Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive278

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

• 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC): Topic ban.[1]
• 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC): Appeal.[2]
• 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC): Appeal declined. [3]

Claims that they have dropped the stick: [4][5][6][7][8]

Topic ban violations:[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

Threads where Belteshazzar was repeatedly warned to stop violating the topic ban:

• Talk:Presbyopia#Visual training
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Belteshazzar
• User talk:Belteshazzar#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the "topic ban violations" were either on my own talk page or outside the scope of the ban, unless simply mentioning what previously occurred at Bates method is a violation. Belteshazzar (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about the Bates Method on your talk page or anywhere else on Wikipedia is a violation of your topic ban.

Writing about vaguely bates-like alternatives to corrective lenses on Accommodative excess or Presbyopia is a violation of your topic ban.

Citing [20] or any other article about training yourself so that you don't need corrective lenses is a violation of your topic ban.

You aren't fooling anyone by standing with your toes over the line that you are not allowed to cross. You need to stay completely away from the topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon Belteshazzar's recent behavior on their talk page, I suggest that we clarify and expand the topic ban to include the topic of human and animal vision, broadly construed, and to make it crystal clear that topic bans apply to all of Wikipedia, including your own talk page. Otherwise we will see continued "but THIS pseudoscience is really science!" violations pushing the fringe view that eye exercises can correct vision issues requiring corrective lenses. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and perhaps a gentle reminder that "fringe" and "pseudoscience" are not exactly the same category. Even if an idea has scientific merit, it can still covered by a fringe topic-ban if it is not yet accepted by the scientific community. (They laughed at Galileo, etc.) ApLundell (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2021 (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

Benevolent human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Benevolent human (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have implied that they would like to have voiced an opinion on a recent discussion but the hostile climate prevented them from doing so [21][22][23]. I'm concerned that the current culture of hostility is suppressing debate and intimidating people from speaking up, analogous to cancel culture off-wiki.

I personally have faced personal attacks on my motivation and character, rudeness, swearing, and unwarranted accusations of bad faith behavior, causing significant emotional distress and causing me to delete my previous account before changing my mind and rejoining the community [24].

Examples: [25][26] [27][28]

I gently asked offending editors to stop several times [29] [30] [31]

With regards to WP:BOOMARANG, several editors have called my own behaviour disruptive. I'm not sure yet if I agree but after discussion with MJL I have volunteered to refrain from editing controversial topics for three months while I mull that over and re-review policies and best practices. I'm definitely open to constructive feedback on this front.

I propose that an uninvolved administrator put page restrictions enforcing civility on the Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page.

I deleted my password to my old account due to being overwhelmed by the hostility and I cannot now access it. When I changed my mind about quitting Wikipedia, I disclosed the Pretzel butterfly account from the beginning on my user page and also to an administrator. Nothing improper due to WP:VALIDALT. Benevolent human (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. At the top of Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez are page restrictions put in place by an administrator, and I'm requesting civility restrictions be put in place on that bulleted list so as to especially discourage future violations on that WP:CIVIL on that page. Benevolent human (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to waste your time if this request didn't make sense. I was looking at the bulleted list underneath the text "The article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article". I had thought that if there was a civility warning in that bulleted list it would be easier for administrators to sanction violations, but it's completely possible that I misunderstood how the discretionary sanctions work. If so, I apologize, but appreciate you taking the time to comment and explain. Benevolent human (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Not applicable here, I'm requesting new page restrictions to be placed on the page, not enforcement of existing restrictions. In particular, I am not requesting action be taken against any user.

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.

(Non-administrator comment) The filer is a declared sock of Pretzel butterfly. I see them POV-pushing, IHateAccounts being direct in their objections, and no "civility" issues. I'm not sure a boomerang is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what is being asked of us here in connection with making use of discretionary sanctions. WP:CIVIL is already policy. Is the filer seeking extra civility enforcement? If so, how do we translate such a notion into concrete enforcement action? El_C 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Benevolent human, oh, do you mean something like {{calm}}? Because you are free to add that yourself. That isn't something that needs to be imposed by an admin (or tied to WP:ACDS) for editors to feel free to add that as an emphasis toward that end. El_C 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Benevolent human, no need to apologize, it's all good. Anyway, indeed, those Arbitration enforcement templates are of limited customization. If you encounter instances of gross incivility, you may report the user/s in question, but otherwise, I'm not sure this is something that can be put into practice as a page-level restriction. Will close this report momentarily. El_C 03:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Forbidden History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :

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

1. January 9th Second edit to article showcasing POV stance on topic in edit summary
2. January 11th First Reversion to re-add census material to claim article is false
3. January 11th Second Reversion
4. January 11th Third Reversion
5. January 11th Fourth Reversion
6. January 11th Fifth Reversion

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)

• Editor was alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on June 18th, 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally started an AN/I incident report regarding the editor's POV editing actions. It was suggested that, since this is a sanctioned topic area and the user has reverted a number of times (and has similar incidents on a number of other articles), that a report be filed here instead.

I am requesting a topic ban for the user in the area of interest, as it appears they come into conflict with other editors in these articles on a frequent basis, ever since they first created their account. Silverseren^C 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Editor 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.

ForbiddenHistory is not an editor that likes to discuss his edits instead he results to edit warring even after he has been requested and warned to stop. It is a particularly big problem since the user adds information with sources that do not support the information added.

This is also not helped by the fact that he acts in a very rude and aggressive way despite the majority of the editors that interact with him being respectful and cordial towards him. --SeriousCherno (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user does not listen to other editors. He does not use reliable sources. His edits are biased and lack neutrality. He behaves defiantly and impolitely. In the field in which he is active, namely the Macedonian question, his edits are often destructive and as a whole they do not lead to an improvement of the articles. Topic-ban will be a reasonable step. Jingiby (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with statements above by SeriousCherno and Jingiby, as they are similar to my own experience, which I gained when interacting with Forbidden History in the span of two days on the main article and the talk page of Bitola inscription. The user seem to confuse opinions with facts, and would get into attempts for off-topic discussions, instead of staying closer to the subject. If needed, I could add more details, but the talk page of the above quoted article provides enough information to any objective reader. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since, I have replied about this situation here, please read before making your final decision. My interest is history and archaeology of the Balkan region and those are the articles in which I see myself working. My edits were provoked of the editors above and are explained in the link above. I will respect your decision for the things you may find me guilty of. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was the first person who suggested this be moved here. I didn't think it was going to get any administrative action from the community, but this is a clearcut report from an WP:AE standpoint. A topic ban is very much welcomed in my view just looking at Forbidden History's constant pushing to include to census data for the Macedonian Bulgarian community on Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour.^[32][33][34]
@EdJohnston and El C: considering this is still a new-ish editor who most likely lives in the Balkans, could I suggest a more narrow topic ban of North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and related people or controversies (inclusive); all broadly construed? This would give the user more options for the future to become constructive while still covering their entire editing history so far. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: With Greece and the former Yugoslavia, I am not so sure about. Forbidden History's contributions so far in that field have generally only been to the extent it is directly related to Bulgaria and North Macedonia, but I think a bit of WP:ROPE wouldn't hurt. As for Albania, I can't find any evidence of interest on their part regarding that topic (the closest to it they come is this edit which doesn't even mention the country). I'm doubtful Forbidden History would edit that topic in the same way as they would edit an article about Bulgaria/North Macedonia. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I mean, whatever works is good with me. I guess I just think it's odd given this user's pretty much narrowly-focused set of disruption to set a TBAN to be so broad. Still, as long there's a TBAN that's probably what is more important to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Topic ban seems like the next logical step here. Not sure yet if it should be narrow or broad in scope, though. El_C 03:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Ed. That works for me. El_C 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MJL, certainly, happy to consider adjusting, but first I need to know: what makes you confident that similar problems are not likely to arise if we were to allow Forbidden History to also edit Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia? El_C 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MJL, I suppose what I'm getting at is that, except for you, everyone else here wishes to err on the side of broader rather than narrower. So, myself, while I'm not immediately hostile to the notion of going narrower instead, it does look like you face climbing a somewhat steep hill. Again, for my part, happy to go with the flow. El_C 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Forbidden History is interested in topics which affect North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. In other words everything in the southern Balkans. So I'd recommend a ban from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed - broadly construed of course to include all pages except an appeal. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 15 January 2021 (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

Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SQL^{Query me!} 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Blocked as a result of violating topic ban with this edit on the page Andy Ngo. Topic ban can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#American_politics_2.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[35]

Requested on talkpage SQL^{Query me!} 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it

The obvious vandalism carve out is for things such as "foo is gay" or "bar has a small penis" and not edits that are, at their core, editorial decisions such as removing scare quotes. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: Calton has been blocked 10 times since 2006 for aggressive edit summaries or comments. Their last AE-related block was 72 hours long (for edit warring on Julian Assange) so I escalated. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: I disagree that the edit was fixing an BLP violation and strongly disagree that if it was a BLP violation it reached the level of an obvious violation as required by WP:BANEX --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it. in the unblock request does the precise opposite of giving confidence that the block has had the effect of preventing future disruption. If this were a normal block appeal instead of an AE I would have declined it on that grounds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• WP:BANEX describes the exception as: "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is 'obvious' – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree." Although the edit in question (Special:Diff/999244769) improved the article by bringing it in line with the MOS:QUOTEPOV style guideline, it does not quite meet the threshold of "reverting obvious vandalism" needed to qualify for a ban exception. Based on this, the sanction is justified. However, this is Calton's first violation of the topic ban, and it is common for editors to receive a warning or a shorter block for a first violation.

