Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:35, 5 June 2019

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a
contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator
,

request contentious topic restrictions against

previously alerted

editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,

request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

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

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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;

request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and

submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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.

Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the
talk page
.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Grayfell

Not actionable. El_C 04:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Grayfell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sinuthius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Grayfell (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/Race_and_intelligence#Editors_reminded_and_discretionary_sanctions_(amended) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Biographies_of_living_persons

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

26 April, 29 April - Adding an out-of-place comment in the bibliography of the Michael A. Woodley of Menie, Yr. article, based on a false statement about the identity of the publisher of Woodley's monograph "The Rhythm of the West". Its actual publisher is given at WorldCat.
30 April - The same as the previous two edits, but with the correct publisher. However, there is another problem: the cited SPLC source does not mention Woodley, and no reliable sources have directly criticized Woodley for using a low-quality publisher for this monograph. Note that on a different BLP article, Grayfell had removed positive sources with the justification that the only sources that could be used are those that specifically mention the article's subject.
29 April - Original synthesis, implying that the author of this book used his position on the journal's editorial board to secure a positive review, although no sources make that argument. Grayfell's only source for this statement was the journal's editorial board page on the relevant date at archive.org.
6 March, 24 May, 25 May - Similar to the previous example, on the Heiner Rindermann article.
25 May, 26 May - These edits cite a reliable source, but misrepresent what the source says. Grayfell's edits say that Woodley "helped to organize the London Conference on Intelligence, a conference on eugenics secretly held at University College London", but what the source says is that Woodley attended the London Conference on Intelligence, and helped to organize conferences for the International Society for Intelligence Research. The International Society for Intelligence Research is a much more respectable conference than the London Conference on Intelligence, so claiming that Woodley helped to organize LCI rather than ISIR is a severe misrepresentation.
28 May - After his change to the Woodley article was reverted a second time, Grayfell changed "helped to organize" to "participated in", but it's still inappropriate to state in Wikipedia's voice that eugenics was a focus of the conference. Other sources have mentioned that only two of the conference's 75 presentations were about eugenics, and this was previously pointed out to Grayfell here.

If WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts )

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months: 4 January

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am making this report following the discussion here, at the suggestion of an editor who can't make a report because he doesn't have an account. Grayfell has a pattern of making edits that violate the strict sourcing requirements for statements about living people, particularly on articles about living people related to the race and intelligence controversy. Aside from the examples given above, a longer-term example of the problem is his pattern of edits to the Gerhard Meisenberg article:

On 25 July, Grayfell heavily modified the article and added several negative statements. The following month, the article was tagged as an attack page. [1] In response to the tag, two editors, user:GB_fan and User:Narssarssuaq, attempted to restore balance to the article. [2] [3] [4] Both of these users' changes were subsequently undone by Grayfell, restoring the article to the version that had been tagged as an attack page. [5] [6] From August 2018 until the end of last year, Grayfell also reverted seven other edits by various users attempting to correct the same issues. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

On 6 May, the article was tagged as an attack page a second time. [14] The second tagging led to the article being raised at the BLP noticeboard, and to an argument on the talk page between Grayfell and an IP editor. Based on the IP's analysis of the article's sources, a large portion of the negative material Grayfell had been restoring was cited to sources that do not mention Meisenberg, despite Grayfell's argument on the Seymour Itzkoff article that sources must mention the article's subject. This discussion led to the material in the Meisenberg article finally being removed without Grayfell restoring it, after having stayed in that article for almost a year.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources says, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion", but Grayfell is making that policy impossible to follow with his habit of repeatedly restoring this material when other users attempt to remove it. According to the IP's statements here and here, the material added by Grayfell has had real-life consequences for the subject of one of these articles. This situation seems to recur on a different article every few weeks, so I request that admins please find a long-term solution to the problem.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grayfell&diff=899399167&oldid=899384616

Discussion concerning Grayfell

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 Grayfell

Line by line:

For the first two: One book's own contributors also lists Scott-Townsend Publishers. According to Scott Townsend Publisher's website, it is the publishing division of the "Council for Social and Economic Studies", which is puts out the
Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies. All of these are part of Roger Pearson's publishing outfit. I maintain that as an encyclopedia, we should indicate to researchers when they are dipping into the fringes. The SPLC documents
Pearson's activity, if that was an issue. Other editors feel it's sufficient indicate this in links to the articles on these publishers.

