware of the restrictions, he applied them himself even.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats on your 1.5 years on Wikipedia and your first participation in AE. Considering you interacted with Molobo only at Walter Kuhn you sure know a lot about him. Remind me, what was your account name prior to Ermenrich? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just received a message the other day that I've made my 10,000th edit. I feel so young. François Robere (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• For someone who's been on Wikipedia for 15 years or whatever and essentially led EEML, you sure pretend not to know a lot about Molobo, Piotrus. It's not like its hard to figure him out, whatever you and Marek think about my length of time here.

Anyway, if you dont have a real defense of Molobo's POV pushing and poor sourcing practices, trying to imply I'm a sock puppet or dumb noob is not likely to convince any admins. Ermenrich (talk)

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

• @Sandstein: regarding A., my preference is actually for there being a notice on the article talk page along the lines of what I've added to Gas van (diff). I'm not sure what other admins think about that — be it as a requirement, or failing that, merely a preferred course of action. No definitive comment about the appeal otherwise (except to say that I lean toward declining it), but I'll try to find the time to review it properly soon. (Sorry, I'm literally out the door right now.) El_C 19:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with El C. If non-standard rules are in force on a particular article (for whatever reason) and there is no mention of this on the article talk page, how are editors meant to know about it? I haven't reviewed any of the other aspects of the appeal, but if MyMoloboaccount was genuinely unaware of the requirements and the source they used would likely be accepted had this rule not been in place, then I believe the appeal should be granted. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, it seems that MyMoloboaccount was aware of the restrictions, so my comments above do not apply on this occasion but are still relevant for editors who are not aware. I still have not looked at other aspects of this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein's comment that no notice of a restriction is required before an editor may be blocked for violating them does not seem reasonable. While the recent ArbCom decision does not set up formal (and overly complicated) "awareness criteria" as exist for discretionary sanctions, nonetheless, if an editor plausibly claims in good faith that he or she was unaware that a certain restriction exists or that it applies to the article he or she edited, it would be unfair to block rather than advise for a first offense of violating that restriction. Much less would it be fair to block for this reason for a full week. Moreover, even assuming that MyMoloboaccount knew of the restriction, I do not believe that using a respected scholar's lecture notes as a source would warrant a block for a first offense. Use of the "pw25" blog as a source is more troublesome, and I ask MyMoloboaccount to briefly explain why he used this source and whether he agrees it should not be used in the future. Separately, and on the other side of things, I am surprised that in the original AE thread, Sandstein opined that allegations that sources were cited inaccurately or misleadingly were not actionable even if true. The intentional or repeated misuse of sources is serious misconduct, which in this topic-area can be addressed at AE under either the recent case or the more general Eastern Europe DS (though the latter were admittedly not cited in the AE thread). I have not investigated the accuracy of these specific allegations against MyMoloboaccount, as an appeal by the blocked user is not a fair forum in which to inquire whether he should have been sanctioned on different grounds. However, to clarify this issue going forward, I ask Sandstein to comment on this aspect of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • MyMoloboaccount commented on the proposed decision ABOUT the sourcing restrictions with this comment, so it's probably stretching it a bit to say he wasn't aware of them. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that MyMoloboaccount was aware of the restrictions in general, though he may or may not have realized they applied to this article, and was commenting on Sandstein's broader suggestion that it wouldn't matter whether an editor knew or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sandstein: Thank you for your responses above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The appeal is the now standard appeal ad Sandsteineium anytime Sandstein issues a block, critiquing his methods and raising possible process issues at the same time. It doesn't address anything on the merits, and has been shown that they were in fact aware and that the process arguments here are bad ones. I'd decline the appeal. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 22 November 2019 (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

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (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/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited:

Prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence.

If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.

If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA.

The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

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

1. Nov 27 Violates commenting on editor competency: are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?
2. Nov 27 It would be more appropriate to not make completely inaccurate guesses at our motivations when you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable. C'mon guy.
3. Nov 27 No, what "doesn't check out" is your meatbot approach to ban these sources and in doing so, actually introducing errors into articles which were previously fine. . . Not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place.
4. Nov 26 wow, admins advocating the introduction of false claims to Wikipedia and admins calling good faith editors' behaviour out as "crusades", it doesn't get any better

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See block log with 5 AE blocks since 2016.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't run into TRM before until I commented at this post at RSN as an uninvolved editor and later when behavior problems bled over to AN where I was made aware TRM had specific restrictions towards commenting on editor motivation, competency, etc. Those diffs above, whether in actual text or edit summary, seem to be pretty clear violations of that ban and definitely against the spirit of commenting on content, not editors. Being mostly uninvolved, I don't really know the history of TRM outside of reading that prohibition, so I'd rather just pass this off to admins that hopefully have more background to figure things out.

I only included diffs from today since I hadn't been following this extremely closely, but similar demeanor can be seen going back in those threads I just listed, though some of the sniping is more in edit summaries. It seems like most of this is directed at David Gerard and JzG, so interaction bans might prevent more disruption than a block, but I'm not sure how that meshes with the more specialized remedy in this case of either a 48 hour block or the uninvolved admin going to ARCA to request anything more. Either way, it looks like the prohibition isn't being heeded, and it's creating a mess for those of us who were uninvolved that were trying to chime in at noticeboards. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no matter how I try to approach TRM's comments elsewhere or now here, it's still commenting on competency as an admin at best, or dragging that into unrelated content discussion as a form of battlegrounding at worst. I don't have the background on these interactions to know if this is just recent or a long-standing problem though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Seraphimblade:, just for clarity, I found the most recent motion on this, which specifically removed language about general competence and just said comments related to competence without qualifiers. I'm coming in on a blind read to this situation, but it seems like it was clear in the language that if TRM thought there were competency issues at all, they were: 1. Not supposed to bring it up. 2: Let someone else handle it if it were legitimate. I was in a similar camp as Thryduulf seeing the mess and not wanting to deal with it initially, but this looked like more of a WP:ROPE situation than an edge of the restriction situation once I saw how often this has come up as Sandstein mentions. Otherwise, I would not have filed this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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.