  Calton, looking through your recent contribution history, I see that your edit summaries are on the aggressive side, e.g. "...'pulled straight from your ass' doesn't count'" and "...make a NEW REQUEST". If you are willing to commit to reducing the aggressiveness of your edit summaries by toning down the level of snark and by avoiding all caps when not needed, I would support a reduction of the block duration from one week to 72 hours. Please feel free to respond to this offer on your talk page. (To be clear, there would need to be consensus here for the reduction to be implemented.) — Newslinger talk 07:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, I think your block is completely correct. I am interested to see whether Calton is willing to commit in writing to using less aggressive edit summaries. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The block has elapsed, so this appeal is no longer actionable. Since there is disagreement over application of policy (specifically WP:BANEX and WP:BLP), it may be useful to continue this discussion at the village pump to better prepare for future reports. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit in question was not blatant vandalism. It was misguided and should have been reverted, but the IP who made it was trying to improve the article and not vandalising. WP:BANEX only exempts "obvious vandalism" where "no reasonable person could disagree", this definitely isn't that. We should decline the appeal. Given the block log the length is reasonable, and if you do want to get a perfectly legitimate block overturned you shouldn't describe it a "ludicrous over-reaction".[36] Hut 8.5 08:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the edit in question. The IP's edit summary was "punctuation", strictly speaking correct but not really; it's a clear BLP violation. Hut 8.5, I disagree that the IP intended to improve the article; it looks to me like deliberate snark. In my view, Calton shouldn't have been blocked for this at all, never mind for a week. I support an unblock or at least a block reduction. Calton, looking forward, I'd advise you to take pages from which you're topic-banned off your watchlist. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero, there is video of people throwing things at Andy Ngo. CNN called it an attack. If someone did this to you, you would regard it as an attack. Adding scare quotes around "attacked" and "attack", especially back-to-back as the anon did, is a BLP violation and in my view an obvious one, per WP:BANEX. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly agree with Sarah. I would also deem the IP's edit in question, which Calton reverted, to be exempt by virtue of it being an obvious BLP violation (if not an outright provocation on the IP's part). If anything, Calton should be commended for their courage in taking action that brought with it a risk of a faulty BANEX interpretation, which unfortunately ended up being exactly what happened. I note that, although Calton is lacking a sense of decorum right now (and, to be honest, a lot of the time), they were perfectly polite and straight-forward, writing: If you have doubts, express those doubts explicitly: Wikipedia doesn't do scare quotes (diff). Perfectly said, pretty much. Calton, for future reference, it would have served you to have also added 'I am invoking the BLP exemption.' Then the patrolling admin in question would probably be more likely to proceed with greater caution (further review, and so on), block-wise. I realize there are concerns about the manner in which Calton conducts themselves, overall, but that isn't what this appeal is actually about. In short, I support granting this appeal with these notes attached. El_C 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh, upon further examination, the fact that IPs were even allowed to edit the article for the last year is on me (log entry). Well, better late than later, I suppose.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mea culpa. El_C 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Calton: Can you please confirm that you have removed Andy Ngo from your watchlist? ~Awilley (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (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

MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Bans me from their talk page (and requests that I discuss my concerns with them at IHA's user talk page instead).[reply]
2. 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Makes baseless allegations against my adoptee IHateAccounts ("IHA") suggesting that they aren't actually a new user and is my puppet.[reply]
3. 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Unreasonably attacks IHA with sarcastic response dismissing their concerns.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 January 2021 Previous WP:ANEW report which resulted in a warning.

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.
  • After the alert was removed, I pasted a second time on Catefe's talk page and urged them to read the alert's contents.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This was my first interaction with said user where I explained that I was working with IHA on civility issues as part of our mentorship program. Practically speaking, such training would be a lot easier if CatCafe could just drop the stick when it regards my adoptee and these issues they seem to have at Talk:Irreversible Damage.

Normally, I would just discuss this with the editor in question myself, but (as previously mentioned) I am banned from their talk page. Trust me, I wouldn't be here for this if I could avoid it (-_-). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: This dispute arose out of Irreversible Damage which deals with transgender topics (and thus falls under ARBGG per Manning naming dispute). As laid out at guide.expect, editors are expected to behave in accordance our policies and guidelines.
I alluded to it briefly earlier, but CatCafe has been making some odd posts on Talk:Irreversible Damage which have been somewhat disruptive.^[37][38][39] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatCafe: Look, nothing I have said to you or even about you comes close to be a personal attack.

@El C: Sorry, here are the posts (in diff form). As for the Manning thing, the intention there was to clarify that trans issues like misgenderings and whatnot fall under Gamergate. At this point, it might be better to just consider Gamergate to mean Gender disputes since that is basically how the remedies passed there are treated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[41] Done.

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.

MJL misled above stating a particular diff was their first interaction with me. Their first interaction was this[42] and in that post I found hurtful comments made by MJL toward me were a repeat of the hurtful comment previously made by IHateAccounts. The hurtful comments by MJL were repeated directly after I had expressed concern I had been insulted.[43]. So doing what MJL did was being purposely inflaming.

Sorry MJL, but you were deleted from my talk page after you uninvitedly made derogatory comments suggesting I was 'misgendering' people,[44] and your uninvited comments were first and inflamed issues. I never had dealing with you prior to your initial uninvited accusation. Now we've been through this and I was not doing what you accuse, rather it was another editor misgendering and that greatly concerned me. So if you and your colleague IHateAccounts[45] are going use terms to infer a person is hateful toward oppressed groups, then don't be surprised that someone you accuse becomes upset. I similarly request that you MJL tone it down and keep your hurtful judgements to yourself. When you accuse a person with autism such things, you do harm, please take note. CatCafe (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will reply to your specific questions El_C here. In my LGBT circles purposely misgendering someone is a cancellable offence and as a purposeful act is only applied to transphobes. And in their first and uninvited communication with me, MJL repeated the insult to me after I had warned against it in the post directly preceding theirs[46]. So MJL's hurtful comment was strategically provoking. (But thanks for the comment, I changed the text above now). CatCafe (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok @MJL:, I will answer your specific comment toward me here and please don't suggest as you did above that I act (or edit) oddly after I have told you I'm a person with autism. It's very insensitive. I specifically told the other editor that the accusation was an insult here[47]. And then the next uninvited and initial comment by you was repeating the insult[48]. If I said it was an insult, then I was hurt by it, so why did you not respect that (even if I live in a different gender-cultural milieu to you). Your actions were insensitive and are personal attacks considering the post requesting me being respected on that page. What you were doing seemed to be a bit of a tag team pile-on. CatCafe (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that before El_C, but thanks for your link below to misgendering it's a helpful 'frame of reference' for me. It directly redirects to Transphobia, so maybe one can understand the extent of MJL and his trainee's insult to be. Even WP agrees and links misgendering to transphobia. So my complaint about MJL insulting me, inferring me a transphobe was really not inaccurate. CatCafe (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El-c, its all under the banner Of transphobia, and I asked others not to cast aspersions. Then MJL read that and directly replied casting the same aspersion. CatCafe (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK El_C enough please. If you're going to drag this out, revisiting it over and over, and linking me to pages that display "Transphobia" in bold letters, it is just causing me additional depression and anxiety. So I'm not sure what your end game is, so conclude, do whatever you want. And as I've already explained my spectrum position, I can't take this anymore. I now intend to take a break from this. CatCafe (talk)

Now El_C you know that your last comment is not true when you said: "In fairness, though, you're the one who originally linked to that article — above"[49]. Sorry to prove you incorrect, but it was you who first linked 'misgendering' to the WP article that displays the bold title "Transphobia" when hovered over. There's no denying your edit here[50] doing so. Considering it's now come to this, yes perhaps you should drop and close this. CatCafe (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• MJL, why is this an Arbitration enforcement matter? Specifically, why are you invoking WP:ARBGG? I looked through all the diffs, but was unable to discern that. For example, the warning in that WP:AN3 report you cite is for edit warring. What is the connection? El_C 03:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, hopefully, User_talk:CatCafe#Time_to_tone_it_down will do the trick. Still confused why this is on AE as an ARBGG request, though. El_C 03:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MJL, please use diffs rather than refs. Anyway, I don't understand that Manning naming dispute — not sure what the 2019 Committee was thinking, but the thing comes across as pretty incomprehensible to me. In any case, I'm not seeing any violations that are of an ARBGG nature in any of the diffs you cited (though maybe I missed it, so feel free to highlight). El_C 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, using the word "slander" is highly discouraged, per WP:NLT. Anyway, you assert that MJL and their "colleague IHateAccounts ... infer[red you to be] a transphobe" — where is the proof that this happened? Once again, I am compelled to caution you against casting aspersions El_C 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, thanks for adding those two diffs. But I'm not sure why "misgendering" need be connected to any transphobic tendencies (whatsoever). The misgendering in question (if it is indeed that) may simply be a mistake on the part of an individual who is otherwise perfectly okay with transgender people. El_C 04:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• MJL, you write that it's a book about how young transgender men. How young transgender men-what? CatCafe, we cannot go by your "circles". What Wikipedia says about misgendering is that it "can be deliberate or accidental" — so that ought to be your frame of reference, with WP:AGF kept in mind. El_C 04:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, not sure I agree. Seems like a bit of a stretch. Yes, misgendering may often be a key component of transphobia, but "accidental" is still accidental, nonetheless. An error may be presumed to have happen due to a number of possible reasons, so it sorta looks like you are the one who is making the (worse) inference. Users are permitted to assert that misgendering has taken place with this or that edit, if that is what they believe has happened. El_C 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just so there's no confusion, CatCafe says that misgendering "directly redirects to Transphobia," but it actually redirects to the "misgendering" section in the Transphobia article — it is not a general title redirect. Probably not that important, but still thought I should point this out. El_C 05:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, yet again, please restrict yourself to your own section only. Anyway, you say that it's all under the banner Of transphobia, but just because misgendering is a section in that article does not mean that. It sounds like you're the one who is casting aspersions. You're assuming the worse, which I don't understand why. El_C 07:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, if engaging this topic area, in general, is causing you acute distress, I would advise you to not do it anymore. Doubly so if you're causing other folks distress, as well, which is what this complaint alleges. Now, the filer of this report (MJL) seems to have withdrawn. You now wish to withdraw, as well. Which is perfectly fine with me. Unless someone (anyone) objects, then, I'll probably just close this request as having been withdrawn and that would be that. Otherwise, I don't actually know how to respond to anything which concerns your autism or anxiety or depression. That is simply not an area with which I am familiar. I am not a clinician. Of course, I wish you good health and well being in every respect. In fairness, though, you're the one who originally linked to that article — above, I was just quoting you (link and all). El_C 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CatCafe, not sure why I even need to explain myself about linking to... anything, in the first place. It isn't reasonable for you to expect others to be able to predict whether this or that link is going to upset you — but at the event, I meant me quoting you when you said: "directly redirects to [[Transphobia]]." Anyway, while I try to be sensitive, the reality is that linking in good faith is a perfectly acceptable practice. El_C 14:05, 17 January 2021 (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