For the frequency of favorable reviews in Intelligence, the otherwise respectable outlet's reputation as a safe-harbor for this is well-documented by sources, specifically regarding Lynn and Meisenberg.[15][etc.]
I did make an error in saying that Woodley helped organize the London conference, which as mentioned, I corrected. As for the source which mentions that "only two" of the conference's presentations were about eugenics, this is the same letter, written by attendees, which is already mentioned in the article. This letter was organized by Woodley (again published in Intelligence) in response to the multiple reliable sources which discussed the conference's focus on race and intelligence. Calling this conference "controversial" seems confusing and euphemistic to me, and since many sources have discussed its connection to eugenics, or even just called it a "eugenics conference",[16][17](etc) I think it's appropriate to use plain language to explain the issue.
As for Meisenberg, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmeisenberg. Using the "additional comments" section as an expansion pack to the 500 char limit makes it tedious for me to respond to any specific issue without giving it more weight than is justified. If there are any questions, I will answer them.

Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the IP: Your insistence that an account would be too much of a commitment is starting to ring hollow. At this point I think that by avoiding making an account, you are avoiding scrutiny and accountability.

I do not know why Meisenberg stopped working at that school, or at Mankind. Provide sources on the article's talk page, please.

The behavior you are describing from others falls under

WP:MEAT

. Regardless, reliable sources still overrule first-hand knowledge.

While it may be convenient to make me a boogieman, several of the people you mention did not revert me, and were not reverted by me. You have also left-out many of the people who have supported these changes. Notifying sympathetic editors while ignoring unsympathetic ones seems to be part of a pattern, but it's

WP:CANVASSing

regardless.

If you are satisfied with the current status of Meisenberg's article... what, exactly, is the problem here? I recognize that consensus has led to the current wording, even if I do not fully agree with it. I could go into why, but this isn't the place for that, is it?

Regardless, Meisenberg placed his name on the letterheads of these controversial organizations. As an encyclopedia, we must what reflect what sources say about his actions, and the consequences of his actions. In this situation, ignoring sources and favoring euphemistic language would be a form of advocacy. That is no more appropriate than what you are accusing me of doing. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pudeo: These unsupported aspersions are insulting to everyone here. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ahrtoodeetoo

I'm not familiar with all of the policy issues involved, but this request should be closed immediately because it seems inappropriate for one editor to proxy for another here. Among the underlying issues is the fact that
R2 (bleep) 19:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I struck my comment about possible block evasion. The IP is correct, the one whom Awilley accused of block evasion was someone from Los Angeles, while this one is from the Knoxville, Tennessee area. Sorry for the mix-up.
R2 (bleep) 23:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by IP editor

I'm the IP editor who requested for this report to be made. (Note that the IP mentioned by R2, who was accused of being a banned editor, was a different IP editor located several hundred miles from me.) There is an important reason I think this issue goes beyond a content dispute. Even in cases where Grayfell's views about sourcing are opposed by almost everyone else (as they have been on the Woodley article), his practice of restoring his changes whenever they're undone makes it extremely difficult to undo them permanently.
On the Gerhard Meisenberg article, Grayfell restored his material after it was removed by six different users: User:GB_fan, User:Narssarssuaq, user:WalterNeumann, user:Ermaneric, user:Yucahu, and user:Evangw29114. In his response above, Grayfell justified his actions by linking to an investigation where one of these users, Yucahu, was eventually blocked as a sockpuppet. None of the others appear to have been sockpuppets.
Above Grayfell stated, "several of the people you mention did not revert me, and were not reverted by me", so here's a summary with diffs. Ermaneric removes material, Grayfell restores it. WalterNeumann removes material, Grayfell restores it. GB fan removes material, Grayfell restores it. Narssarssuaq removes material, Grayfell restores it. Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it, Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it, Yucahu removes material, Grayfell restores it. Evangw29114 removes material, Grayfell restores it, Evangw29114 removes material, Grayfell restores it.
Based on my discussions about this article with Dr. Meisenberg, I think I know why so many new users showed up on the article during that period. After Meisenberg lost his job because of the material Grayfell added to that article, the effects that this article had on him in real life became widely-known among Meisenberg's colleagues and former students, and several of them made attempts at bringing the article into compliance with BLP policy. However, all of those attempts were foiled by Grayfell, until I finally accomplished it earlier this month.
One of the arbitration rulings linked to by Sinuthius [18] says: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.
What happened on the Meisenberg article seems to be exactly the situation that this ruling was designed to prevent. Grayfell has not acknowledged any problem with his actions on that article, and has continued to make similar edits to other BLP articles over the past month, so it's almost inevitable that another living person will eventually be harmed in a similar way. It will be a major failure on Wikipedia's part if nothing is done to prevent that. 2600:1004:B11D:8156:8834:1B10:BB88:F00E (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

