JOJ's failure to understand copyrights, STATUSQUO, and misrepresentation other relevant policies while mass canvassing other editors with the hopes that he would receive some support for his frivolous report shows that having him topic banned or blocked indefinitely would be best for us. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 10:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
JOJ's failure to understand copyrights, STATUSQUO, and misrepresentation other relevant policies while mass canvassing other editors with the hopes that he would receive some support for his frivolous report shows that having him topic banned or blocked indefinitely would be best for us. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023|talk]]) 10:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
====Statement by MBlaze Lightning ====
This is frivolous complaint; there is nothing in the diffs which would even remotely constitute "personal attacks". Also, it is worth mentioning that the majority of the diffs in question are months old—some of them dates back to February, 20 i.e. they are stale. Things get heated up in these subjects, especially when you are dealing with clear [[WP:OR]], [[WP:COPYVIO]], [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:IDHT]], but there is nothing sanctionable.
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
JosephusOfJerusalem comments demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of the very policies that he citing, not to mention his gross battleground mentality as is evident from his comments here and elsewhere. I also agree with the above comments that JosephusOfJerusalem is desperately trying to get the editors with an opposite POV topic banned so that he could push his POV in peace. And not long ago, JosephusOfJerusalem has filed a similar frivolous report against another established editor.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224#Anmolbhat]
If JosephusOfJerusalem perceives comments like, "You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself" as "WP:PERSONALATTACK", then he's clearly demonstrating incompetency. He does not even know when to indent and when to outdent his comments,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018_May_10&diff=prev&oldid=840523997][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princely_state&diff=prev&oldid=840790257] so he should not be astonished when an established editor points him to [[WP:CIR]].
What's more striking is that these filings are strongly reminiscent of filings of socks of [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan|Faizan/Towns Hill]], in particular {{vandal|Sardeeph}} who used to file similar spurious reports against me and {{U|Kautilya3}} in order to get them blocked by citing similar trivial or non-violations. Sardeeph was eventually blocked by {{U| Boing! said Zebedee}} and {{U|Black Kite}} for [[WP:NOTHERE]] after a long ANI thread[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive967#Cut_to_the_chase_-_User:Sardeeph_is_NOTHERE] that he had himself started and cited same type of evidence that JosephusOfJerusalem has cited here as well as attempted to canvass dozens of editors just like JosephusOfJerusalem is doing here.
Similarities between Sardeeph and JosephusOfJerusalem are just more than that. There is a clear case of [[WP:DUCK]].
*Sardeeph filed two AE reports, against me and Kautilya3 on 30 July.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=793073612#MBlaze_Lightning_2][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=793075088]
*And today JosephusOfJerusalem filed two AE reports, against Capitals00 and D4iNa4.
*Even the notification left by JosephusOfJerusalem and Sardeeph are totally same:
::{{tq|There is a discussion about your behaviour at [[WP:AE]].}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=793067727]
::{{tq| Please see [[WP:AE]] for discussion about your behavior.}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AD4iNa4&type=revision&diff=840801583&oldid=839910138]
Sardeeph was indeffed on 20 October 2017. JosephusOfJerusalem registered on 18 October but made his first article space edit on 31 October.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Temple_period&diff=prev&oldid=808002384] I see no doubt that JosephusOfJerusalem is a sock of Sardeeph and he should be blocked for his block evasion. [[User:MBlaze Lightning|<span style="color:#0000f1; font-family:Algerian; text-shadow:1px 1px 1px #CC4E5C">'''<big>MBlaze Lightning</big>''' </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:MBlaze Lightning|'''''talk''''']]</sup> 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
===Result concerning Capitals00===
===Result concerning Capitals00===
Revision as of 13:54, 12 May 2018
"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see
MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the
the clarification and amendment noticeboard
.
Only
vexatious
complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the
administrators' noticeboard
("AN"); and
submit a
request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email
.
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
Standard of review
On community review
Uninvolved administrators at the
administrators' noticeboard
("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a
request for amendment
("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{
hab
}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider
referring the case to ARCA
if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
E-960 will voluntarily refrain from editing the article for 72 hours. If disruptive tagging is an issue, another request should be made, with evidence that will allow admins unfamiliar with the sources to understand the issue. --NeilNtalk to me 02:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning E-960
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
In this 6 May edit with the edit summary " FRINGEy source, interview in which he says indirectly - as he said all along." - I perhaps should have been clearer. I was referring (before the comma) to the right wing internet portal wPolityce as
WP:FRINGE (which it is, in and of itself) - all the more so when the coverage in wPolityce was of comments posted to Facebook by Jakub Kumoch - the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - this is not an appropriate source for WWII history, and possibly also a BLP vio. After the comma I was referring to the interview in Gazeta Wyborcza (which is not FRINGE) - as superfluous - as we never say (nor has Grabowski in any scholarly publication or in a media interview that we found so far on Wikipedia) that Grabowski estimates 200,000 murdered by the Poles - as Grabowski had always said "directly and indirectly" (or variations thereof). Some FRINGEy outlets such as wPolityce may have reported second or third hand that he had said that - however we do not cover that (nor does it seem relevant!) - so covering his clarification to a question (by Gazeta Wyborcza) about claims by "right-wing historians and publicists" is out of context and irrelevant (particularly since the text E-960 introduced leads off with "directly and indirectly"). Both these issues (the Facebook posts by the Polish ambassador and the "clarification" (which was what was being said all along) - were dicussed in-depth at the talk-page - E-960 returned an old version of the text and as far as I can see did not participate in the recent talk page discussion on this particular topic.Icewhiz (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Discussion concerning E-960
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by E-960
I'd like to respectfully object to user Icewhiz's reporting of me, as his "Reverts" were done under a false and misleading pretense.