11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions :

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

1. 02.01.21 Unilaterally closing RfC they started themselves, out of process. They then launch a RM, mass ping editors, and later vote against their own RM. Disruptive hijacking of RfC that was going against their position.
2. 05.01.21 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards" and in a thinly veiled manner calling them racist.
3. 05.01.21 Attacking supporters of move of "whitewashing".
4. 01.01.21 Attack against User:Shrike.
5. 17.12.20 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards", ghetto comparison.
6. 12.12.20 "Dripping from your words", thinly veiled accusation of racism against User:Reenem. Also Warsaw ghettot comparison.
7. 12.12.20 Attacking me with accusation of whitewashing. Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison.
8. 11.12.20 Attacking multiple editors with "whitewashing" accusation.
9. 03.12.20 Attacking User:Levivich, accusation of lying ("outright lie").
10. 02.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem and other editors with "consistent anti-Palestinianism" attack.
11. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, saying they are a "believer in fringe theories".
12. 01.12.20 Attacking User:AlmostFrancis, "ultra-nationalist propaganda".
13. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "anti-Palestinian racism".
14. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions"
15. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism".
16. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse."
17. 25.11.20 Attacking User:Jr8825 with racism accusations. Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy.

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

04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ([51], [52], [53]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.

Edit made by Onceinawhile yesterday (5.1): "P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.". This is a direct personal attack, "continued double standards", and a very thinly veiled accusation of racism cast at User:Drsmoo. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open:

1. filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
2. canvassing for this report. A posting of little substance as most users, including Onceinawhile, edit these pages.
3. Attacking unnamed editors who raised objections.
4. Continued bludgeoning, forum post in which he in essence calls his opponents mad through the comparison.

All this while they are on their best behaviour, make concilliatory statements on user talk to User:El C and User:Awilley. Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[54], I will also notify other named editors.

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.

It is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does.

I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [55]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: OK I will go through and provide the evidence. Let me start by pointing out that the quote you highlight was simply a rhetorical mirroring of this comment from Drsmoo: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing, to which I was responding. I am simply using this mirror to point out that these claims can be made by both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I have spent some time going through this. I can explain further but I will need more time.

The edits which the editor pulled out were made over a two month period since my creation of the West Bank bantustans article. The editor who posted this AE, a new account with mostly semi-automated edits, has made their first-ever AE submission with the quality of AE formatting that is beyond me, and I have been here for over a decade. It is also a misrepresentative list (see below); in the two month period I have found only three instances of mutual trading of anti-this and anti-that accusations, including with the original poster themself.

I think the edits below have been misrepresented in the commentary above, and hopefully can be ignored:

• #1: This was simply following due procedure, as confirmed at ANI
• #3: The AfD and two alternate move names proposed have one thing in common, to whitewash the word bantustan out of the title. I am not aware that the word whitewash is unacceptable, but open to being proven wrong.
• #4: I am trying to encourage this editor to actually follow through on his frequent attacks on my work (over many years) with constructive debate. It has nothing to do with this topic.
• #5: Nothing here
• #8: Included a clear statement that I was not commenting on intent
• #9: Perhaps “lie” (which can imply intent) would have been better replaced with “falsehood”; I do not believe there was intent
• #11: This was a comment on a specific theory proposed which is definitely fringe; perhaps it could have been better worded but the implication that I was commenting only on the theory itself was very clear
• #12: That is the only kind of source which would include the argument that was being made
• #17: No accusations made

I have pointed out anti-Palestinian statements in three conversations:

• #2 this was a mirroring of Drsmoo’s attack,[56] making a rhetorical point about equal treatment
• #7 I don't think this was an attack, but rather a question and an attempt to generate discussion. It was followed up with an accusation of racism by the original poster here:[57] I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate. This is the point re "implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic"; this is what the original poster is referring to with their comments above ...ghetto comparison... Also Warsaw ghettot comparison... Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison... Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy... They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts.
• #6, 10, 13-16 This was a single conversation, which got sidetracked into denial of the Palestinian occupation.

Since I created this article, being responsible for the choice of the title, I have been subject to a barrage of on-and-off wiki harassment.

To address the claims of antisemitism or anti-Israel: (1) This article, and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is (and have repeatedly stated as such). The article and title simply sets out that the situation in the West Bank is most commonly referred to as Bantustans, which may have been a component of apartheid but cannot logically be extrapolated to make the wider claim; (2) I have not and would not make comparisons to Nazi policy, nor would I claim that the historical situations or policies were similar. The point made re ghettos and pogroms is about the use of foreign loanwords with negative connotations, and how we rightly allow them across the encyclopedia.

Regarding my point above that "the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions". Those accusations include (there are more at the discussions but I do not have time now to go through further):

• 20:08, 5 January 2021, Drsmoo diff: “P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing”
• 15:08, 2 January 2021, IP diff: "Shalom. You’ve been revealed as an antisemite. How does that feel?"
• 08:12, 12 December 2020, 11Fox11 diff: “I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate."
• 16:39, 3 December 2020, Adoring nanny diff: “is anti-semitic to boot”
• 21:14, 24 November 2020, Bearian diff: “non-racist, as to opposed the current name”
• 09:26, 15 November 2020, Île flottante diff: “purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias”
• Plus two off-wiki instances of harassment which I would be happy to share privately.

Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: the comments by 11Fox11 and Drsmoo were about IHRA's reference to "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis", which was clearly not what has been going on here. These comments "invocation... disturbing" and juxtaposition of IHRA with "your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy" were very clear (and nonsense) accusations of antisemitism. Finally the other three comments above, "anti-semitic to boot", "...racist..." and "...anti-Israel..." were all directed at my choice of title. And the off-wiki ones were obviously even less veiled. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS - @El C: please could I ask you to be careful with your representation of things, as this is clearly a very sensitive area. You wrote "Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany"; I have not at any point drawn parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: that is not "comparison of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". I am explicitly not commenting on or implying anything about policies or anything of the sort. It is about how non-neutral foreign loanwords are rightly used in key areas of Jewish (and South African) history. You can consistently see this from my other comments on this question: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]).

Since you have rightly taken an interest in whether the claims of antisemitic behavior have any merit, could you please do the same for the claims of anti-Palestinian behavior?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @El C: I can assure you that linguistic and etymological comparisons are not what the IHRA definition is referring to; I wrote the article on the definition a few years ago, and have read all the work of the authors. The point of that line in IHRA is that nothing can compare in scope, scale and horrificness to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, and to imply as such is unacceptable. I did not and would not do that. There is and was no attempt to equate the policies - please could you kindly review the diffs and acknowledge this? I do not feel comfortable with leaving this point open.

To your question, the original post at the top of this thread includes a few moments where I have claimed certain statements to be anti-Palestinian. I propose not to repeat those, in order to save space. Here are a couple of good examples on the minimizing / denying the Palestine occupation and dispossession: When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute.[63] and What disappearing land? It was never under control of Palestinians. It was controlled by Jordan then by Israel. It was Israel who gave the Palestinians some of the land.[64]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C please could you help me understand your last comment? This AE was seemingly opened on the basis that I pointed out a few statements from other editors that I considered anti-Palestinian. How can the merits of this AE be considered without assessing whether my concerns were valid? Plus I believe you have just provided an assessment of whether concerns of antisemitism could be valid? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C the words "sign of racism" is no different to saying "IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes" (a direct quote from the original poster here). It is now commonplace to talk about signs of antisemitism per IHRA, so surely we can do the same about other forms of racism without censure? I don't consider either to be personal attacks, but if they are to be deemed as such we must be consistent.