These are all very specific facts of the matter and requests made of an admin who has introduced errors into articles, left articles in a mess etc. Nothing about general competence, nothing about speculation over motives etc. I'm not going to regurgitate the sorry state of affairs going on at AN right now, but I'm afraid the facts of the matter are that I would like to understand if the admin in question is open to recall, and answerable for his disruptive actions. He has refused to respond to that request a number of times now. This AE is a fishing expedition. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich no, what is not cool is an admin who has been introducing errors into articles on a meatbot error-strewn edit spree and refuses to acknowledge that he is acting against the best interest of Wikipedia. I have asked if he is open to recall because I fully intend to exercise the option. And in any case, there is nothing anywhere preventing any editor asking any admin at any point if they are open to recall, let alone any justification for anyone being sanctioned for it. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C the edits are being conducted by an admin. I'm not saying the admin in question abused their tools, but as I have personally experienced, behaviour unbecoming of an admin (e.g. introducing errors, incorrect coding etc) in an edit spree which the admin has been asked to desist many times falls way short of the community expectations of how an admin should behave. Of course, none of this is pertinent to this AE. Unless of course I can be sanctioned for asking an admin if they are open to recall because I am concerned that their vast numbers of edits have multiple errors and their behvaiour needs to change, in which case throw the book at me. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43 not at all, I've already provided the admin in question with evidence to support my factual claims that his edits have introduced errors, that he has used false edit summaries, that he has referred to others who disagree with his approach as "crusaders" or people somehow in defence of The Sun. None of this is becoming of an admin. Moreover, there's no history between the admin and me, but I will not sit and watch while the hundreds of edits he makes to ban "deprecated" sources causes chaos, despite being asked to stop. The biggest problem now is two red herrings, first that disagreeing with this mishandled purge is somehow equivalent to being a staunch defender of The Sun, and second that providing an admin with sufficient evidence to give them pause yet they do nothing but question my motives is somehow a contravention of the sanctions. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43 thanks for the copy-paste, but I'm afraid providing clear indications during discussion as to the nature of the problems introduced by the admin (e.g. factual errors in the article, erroneous sources, erroneous edit summaries) and behavioural issues (such as calling those who disagree with him as "crusaders" or somehow feeling justified to tell me to "stop working so hard to keep sources in that literally can't be trusted" when that was never the issue at hand) is completely reasonable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingofaces43 the complaints were all raised at WP:AN. Are you now suggesting that I am not able to raise complaints about the behaviour of admins (with evidence) even there? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard TRM seems to be a fan of The Sun as a source and there you go again. Unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard As far as I can make out, TRM considers taking a deprecated source out of articles, and regarding it as a bad source that can't be trusted, is an abuse of administrative powers. nope, that's never what's been said ever, not once. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard Either that or it's got nothing to do with admin powers and that's just being invoked for rhetorical value. nope, not in slightest. As mentioned both here and at AN, it is your behaviour which is falling well short of what we'd expect from our admins which is the problem, and therefore you shouldn't have those "admin powers" and by no means is the invoking of RECALL for rhetorical value, I can absolutely assure you of that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard I'm pretty sure there isn't behavioural evidence that it's not the case plenty of it. I undid a fractional % of your purge of The Sun sources, mainly the ones in which you made mistakes, introduced incorrect information etc, or ones where DEPS gives allowance for its use. As you have been told myriad times. Stop attempting to harass me by claiming I am a "fan" of The Sun. That is a lie. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a huge fan of WP:RECALL and regularly ask the question at RfAs. If an editor wants to know if an admin is open to recall, they can look at Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall. Asking "are you open to recall?" to an admin in the middle of an argument with them, or in response to their saying or doing something one disagrees with, is just not cool. It's badgering at best, and threatening at worst. Pretending that the question is posed simply because I would like to understand if the admin in question is open to recall is disingenuous. Recall status is not in any way hidden or difficult to determine without having to ask. Those questions were clearly posed for rhetorical effect; they were not sincere questions. – Levivich 20:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't understand why we can't have a resolution like this:

Editors: "Hey, TRM, that stuff you said wasn't cool."

TRM: "OK, I won't say it again."

No sanctions, no ARCA, just... getting along with others. What's so hard about that? – Levivich 05:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with admin powers, FWIW, which I haven't exercised at any point in this. This is part of a dispute over deprecated sources in articles - TRM seems to be a fan of The Sun as a source, whereas I think it's a deprecated source per RFC (to subjectively summarise a sprawling dispute). As far as I can make out, TRM considers taking a deprecated source out of articles, and regarding it as a bad source that can't be trusted, is an abuse of administrative powers. Either that or it's got nothing to do with admin powers and that's just being invoked for rhetorical value. The actual sourcing issue at hand has been, and is currently, under extensive discussion at WP:RSN and WP:AN, and I suggest you don't let TRM try to lure editors into arguing the sourcing dispute in yet a third venue - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say "seems to be a fan of The Sun" based on edit-warring it back in, in multiple examples. If this is not the case, I'm pretty sure there isn't behavioural evidence that it's not the case - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm very new to the Wikipedia administration process, so I apologize if this commentary is out of place. After reading over a lot of the dialog between The Rambling Man, David Gerard, and JzG, I think the problem goes both ways. While The Rambling Man appears to have a shorter temper and a bit less careful control of his language, it does appear to me that in a number of these instances the other involved parties were effectively "goading" The Rambling Man on prior to the outbursts. I'm generally against putting restrictions on one user when the conflict runs both ways, and when the counterparty is an administrator my expectation is that the bar for their behavior should be much higher. Full disclosure: I recently opened a dispute open with one of the involved parties (David Gerard), and research into that dispute is what brought me to learn about this conflict. Micah71381 (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• What connects the edits themselves with adminship, TRM? Has there been administrative intervention in this dispute? El_C 20:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone not familiar with the original Arbitration case, I always found TRM's prohibition rather confusing. I agree that there are two options: seek clarifications at ARCA, or let this go with the hope that the dispute will be diffused (at least in intensity). I have no strong preference which, though I lean toward the latter, if possible, because it just seems like (or that it could become) the path of least resistance. El_C 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that that discussion is a complete mess (I had a brief look earlier and decided not to get involved with all the walls of text) I don't see the given diffs as evidence that TRM has violated this specific sanction. There is clearly no speculation about motives. I see a genuine disagreement about whether the edits do or do not improve and/or harm the encyclopaedia and disagreements about the response to complaints, but I don't see aspersions about the competence of other editors. I would encourage all the involved editors to pause what they are doing, step back and leave space for uninvolved editors to understand the dispute and find a way forward. That is not an AE matter though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike Thryduulf, I think these edits clearly violate the remedy. For example, asserting that somebody "consistently makes bad judgments" is a reflection on their competence. But, as they say, we gotta stop meeting like this. The Rambling Man has been blocked six times under this remedy. It is not working. Clearly, at least the allowed 48h blocks are not working. I think we need to take ArbCom up on their offer, go to WP:ARCA and ask them to either lift the restriction or impose a substantial sanction. Sandstein 21:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I lean more toward Thryduulf, but some of the conduct was subpar. I do see Levivich's point specifically, that since admins open to recall will post the recall procedure on their user page, a simple visit to that page would have answered the question, so asking it seems pointed and unnecessary. I am, however, very hesitant to sanction anyone for criticizing an administrator or suggesting they should not be one; admins should expect that from time to time, especially when dealing in contentious areas. The remedy specifically prohibits comment on the general competence and motivation of other editors, and the edits I see here express, if perhaps more strenuously than needed, concerns with specific actions of other editors, so I cannot see these edits to violate the restrictions as written. I would also remind everyone expressing an opinion about the actual dispute here that it is off topic and out of scope here; the only question here is whether TRM did or did not violate ArbCom restrictions, not who is ultimately correct in the underlying content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kingofaces43, thanks, I misspoke there. All the same, I don't believe that remedy was intended to keep TRM from objecting to edits other people have made (and if that was the intent, it should just say that). I suppose I can see Sandstein's point regarding letting ARCA give some clarity to the mess, and that might be an option I could get behind. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts are similar to Thryduulf and Seraphimblade. Certainly pointed remarks that could've been phrased more diplomatically, but I don't see this as crossing the line of what the Committee has said should be sanctioned under this remedy. Based on the evidence above, I wouldn't take any formal action. But, as a side matter... I do think the sanction as-framed is problematic; a further review at ARCA would make more sense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be agreement that ARCA is the way forward. I will close this request accordingly and file an amendment request there. Sandstein 19:17, 28 November 2019 (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

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Samp4ngeles (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

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 23:23, 19 December 2019 (→‎Early life and education: Took out multireligious reference, from this one citation, as it is vague and unsupported (the most reliable sources indicate that she grew up in a household with one religion, perhaps with her conversion to HInduism at some point). This topic should be addressed more precisely elsewhere in the article.)
2. 00:53, 20 December 2019 (Undid revision 931609649 by Xenagoras (talk) Apologies for not explaining in more detail on my previous edit, but I've created a section on the talk page to explain further. There are multiple sources parroting this "multireligious" statement, but they are not RS. It all stems from something Gabbard claimed in an interview in 2012.)