In this example [1] user Icewhiz reverted text containing two RELIABLE reference sources, and in his Edit Summary writing in that these are "FRINGE source[s]" (and here [2] the unture claim was made that the same text was ORIGINAL RESEARCH). Yet, both these reference sources are two of the biggest newspapers in Poland, and in the case of Gazeta Wyborcza, the reference was the actual INTERVIEW with historian Jan Grabowski, and the removed text was what the historian said himself. To call these sources "FRINGE" unfortunately comes across as nothing more than an excuse to arbitrarily remove the text. Also, to back up this suspicion users Icewhiz and François Robere continue to tag bomb the article (here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]) and revert text back-up by reliable reference sources using the 'IJUSTDONTLIKEIT shame tagging' tactic, and they have been warned about it and their tags reverted by other editors such as GizzyCatBella, Nihil novi, and Volunteer Marek, as this keeps occurring.
In any case, I can apologize for my knee jerk reaction to restore the text, and confirm that in the future I'll keep in mind that this article is under the tighter scrutiny of the 1RR rule. But, also I'd like to ask the Admins to remind users Icewhiz and François Robere that automatically adding un-warranted tags or removing statements containing RELIABLE reference sources by labeling them as FRINGE, can come across as disruptive. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pls note that wPolityce newspaper is not FRINGE. In 2018, it has around 1.2 million regular readers (and an accompanying weekly news magazine that is available in every newsstand in the country) — though it is righwing, as Gazeta Wyborcza is leftwing. Again, throwing around untrue labels to automatically discredit a conservative news outlet. --E-960 (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested by NeilN, to avoid escalating the issue, I can step back for the suggested time, and let the content discussion play out on the article talk page. --E-960 (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by GizzyCatBella
(writing in progress...will finish today)GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll hold off on my comment and keep my word for future later use if necessary. NeilN's recommendation [10] is very fair in my opinion.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning E-960
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@NeilN: These are your page-level restrictions, could you please evaluate this request? Sandstein 13:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a pretty blatant violation and E-960 seems to be aware of this given the apology above. I'm not familiar enough with the sources in question to comment sensibly on the wider dispute, though I note that at least some sources have been removed or tagged for being non-english-language without translation, which is not appropriate. GoldenRing (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1RR violation involving a sourcing dispute but in light of E-960's assertion that they will be more careful I would suggest they voluntarily restrict themselves to using the talk page for the next 72 hours in lieu of discretionary sanctions. --NeilNtalk to me 13:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Salvidrim!
Salvidrim! made and caught their own mistake, so other than a massive TROUT there's nothing to do other than kicking the page back to the draft space and letting someone else review it. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Salvidrim!
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Today moving an article Drafted by others into mainspace
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
D'oh! I was casually looking up this game, found a draft in Draftspace that looked fine, moved it to mainspace and wikified it a bit. Then choked on my coffee when I recalled I was currently prohibited from reviewing AfC Drafts or moving other people's AfC Drafts into mainspace. In this case there was no AfC template but I don't wanna look like the guy intentionally toeing the line and going after Drafts just because they don't have AfC tags, without regard for the spirit of the sanction. I'm self-reporting here before someone else does. I think it's probably no big deal but "thinking it's no big deal" is part of what landed me before ArbCom so I'm not sure how much my self-assessment is worth. That I should "seek external review" was the point that the case commenters wanted to hammer into my skull so that's what I'm doing.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
My face has been notified by my palm.
Discussion concerning Salvidrim
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Salvidrim
re Tony: I guess my first thought was that self-reverting might be seen as "yet another attempt to avoid scrutiny"? Maybe I'm just being paranoid, apologies if this is a bit of a timewaster. Another one. Plus I couldn't self-revert anyways since I left a redirect at the draftspace title per usual practice.
Can you just re: draftify and slap an AfC tag on it for someone else to review? I appreciate the self-reporting here, but this seems like a bit of a waste of time. When someone accidentally violates an AE sanction, the norm is just to self-revert. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Salvidrim
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Crawford88
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
WP:NOR because said language is not supported by the source in question. Furthermore, the reinstatement was made despite my having been explicit about the OR problem when removing
said content.
08:32, 7 May 2018 Reinstates removed content in violation of NPOV. The source discusses defaming a government and a country; the content claims defamation of Hindus.
At this point, I reverted the edits, once again describing the problems with them, and left a warning on this user's page, describing the specific problems with reinstating the edits. They essentially brushed off this warning.
, despite having seen and responded to my warning above. This version addresses the "defaming Hindus" part of the problem, but reinstates the other original research and non-neutral language for a second time.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
No previous sanctions.