Awilley would you mind taking the time to review the two-month discussion more broadly? As I point about above, much of those diffs were misrepresented and described out of context. There have been more than 1,000 edits made to the discussion pages, and I have worked extremely hard to find a consensus in difficult circumstances. I have been working in this area for a decade and I don't think you will find an editor more committed to actual collaboration; you can see my intentions in black and white from my having written the goals section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Working in what may be our encyclopedia's most difficult topic area is a real challenge, and I simply ask that you take your time before reaching judgement here. Please also bear in mind that the editor here has only notified those editors on one side of the discussion here, so taking what you are hearing with a pinch of salt is reasonable.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C, thanks for bearing with me here; I think I have a way to explain what I am getting at. See these two comments side by side:

• Comment directed at me: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing This was clearly building on an earlier comment that I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• My response: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.

I consider them to be exactly the same, primarily because I literally wrote my comment as a rhetorical mirror - i.e. it was intended to match what Drsmoo had just said to me. It was not written to be a personal attack, which I hope you can see from the mirroring. Context is everything here, and I realize that I could have been clearer here so as not to be misinterpreted. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi El C (I am sparing you a ping), thanks for explaining. I agree that the mirroring was a "strong" response to a comment that I objected to, and I hope you now agree that my response was not a personal attack (in our terminology) as the point of my comment was not to suggest anything about the editor but to draw the editor's attention to the fact that I did not appreciate their comment and show that just rhetorical devices can work both ways. I could have and should have done it more elegantly.

On your response to Zero, it seems that you are saying that editors can freely make charges of antisemitism, because there exists a formal definition of what constitutes antisemitism, but cannot freely make charges of other forms of racism (because no other form of racism has a formal definition). I don't think most editors would consider that to be a reasonable position for us to take. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C ok, thank you for continuing to engage on this. I realize it is painful. Whatever the admins conclude here, I would like to learn from it. At the moment I am still confused as to where the line should be drawn on pointing out other editors' potentially racist statements. I believe you have suggested that in one comment where I have pointed this out it constituted a personal attack, but in all(?) the others where such claims were made against me, it did not. So I think I understand your conclusion but I do not understand your reasoning. It seems you are not saying that no-one should be able to say that another editor's statement could be racist; that it is ok in certain circumstances. Perhaps the missing piece of the puzzle is notsomuch your views on my comment to Drsmoo, which you have set out, but on why the comments by Drsmoo, 11Fox11 and the three editors who claimed that my choice of title was racist were all not personal attacks. If you have the time to comment on each of those it would help me understand your conclusion on my comment more clearly. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ([65], [66]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:

• Of the diffs that have been brought, per my comment above at 18:50 6 January 2021 the majority of these are not relevant. I have set out my assessment of #1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 above; if you disagree I would be keen to understand more.
• Of the remaining three exchanges, which I think form the nub of this AE, as I have explained above these were mutual exchanges which could have been worded better. There was no intent for these to be personal attacks, and I don't believe they were understood to be. I have explained the rhetorical mirroring points above re Drsmoo and 11Fox11 (we were effectively warning each other that certain comments could be interpreted in certain ways) and my similar but much longer tangent discussion with Reneem included a clear statement that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent", which I should probably have repeated elsewhere. On this question of rhetorical mirroring, surely we should either carefully judge the merits of both sets of claims, or neither. If the merits of my claims are assessed and deemed to be slim, then I would like to learn from it. Per my conversation with El C, I would really like to understand what is acceptable on both sides of this "anti-this and anti-that" question, if there is time to build consensus on it.
• Most importantly though, there was no disruption here, and I have never been a disruptive editor. In 10+ years of editing this crazy topic area, I have a maintained a clean block log (except for an incorrect procedural block that was immediately rescinded). I made c.7,500 edits to our project in 2020, the majority in this same topic area. In these discussions at Talk:West Bank bantustans and the AfD, I have made a little over 200 talk page edits. Through real effort and tough but ultimately constructive discussion, we have reached what may be an emerging consensus. I can't bring you each of those 200 edits without drowning this discussion, but you will get a good sense of the nature of my contributions if you just search for three or four of my comments at random. Or I can bring you examples if you tell me the kind of thing you would like to see.

Onceinawhile (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note per [67][68] I have opened an SPI at [69], and have highlighted the connection to this thread (and ARBPIA AE reports in general). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: thanks for your reminder on 7 Jan re comment limits; since then I have refrained from adding to my statement. Since then a number of new claims have been made here since 7 Jan, all by editors who held a different perspective to me at the article discussion. I have shown that those claims are misleading in a couple of threads which have sprung up at User_talk:El_C#Advice and User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notification, although I would prefer this evidence to be here so it is clear for everyone. How would you like me to proceed? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ImTheIP makes a valid argument, at least up to a point. I am not precisely clear whether the filing editor is filing for himself or has been appointed group lawyer in a class action but 7 of the 16 relevant diffs are (on behalf of?) editor Reenem, who has chosen not to testify. I still believe, absent a detailed autopsy, that there is more than enough blame to go around here and if a warning should be given, then it ought not be expanded into a laundry list such that it appears as if that editor was the only guilty party.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen any example provided of a post of mine that exhibited a double standard, or justified being directly accused of racism. Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely certain that there is no definition of racism that includes voicing displeasure at someone making Holocaust and Pogrom references. I'd also like to point out that the reason 11Fox11 brought this A/R/E (later supplemented by Levivich) was persistent and unceasing personal attacks and aggressive tendentious editing by Onceinawhile, rather than the single specific example being focused on. Drsmoo (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to selfstudier, yes you have also been "generating heat", as you too were directly warned to stop making offensive holocaust analogies. I continue to see aspersions cast on me, despite there continuing to be no justification provided for how any of my edits illustrated "double standards" or were racist. The argument appears to be that when they called me racist, they weren't ACTUALLY calling me racist, they were trying to make a "rhetorical point". That is frankly nonsense, they directly and baselessly accused me of double standards and racism as a form of personal attack. There was nothing "rhetorical" about it. This is also nothing new, I (and others) have received unprovoked personal attacks from this user for years and years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to follow up here as the discussion has extended to @El C:'s talk page, and inaccurate information was posted. The RFC was not started "thoughtfully and neutrally". As was pointed out by multiple editors, the RFC inhibited discussion by initially presenting a table of 36 possible names, (including the current title) under the false claim that the names had all been previously brought up in discussion. In fact, the majority of the list had never been discussed, and the names were simply invented by Onceinawhile right then and there. When called out, Onceinawhile responded that they "hereby suggest the other names", which begs the question of why they would lie in the first case?

Eight hours later, after 3 votes had come in, all for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile added "I know how people love to "vote". The idea is that we listen to each other first, then we can vote in a subsequent discussion." In other words, now that a consensus was emerging for Palestinian Enclaves, Onceinawhile declared that these votes would be meaningless, and that there would be another vote a month later. When a month had passed, and despite a clear consensus and a preponderance of votes for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile unilaterally closed the RFC and started an RM, falsely claiming that "When the RfC was opened, it was explicitly explained that the idea was that we would listen to everyone's open views, not vote". However this is blatantly false, Onceinawhile only added that disclaimer 8 hours after starting the RFC, after votes had come in and a consensus was emerging. It also makes no sense, if the point was to whittle down names to start a RM later, why include the current title in the list, and why add dozens of undiscussed names as well? The scope of the RFC included the current name, so it could not possibly have been intended as a means of determining an alternative to the current name.

This is part of a pattern of WP:Game and WP:OWN behavior from this editor, in addition to the constant personal attacks, and it represents an incredibly cynical view of Wikipedia. And I reiterate that I still have not seen any explanation for how my posts exhibited "double standards" or were racist. Other than claiming it was a "rhetorical device". I sincerely hope it's not acceptable to baselessly accuse someone of racism, only to then essentially say you "didn't mean it".

One last thing, I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for a topic ban or anything like that. Though I believe Onceinawhile has some bad editing tendencies, I think these are exacerbated by the climate in this topic space on Wikipedia, which stokes feelings of defensiveness. I think their (and everyone else's) passion for the topic could be channeled into much more constructive editing if hard guidelines were put down across the board, regarding civility in talk pages in the ARBPIA area. As it is, these talk spaces often degenerate into hostility, which causes defensive stances, and certainly repels editors who might normally have been inclined to contribute. A page can't be "WP:OWNed" if the guidelines literally prevent it. Something like a single talk page post a day per user on a particular article might be helpful, and I think something like that could bring out the best in all editors. Drsmoo (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:

1. 11:49, 15 Nov: Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick. [70]
2. 21:28, 24 Nov: Shrike, stop with the bullshit propaganda please ... Have some empathy and humanity. [71]
3. 12:02, 1 Dec: Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. [72]
4. 12:41, 1 Dec: Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem. [73]
5. 12:46, 1 Dec: By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. [74]
6. 00:51, 2 Dec: I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others ... [75]
7. 17:49, 10 Dec: Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. [76]
8. 07:43, 12 Dec: It shows that you do not understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. [77]
9. 14:57, 12 Dec: Wikipedia does not use whitewashed titles for such situations - we use the common name. Do all those editors proposing simply "enclave" believe that the Palestinians should be treated differently from other groups who have lived in subjugated/oppressed enclaves, such that the title of the article describing their living arrangements should not reference this subjugation/oppression at all? Do those editors really think it is right to single out the Palestinian people in this way? [78]
10. 16:30, 14 Dec: Plus, some editors have track records of voting without contributing to the discussion. In this thread, Drsmoo and Shrike have both made comments about neutrality which fail to address the policy of WP:POVNAME, which has been mentioned frequently above. Since they have are unwilling to explain their positions, in light of pre-existing information which undermines it, their votes are meaningless and can be ignored. [79] Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Requests I've made to Onceinawhile (among others) at Talk:West Bank bantustans for the bludgeoning/attacks to stop: Nov 30, Dec 10, Dec 18, and Dec 22. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ImTheIP: Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior... I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it). See the four links just above. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see Onceinawhile's commitment to focus on edits not editors. Another aspect of this report that hasn't been addressed yet is WP:BLUDGEON. 53 editors have edited Talk:West Bank bantustans; here's the pie chart: [80]. Once has made 178 edits, about 23% of edits and text. That's more than the bottom 50 editors combined. (Once and two other editors have made ~60% of the edits/text on the talk page.) It was the same pattern at the AFD. Once cites this in their statement here, noting they've made over 200 edits to those two pages combined.