Violation of 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18:26, 12 December 2019 (→‎Edit warring at Tulsi Gabbard: new section) Blocked 24 hrs.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tulsi Gabbard is under 1RR. The editor was already recently blocked for violating 1RR. I notified them after they exceeded 1RR in this case and asked them to self-revert or I would report them to AE.[9] They replied, "I think you need to count it again. It was only one revert, of the @Xenagoras revert. If you notice, I went on to explain the revert in further by creating a new topic in Talk. That should eliminate any confusion. This is not "edit warring," but I would perhaps agree with you if I were to revert it a second time." However, in both cases they removed the words "and multireligious" in the sentence "Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household."

Based on the comments of original blocking administrator, the quickness with which the editor reverted to edit-warring and their apparent lack of appreciation of what edit-warring is, I would recommend a topic ban on Tulsi Gabbard and related articles.

TFD (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since after a posting by an administrator on the editor's talk page, they have self-reverted, I am collapsing this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10] 03:46, 20 December 2019

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

Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Fifth Harmony Fanboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

I am deeply concerned by this user's pattern of source manipulation on a BLP, including edit-warring to re-add unquestionably deceptive text undercut by the sources.

1. 00:56, December 15, 2019 - adds claim that "Violent crime, however, has trended up during Pete Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 as the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years" cited to the right-wing website Washington Free Beacon
2. 21:40, December 17, 2019 - makes claim in edit summary that "Aggravated assaults also up in a significant way (230% of previous!)" and re-adds the deceptive claim that violent crime in South Bend went up from 2012 to 2018 (the implication being the city became more dangerous during Buttigieg's tenure).

• This text is directly undercut by the New York Times article that FHF himself/herself added. That source—which is literally entitled "South Bend and St. Louis, Where Crime Statistics Can Mislead"—states:

[A] criticism of Mayor Pete Buttigieg doesn’t hold up...a deeper dig into South Bend’s crime statistics shows a change in reporting practices rather than a rise in violent crime. In fact, the F.B.I.’s U.C.R. report for 2016 (which USA Today used) includes a footnote for South Bend that says “figures are not comparable to previous years’ data” because of reporting practice changes....In other words, the evidence is telling us that South Bend didn’t become more violent; it simply changed how it counted assaults.

• The deceptive use of this source was pointed out in my edit summary removing this content, an article talk page edit, and a detailed comment on FHF's user talk page. FHF did not respond either to this article talk page comment, or to this user talk page comment.

1. 00:14, December 18, 2019 - Re-adds (with no edit summary) deceptive claim that "Aggravated assaults also increased 130% from 2015 to 2017," cited to the same NYT source that directly/extensively explains how that figure is misleading.
2. 23:34, December 19, 2019 - Re-adds deceptive claim that "Violent crime has also trended upward during Buttigieg's tenure, with 2018 the most violent year in South Bend in at least 20 years." Cites to the same Washington Free Beacon article previously objected to. Incorrectly claims, in edit summary, that "it's false to say that's misleading/deceptive."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None known, but FHF has stated that he/she "started a new account because I couldn't remember my old account info." I do not know FHF's previous username, so cannot check that old account).

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

• Given courtesy DS alerts for both AMPOL and BLP on 23:42, December 17, 2019‎
  • Given detailed, polite explanation of "Consensus, edit warring, BLP and deceptive use of sources" on 10:28, December 18, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I'm alarmed by FHF's behavior here, especially (1) the continuous use of an undeniably misleading or deceptive claim (in violation of our BLP principle); (2) attempting to strong-arm the material into a BLP (edit-warring); and (3) a disregard for WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS. There is other problematic behavior by FHF on the same article, but the clear manipulation of sources bothers me the most. A topic ban from BLP/AMPOL, or at least from the Buttigieg article and related articles, would be appropriate.

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.

The evidence of POV pushing and edit warring by Fifth Harmony Fanboy is compelling. Notably, Fifth Harmony Fanboy is promoting the same type of material and with similar behavior as sock puppets DouggCousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and GooodHousekeeping (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did a few days before he created his account. {{Checkuser needed}} - MrX 🖋 20:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a good case on behavioral evidence alone that these are the same user, but I'm not particularly interested in investing the time only to have the user spawn new socks. The contribution history alone makes it clear that this is a SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject. Hopefully that will be addressed soon.- MrX 🖋 03:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per MrX's request, I checked the accounts and found them  Unrelated. I clarified after their follow-up comment that they're editing from different continents. I realize these comments should be in my own section, so I'm self-clerking. In my opinion, the technical results show that Fifth Harmony Fanboy cannot be the same operator as the sockpuppeteer behind DouggCousins and GooodHousekeeping, but I cannot rule out some kind of off-wiki coordination between the two sets of accounts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll discuss Neutrality's diffs in the same (chronological) order as they listed them:

1. 00:56, December 15, 2019 can possibly be taken as a good-faith edit (even though Washington Free Beacon is a pretty poor source), as FHF may not have been aware of other sources showing the upward trend in violent crime to be an artefact of a change in reporting practices.
2. FHF's abuse of a source here, 21:40, December 17, 2019 is scandalous, and defies all attempts to assume good faith.
3. Brute-force edit warring with no edit summary at 00:14, December 18, 2019 to keep the same text and the same source in the article is rampant bad faith.
4. And finally, restoring yet again the same text at 04:34, December 20, 2019 with Washington Free Beacon as the source, is a terrible idea, since now the user is undeniably aware the figures are misleading (though their edit summary suggests they're setting up their own acumen against NYT's).

• FHF has been sufficiently warned, to apparently no effect. Unless another admin/respectable user objects and explains how I have misunderstood these edits, I plan to topic ban FHF from post-1932 American politics for egregious POV-pushing and edit warring, or, as MrX puts it, for being "an SPA set on denigrating a BLP subject" — a BLP subject running for high political office. Bishonen | talk 04:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Oh dear. This diff (#2 in Bishonen's list) is bad. Using a source that says in the headline that the raw statistic is misleading to support the insertion of the misleading statistic. I support a topic ban at minimum. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with topic ban, indeed at the very least, per Bishonen and Awilley. El_C 05:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Per above, an AP2 indefinite topic ban is needed. More could follow later if a misuse of sources is repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The misconduct is egregious and shows an intent to deceive. An indefinite AP2 topic ban is definitely in order, with an indefinite block called for if similar bad behavior crops up in other topic areas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 24 December 2019 (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

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Edit5001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS : Post-1932 American politics

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

1. 19 December Argues that a source published in October 2018 supports Dobbs' claim that "many" undocumented immigrants committed voter fraud in November 2018 and then says that it is insulting to everyone's intelligence to note that a source published before the 2018 elections is not valid to support claims about the outcome of the elections.
2. 19 December Edit-wars these changes, and others (removes well-sourced "falsely", etc.) after they're objected to on the talk page, declaring Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit. Stop lying.
3. 19 December Uses weasel words to portray Lou Dobbs' false claim about voter fraud in 2018 as possibly true, claiming in the edit summary that it is "NPOV"
4. 19 December Uses weasel words to weaken the clear factual description of Lou Dobbs' statements as relating to anti-Semitism.
5. 19 December Weakens reliably-sourced description of Dobbs' use of conspiracy theories about George Soros.
6. 19 December Describes Vox and USA Today as "obviously biased sources" in removing a description of a white supremacist rally as a "pathetic failure."
7. 19 December Uses source which says nothing about the article subject to make a claim about the article subject.
8. 13 December Removes statement that There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race in an attempt to portray the white genocide conspiracy theory as true.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict by Doug Weller: [11].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is making tendentious edits to a wide array of American politics-related articles, editing them to remove and/or weaken reliably-sourced statements about people, misuse sources, depict conspiracy theories as potentially true. When their edits are challenged and they are asked to discuss these contentious changes as per WP:BRD, they have made the statement that Consensus isn't necessary for every single edit, which flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS - indeed, by policy, contentious edits require consensus when challenged. In this case, I would ask for an enforced 0RR/BRD sanction - that if any of their edits are reverted by anyone, they are not allowed to reinstate them unless consensus is developed on the talk page (or the reverter refuses/fails to engage in discussion after a reasonable time). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. indicates a failure to understand how Wikipedia works. In this case, reliable sources and fact-checkers essentially unanimously reject Dobbs' claim that voter fraud by undocumented immigrants was responsible for the outcome of the 2018 elections - it is a false statement. We do not give equal validity to unequal sources and uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. The statement that Dobbs' claims are false is uncontroversial and uncontested among reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 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.