If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)
Editor was alerted to discretionary sanctions in January 2017. While this was 15 months ago, it is a bit of a stretch to suggest they are therefore unaware of the sanctions, having edited in this topic area continuously since.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
There's several incorrect statements and fundamental misunderstandings in Crawford88's statement.
I haven't used my administrator tools on this page, and as I am aware of
WP:INVOLVED
, am not likely to do so.
"Hindu" and "Hindutva foot soldier" are not the same either, and if Crawford88 believes them to be, he is simply demonstrating his unsuitability for editing this topic.
The importance of the content I removed is quite irrelevant, as is the presence of other sources. I removed the content because it wasn't supported by the cited source.
Crawford reinstated it, thereby taking responsibility for it, in violation of our core policies. He still does not appear to see the problem with that. Neil, he's responded, as you asked; could you take a look? Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark: Well, they reinstated original research, were warned about it and reverted it, and then reinstated it again. This is far worse than a lost of behavior I've seen sanctioned here. You're right that an isolated incident may not be worth a sanction under normal circumstances; but that's only when we have some indication that it is an isolated incident, ie that it won't be repeated. Crawford88 hasn't even recognized problematic behavior here. Vanamonde (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Crawford88
The two separate edits for which Vanamonde93 is crying foul are:
'Allegation by media and Church organizations for a case involving a nun's rape and church vandalism': This case has gathered heavy mainstream attention and elections were fought over this issue calling it the tyranny by Hindu nationalist Sangh Parivar and BJP.[1][2][3][4] The allegation by Vanamonde93 that the source only talks about "defaming a government and a country" is utter falsehood, as it specifically says, "Far from being a Hindutva foot soldier, as the CBCI, the media, commentators and the opposition had alleged, the man was a Muslim and, that too, a Bangladeshi!".
'A certain talk show hosted by Tony Brown': This not so relevant in India, but for American Hindus, this incident's importance can be gathered by the documentation of this event in various books and journals.[5] including the seminal Encyclopedia of African American History.[6] WLS - AM 890 is a powerful and influential radio in US over 90 years old in which Brown expressed his anti-Hindu views.
But, as this is an AE proceeding, the things I said about, which ideally should have been part of the discussions on the specific page's talk page discussion, are not relevant. This proceeding is a gross misuse of administrative privileges of
jumps straight into threatening me of an AE proceeding (which to his credit he did). This is what (s)he's claiming to be constructive feedback, "blatant original research, non-neutral wording, and dodgy sources." without any specific instances or reasons.
Highhandedness by Wiki moderators and administrators will only reduce the already waning credibility of Wikipedia in being neutral and welcoming of new editors and users. Crawford88 (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The example given by Vanamonde93 may be part of a pattern. I come across Crawford88 from time to time and have often thought them to be at best an apologist for Hindutva and at worst an outright proponent of it. Nothing wrong with holding an opinion, of course, but when one's political etc philosophy becomes self-evident in one's edits across a range of articles then it suggests that neutral editing is unlikely to be at the forefront. Recent examples include a spat (with associated edit warring) at Talk:Koenraad_Elst#Feb,_2018 and unexplained removals of categories relating to far-right politics in India around 18 April, eg here and here. Let's not make any bones about it: Hindu nationalism is regularly described as a fascist philosophy and anyone who thinks otherwise is going to have to work hard to support their opinion. We are not censored; Crawford88 should not be censoring. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Crawford88
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
@Vanamonde93:, as presented, this doesn't seem to be AE actionable unless you can document a pattern of POV editing in the area. @Crawford88:, bringing an issue to AE is not an admin action and is in no way a gross or otherwise "misuse of administrative privileges". I suggest you tone down your rhetoric, otherwise you're only supporting the complaint brought against you. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, this was a community sanction which replaced an expired or expiring ArbCom sanction. I will take it to ANI. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning DanaUllman
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
, an article in the alternative medicine topic area and also potentially related to his business (he uses a radionics machine). He has been allowed to make comments regarding his own biography, but that has now been deleted.
His edit history speaks for itself. The only time he strays from promoting homeopathy is when he is promoting himself. That is what he does off-wiki, as is his right. He has no such right here, and his editing history has been consistently problematic. The only topic in which he is interested, is one where he may not edit, and he has consistently tested and pushed beyond the boundaries of that ban. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by DanaUllman
Statement by (username)
Statement by Spartaz
this is the link for the closed discussion confirming the sanction. Curiously, the tban is a community sanction reimposing the arbcom tban. Buggered if I know whether its out of scope as a community not arbitration sanction or not.
Per the 2012 Arbcom motion, it appears that Homeopathy sanctions were rolled into Pseudoscience. So this enforcement request should be handled as if it was asking for Pseudoscience enforcement. The 2012 motion was in effect dropping sanctions in some areas such as Gibraltar but for other topics, such as Cold Fusion and Homeopathy, it was reshuffling them under new headers. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning DanaUllman
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
To the extent that a violation of a community topic ban is alleged, AE does not enforce community sanctions. To the extent that enforcement of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy is requested, the request does not make clear which specific remedy of that decision is to be enforced here, and why.