@El C and Awilley: I have concerns about this comment Once made on their talk page a couple days ago: The drama of the last two months on this one article has been to an extreme I have never seen above, obviously off-wiki (two attack pages and one newspaper article with an attacking contributor) but also on-wiki (an AFD, an RFC, two RMs and an AE). Onceinawhile started the RFC and one of the RMs. I have a hard time reconciling the feeling that "the drama" at the article is "to an extreme I have never seen" because of the AFD, RFC, RMs, and AE, with the fact that Onceinawhile started the RFC, started one of the RMs, and is the subject of this AE after many requests/warnings from their colleagues. I agree the disruption at the article is extreme, but in my view, it's Onceinawhile who is causing it.

The discussion about the article title has been very difficult because, for example, Onceinawhile started the poorly-framed RFC (with ~40 choices), which nevertheless had a clear result ("Palestinian enclaves"), and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result, and have been posting 200+ comments. When those problems were raised by other editors, Onceinawhile ignored them. When they were raised here at AE, Onceinawhile cites the AE, and their own RM and RFC, and their 200 comments, as mitigating factors.

Another example is Talk:West Bank bantustans#NPOV concerns, where I raised particular concerns in connection with an NPOV tag, and Onceinawhile replied by saying some of my concerns weren't concerns and marking them {{done}}, which is just a bit presumptuous, and WP:OWNery. It's hard to discuss NPOV concerns with the other 52 editors when Onceinawhile is taking it upon themselves to mark them "done" based on whether they agree or disagree. (To their credit, Once did address some of the other concerns they marked done, so it's not all bad, it's a mix of collaborative and uncollaborative behavior.) It's hard to have a discussion about anything when Once is posting 200 times, and deciding when RFCs and RMs get launched and closed, all unilaterally.

If this ends with a logged warning, I'd ask that the warning address not just civility and WP:FORUMing, but also bludgeoning and WP:OWNership, behavior. (I'm probably over 500 and requesting extension for this post.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ohh boy, now more untruths. Onceandawhile is now saying that I was making claims that only an ultranationist would support. Too be clear I made three claims. One, that the source was a general interest magazine for which I had already cited the about page of the journal and the authors CV. Second that she only traced lines and was not a designer which was sourced to the authors own statement in the source. Third that the author was a secretery and not a high ranking insider which was sourced to both the authors own statments and a plaestinian artist collective. Not an Israeli ultra-nationalist source in the bunch.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, here you directly tied renaming "West Bank bantustans" article to renaming Nazi ghettos. That had nothing to do with loan words. Here is another comparison this time "West Bank bantustans" to the Warsaw ghetto. Making the argument that you were just desperate to use load words so you needed to make Nazi analogies (repeatedly), while never even using the term "loan word", takes a lot of chutzpah.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, since you seemingly wish to close this without any real remedial action can I at least ask if you have bothered to read the evidence I have presented. Onceinawhile has blatantly lied about me making ultranationalist arguments and also lied about my actions. Not once but twice, both in the discussion I diffed and in this and his own statement he claimed I made arguments only an ultranationlist would support. That not even getting into the fact that it is preposterous to believe he compared Nazis to Jews because he couldn't think of a loan word, while never mentioning loan words until he was caught. If calling multiple users racists and lying multiple times isn't sanction worthy then what is?AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In case someone believes that the disingenuous comments just involve me, or are new, I ask to you look at Onceinawhie's quote above where he claims he is against the apartheid analogy "and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is". Yet here they are specifically calling for Israel to be directly compared to South Africa, and anti-aparthied content to be added to the lead, and using the apartheid analogy for support. No one else had mentioned apartheid in that RFC so it wans't like they were just following someone else. Does anyone really believe they have changed their mind since August and just happened to use an article name that once again use the apartheid analogy.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zero^talk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that Onceinawhile is one of the most conscientious editors that work in the I/P area. I don't need all the fingers of one hand to list those who work so hard to bring the best possible sources and get the facts right. Of course s/he has a POV, but so does every single one of those who have written against him/her here (not including the admin section). Usually Onceinawhile is exceptional for his/her politeness and many times I've seen him/her respond seriously to argument that I didn't think deserved it. In the case of this messy talk page (which I was not involved in), Onceinawhile became emotionally involved and wrote in a manner that is not in character. I know that s/he understands this and will be more careful in the future. Zero^talk 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" (diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" (diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor".

Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, such as diff #17. This happened one or two other times at most.

I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content. Looking through past discussions, I can see they have always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area are valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area.

I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted)

Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me.

Huldra (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:

• https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590
• https://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page/.premium-on-wikipedia-israel-is-losing-the-battle-against-the-word-apartheid-1.9330590

All of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: The problem is not only that article but his attitude is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it evidence by his statement two years ago [81] "I am just a foot soldier fighting for our encyclopaedia on the front lines of one of our two most contested battleground" and nothing has really changed the "bantustan" article its not the first one-sided article that he want to promote to DYK without giving a proper space to all WP:DUE POVs Here is a few examples:

• Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Old_City_of_Hebron-This user wrote one sided article [82] and run to promote it to DYK but as explained by uninvolved editor [83] in the end the DYK nomination has failed as the user didn't want to fix the underlying problem in the article.
• Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Enclave_law-After large work it did go to main page but the name was changed and many WP:NPOV changes were made
• Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Hebraization_of_Palestinian_place_names - Look at the first version of the article [84] and compare it to the current version.

So the last article is just part of the trend. I don't think that other editors should check his edits to see if the article that he want to promote to main page is to complaint to WP:NPOV policy. In my view this editor is not suitable to edit in the area to the very least he should not propose articles to the main page in area of the conflict. --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Its ok to have POV I have it too the problem is not with POV but how your edit if you write one sided article and cherry pick the sources to present only POV your like and then run to put it to to the WP:MAINPAGE that an example of WP:TE. --Shrike (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I poured over 11Fox11 edit history. Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior. Certainly not about the diffs listed by 11Fox11. It seems to me that collegial editing obliges one to give the other party a chance to make amends before taking it to trial. I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it).

11Fox11 filed a charge against me at AN/I last December. I was warned, which may have been deserved, but the process was similar in that 11Fox11 didn't explain what their grievance was before filing the charge. I'm sure that if someone would have told Onceinawhile that they felt that their edits were disrespectful, they would have changed their tone. ImTheIP (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sanctions are probably warranted here. While the evidence by the complainant is rather overwhelming, the response by Onceinawhile is almost entirely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud. One example listed by this complaint, from yesterday (Jan 5), which I found especially egregious (diff), reads in part: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing. The fact that Onceinawhile thinks that it's somehow okay to speak to another person in such a way is outright astonishing to me. I cannot stress enough how unacceptable this is. As for Onceinawhile's own assertion above about implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic — there needs to be actual evidence to corroborate this claim, which again, their response fails to provide. El_C 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I'm just not seeing where you've been accused of racism or anti-Semitism. Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany, like by noting (in a direct quote, no less) how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, for example, views the matter. The only actual violation I was able to identify in your recently-compiled evidence is from that IP, which I would block, if it wasn't for them being inactive. Otherwise, again, I simply fail to see how anyone has spoken as to your motivation or anything else that might be construed as a personal remark about you. El_C 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I don't see an issue with my representation, considering you make statements such as: "Bantu autonomy" (for South African Bantustans) or "Jewish autonomy" for (Warsaw Ghetto) would be whitewashing. Why do you wish to whitewash here? It is anti-Palestinian double standards; double standards being a key element of identifying racism (diff). El_C 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, that is not coming across as a meaningful distinction to me, since those words highlight Nazi German, Apartheid South African and Israeli policies, respectively. As for your request, I don't really understand what you're expecting me to examine, specifically. If there's something you consider to be especially egregious, I'm happy to take a look. El_C 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I acknowledge that it serves as a meaningful distinction to you, but I'm still letting you know how it is otherwise coming across. As for your objection to having editors minimize the impact of Palestinian occupation and dispossession and oppression by Israel, I'm not sure that is something which is in the purview of admins to mitigate. El_C 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Onceinawhile, when I excerpted your "sign of racism" comment, for example, I deem that to have been an ARBPIA-derived personal attack. What I'm not seeing is where you have been similarly attacked (again, save for that IP). Possibly another admin would interpret it otherwise...? Added after edit conflict: I see that Awilley has now opined below. His assessment generally mirrors my own. El_C 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I did not refer to "sign of racism" words, as you put it, but as clearly stated: your "sign of racism" comment (in its entirety), which was a personal attack. El_C 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I did not need further context. I already understood that you felt Drsmoo's comment crossed a line, which I'm not sure it did — it can instead be read as asking you to be wary of drawing these parallels. But I do find your "rhetorical mirror" to have been unduly acerbic, so I do deem it as an attack, whether you intended it as such or not. Anyway, that's my evaluation, which I'm not really inclined to debate further. Again, perhaps another admin will view it different, who knows. El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Zero0000, I do not see it as the same thing at all, and I am quite surprised that you do. My view is that, within reason, an editor is entitled to advance the position that an argument possess anti-Semitic features according to this or that definition of whatever reputable body is being cited. But an editor is not allowed to respond to that challenge by intimating "racism" on the part of the original editor by virtue of a vague notion of "double standards." Anyway, I'd really would like to go do something else for a while rather than have to respond to these seemingly endless pings. There are other admins who patrol the AE board, why not let them have their say? El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, sorry, but I still think it was a personal attack on your part. Nor am I saying anything of the sort about the definition of antisemitism versus that of racism (per se.). Now, is there anything else you wish to query me about? May as well get it out of the way. Also, if you are speaking to me here at the AE board, it is actually better that you ping me — though, again, I do think I've already responded to this AE report in considerable detail. El_C 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Onceinawhile, I'll do you one better than continuing to go on about what does or does not equate this or that. I'll preface this by noting that I am listening to a live feed of the reconvened Congress as I am writing this (Rubio just yielded the floor), so hopefully I'm able to communicate the following effectively. Look, I've known you to be a long time regular in good standing in the ARBPIA topic area for years and years, mostly engaging it without major incident (I'm not sure whether without blemish, but confident enough of it being at least okayish overall). Which is why I'm more than a bit puzzled to see you stumble like this over this particular article. Honestly, it's rather unexpected. So, while I'm willing to take your long-term ARBPIA tenure into account when considering sanctions, I'd still like to be able to get a sense of what's happening here. Because something has happened, I'm just not sure what it is. El_C 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• After my comment directly above, both myself and Onceinawhile went on to discuss the matter on my talk page (here and here), which went pretty well, I thought. I am now satisfied that a logged warning would be enough to conclude this complaint. Thoughts, anyone? El_C 17:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Levivich, makes sense. An admonishment against skirting the line of WP:OWN, as well as WP:BLUDGEON and otherwise novel ("presumptuous") talk page usage ought to also be recorded in the log entry. El_C 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I reviewed diffs 2-17 and found a majority of them were objectionable/disruptive/uncollaborative. It looks like most of the dispute is centered around West Bank bantustans. Would a narrow topic ban or partial block be enough to resolve this? ~Awilley (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on this I am content to close this with a reminder for Onceinawhile to focus on content and not contributors.