NorthbySouthBaronOf has essentially sat on several political related articles and turned them into partisan political hit pieces for or against subjects as meet his political ends. He refuses to consider any opinions other than this own and declares that each and every modification to articles he's involved with require consensus to the point of needing an RFC for most changes.

I'll respond to each and every case he cites;

1. None of my edits were contested on the Talk page. I also only reverted a single edit, which itself was a revert of several of my edits by NorthbySouthBaronOf with zero explanation other than "get consensus", so that's hardly an "edit war". NorthbySouthBaronOf is simply totally wrong about what he's claiming here.

2. Who is the arbitrator on Wikipedia of whether a claim is fit to be labeled "false"? If sources contest something, it's a contested claim. Outright calling people whose articles he's editing liars spreading falsehoods, as NorthBySouthBaronOf commonly does on politically charged pages of those he edits, isn't constructive or neutral.

3. It's extremely contested at best to say Dobbs was intending to be anti-Semitic with those remarks. Criticism of George Soros is extremely common and much of it has absolutely nothing to do with his ethnic background. To flatly label criticism of Soros as anti-Jewish is outrageous.

4. See above. Soros is well known as an international political activist. Further, the source itself calls him a "liberal" philanthropist - wording that NorthbySouthBaronOf completely left out.

5. Vox is described as a politically partisan source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources The USA Today article, meanwhile, is an opinion piece. That's why I refer to these two sources being cited in the example in question as biased.

6. As I wrote in the edit there - Horowitz stated "It doesn’t vindicate anyone at the FBI who touched this, including the leadership,” This directly covers Strzok, as he was one of the leading FBI agents involved and "touched" the issue thoroughly.

7. I removed that sentence because I felt it wasn't adequately backed by the sources included. Not much beyond it than that. Edit5001 (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Team red
2. Team blue
3. Using AE to solve a content dispute

Yup, it's AP2!

Looking at those diffs, I agree with NSBF on some, with Edit5001 on others. This is a content dispute and should be resolved through dispute resolution, not AE enforcement. Having a difference of opinion is not disruptive. – Levivich 17:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes; nothing actionable here. Go back to talk pages and seek consensus. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory, you'll see that Edit5001 is a civil POV pusher -- he wants us to "enforce the rules" so stringently on any source that correctly labels the CT as indisputably false but completely ignore multiple editors explaining that we can't just throw in tangentially related sources that supporters would view as evidence for the CT. When directly asked multiple times if he realizes that the CT is false, he dodges the question or refuses to answer. I did figure that if Edit5001 continued to edit in the same manner, they would end up either here or ANI sooner or later but that said, I think this filing was premature and lacks focus. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• People really need to start using the talk page and discussing contentious changes. I don't see a strong reason to sanction anyone here. If we do, I would move to place both of you under the 1RR for American Politics to force you both to discuss things. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I see the parity here. Saying that citing Salon is "equivalent of citing The Daily Stormer on this issue" seems highly questionable, to say the least. [This is diff #8, but Edit5001 only gets to diff #7, so this remains un-addressed by them.] True, Salon might be opinionated according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (requiring attribution), but comparing it to a Nazi publication is not something I think most Wikipedia contributors (and readers) would be able to reconcile. That said, this request has been open for five days one week now, so I propose closing it with a warning to Edit5001 to project greater moderation, overall, and at AP2, especially. El_C 02:37, 26 December 2019 (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

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

‎98.221.136.220 (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 and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019):

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

1. 20:24, 20 December 2019 "And I use the word objectionable because you have given no reason why, if it's in the second sentence, the "part of WW1" part can never ever be part of the infobox". Pure "I didn't hear that" on the talk page. As the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" section below shows, before this post five editors had given a reason, the exact same reason no less, objecting to the change.
2. 22:18, 20 December 2019 "You haven't offered a reason why it positively can't be included". As above, with the addition of it being after my talk page edit (diff also included below) pointing out everyone had offered a reason
3. 19:40, 21 December 2019 "Well, with no actual reason given to deny inclusion". As above
4. 00:07, 19 December 2019 First revert
5. 00:17, 19 December 2019 Second revert
6. 01:17, 19 December 2019 Third revert, made after receiving the 1RR and DS notification. As the editor seemed to have stopped edit warring in favour of discussion, I did not think it would be helpful to report at the time. However since they are now continuing to edit war, included for the sake of thoroughness.
7. 20:08, 21 December 2019 Fourth revert, using a source that has been repeatedly pointed out doesn't support the claim to start with
8. 20:13, 21 December 2019 Fifth revert, made five minutes after the fourth so clearly a 1RR breach
9. 20:41, 21 December 2019 Sixth revert, made 33 minutes after the fourth so another 1RR breach

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Notified at 00:21, 19 December 2019 of discretionary sanctions and 1RR rule.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Multiple editors have made the same objection to the change on the article's talk page, yet as the evidence shows the IP persistently claims nobody has provided a reason why and repeatedly tries to use references that, while certainly talking about the Easter Rising in the context of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising will do) don't say it's part of World War 1 (as every book written about the Rising doesn't do).

• Myself at 00:23, 19 December 2019 "It happened during the war, but was not part of it. Do any reliable references claim different?"
• @The Banner: at 02:04, 19 December 2019 "That fact that the uprising happened during World War 1 does not make it part of World War 1"
• @Scolaire: at 00:01, 20 December 2019 " I don't know of any other historian of all the many who have written about the war who has said that the Rising was part of WW1. And I have read just about every book on the Rising – including two by Fearghal McGarry, who wrote the article you linked to on the 1914–1918 website – and none of them say that the Rising was part of WW1, although they do place it in the context of the war, as well as in the context of the Home Rule Crisis, the Volunteer split, the formation of the coalition government, etc. etc. "Best understood within the wider context of" does not mean "was a part of". It just means that there was a war going on that had a bearing on the actions of the IRB, Volunteers and Citizen Army. The Easter Rising was part of the Irish revolutionary period, and that is what should go in the "part of" field of the infobox"
• @Guliolopez: at 00:18, 20 December 2019 "I don't agree with the assertion/inclusion either. The Easter Rising was not "part of" World War I. None of the extensive sources (Coogan, Townshend, Foy and Barton, McNamara or others) support a claim that it was. While these works discuss the Rising in the context of WWI (including in an "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" context), none describe it as being "part" of the war. Multiple other editors have noted the lack of reliable, external or academic sources to support such a claim"
• @R. fiend: at 17:53, 20 December 2019 "That the Rising has a connection to the First World War is clear, and is covered in the article (the second sentence mentions it, no less), but to call it part of the war is a bit of a stretch, and doesn't seem to be backed up by reliable sources"

• I even summarised this for the editor at 21:06, 20 December 2019 "The same objection has been made by multiple editors, and contrary to the assertion it is not a case of people objecting without giving a reason. The reason stated to the inclusion of the phrase "Part of World War 1" has consistently been that the Rising is NOT "Part of World War 1""

The editor's refusal to listen has led to Scolaire, The Banner and Guliolopez to all say we should not even bother replying any more.