But to the extent that discretionary sanctions may be requested, I would support a topic ban from the topic of Dana Ullman to stop the attempts at self-promotion. Sandstein 06:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz
Editors directed to
WP:RSN to discuss Chodakiewicz. GizzyCatBella directed to write Icewhiz's name properly and reminded that communications on the English-language Wikipedia need to be in English. --NeilNtalk to me 13:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Icewhiz
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
The editor acted in a troublesome manner by targeted removal of references to the particular historian (
Marek Chodakiewicz
- a living person) on 12 different E. Europe related articles. Seldom in a threshold of 2 minutes in between edits. These appear to be thoughtless edits in a sole purpose of removing the historian as a source.
05:02, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Invasion of Poland with hitting edit summary -> "not about the invasion itself, questionable author, doesn't seem to be used here"
07:00, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Cursed soldiers with beating edit summary -> "highly biased author making a very contentious claim - that should at the least be attributed, but probably doesn't merit inclusion"
12:20, 8 May 2018 Removed source to Chodakiewicz @ Przytyk pogrom with edit summary -> "Fringe view, not lede worthy, particularly since some of it is sourced to a bl"
discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [15]. Also several times commented [16]
, they are well informed of the sanctions.
Alerted also about discretionary sanctions in the other area of conflict [17]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
On March 8 the editor
Marek Chodakiewicz
in a profoundly critical fashion.
Edits continued until today. [19] Then On May 8th, they went into a frenzy cruse removing any reference to Chodakiewcz from 12 separate Poland and the Holocaust articles under false or no valid justifications at all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Icewhiz
I have indeed been reviewing use of Chodakiewicz as a source - going over most of the uses of him on enwiki. Chodakiewicz is a highly
WP:BIASED
source (more below) even when writing in a peer-reviewed reviewed setting. While some of his writings have been published academically (in journals and more reputable publishers), much of what he writes is not published academically - varying from non-academic publishers, Polish newspapers of a particular bent, and his various blogs. I am willing to defend each and every one of those diffs if needed (and I'll note - GCB hasn't bothered to discuss) - in some cases I removed highly-biased statements that were made in Wikipedia's voice while representing a rather fringe view, in others I removed sourcing to blog posts, and in a few cases - I removed information that wasn't even in the cited source. It has been my impression that when editors resort to using a source such as Chodakiewicz - there are often other problems involved (both NPOV and V).
Besides being a historian, he's also a far-right activist.Newsweek 2017 For instance he's appeared in a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy and said: "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!".videoNewsweek.
He's been covered by the SPLC (2009, 2017) and HopeNothate. Coverage in Newsweek.[[21]. You may read these for his views on gays, multiculturalism, Obama, genocide and whites in South Africa, Jewish communist collaboration, use of Rivers of blood, etc. Adam Michnik has gone so far as to compare his writings to the Protocols.[22]
In an academic setting, he's been described in a historiography source as the "most extreme spectrum in what is considered the contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing"[23]. You might see more with this search in these two books: [24][25]. His recent book, Intermarium, as been described in a review in a peer reviewed journal as promoting the return of the pre-1772 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book".[26]. Piotr Wróbel and Antony Polonsky have also critiqued him, with Wrobel saying "The book under review has a visible political agenda and is written in a language full of politically loaded key words. Everyone whose opinions are different than Chodakiewicz’s is a “pundit” (the author’s favorite word). Some, and this is really bad, are “leftist pundits." and "The Massacre is, in my opinion, difficult to read, unoriginal, irritating, and unconvincing" and Polonsky saying "It does not rise above the clichés of old-fashioned national apologetics" and "What is most striking about this book is the lack of empathy with those caught up in these tragic events."[27]. I could go on.... Suffice to say that academic works by Chodakiewicz have been criticized quite a bit.
Reviewing use of sources is what we do on Wikipedia - per
WP:BLP given we were falsely ascribing a statement to Chodakiewicz.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Boomerang proposal: GizzyCatBella repeatedly introducing information from a self-published book by a questionable author that was refuted
They've also, in a manner that seems intentional, been using "Itzewitz" (and variations thereof - as opposed to my user name) to refer to me,[33][34][35] going back almost a month.[36] which seems disrespectful and possibly
The disputing editors should open a discussion on the
Reliable sources noticeboard if they cannot come to a consensus on the talk page.BTW, not to say "I told you so", but in the recent ANI scuffle about this topic area, I suggested that all the warring editors should be topic-banned from these articles under ARBEE, but no one was interested in doing so. This is not going to stop, the positions are too entrenched, and it's eventually going to end up in a full-blown Arbitration case, simply because admins wouldn't take positive action to control the subject area. This calls into question the effectiveness of discretionary sanctions if no one is willing to utilize them. I believe this situation to be a rare case of the failure of effective administration. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Icewhiz
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This looks like a content dispute about whether this Chodakiewicz is appropriate as a source. Because arbitration and by extension AE does not decide content disputes, I would take no action here. Sandstein 06:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with others above that RSN is the place to discuss the validity of a source. Unless that question has been resolved, there is nothing behavioural to deal with here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page restriction for infobox addition and infobox discussion at Stanley Kubrick
I'm not sure whether page restrictions have ever been placed per the "Civility in infobox discussions" discretionary sanctions, so I thought I'd ask uninvolved admins here before I try it. There's been a long-running war about whether or not to have an infobox at Stanley Kubrick, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again on the talkpage, and with an infobox being repeatedly added to the article, and then promptly removed. The last explicit consensus on the matter (=no infobox) was back in 2015. I'm considering placing the following page restriction:
"You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, until the general infobox RfC is finished, or before 9 September 2018, whichever comes first, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Not an elegant sentence, but
Template:Ds/editnotice
is extremely constraining. (Note: mention of the general infobox RfC will be removed per below.)