  @Shrike, I would hesitate to block/ban someone based on their POV alone. I'm personally not that familiar with the topic area, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the editors there had strong points of view. In that case I would want to retain those editors with good knowledge of the sources who are able to collaborate with others in the topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Levivich: et al, Sorry for the slow and incomplete reply here. I reviewed the thread you were complaining about with Onceinawhile sticking a bunch of "done" templates inside your comment. It's definitely not standard procedure, and also a bit WP:OWNy, but at the same time I think it also demonstrated a high level of responsiveness to others' concerns. I think I may have done similar things in the past to long requests for changes in articles where I'm a subject expert, so I have a hard time faulting it outright. I do sense kind of a "battleground" mentality, but I think the proposed warning covers that. In any case I'm going to close this since it's been languishing open for so long and there's no coherent plan or consensus for anything more than a warning. ~Awilley (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a mention, Onceinawhile, that the instructions regarding statements say They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs and you have gone way over that. Unless asked a specific question, do not add any more to your statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 7 January 2021 (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

Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 17 January 2021 Continued edit-warring over the "charges" text in the infobox, in direct violation of the consensus at the BLPN discussion they started.
2. 17 January 2021 Comment at RFD contradicting BLPN consensus.
3. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.
4. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.

Relevant discussions

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Second impeachment of Donald Trump
• Archived user talk discission on edit-warring and ARBAPDS.
• Discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors
• Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump#Incitement vs sedition

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

AnonQuixote has been edit-warring over the wikilink in the "charges" field of the infobox at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, which they have continued today even after a consensus was reached against their preferred version in a discussion they started and participated in extensively. They had opened discussions in three venues to address this issue, where their argument that piping a link from "incitement of insurrection" to sedition is WP:SYNTH was mostly rejected. The BLPN discussion was recently closed by Eggishorn with a consensus that linking to sedition is acceptable. In that discussion, AnonQuixote demonstrated a general failure to get what others were saying. I gave them a DS alert during that discussion, after they had already been warned for violating WP:3RR. Despite these warnings, and the consensus at the BLPN discussion, they edited Second impeachment of Donald Trump today in violation of the consensus. Pinging participants in BLPN discussion.​​​​​ ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: AnonQuixote made two more problematic edits after I made this AE request. I've added them to the list above. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[85]

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 BLP/N consensus was that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" in the second impeachment of Donald Trump article. The discussion also established that no known reliable source supports this claim.

The sequence of events after the discussion was closed were as follows:

• Per the consensus, I changed the wording from "incitement of insurrection" to "sedition", and added a CN tag because this is an unsourced claim (edit 1).

• This change was reverted, in an apparent effort to disguise the unsourced claim with a piped link.[86]

• I repeated my edit with a more detailed explanatory message (edit 3-4). Note that these edits were made prior to my being notified of this discussion ([87]).

I believe these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but it's possible that when making the changes the second time I violated some revert restriction, in which case I apologize for that.

Edit 2 is a comment in a related discussion, which is clearly not edit warring in any way, but a constructive contribution to the discussion. I believe the fact this was included demonstrates that the real goal of these accusations is to silence my dissenting opinion.

As my edit history attests, I have made many constructive edits to the article in question and other related articles. I do not believe sanctions are justified. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the comments from El_C and Eggishorn are fair. I want to remark that the conclusion of the BLP/N discussion I quoted was taken directly from the rationale for closing at the bottom of the section, which all involved editors except myself supported. However, I will refrain from changing the wording in the infobox without further discussion. Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnonQuixote is a new user who has jumped into an area which is contentious both in real life and on-wiki. This is what we want to see happen but there is a learning curve and some gentle counselling is likely needed. They say above that the BLP/N discussion's result is that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" when this is not an actual quote from the close. I closed the thread with the result "...the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." The differences between those two statements are significant in terms of what would and would not be valid edits. To remove the piping with an edit that claims to implement that consensus and double-down on that mistake here is plainly not following WP:CONSENSUS. To continue to claim that there is no support for the claim when every other editor in a thread they started disagreed is a very good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't think that AQ needs any DS leveled at this time but they do need to develop a better understanding of how consensus and the core content policies work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Eggishorn: at RfD, AnonQuixote is continuing to claim that equating "incitement of insurrection" with "sedition" is "misleading". This is now the fourth venue they've made this argument in. They are also falsely claiming there that I've made ad hominem attacks against them and have attempted to get them banned. I would like to see AQ accept that the BLPN thread was closed with a clear consensus, and not continue to WP:FORUMSHOP and litigate this issue elsewhere. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have reverted (and refined) AnonQuixote's edits and have instructed them to stop. El_C 04:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AnonQuixote, I don't think anyone has proposed sanctions at this point, but you should not be editing contrary to a consensus which was arrived at, essentially, by a closed dispute resolution request. If you wish to challenge that closure, your next step is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 06:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to chalk it up to a misunderstanding and therefore close this complaint accordingly. El_C 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-close note: Tartan357 has added their above complaint after this request was closed. I will note, though, that I have addressed their concerns both at the RfD (permanent link) as well as on my talk page (permanent link). Bottom line: AnonQuixote's participation in that discussion wasn't in any way inappropriate, and therefore, does not meaningfully alter my closing summary. El_C 20:55, 17 January 2021 (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

AnonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – AnonQuixote (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from post-1932 American politics (WP:AP2) for 3 months, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AnonQuixote, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log/2021#American_politics_2

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[88]

This sanction arose from a dispute surrounding the second impeachment of Donald Trump. I raised concerns about whether Wikipedia should state or imply that Trump was impeached for "sedition".

• My initial approach was to remove the claim from the article as potentially libelous.

• I then opened a BLP/N discussion, the outcome of which was that it "the piping of 'Incitement of insurrection' to the Sedition article is supported".

• After the BLP/N discussion, I changed the wording in the article infobox to reflect what I thought was the consensus. However other editors disagreed with this change, resulting in an enforcement request against me.

The outcome of the AE request was that my edit was reverted by El_C and I was warned to discuss before making further edits.

Since that time, I do not believe I have done anything non-constructive. I have refrained from anything that could be considered edit warring and stuck to raising the issue on relevant talk pages and related discussions.

Although I believe El_C's initial actions were fair, this admin appears to have become personally involved in the dispute and is now unjustly interpreting my actions as disruptive.

They have themselves made several improper actions, demonstrating their bias against me:

• Removing talk page comments without a valid reason
• Deleting an RfC I created
• Threatening to ban me if I attempted to continue discussing the issue
• Modifying closed AE discussion to ban me

I believe this admin is enforcing an arbitrary policy that I am not allowed to discuss this issue further. However the issue still needs to be discussed as there is still no consensus on the central question: whether Wikipedia can state that "Trump was impeached for sedition".

I request this ban be revoked by an uninvolved admin and that El_C be asked to refrain from further participation in this issue.