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.

I support the inclusion of the Easter Rising as part of the Great War for a variety of reasons. For starters, I believe that the fact that WW1 significantly influenced the timing, conduct, and outcome of the Rising, it should be naturally included as part of WW1, (meaning it cannot be adequately understood without WW1). This matches the Ireland and World War I page, which mentions the Rising in its text, ostensibly because the Easter Rising was part of the First World War. I have provided numerous sources (see the Easter Rising talk page at the bottom), which show that WW1 played a heavy hand in the rising, and that the rising would have developed differently if it were otherwise. These sources, the majority from RS sites, not only back up my claims, but show that my belief is in fact common and widespread among scholars of the conflict. User Keith-264, who is part of the Military History project, agreed with my position. If you check my contributions, I have notified other members of the MilHistory project to contribute to the discussion, because I believe their opinion was more relevant to the discussion (most haven't responded yet). The other editors who opposed my edits never really explained why significant influence over timing, conduct, and outcome don't warrant inclusion. Moreover, they alluded to "historians" who agree with them but never gave any sources at all that stated explicitly that the Rising wasn't part of WW1 (meaning they named names but gave no quotes justifying their name-dropping). I gave sources, they didn't. Perhaps my editing was bothersome, but at least it was factual. The Banner tried stalking my contributions on the Central Asian revolt of 1916 page and tried to edit war (without providing any reason, once again I provided a source in response) but ceased. In summary, the above editors adamantly disagreed with my position simply because they felt so, not because they provided any source or reason; I provided sources and reasons. Finally, the above editors reverted to attacking a straw man, saying that I was mistaking the uprising for a time coincidence, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I provided examples to prove that we were on the same page (another example, the First Caco War during the United States occupation of Haiti occurred in Haiti in 1915 while an influential German population was there, but I disagree with any assessment stating that the Caco War was part of WW1 because no sources have made any substantial connection of influence). That pretty much sums up my position. Why doesn't significant influence by the Great War, particularly to the point where it determined the Rising's timing, conduct, and outcome, make the Rising not part of WW1? I gave reasons, they did not.

Personally, for the record, I prefer some dispute resolution to mindless bickering. 98.221.136.220 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That the Germans had a policy of encouraging insurrection in British and French colonies and supported Irish nationalists indubitably makes the Rising part of the Great War and this should be reflected in the infobox. Keith-264 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of content, while it is clear, acknowledged and already covered that the Easter Rising occurred during (and at least partially within the context of) the Great War, that it was "part of" the war is not supported by the available references. (That the anon editor implies that these references do not exist because it is so obviously self-evident and therefore unnecessary for a historian to state as much, simply isn't the case. And isn't how references work anyway.) Five other editors have pointed this out on the relevant talk page.

In terms of editing patterns, while ‎98.221.136.220 has received several advisories against warring and contra-consensus editing (both on user talk page, article talk page and otherwise), the editor took it upon themselves to engage in a series of warring reverts to push a single POV. As here: [12][13][14]. (Justifying doing based on partial support from one other editor who was declared an expert by virtue of participating in a WikiProject and therefore more important "than the 'consensus'").

In terms of user behaviour, that the related talk-page thread is now approaching 6,000 words (in an argument with 5 other editors about adding TWO WORDS to the infobox) would seem, to me, to be evidence of a type of WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:NOTLISTENING that is not helpful to the project. It is pretty clear to me that this anon is treating the project (and the article and its talk page) as a battleground, has little interest in collaborative editing, and is generally WP:NOTHERE for the purposes of expanding the project constructively and collaboratively or for the benefit of the reader.

I'm not sure what action to suggest. But the warring (and near trolling IMO) might warrant at least a temporary block. Guliolopez (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see the need to bring a dynamic IP AE. How will it be enforced? ——SN54129 14:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Serial Number 54129:, that is a sticky IP and the editor has been on it since Feb. 12 so it may be treated as static. His previous IP was 98.221.128.208.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:BLOCKEVADE

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

1. [15] has a tban that applies to this article
2. [16] has a tban that applies to this article
3. [17] has a tban that applies to this article
4. [18] xhas a tban that applies to this article
5. [19] has a tban that applies to this article
6. [20] has a tban that applies to this article
7. [21] has a tban that applies to this article
8. [22] has a tban that applies to this article
9. [23] has a tban that applies to this article
10. [24] has a tban that applies to this article
11. [25] xhas a tban that applies to this article

And this list could go on and on.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [26] Explanation

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

• Jweiss was well aware that Ngo and Quillette are connected, he personally added Ngo's work at Quillette to the lede of Ngo's article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quillette&diff=prev&oldid=930921808

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Jweiss11 has been editing the Quillette article,[27] edited by Andy Ngo in contravention of an indefinite topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo [28]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

As I stated at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11, based on my discussion with with Bishonen on my talk page in the wake of the sanction, in particular her comment, "...Or maybe appeal the ban if you think it's worth it (it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)" on September 11, it was my judgement that that ban would not apply to Quillette. None of my edits there or elsewhere since then have been related to the sanctioned topic. See also comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jweiss11 from Loksmythe, Springee, and Paulmcdonald to that effect. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate everyone's comments here. I want to respond to a couple items. First, per Bishonen's comment about this edit, I understand the argument that the entirety of the Quillette article would fall under the ban because of the banned subject's connection to it. That's not an argument I agree with, and it certainly wasn't my working understanding going into this incident, but that argument seems coherent enough. However, if we are working under the assumption that my editing of the Quillette article is okay so long as it doesn't deal with content directly related to the banned topic, I'd say it's not legitimate to argue that the removal of a stray character following a sentence that has a citation that mentions the banned topic qualifies as a violation. I vaguely remember making that edit. I make many like it all time even when in more of read mode as a I surf around and notice a glaring typographical or layout issue, particularly in the lead of an article. The motivation for that edit was utterly unrelated to any specific meaningful content.

Second, @El C:, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me given your role as the first responder to Bacondrum's related edit war. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: here's the relevant link to your first-response to Bacondrum's edit war, which also admonished me based on a mistaken count of edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quillette&diff=932171468&oldid=932171283. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit at Talk:Quillette, in which Bacondrum strikes several of Jweiss11's comments. In the edit summary, Bacondrum justifies their action by citing a policy that allows for the striking of comments made by sockpuppets. Unless Bacondrum wishes to suggest that Jweiss11 is a sockpuppet, there was no justification for striking those posts. In the ANI thread, Bacondrum has also come across as overeager to get Jweiss in trouble. It's time to back off and let cooler heads weigh in. Lepricavark (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bacondrum has rage quit Wikipedia after being criticized for repeatedly posting his comments on this page in the wrong section. So much for cooler heads prevailing. Lepricavark (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

• Regardinging Bacondrum's striking or reversion of Jweiss11's comments, assuming the topic ban does apply to that article, those would probably be justified under WP:BANREVERT (which applies to violations of topic-bans, not merely sockpuppetry); Bacondrum merely linked to the wrong policy.
• Regarding the scope of the topic ban, the sanction itself is clearly worded as applying to all pages connected with Andy Ngo, not just the page Andy Ngo specifically.
• Regarding whether Quillette is connected to Andy Ngo (or closely connected enough), Ngo was well-known and widely-reported on as a somewhat infamous editor at Quillette before he quit or was let go (under somewhat controversial circumstances, which have a paragraph devoted to them on Ngo's page); Jweiss11 is aware of this, here and here (it looks like Bacondrum got the wrong link above.) Whether that connection is enough to be a topic-ban violation is another question, but it seems at least worth clarifying.