The template will also automatically add this text in smaller font: "An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision." [There are various links in the text also.] And I thought I'd also add a comment from myself at the bottom of the page, to explain that if people break the restriction it's most likely because they haven't seen it (the top of the page is dominated in the usual way by a mass of, to me, uninteresting wikiprojects information that makes it unlikely anything else will be noticed or read, but I digress), and they shouldn't be dragged immediately to AE, but politely told about the restriction and asked to self-revert. Plus I'll also explain where to appeal against the restriction, namely, here on AE.
My rationale is that we shouldn't abandon articles and contributors to endless bickering, but put the new discretionary sanctions to use, as I assume ArbCom intended when they set them. The general infobox RfC at the Village Pump has run into the sands and nobody seems up for closing it, which I don't wonder at. God, no. There was an unsuccessful attempt within that RfC to set a limit of six months for starting yet another infobox discussion on an article talkpage. As you can see, I'm offering a restriction of four months on Talk:Stanley Kubrick, where yet another straw poll has just started and been closed, after there was one in early April... Thoughts? Pinging Laser brain, who just posted an appeal for an infobox discussion break on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Bishonen | talk 07:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Francis Schonken: but I'm only proposing it forStanley Kubrick. I'll admit I hope it'll be the thin end of the wedge and lead to comparable page restrictions being placed on other articles with a troubled infobox history, but I'm not proposing it as a "default", nor do I have any notion very many articles will need any kind of infobox restriction. Note that my wording says "nor add an infobox to the article", which you have left out in both yours. It's quite an important part. For some other pages, with different histories and consensuses, one would presumably say "nor remove the infobox from the article". Also, I really want a date, rather than a generalized "within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed", with its rich opportunities for lawyering. ('But it was closed by a non-admin!' 'But it was archived by a disruptive editor!') Also, the expiry parameter in your first suggestion doesn't work — I suppose the template doesn't have it. But I do appreciate the attempts to improve the wording. My proposal is certainly clumsy. (The template insists it must begin with "You" and end with "and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page", so it's quite the Procrustean bed.) Bishonen | talk 09:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@NeilN: I have to be frank: I'm not well-read enough in general infobox discussions (because I kind of can't stand reading them) to know whether infobox disruption is confined to IPs and SPAs. That's one of the reasons reason I'd rather not bundle an extended-confirmed restriction with the other stuff on Stanley Kubrick. Also, it's an ingenious idea that would certainly sort part of the problem, but wouldn't it more be a suggestion for the general Village Pump RfC? Have you considered adding it there? Or is that RfC considered defunct? I mean, nothing against Good Day's talkpage, but how widely read is it? Bishonen | talk 14:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Francis Schonken: The Village Pump RfC has been put out of its misery? Good. That'll make it simpler, since its closing statement is no help (not the closer's fault, that, for sure). Then I'll just say "You must not start another infobox discussion here, nor add an infobox to the article, before", uhh.. "10 September 2018, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page." Neat. A bit of luck it didn't get closed a few hours after I'd posted the restriction. Thanks for telling me. Bishonen | talk 16:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Discussion concerning the page restrictions
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Francis
Don't know whether any of these variants would be less convoluted:
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not start a new discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not re-initiate discussion on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after a previous discussion mentioning that topic has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}
@Bishonen: oops, sorry, was only trying to get rid of the awkward time management formulation – new suggestions:
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article, nor start a new discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article,|topic=cid|expiry=9 September 2018}}
{{Ds/editnotice|1=should not add an infobox to[, nor remove an infobox from,] this article without consensus establised by a [[WP:ANRFC|formally closed]] discussion, nor should you re-initiate discussion on this talk page on whether or not to include an infobox in this article within four months after any previous discussion mentioning that topic on this talk page has been archived or formally closed,|topic=cid}}
... or some such ... (omit the text in square brackets for Stanley's article). Anyway, support the initiative FWIW. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: the infobox RfC is closed now, so your original wording (I mean, its proposed time-schedule) would be a non-starter when introduced now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Laser brain
I think this is a good idea. I've informally requested on the article talk page that it be given a break multiple times, but there is no sign of a stoppage of the series of proposals. Good-faith editors who are completely unaware of the history stumbling onto the page are one thing, but Hentheden, byteflush, and Siliconred have each opened proposals in the last two months with full awareness of the rocky road the article's been on for several months. It is becoming disruptive and I'd like to see some calm on this page. --Laser brain(talk) 14:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning the page restriction