• Additional comment in response to the El_C's remarks about the last two items. Nothing I have done since the initial warning merits a ban. I have complied with the warning in every respect, and even gone beyond Wikipedia's policies to avoid conflict - for example by notifying the admin about the RfC,[89] discussing a related edit on the talk page rather than going through the WP:BRR cycle,[90] etc. That I was banned anyway, despite my exemplary conduct, is arbitrary and unjust. AnonQuixote (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Further addendum: I have no wish to challenge El_C's conduct in general, only the specific actions cited above including the topic ban. I believe these actions, despite being made in good faith, were unwarranted and demonstrate a lack of impartiality in this matter. AnonQuixote (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional remark: El_C, can you provide links to diffs I made after the initial warning that you believe were disruptive or non-constructive? AnonQuixote (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific edits alleged to be disruptive by El_C:

• [91] Summarizing another user's counterargument, which had been hidden by admin.
• [92] Pointing out the definition of an ad-hominem argument, in a thread discussing such an attack against me.
• [93] Making a change to an article, with refs, that had previously been discussed and approved on the talk page.
• [94] Creating an RFC to seek consensus on a question that had not yet been directly addressed.
• [95] Explaining my actions on El_C's talk page.

Since all of these edits are civil and constructive, I believe this clearly demonstrates that El_C's claims of disruptive behavior are false and the ban is unjustified. AnonQuixote (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite puzzled by the numerous decline votes all citing the same reason that "warnings were not heeded" despite the lack of any edits that could be considered in violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would appreciate if someone could explain why they believe any of my edits were not constructive, so I know what to avoid in future. AnonQuixote (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe my longstanding record at WP:AE and WP:AEL speaks for itself. The grounds for the claim that I became "personally involved" are extremely weak. Even if we were to look at the AE board just at the present moment, I have participated positively in each one of the 9 requests currently listed, and have closed 5 of them myself. Not to mention the years and years of similar positive AE participation. The notion that, somehow, when it came to this particular case, I got so swept up so as to have become WP:INVOLVED — that assertion is without basis. This user was given a firm warning and was extended every courtesy, but they persisted in editing disruptively, so this sanction, which is rather brief, was imposed. El_C 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Modifying closed AE discussion to ban me — this isn't the first time that this misapprehension was expressed by the appellant. But it is, in fact, perfectly acceptable to amend closed AE requests, most especially if this is done by the original closer (in this case, me). Naturally, when a report is closed with a warning, but that warning isn't heeded, a sanction can still be imposed afterwards, with said report amended accordingly. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to explain this to AnonQuixote a 2nd time. In fact, I just did the very same thing yesterday for a different AE request (an ARBPIA-related one) which I also recently closed with a warning, but then escalated to a sanction, with the AE request updated to record that (diff). El_C 01:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GizzyCatBella, except your ban was of an indefinite duration, which you successfully appealed after 2 years. This ban is only for 3 months. El_C 02:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with AnonQuixote's followup. They have continued to edit tendentiously and they have continued to bludgeon discussions, including but not limited to casting aspersions on multiple individuals. El_C 02:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to AnonQuixote's post-followup addendum: their claim that I am not impartial in this matter is, again, without basis. Not only do I not hold a strong opinion on the "seditious acts" versus "incitement of insurrection" question, the entire thing doesn't even interest me that much. El_C 02:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, two appeals (other one) happening at the same time — I think that's a first for me! El_C 05:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gwennie-nyan, I went with 3 months because of the possibility that AnonQuixote's misconduct may be due to insurrection and impeachment fever. Perhaps, otherwise they'd be able to edit WP:AP2 productively without incident. Who knows. But if not, imposing an indefinite ban would be easy and can happen with immediate effect. El_C 06:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• AnonQuixote, here is a non-exhaustive list (not interested in discussing these with you at this time, though, if that is what you're after): [96], [97], [98], [99], [100]. El_C 13:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend decline due to continuation of WP:IDHT that precipitated the ban, both with regard to content and conduct. The fact that AQ, in this appeal, is still insisting that there is no consensus on the central question speaks volumes. Also, they have just made baseless WP:ASPERSIONS about El_C becoming personally involved, which are similar to the false accusations of personal attacks they made against myself and Gwennie-nyan, which they chose to continue despite multiple warnings. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with El_C that three months is sufficient for a first-time ban. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who has seen issues with this editor regarding this case and attempted to notify them of issues while trying to steer them in a better path, I think this implementation of ACDS was generous and appropriate. (I've seen less behavior been given short blocks at ANI.) Since joining this wiki less than three weeks ago, this issue with Trump, sedition, and incitement wording has been something they've been oddly attached to. No matter what other editors say, even El C formally warning them to tread lightly, hasn't resulted in much deviation from WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior. Their behavior confuses my good-faith brain enough I wonder if it's simply not possible for them to behave in a manner consistent with being WP:HERE. I also concur that this editor has engaged in poor behavior in response to attempt to gently correct or criticize them. Please decline this appeal. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Due to the imposition of the ACDS, I procedurally-closed the talk section AnonQuixote brought on Talk:Sedition in regards to the Second impeachment of Donald Trump. If appeal is granted and sanctions lifted, feel free to unclose. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 04:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: regarding your last bit, yeah they didn't strike me as a new user either. In fact they went straight into Wikipedia namespace shortly after joining and are adept at wikilawyering. Do you think SPI might be warranted? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here: I'm not an expert on SPI, but in my limited experience, unless there's someone specific you suspect them of being, it probably won't go far. If this is someone who created a fresh account to disrupt American Politics articles, I think the topic ban will ultimately be nearly as effective as an SPI block. ~Awilley (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Awilley, given their repeated behavior, if it can be considered, I'd argue for extension of, maybe even indefinite, American politics sanctions. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 05:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please decline. I was on the receiving end of AQ's potent combination of WP:Wikilawyering and WP:IDHT on the Talk:Sedition discussion, which carried over to the BLPNoticeboard—I had to leave to avoid getting heated. I very much appreciated the contributions of Tartan357 and Gwennie-nyan to those discussions. —WingedSerif (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Awilley's final sentence below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonQuixote - I am sorry, but I don't see those diff's as an "involvement". I also believe that attacking hard-working and trusted administrators to get sanctions lifted is not the way to go. I'm sympathetic to your appeal since I was topic banned for a very long time, and I know how challenging it is to have that imposed. Still, I would advise you to strike the attacking part and focus more on your behavior and seek to convince reviewing administrators that this will not occur again. Good luck. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C Exactly...3 months is nothing...and the sanction is automatically discarded after that time period... that's actually a pretty mild sanction.

@AnonQuixote try to learn from this experience regardless of this appeal outcome; it will help so much if you are planning to be a good, long-term contributor.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• So far as I can see, I think El_C's actions here were reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with modifying the previous close of the AE thread, and the reverts were obviously done in the capacity of an admin responding to the AE report, not an editor invested in the article. And for what it's worth, AnonQuixote does not strike me as a new user. ~Awilley (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. AnonQuixote has had plenty of warnings and even more advice but has apparently chosen not to listen to any of them. A 3 month topic ban is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Warnings were issued, and were not heeded. I can't see how any of EL C's actions were unreasonable or out of process. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. AnonQuixote decided not to heed the warnings. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. The editor disregarded warnings and persisted with disruption in the AP topic area. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The topic ban is justified, since the appellant has repeatedly edited against consensus even after receiving warnings, which is a form of disruptive editing. I concur that the appeal should be declined. — Newslinger talk 10:11, 21 January 2021 (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

Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

2-week block for WP:GAME violations at the WP:ARBPIA topic area. El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I am the one who copied this appeal from Debresser's talk page, so all good on that front. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage[101] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE,[102] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved,[103] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing me an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser

As mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote myself from Debresser's talk page: Debresser, look, I don't want to belabour the point, but what is the point in self-reverting when you intend on undoing that very same self-revert a mere 2 minutes later? I realize the action itself happened, as you say, 4 hours later... But still, the absurdity of that notion, I'm not sure how, short of getting the sanctions ball rolling, I could meaningfully convey to you that, as an approach, it is not okay. That it has led to problems in the past and that it is likely to lead to problems in the future. El_C 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, oh, a topic ban is coming. That was the original plan (diff), and it remains so. El_C 14:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is to say: myself imposing such a ban is predicated on this appeal being declined first. Only once that happens formally, will I go ahead with said ban, which will be an indefinite, broadly construed ARBPIA prohibition. El_C 22:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want this for the record. Sir Joseph has attacked me on Debresser's talk page by asking the following non sequitur (totally out-of-the-blue) question immediately below my most recent comment there: So the topic ban is punishment for filing an appeal? (diff). Needless to say, I believe this reflects poorly on him, which is why I have admonished him for this in no uncertain terms (diff). El_C 06:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the logs or timeline, but isn't GAME for something like 24+1 or 25-26 hours past the 24 hour deadline? If it is as Debresser said, 32 hours, is that now also considered gaming? In addition, after the 24 hours, he did post on the talkpage, it should not be considered gaming, especially when posting something that is BLUE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia policy forbids edit-warring in general, not just bright-line 3RR (or 1RR) violations. Self-reverting to avoid 1RR, but then almost immediately self-unreverting does seem like an issue. Debresser had 3 edit-warring blocks in 2020; their appeal doesn't suggest to me that they will avoid edit-warring in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I really can't think anything more GAME-y than self-reverting and then re-reverting because the original revert that you self-reverted was now more than 24 hours ago. At the least one would think an editor would wait 24 hours from the self-revert until the re-revert, but even that would be gaming. Once an edit is self-reverted, the editor who self-reverted should never re-revert that edit again, and, I mean, duh! It defeats the purpose of self-reverting if one re-reverts afterwards. BTW, this is why we should change the rule to "do not repeat edits without consensus". The "revert" terminology offers too many holes, such as this one. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:51, 17 January 2021 (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 appeal. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong decline, the offense was clearly Debresser using a self-revert to justify edit warring just outside of the 1RR window, in spite of the fact that it had been made clear that the edit was objected to (per their own evidence). Edit warring over a disputed edit on an article with 1RR, on the pure basis that the contested edit would not technically be a 1RR violation because you've self-reverted and waited until the window had closed, is about the biggest, gamey, slap in the face to the page restriction that I can possibly think of. Block was straightforward, especially given the fact that it is consistent with previous warnings against this exact behavior from the blocking administrator. I not only endorse the block here, but I don't see how any other action would have been reasonable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If anything, a two week block without a topic ban is too lenient given how obvious it should have been that the behaviour was completely inappropriate - doubly so given the previous warnings. I strongly recommend declining the appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Self-reverting to avoid a 1RR violation, only to reinstate the edit four hours later, is indeed a form of sanction gaming – and not a very successful one, since the maneuver does not mitigate the fact that the appellant has engaged in edit warring. I concur that the appeal should be declined. — Newslinger talk 10:28, 21 January 2021 (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

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

One Revert Restriction (1RR) :

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

• Violates the 1rr at Maqluba - First revert: 07:55, 14 January Second revert: 08:32, 14 January 2021 - Repeatedly replaces Palestine with Levant

• Violates the 1rr at Birthright Israel - First revert: 07:52, 14 January Second revert: 23:20, 14 January 2021 - Repeatedly removes Jerusalem and Golan Heights

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked many times for edit warring: [104]
2. 16:55 30 September 2015 has been blocked for 1rr before.