Those seem to be the important points. --Aquillion (talk) 06:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Paulmacdonald: please post in your own section, not others', and that includes the "Uninvolved administrators" section also, as you are very much involved. Many thanks. ——SN54129 10:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at the ANI discussion, I see this as a bad faith accusation by the filing editor. They recently went on a bit of a warpath removing Jweiss11's comments from the Quillette talk page [[30]]. As I've read topic bans enforced in the past, if an editor is banned from topic X then they cannot post to that article (or talk page) nor can they discuss that topic at other articles. So if you are Tbanned from Trump articles you can't edit Trump's personal BLP article, his presidential article, articles about his business etc. You also can't edit Trump Casino related materiel in say the Las Vegas strip article. It doesn't mean you can't edit an article about Las Vegas or the strip just because Trump has a casino on the strip. If you were editing the Las Vegas strip article to discuss the Caesars Palace you haven't violated the Tban. The claim that a Tban related to Andy Ngo is effectively a Tban from the Quillette article is laughable. It comes from the same type of common sense that thought it was reasonable to delete another editor's talk page comments... 5 times despite those edits being restored by two other editors. Would we also say the Wall Street Journal article is off limits because one of Ngo's early, controversies involved work for the WSJ?

Jweiss11's edits to the Quillette article were totally unrelated to the topic of Andy Ngo's employment by the site. They also were well within the scope of good editing practice and respectful disagreement. The behavior of Bacondrum is really that which needs review. Not just for the edit warring but for failing to understand basic concepts that help to prevent talk page animosity. Questioning if the Andy Ngo tban applied to the Quillette page was reasonable. The disruptive behavior before and after are not. I would suggest closing with a clear warning that Bacondrun needs to review policies related to CIVIL and CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, please see @Bishonen:'s comments here [[31]]. you are not allowed to talk about Ngo anywhere on Wikipedia, except in the context of appealing this ban, or of asking for explanation and clarification, as you're doing now. That includes user talkpages.. At no point didn Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely, at the Quillette article. Springee (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen:, do you consider the whole Quillette article and talk page to be part of the Tban or just the part with an Andy Ngo references? I would argue that this is a stretch to call the whole subject Ngo related and this will be used to justify ignoring/striking legitimate talk page comments and as a way to build steamroll a "new" consensus on some disputed content vs working towards a compromise. Springee (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors are hanging on the "all pages connected to" aspect of the topic ban. I think it's worth noting that Jweiss11 asked for clarification regarding the ban, and received two comments from the imposing administrator. [32] [33] These posts to me indicate that it was intended to be limited to Andy Ngo (or possibly Andy Ngo broadly construed), and not every thing that someone can posit as a link to Andy Ngo. Though it would probably be best for the imposing admin to clarify their intended scope. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I believe clarification was sought when the Tban was imposed, unfortunately admins commenting at the time merely pointed to [WP: TBAN], and didn't really go any further on what "connected to" meant. This leads me to believe that "all pages connected to" really means "broadly construed", and broadly construed is defined in TBAN. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss, you shouldn't have made the judgment[34] that the T-ban would not apply to Quillette; you should have asked. As for your attempt to use a comment by Paulmacdonald as a prop, that cuts no ice with me. If anybody is inclined to give weight to Paulmacdonald's opinion on the basis that he's an admin, I warmly recommend them to read this discusssion, with particular attention to Paul's contributions, especially this response to a question. Compare also Black Kite's comment below.

Your edits to Quillette as enumerated by Bacondrum are generally very minor and harmless. However, note this edit, where you copyedit a sentence with a very visible footnote about Ngo (indeed with the "ref name" Vox-Ngo, and the actual title being "The assault on conservative journalist Andy Ngo, explained"). You didn't notice, I guess. But if you're going to make dodgy judgments such as that Quillette does not come under your T-ban, then you need to be very noticing altogether. Asking is safer.

That said, I would go by my usual principle here, which is to let a first T-ban vio go with a warning. (I see this as one vio, even though it's several edits.) Especially since, quoting Springee, "At no point did Jweiss11 talk about Ngo or his employment, even obliquely". Bishonen | talk 22:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• • @Paulmcdonald:, please create a section of your own and place all comments you wish to make there. The reason you're "suddenly" a topic of discussion here is that Jweiss11 referred to your ANI comment in their post above, so it's not really sudden on my part or Black Kite's. We do expect more of administrators, see WP:ADMINCOND: "Administrators are expected to lead by example". That, I presume, was the reason User:Black Kite found your ANI comment disturbing: a sysop is expected to be well-informed when making comments, or else refrain from making them. The "links and changes [you] looked at" before commenting at ANI were clearly insufficient. Looking at the article Andy Ngo, which was the basis of the topic ban, before commenting would have been a good idea. Ngo's work for Quillette is mentioned there. Or, as Black Kite suggests, taking a good look at Jweiss's contributions. (User:Serial Number 54129, your ping of Paul won't have worked, but nm, I'm pinging him now.) Bishonen | talk 16:03, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• @Springee:. Yes, I think the Quillette article is covered by the topic ban. But I don't think Jweiss's decision that it wasn't was made in any kind of bad faith — his edits were not tendentious AFAICS. He'd better have asked, that's all. But as I've already said, I'm against sanctioning him for this. Indeed, if he is sanctioned — which I presume would mean a block — I'm thinking of lifting the topic ban. Not retroactively, of course, but for the future. I don't want any editor to have to constantly worry whether they're violating a T-ban or not. Compare User:EdJohnston's comment here. Bishonen | talk 16:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• @Jweiss11: As for your suggestion that El C is involved, no he isn't. (At least, for your question about it to make sense, I'm assuming that when you wrote "El C, are you considered an involved admin here? That seems curious to me", you meant to say "are you considered an uninvolved admin?") Per WP:INVOLVED, "An administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Italics in original. What you link to regarding El C is administrative action. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Paul McDonald, please move the comments you have made, here and below in the uninvolved admin section, to your own section (add names with pings so that it's clear who you're responding to, the way I'm doing here). The rule about it is to be found in the big pink box at the top of the page: "Statements must be made in separate sections." I agree it's not easy to find. Bishonen | talk 10:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I apologize. Apparently there is a rule or expectation that we only comment in sections based on our userid. I found no reference to that anywhere in this document, so I followed standard Wikipedia behavior and replied in-line.

If the links that I looked at were insufficient (again, that's possible) the fix is easy: post the link(s) that support your conclusion. In order to "prove someone didn't do something" we would need to examine every edit that the user made. Instead, we need to "prove someone did do something" which only requires posting the evidence. If I'm wrong, I'll change my position. Show me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like the editor was aware of the connection. Thanks to those who posted clarifying information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic: it looks like Jweiss was under the impression that there was no conflict, which is the claim. If consensus is to say that the topic ban should be extended to this other article, that's fair. I say that should that be the conclusion it be clarified now and we simply move forward. And if consensus is to say that the topic ban should not be extended to this other article that's also fair. The conclusion then would be that we also simply move forward. I lean toward the latter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved per request

• Comment I have no objection to anyone reviewing any comments I have made. I also would recommend that no one give extra credit to me or anyone else based on Wikipedia administrator status. Note the essay Wikipedia:But I'm an administrator! for any details. Each argument should stand on its own merits regardless of who made them. Why am I suddenly a topic of consideration in this discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question on this edit noted above, I'm not exactly understanding what was edited. It looks like it might have just been removal of a carriage return--if that's the case, it could have been easy to not notice the content of the paragraph. What am I missing there?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED says One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. – Levivich 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: AE follows the rules of arbitration cases so is a little different from many places, but yes, you are expect to only comment in named sections.