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Sounds like a good use of DS to me. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen, this may be more controversial but you (and other admins placing editing restrictions) may want to restrict who can start such discussions on certain articles. I suggested this here. There are people out there who use IPs and sock accounts who don't really care about infoboxes but will start arguments about them just to stir up drama and poke at certain editors. I'm not saying the extended-confirmed restriction should be automatically be bundled in with your restriction, but rather considered as an option for certain articles. --NeilNtalk to me 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Probably impossible to get community consensus on this and admins have leeway to judiciously apply whatever restrictions they see fit. Note I'm not suggesting restricting newer editors from participating in re-litigation but just from starting discussions. I know I'll be adding that restriction if I apply moratoriums on discussions. --NeilNtalk to me 14:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting as an admin, this is exactly why we applied DS to the topic area. My only suggestion is that you don’t tie this to a specific RfC, which is somewhat arbitrary. I’d just do two or three months from the last discussion closure and leave it at that. ~ Rob13Talk 15:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: Agree with Rob but largely for pessimistic reasons: I don't think that a large community RfC is likely to definitively resolve this issue, and tying it to that is unlikely to be helpful down the road (where even if the community resolves one issue, another is likely to occur, as they tend to.) I would suggest something like No discussions may be initiated about an infobox for at least 90 days after the close of a previous discussion. I'm neutral on the EC requirement Neil suggests. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, noting I saw the close after I read Bish's original proposal and Rob's response. Yeah, the RfC just reinforced the status quo, so I stand by my comment above. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
90 days is way too short, IMO. We'd be having the same damnfuitful conversation four times a year. --NeilNtalk to me 21:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
180 days? 365 days? I don't particularly care, but I think it should be an ongoing DS and not just a one-off until September. This reminds me a bit of the Sarah Jane Brown RM where we did a 2 year moratorium. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is September may be about the right time to try to do without the restriction — then, if the situation degenerates again, restore the restriction. After all, the infobox question isn't the heart and soul of the article; it's not like the kind of conflict that keeps Donald Trump eternally under page restrictions; people may conceivably forget the infobox issue once they've had a rest from it. But I'm not married to September, or any particular time. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Fair point, and its worth an initial try that way as this would be a first of it's kind. It's not exactly like page level restrictions are difficult to impose. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) with Tony: And as for having the same footful (fateful?) conversation four times a year, NeilN, why should we? It's only because the very notion of a page restriction per the infobox case ds is new (to me at least) that I took it here in the first place; for the future it's the kind of thing I'd just do, as surely would most admins. Bishonen | talk 22:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: We're talking about different conversations. Tony suggested a moratorium on article talk page discussions lasting 90 days. That would mean infobox discussions could start up four times a year. I would just apply a "fire and forget" restriction: New discussions cannot be opened until a year has passed after the close of the last discussion. --NeilNtalk to me 22:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll close this soon, since I've received plenty of good advice; thank you all very much. I note that several people seem to prefer a time-scale something on the lines of "no infobox discussion until at least 90 days after a previous discussion has been archived/closed," rather than a set date. I just think a date is less susceptible to wikilawyering, per above. The disadvantage is that it will become obsolete, but, well, then it can be re-applied if still needed. I'd so much like to see a simple page restriction which needs no Kremlinology to interpret it, so I'm going with the set date to save all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 08:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Theres a historic disapproval of arbitrators commenting at AE, but whatever: per my comment at your talk page, belated pile-on support for this appropriate use of infobox DS, and agree that a set date restriction is preferable. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GizzyCatBella
Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | talk 08:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning GizzyCatBella
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
alert.dup. Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
(+given sanction +filed case on 9 May on ARBEE).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
WP:POINTy DS alert in violation of alert.dup, particularly that given their own AE filing today - GizzyCatBella was asserting I was aware of the sactions.Icewhiz (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
In addition - this edit by GCB at 16:25, 9 May 2018 (concurrent to filing) is a BLP violation as well as contrary to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba - consensus (by uninvovled editors) at RSN was that if this were to be included - it had to be attributed to the Polish ambassador in Poland - this is a right wing internet portal reporting on the Polish ambassador to Switzerland's facebook post - which is used to make a stmt in our voice on what Grabowski did - Subsequently, Grabowski acknowledged that his estimate was not the result of original research, but was based on referencing works of other historians, most notably Szymon Datner, and as reported by the Polish newspaper wPolityce: "Grabowski admitted that the number of 250,000 fugitives from the ghettos is based solely on his own estimates and selective treatment of Szymon Datner's works. Grabowski simply took into account the maximum number of escapes from the ghetto suggested by Datner, but he rejected his estimates of the number of survivors. According to Grabowski—if you subtract the number of survivors (in his opinion only 50,000 people) from the number of fugitives, you will get 200,000. Grabowski, therefore, stated that this was the number of Jews murdered by Poles.".Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CIR regarding policy and finding the previous alert (which is not that hard to find).Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I know you are aware of this but I couldn't find any record of you being properly informed about it in the past. So here you go, now it is official for easy reference.
If I could find the alert and I knew that it had existed already I would refer to it yesterday ->[38] I didn't because I couldn't find it and wrote this instead:
User filed (@ least twice) a call for
discretionary sanctions himself, latest on May 7, 2018 [39]. Also several times commented [40]
, they are well informed of the sanctions.