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

Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [105] [106][107][108][109]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights:[110] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit:[111]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring:[112] [113][114][115][116] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?

El_C, was the 2012 diff the only one I brought? Or did I also bring diffs from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018? The point was to show a long term pattern of refusal from Debrasser to abide by the 1rr despite several warnings over the years. To show that he has exhausted AGF, so why would I AGF again after his long history and give him another warning? Thats why I opened this 1rr enforcement request. If it is important for you that I ask people to self revert first, then I will keep that in mind going forward and ask people to self revert if they violate 1rr, even if they have a long history of not following it like in this case. As I said before I did 1 single revert and I discussed it in my edit summary, so at that point of time there was no reason to open a talkpage discussion. After that, there was reason to discuss at the talkpage and I did and that was my plan to discuss at the talkpage if my comment in the edit summary was not accepted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

No problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that 28 hours have passed since my first revert (not counting the mistaken revert and the self-revert), can I now safely undo that edit? Especially since the talkpage discussion shows no consensus for it. I am asking about 1RR or other WP:AE-based objections, not content-related objections, obviously. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done now, after another 4 hours, before the beginning of the Jewish Shabbath, with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of the lack of objections here. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two things, from what I can tell they do not meet the WP:AWARE criterial. Also at Maqluba they were reverting someone that was that was below the 500/30 threshold which is exempt from 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I missed the past stuff, my mistake on aware. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this clarification request on awareness requirements. nableezy - 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm pretty much beyond sick of the over-bureaucratization of ARBPIA. So, it's good that Nableezy's aforementioned ARCA shows the Committee cementing that sentiment. Therefore, nitpicking WP:AWARE when it comes to veterans of the topic area, especially, has now become a thing of the past. I suppose it's debatable whether the practice of a courtesy self-revert request prior to reporting (which I do not believe is codified anywhere) counts as that, too. I lean toward retaining it, myself, because sometime people lose track of time, so it can often reduce a lot of needless friction. Now, Debresser has a lengthy record of AE/EW blocks for violations concerning ARBPIA (and near-ARBPIA) pages and edits, often accompanied by unblocks (my own included). Which gives the impression that, at the very least, he is skirting the line a lot more than he should. And that he has been doing that for a long time. None of that, though, explains why Supreme Deliciousness failed to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, including why they haven't edited the article talk page even once. Nor, to boot, why they seemingly jumped to weaponize the AE noticeboard, absent the customary self-revert request. Methinks a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order... As for imposing sanctions on Debresser, I'm on the fence about that, too. On the one hand, no self-revert request could mean they may have simply lost track of time after a sleep cycle or whatever. But seeing as it is only 15ish hours, I'm struggling to conceive how he might explain carelessness to such an extent. My immediate impulse, then, is to sanction both editors, but will keep an open mind. El_C 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Supreme Deliciousness, a complainant telling me to relax and be calm..., I admit that this is a first for me here at AE. Anyway, if you think bringing up diffs all the way back from 2012 bolsters your case, well, that just surprises to me. The point is that you did not bother discussing the dispute even before Debresser violated 1RR (after Sir Joseph reverted, for example), or seemingly at any time after. That's besides the point. I'm not viewing your conduct here in isolation from your editing elsewhere. To that: the impression I've been getting for a while now is that you act too aggressively in highly sensitive topics. To me, that is a problem for which discretionary sanctions may serve to remedy. El_C 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Debresser, did you really just post (at 12:00 UTC) about how you've now self-reverted, only to then a mere 2 minutes later (at 12:02 UTC) go on to post again, asking if enough time has passed now for you to immediately undo that same self-revert? Because that probably would count as the most astounding thing I've ever heard in the history of ARBPIA editing! What sort of game do you take this for? El_C 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked Debresser for 2 weeks for this blatant WP:GAME violation (diff). I am now inclined to close this complaint, also with a warning to Supreme Deliciousness (haven't decided whether it will be a logged warning or not yet, though). Will keep this report open for a while longer before doing so, however. El_C 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Negative, Onceinawhile. If anything, quite lenient. In fact, I am likely to impose a broadly construed ARBPIA topic ban on Debresser unless I get some pretty strong assurances they are able to exercise better judgment. I have already warned him about gaming the system and wikilawyering multiple times over the years, but this crosses a line for me. El_C 18:33, 15 January 2021 (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

Sdkb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1992_cutoff) :

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

1. 1/22/2021 GoodDay edit wars to reintroduce content to Donald Trump that was previously challenged less than 24hr ago, despite the page's 24hr BRD restriction.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 November 2020 Partial block from editing Donald Trump and the associated talk page for edit warring

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Donald Trump, there is a messy situation regarding the phrasing of the lead paragraph now that he has left office. An attempt to agree on consensus for wording a month in advance of the inauguration stalled after no one stepped up to close it, leading to an unstable situation with no clear articulation of the status quo to fall back on. The lead has been modified numerous times since then and a bunch of overlapping talk page discussions have sprung up scrambling to figure something out. One sticking point among several that has emerged is whether to use was the 45th president or served as the 45th president. A contingent of editors, including myself, argued that, given that the prevailing consensus at the monthlong discussion seemed to lean toward "was" rather than "served as", and that "was" is plainly closer to the status quo of "is" than "served as", it should be considered the default fallback while discussion takes place seeking a more definitive consensus. GoodDay was aware of this rationale, having commented on the talk page in response to it. They have offered no argument justifying a different default fallback, only arguing for their preferred language, "served as". They have now changed the lead from "was" to "served as" twice 12 (the first time they self-reverted; this time they have not). I warned them on their talk page that they were in violation of the 24hr BRD restriction the page is under, and they responded dismissively. They are clearly engaging in edit warring behavior on a page where that is expressly disallowed. I request that the discretionary sanction scheme at Donald Trump be enforced. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

In reply to Chrisahn: Two quick points that I think are relevant: (1) per the analysis another user did here, previous presidents have a mix of "was" and "served as", so I do not take the argument that there is a precedent that should favor "served as" as the interim. (2) You mentioned the current consensus item noting lack of consensus, but that was only changed today. For most of the period since the inauguration, it has been this, indicating consensus for "was". With that said, I broadly take your point that we ought to try to de-escalate. Seeing that GoodDay has self-reverted, I will return the gesture of good faith and would like to withdraw this request. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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 wasn't aware that I breached anything, when I put into the article Donald Trump, "served as", in place of "was". PS - I humbly apologise for that blunder. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I restored the previous version (now that I'm aware of the apparent seriousness of my previous edit) & promise to leave it as such. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The situation at Donald Trump is indeed very messy. We haven't been able to develop a consensus about the first sentence. Sdkb says there has been "prevailing consensus" for using the word "was" instead of "served as", but that has been disputed, and the relevant item #17 on Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus currently simply says "Note that this item is obsolete given that Trump is no longer the current president".

Sdkb argues that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the status quo, which was "Donald Trump is the 45th president of the United States", and replace "is" by "was" while changing little else. That's a reasonable position.

But others have argued that in the absence of consensus, we should try to stay close to the wording in other articles about former US presidents, which is "X is an American [occupation] who served as [n]th president of the United States". That's also a reasonable position.

So the problem is that we neither have a consensus for a long-term solution, nor a consensus for an interim stop-gap solution.

In the last two days, several users (roughly half a dozen) changed the first sentence to "served as", and Sdkb repeatedly changed it back to "was" (here, here, and here).

Sdkb added warnings about edit warring and sanctions on other users' talk pages (here, here, and here), using the words "you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". But these words would also be a correct description of Sdkb's actions on Donald Trump in the last two days.

Now Sdkb is trying to sanction other users. But based on the same criteria, other users would be justified to try to sanction Sdkb.

In conclusion: Yes, the situation at Donald Trump is messy, but neither "was" nor "served as" is a terrible solution for the first sentence. As long as we don't have a consensus, it will probably be changed back and forth a few more times. But let's not make the situation even messier by starting a back and forth of enforcement requests. Let's cool down, everyone.

(Disclosure: I had previously made basically the same edit as GoodDay. Sdkb later reverted it and warned me that I might be sanctioned for it. I hope I managed to provide a reasonably neutral perspective anyway.)

— Chrisahn (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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