I don't think it's particularly plausible that Jweiss11 was not aware of Quillette's connection to Andy Ngo considering edits like this [35] [36] [37] which I found by looking through the histories. Note that I stopped after finding those examples.

But anyway, even if we didn't know of edits like this, or we think maybe he completely forgot about the connection, considering that the article Andy Ngo mentions Quillette in the lead and his leaving Quillette in the body I don't think it's unreasonable for us to assume that Jweiss11 was aware of the connection without needing evidence.

If Jweiss11 denies they were aware, perhaps we can AGF. But AFAICT, Jweiss11 has never said they weren't aware. Instead they've never answered when asked, and concentrated on the fact that they feel what they were told suggests it's not a violation despite any connection.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by User:Jweiss11's comment at ANI "the sanction only applied to that one article". They said they got this impression in part from the comment "(it's after all a small ban, from just one article subject)". But that comment has an important modifier "article subject".

In my opinion, Quillette is clearly part of that article subject. Maybe Andy Ngo is not a particularly big part of Quillette, although enough that his name is mentioned in one of the ref titles albeit not really in relation to what the reference is used for, and that he is mentioned in 2 of the refs currently supporting a while paragraph. But significantly, at the moment his work for Quillette seems to be a somewhat big part of his notability.

It's still a very narrow topic ban, other than Quillette, there aren't many articles likely affected. E.g. Daily Vanguard, Antifa (United States), Proud Boys, Patriot Prayer, Rose City Antifa are some of the few where there may be concerns. (Articles like Portland, Oregon, Portland State University for example seem too disconnected.)

Editors may disagree whether it applies to the entire article of Quillette etc. But I don't see anyone can plausibly claim it doesn't apply where Andy Ngo is directly mention, or using something written by Andy Ngo as a ref. While this may not have happened here, it demonstrates the importance of the distinction between one article, and one article subject.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This request seems to be incomplete at this time. El_C 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bacondrum: I'm not sure, but in any case, you need to inform Jweiss11 on their user talk page that this report exists. El_C 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm looking at Jweiss11's talk page, but there seems to be no notification there concerning this AE report. El_C 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bacondrum: I'm beginning to question your level of competence here. Why do you continue to comment in this section (four times already!)?El_C 04:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jweiss11: there seems to be a firm connection between Quillette and Andy Ngo, so to say you thought the ban does not encompass it is surprising. El_C 18:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Springee: Topic ban's scope is clear: all pages connected with Andy Ngo. At the very least, some clarifications should have been sought. El_C 19:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless there are objections, I intend to close this with a warning per Bishonen. The spectrum dividing Black Kite and DGG isn't likely to be bridged —obviously, I lean more toward the former— but in terms of sanctions, I usually apply a warning for first-time topic ban violations, anyway. So, I suggest we just do that and move on. El_C 02:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jweiss11: I don't know what you're referring to. Please don't make me search for it and just provide the relevant links. El_C 04:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jweiss11: I don't see how that makes me involved. I also closed the AN3 report. But someone else can close this report as they see fit, sure. El_C 04:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bishonen: the way I see it, I was basically about to do Jweiss11 a favour by closing this report (earlier rather than later, that is) with only a warning. But they can have someone else close it now — it really makes no difference to me, either way. El_C 15:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm a little concerned that some editors seem to assume a level of stupidity on the behalf of administrators. Jweiss11 was quite aware that the Quilette article was related to Ngo - how could they not be when they'd already been topic-banned from Ngo and Quillette is mentioned in a significant part of Ngo's article? Phil Bridger at the ANI performed a remarkable feat of AGF by saying "The scope of the topic ban is clear from the user talk page: "You have been indefinitely topic banned from all pages connected with Andy Ngo." If Jweiss wasn't aware that Ngo was connected to Quillette before then he does now.". But they were quite aware of the link. Yes, Bacondrum's editing was sub-par here - being right (and he was) doesn't give you the right to edit-war. Incidentally, I am somewhat concerned by this comment from a sysop (User:Paulmcdonald) - "It's evident to me that Jweiss11 was not consciously aware of any connection (based on talk comments end editor history) and the connection to the banned topic is not obvious--in fact, it seems to be quite a stretch to say they are related." when there's a whole paragraph about Quillette in Ngo's article which Jweiss is very familiar with and topic-banned from. This is actually quite disturbing, to be honest. Other admin's comments welcome. Black Kite (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question what's disturbing about it? It's possible I'm incorrect. If so, just point that out-mistakes happen. Was this one? Show me, no big deal. Based on the links and changes I looked at, I don't see it--and the one mentioned above looks like just a carriage return removal which could have been done without reading the content. But I haven't reviewed every edit he made. Make your case, just make it clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it is worrying. You said it was "evident" that Jweiss11 wasn't aware of any connection when even a cursory scan of their contributions would have made it clear that they were absolutely quite aware of it. I'm concerned that you didn't see that. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still haven't seen it. Rather than being accusatory toward me, perhaps you could just show your evidence. I'm asking.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article Andy Ngo has for many months in the lede paragraph pointed out that he works/had worked for Quillette. The idea that Jweiss11 did not know this is zero, especially as they have actually edited that sentence... Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just a thought, but perhaps you should have led with that when I asked for it. We are supposed to work together to make Wikipedia better--it's not a battle zone.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never heard of either the magazine or the person until today. Looking at the discussion here and at ANI, I definitely do not consider the editing here to be a violation of the topic ban if they do not concern any of the columns or other work by Ngo. As pointed out at ANI, and in the lede of the Ngo article, Ngo has worked at numerous other media outlets. A topic ban on Ngo does not rationally cover everything about articles about those other publications. Nor does it cover an article about Ngo's home town or any of other places he has lived, or everyone who has ever commented on any of Ngo's work. There is thus no violation by JWeiss11. A"firm connection" has to be also relevant to be the basis for a violation DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I see the point that the connection is tenuous. The Quillette article proper does not mention Ngo at all, and while two references do, that's two of many, one in a title and one in a summary. I'm usually pretty liberal with "broadly construed", but I think the simple fact that a publication has published something by or written something about a person making the entire article about that publication off limits is a bridge too far. Normally, we would only consider topic bans in regards to tangentially related articles to ban the portions of those articles which mention the subject (in this case, for the Quillette article, that would be the two references which do name Ngo.) So, my thought would be to close this as not a violation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Ngo's article actually points out in the lede paragraph that he works/worked for Quillette, has done for many months, and Jweiss11 even actually edited it to point out when he left ... Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Quillette article isn't closely enough related to Andy Ngo to require Jweiss11 to be banned from that article. If there was some extra reason for concern about Jweiss11's behavior at Quillette a new ban on that article might be applied. But there isn't such a reason. I suggest the AE complaint be closed as No action. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I doubt very much that Jweiss11 was unaware that Ngo worked for Quillette. However, since the article on Quillette doesn't even mention Ngo, let alone is substantially about him, a topic ban on Ngo does not cover Quillette, even if Ngo works or has worked there and even if Jweiss11 is fully aware of that. (Now, of course, if Jweiss11 added material about Ngo to the Quillette article, or edited anything already there about Ngo, that's a very different matter, and the topic ban would of course prohibit that.) If one thinks Jweiss11 should in fact be topic banned from editing about Quillette as well, that can be discussed, but at least to my thinking, currently he is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic bans are generally considered to be "broadly construed" in the sense that a topic ban from Andy Ngo should prevent a person from editing material about Andy Ngo anywhere on the project (not just the Andy Ngo article). But we have to draw a line somewhere. We can't say that the user is banned from editing United States because Andy Ngo lives in the United States. "Broadly construed" is intentionally obscure because it's impossible to draw a clear line that covers all possible edits. I see edits like this as pushing the boundary, though not quite crossing the line. I would support closing this with no action and a clarification/warning that the topic ban covers more than just the Ngo article and that Jweiss11 should ask for clarification before making edits that could be seen as borderline. ~Awilley (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm unconvinced, but consensus is clearly against me here, so I agree with this. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing with No action. This report has been open for five days, and it unlikely that a consensus can be found on whether the Quillette article is covered by Jweiss11's topic ban from Andy Ngo. Even those who believe it *is* a ban violation generally don't favor a sanction this time around. User:El_C and User:Black Kite argued that Jweiss11 *did* violate his ban. But at this time, both User:El_C and User:Black Kite agree with either no action or a warning. Several admins requested a clarification or warning. Since there wasn't consensus on applicability of the ban, I don't think a *clarification* is possible. (Though a brand new ban that prevents Jweiss11 from editing Quillette could be decided on by any admin who thinks that DS applies and there is enough abuse to justify a ban). If any admin wants to give a warning, can they please go ahead and leave a warning at User talk:Jweiss11. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