It's evident that I honestly missed the alert when I was looking for it, and I was honestly thinking that I'm doing the proper thing.[41]
User Icewhiz instead has chosen to retaliate and possibly take revenge for me filing a complaint against him yesterday. He could have just told me about the fact that he already has been informed instead of coming here. I would remove the template. His hostile attitude is very troublesome.GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS to the "In addition" it refers to this conversation on the talk page [42] and not to what they claim. This is what I wrote : [43] I advise any uninvolved administrator taking a closer look at editing record of Icewhiz(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) at Poland related articles to have a proper judgment of the alarming conduct. Please let me know if it is mattering and you need to hear my further rationale. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Admin. Additions to this report of bogus infringements resemble Icewhiz behavior while editing the articles. Stance ALWAYS uncompromised and threatening, changes radical, often turning the narrative of the articles by 180 degrees. Edit summaries are often misleading. If challenged, responds with walls of confusing text, full of "TLDR, BLP, ARBEE, RSN, PPP, WCH, PCHRT, etc." abbreviations to create an appearance of credibility. I invite you guys to have a look at his edit history if you have time and energy for this of course, if not I understand. Until last month I was excited that I can dedicate my free time to build this great project, but I have to tell you that my enthusiasm is slowly evaporating.GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning GizzyCatBella
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Am I reading this right? Icewhiz, are you asking for GizzyCatBella to be sanctioned for giving you a discretionary sanctions alert when you had already been given one by another editor? The earlier alert was in March, I see. Seriously? Your quote "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned" means people may be sanctioned if they issue alerts over and over. If they pester and harass you with them. Not for making a mistake once! I bet that has happened to lots of people. It happened to me last month. Please use common sense. I see you also bring up another diff in an "additional comment", but I have some trouble understanding that one. If that diff is actually the meat of your complaint, please try to reformulate it in a more pedagogical way. If it's not, you had better withdraw the complaint about the extra alert before an admin sanctions you for posting a "groundless or vexatious complaint", per the notice on this page. Bishonen | talk 22:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Unhelpful report. It doesn't tell us what is supposed to be wrong with these alerts. The Grabowski stuff looks like a content dispute. I would take no action. Sandstein 05:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rafe87
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Rafe87
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Moreover, the section of anti-Arabism in Israel falls into ARBPIA. Therefore, per third bullet of ARBPIA, if an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. User was supposed to wait at least 24 hours after my revert before reinserting his disputed content full of POV-pushing, unreliable sources, labels and Op-Eds. But a mere 14 hours later he restored it anyway.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Rafe87
Statement by Shrike
NeilN This is correct but now that he know.He have a chance to self revert.--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think in general everyone should have a chance to self-revert especially if its 1RR--Shrike (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TheGracefulSlick
GoldenRing this editor has been blocked for edit warring, been brought to AE before for 1RR, and warned about 1RR several times over. How many more can/should be afforded to them before we understand that they are ineffective?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NeilN I had a dull moment. I was looking at the diffs like יניב הורון was the one being reported. Since this looks like the editor's first warning, disregard my previous statement.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Rafe87
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
יניב הורון, as far as I can see, these edits came before the mandatory discretionary sanctions alert and Raf87 has not edited since. Is that correct? --NeilNtalk to me 13:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Shrike:Not really as they stopped editing before the alert and their edit has already been reverted. Looked at wrong article. I'll wait for a statement from Rafe87. --NeilNtalk to me 13:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression also - I'd close this with a warning against future 1RR / 24h violations. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Though a quick look through this user's edits is not impressive. This and this is pretty naked canvassing; this edit is pretty clear retaliation for this. There's some good editing in there as well, but I'd advise them to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Capitals00
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
[45] The block log shows a history of blocks for edit war, disruptive and tendentious editing.
If
discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [46]
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has a tradition of accusing any editors he has disagreements with to be ″incompetent″, abusing
incivility. There's a lot of bad-faith comments and ad hominem personal attacks coming from him. The environment this user is creating throughout the project, regardless of topic area, is unhealthy for Wikipedia editing. The block log shows that this historic behaviour is not improving. Which is why I think a very long block is in order. I am going to invite administrator Sandstein who dealt with a similar case with similar users to take a survey of these cases. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Response to Capitals00 by JosephusOfJerusalem
Well lets see your defense case. It has not yet been decided by the administrators at Copyright problems/2018 May 10 that there have definitely been copyright violations yet your
it does not matter what consensus is or not until it has been reached. You were making accusations of incompetence and generally incivil replies while discussion was ongoing.
Now for your offense case, which is a classic deraiment which cannot justify your misconduct (read
WP:CANVASSING
.
Again read
WP:BRD
in your edit summary.
Response to Raymond3023 by JosephusOfJerusalem
You have not addressed any of Capitals00's misconduct. Rather you have engaged in
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Capitals00
Looks like JosephusOfJerusalem is back to his usual modus operandi by filing frivolous report on this board to get rid of his opponents like he has also done before.
10 diffs from last 4 months is all he got? When you are wasting time of majority of editors by going against consensus and engaging in disruption, you just can't expect other editors not to cite
WP:CIR is not a personal attack, because that page is "an explanatory supplement to the disruptive editing guideline" per community consensus.[65] Much of the diffs here comes from Talk:Siachen conflict
where consensus was to include what I supported. Why you can't show diffs where I was going against consensus or I had been problematic and had no consensus for edits?
JosephusOfJerusalem has always engaged in personal attacks:-
"page was quite stable until 30 April when a sleeper account" [66] (referring a long term editor as "sleeper")
"People who have battles to fight and socks in contact will have the L-RD" [67]
"bad faith warning by a disruptive editor on the verge of being blocked" [70]
And rest of the diffs of this report and below one comes from
WP:IDHT
.
In a separate incident from February 2018, he was arguing against 4 editors and alleging of them failure of "WP:LISTEN" and engagement in "WP:CANVASSING", ""WP:DISRUPTION".[73][74] It shows that he resorts to falsely allege others of misconduct only because he is not getting consensus for his POV.
He had been also warned by
WP:GAMING. JosephusOfJerusalem suspiciously removed that message.[76]
I would request an indefinite topic ban on JosephusOfJerusalem per evidence above as well as for the following:-
WP:CANVASS: Canvassed multiple editors to help him in his edit war by restoring his preferred version.[83][84][85]
WP:CIR: Defending copyright violations as noted above. Misrepresentation of "WP:STATUSQUO on talk pages, by restoring new edits that have no consensus.[86][87]
Ironic to see an offensive editor, editing with a battleground mentality, often assuming bad faith and demonstrating significant competence issues is talking about "civility".
These two reports are result of the failure of JosephusOfJerusalem to get his preferred non-consensus version of Princely state protected after trying hard for it.[91][92][93][94]
It is fair to say that JOJ is a case of
WP:NOTHERE
, since he is mostly engaging in ethnic POV battles, similar to "Towns Hill" (a banned sockmaster).
JOJ's failure to understand copyrights, STATUSQUO, and misrepresentation other relevant policies while mass canvassing other editors with the hopes that he would receive some support for his frivolous report shows that having him topic banned or blocked indefinitely would be best for us. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MBlaze Lightning
This is frivolous complaint; there is nothing in the diffs which would even remotely constitute "personal attacks". Also, it is worth mentioning that the majority of the diffs in question are months old—some of them dates back to February, 20 i.e. they are stale. Things get heated up in these subjects, especially when you are dealing with clear
WP:IDHT
, but there is nothing sanctionable.
JosephusOfJerusalem comments demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of the very policies that he citing, not to mention his gross battleground mentality as is evident from his comments here and elsewhere. I also agree with the above comments that JosephusOfJerusalem is desperately trying to get the editors with an opposite POV topic banned so that he could push his POV in peace. And not long ago, JosephusOfJerusalem has filed a similar frivolous report against another established editor.[95]
If JosephusOfJerusalem perceives comments like, "You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself" as "WP:PERSONALATTACK", then he's clearly demonstrating incompetency. He does not even know when to indent and when to outdent his comments,[96][97] so he should not be astonished when an established editor points him to
WP:CIR
.
What's more striking is that these filings are strongly reminiscent of filings of socks of
that he had himself started and cited same type of evidence that JosephusOfJerusalem has cited here as well as attempted to canvass dozens of editors just like JosephusOfJerusalem is doing here.
Similarities between Sardeeph and JosephusOfJerusalem are just more than that. There is a clear case of
WP:DUCK
.
Sardeeph filed two AE reports, against me and Kautilya3 on 30 July.[99][100]
And today JosephusOfJerusalem filed two AE reports, against Capitals00 and D4iNa4.
Even the notification left by JosephusOfJerusalem and Sardeeph are totally same:
Sardeeph was indeffed on 20 October 2017. JosephusOfJerusalem registered on 18 October but made his first article space edit on 31 October.[103] I see no doubt that JosephusOfJerusalem is a sock of Sardeeph and he should be blocked for his block evasion. MBlaze Lightningtalk 13:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Result concerning Capitals00
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
D4iNa4
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning D4iNa4
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [105]
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has pretty much the same incivility issues as
Capitals00 above. Which is why I have decided to report both together since the problems in both cases are identical. They contribute to boiling our editing environment with hatred and vitriol. And there is just no sign that this is not going to continue. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by D4iNa4
Statement by Capitals00
Just like the above one, this is a frivolous complaint filed only because JosephusOfJerusalem is failing to get consensus for his POV. Neither report discuss any problematic editing, but only misrepresents general criticism as "personal attack".
diff is just a response to personal attacks, canvassing and derailing carried out by other editor.[107][108][109]
diff is 100% correct. "False allegations" is rather a civil way to describe the comment that claims other editor in line with WP:BRD to be engaging in "
diff is again correct. When your opponent is engaging in
WP:DE
.
diff is unnecessary and non sanctionable because it was discussion of a conduct of a user in ANI.
Given this is a revenge complaint filed by JosephusOfJerusalem only to get rid of the far more experienced and competent editor who happens to be his opponent. I would recommend admins to read the evidence I have provided above and simply solve the problem by sanctioning JosephusOfJerusalem for his long term disruption.