EmilCioran1195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – EmilCioran1195 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

2 week block for "ARBPIA and NPA violations"

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

what "ARBPIA and NPA violations" have I supposedly committed? I haven't edited a single article on the Arab-Israeli Conflict. And if calling someone biased after them calling me biased is a "Personal Attack", then shouldn't the other user be blocked too? Surely for a 2-week block an admin has to provide diffs? This admin is clearly involved in the dispute, and has a habit of showing up wherever I edit... not even edit, but simply comment on a Talk page. And blocked for 2 weeks, for my contributions on this Talk Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eva_Bartlett EmilCioran1195 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Another user has warned (including adding the awareness criteria ^[38]) the OP about ARBPIA and NPA.^[39] The OP's response was "errant nonsense."^[40]

• The page is clearly marked as 500-30, with a notice at the top of the page which reads: accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

• Even notwithstanding that, ARBPIA4 has clarified that this involves any edits which relate to ARBPIA, in general, regardless of the page even falling under ARBPIA itself, which this page does. This restriction, if anything, becomes more applicable for ARBPIA-related edits which are combative in nature, I challenge.

• Again, the reference is to any page, not article per se., a distinction which the OP fails to recognize.^[41][42]

• As for my supposed ("clear"?) involvement in the dispute — there is simply no basis for that assertion. I am, however, incidentally, the uninvolved admin who indefinitely semiprotected the article itself^[43] (although these violations took place on the article talk page).

• Anyway, as the admin who recently blocked the user for a different violation in another article, Drmies pinged me^[44] so that I would evaluate the situation. El_C 14:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am "involved" in this matter, which came about because I saw this conflict between EmilCioran and ZScarpia, where the latter, unhindered by reliable secondary sources or a good grasp of Wikipedia policies and conventions on reliable sources, was edit-warring to get some fairly trivial content in. I did note that EmilCioran was editing in an area covered by ARBPIA and, after having found that this was the second time they were in an area covered by arbitration remedies, alerted El C. Yes.

That this wouldn't be covered by ArbPia is silly: there was a template on the top of Talk:Eva Bartlett already. No, El C is not involved in this matter in any administrative way. No, what EmilCioran alleges, that El C is essentially hounding them, is a lie that won't hold up. Yes, they did accuse their opponent of being "partisan", and when I asked them to not make that mistake, of accusing someone without evidence, they just said "well look at their contributions". And to make something clear: in the matter of the content, I agreed with EmilCioran, though for different reasons, just in case someone claims I was opposed to their edits.

I think there are only a few relevant questions here. a. How long until the editor is indef-blocked for being, at heart, NOTHERE? b. Who will be the first to link this account, which is so obviously not new, so versed in policy, and so adept at trolling, to the sock master? c. And what will the tone of their denial be like? Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies's above description of what happened is inaccurate in a number of ways. I edited the article once only, to revert the previous change it is true, but to refer to to that as edit warring is perhaps a rather unkind exagerration. The edit I reverted was by Snooganssnoogans. Contrary to the impression given by Drmies above, EmilCioran1195 didn't edit the article itself; he or she only became involved after I opened a talkpage discussion, which I did after Drmies reverted my revert. I could see that EmilCioran1195's edit count was less than 500, so I pointed out the ARBPIA editnotice at the top of the talkpage. I also posted an ARBPIA discretionary sanctions warning notice on EmilCioran1195's user talkpage. EmilCioran1195 immediately deleted the user talkpage notice, then returned to the article talkpage and posted another two comments[45][46].     ←   ZScarpia   02:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would decline this block appeal. As it says at the top of Talk:Eva Bartlett, in 'Further information' on the DS notice, we see:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.

The relevant phrase here is "not disruptive". At this moment User:EmilCioran1195 has just 111 edits so they are not yet extended-confirmed. To clarify, they did not themselves edit the Eva Bartlett article, though they posted on talk. Their comments are still visible on the talk page at Talk:Eva Bartlett. El_C's block seems to have been issued for misbehavior on the talk page. The worst comment by EmilCioran1195 that I could find is:

You've totally missed the point there. And as a clearly partisan editor, you've decided to take the focus off yourself by accusing everyone else of being partisan. Perhaps it's best you leave it out, eh? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC).

I don't perceive that User:El C was involved. They previously interacted with EmilCioran1195 on 10 December when they blocked them for edit warring under the WP:GS/IRANPOL community sanctions. It would be easier to understand EmiCioran1195's defence if they had not so completely removed all the admin notices from their talk page. El_C had notified them of IRANPOL with this notice on 29 November. Previously they had received this notice from User:Bbb23 about their early interest in the Bartlett article. Bbb23 observed "For a new user you seem to be displaying a battleground mentality very early on.." And, "Your personal opinion of others is fine outside of Wikipedia, but if I see you express it in an edit summary (or on a Talk page) again, you risk being blocked." Further down on the same talk page, we see this comment from User:HSukePup on 6 November: "EmilCioran1195 is still engaging in edit warring. Nearly all of his edit across various articles are being undone. Could we just block him already?" EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Bbb23, I missed that EmilCioran1195 had edited the Eva Bartlett article back on August 17 and 18, as shown below. So the violations include both the article edits (disallowed by WP:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions}, and the disruptive comments on Talk:Eva Bartlett in December. Those are the posts noticed by El C which led to the current block. Adding to the complaints about poor behavior on the Talk page, we need to include she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot. This is the 'crackpot' edit summary mentioned by Bbb23 which caused him to leave a warning on Emil's talk on 18 August. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• EmilCioran1195 edited the Bartlett article twice: (1) August 17 removing material and (2) August 18 removing the same material. It was the second edit that generated my warning because of the edit summary: "undue weight. she's been universally outed as a conspiracy theorist and crackpot - in this rare case, self-designation shouldn't be given any weight in lede".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline the appeal due to the inappropriate attitude evident in their every comment at Talk:Eva Bartlett#Free Gaza Movement: third boat voyage. In particular, El_C's action was very much within discretionary sanctions limits for the reply of "errant nonsense" to a very polite pointer to the "requirement for having made 500 edits before contributing here" with a gentle reminder regarding WP:NPA. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal. The overall approach was unhelpful and combative, and the "Errant nonsense" bit especially needless and disruptive. If something like this happens again, I think a topic ban would be well in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]