There are suspicions that the POV-pushing Grayfell is engaging in coordinated off-site. Check this WMF Labs editor interaction tool comparing Grayfell with a self-identified Gamergate SPA who wants to put other editors "
GamerGate ArbCom Case was about. --Pudeo (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Per the completely unusupported
WP:ASPERSIONS in the above statement by Pudeo, obviously meant to muddy the waters and poison the well, Pudeo should be sanctioned, or, at the very least, warned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, I note that in filing this report, the OP is essentially acting as a proxy for the IP user 2600:1004:B166:CA1D:B902:B86:4B74:256A, as can be seen in this thread on User talk:DGG. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

Interesting that Pudeo refers to purported "suspicions" of off-site coordination as if they are some known quantity, without providing a link to any on-wiki discussions of these purported "suspicions." Is Pudeo's post itself an off-site-coordinated attempt to smear Grayfell? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Grayfell

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

Report is a bit long for my liking, but at a glance, seems worth looking into. I await other respondents. El_C 20:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken is right. Pudeo, please refrain from casting
aspersions. That isn't gonna be tolerated. El_C 01:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

"At the suggestion of" is not exactly acting as a proxy, but it is disconcerting. El_C 01:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Swarm, this is the notification, is it not?~~ Oh an alert. El_C 03:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read the "Additional comments" because they exceed the character limit. Based on the reported diffs, this looks primarily like a content dispute to me, which is not for AE to resolve. Sandstein 21:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without reviewing the merits of the complaint, this is not a valid notification, and Grayfell was not issued a formal notification. Unless there's something else that satisfies the awareness criteria, this will not be actionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the lack of notice, I agree with closing this complaint with no action. This appears to be a dispute about
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Volunteer Marek

Referred to the Arbitration Committee. El_C 18:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, specific policy violations listed below

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

Accusations of extremism

13:11, 28 May 2019 - "Translation: "the lede does not reflect my extremist POV so I'm gonna claim it's "unbalanced" and make
WP:ASPERSIONS
15:06, 18 May 2019 - "Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously" -
WP:NPA

Accusations of racism

18:21, 20 May 2019 - "The source does NOT "tie two phenomena together". You do. It's a COATRACK for the whole disgusting and racist "Poles are anti-semities" POV into this article.".
WP:NPA+ baseless accusation ( Haaretz
does tie).

05:30, 30 May 2019 - "You have been asked REPEATEDLY to stop evaluating sources on the basis of racist ethnic criteria." -
WP:NPOV
. Saying UK/US media have different POV than Polish media, and Polish government stmts/reports - is not "racist".
14:21, 20 May 2019 - "rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations" - BLP (named) and/or NPA.

NPA/ASPERSIONS

06:14, 28 May 2019 - "another spurious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT tag, WP:BATTLEGROUND tag. There's no "over reliance" on anything and your previous objection was addressed, so now you're just trying to make any ol' excuse up" -
WP:WNTRMT
.
04:49, 28 May 2019 - "spurious tag, appears to be WP:STALK of another user and WP:BATTLEGROUND". False accusations, I tagged 3 March + opened
WP:WNTRMT
.
08:34, 28 May 2019 "Sure. When they stop making shit up and derailing discussions"" -
WP:NPA

OR/V

03:22, 25 May 2019 - tags clarify on "they are popular", edit summary - "what does "popular" mean? They're actually pretty rare".
WP:CIR vs. cited sources. Also diff, diff
.

BLP

06:32, 26 May 2019 - restoring
WP:BLPSPS. See Talk:Antony Polonsky#Alleged PDF by Stachura
.

21:58, 26 May 2019 - "*you* are the one violating BLP.", 05:36, 28 May 2019 - "You created a whole section dedicated to attacking OTHER living people" -
WP:ASPERSIONS
- false, others added in 2012.

V/OR/BLP when reinstating content by sockpuppets

Per

WP:PROXYING - "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.". Removal stated sock addition (Loosmark

):

05:43, 30 May 2019. By Matalea. Material not in cited source.
WP:NPA
after queried.
07:00, 30 May 2019 By Stawiski, multiple issues, glaring one: Jew marking in first lede sentence - "Roman Romkowski born Natan Grünspan-Kikiel, (May 22, 1907 – July 1, 1965) was a Polish
WP:NPOV
.
06:43, 30 May 2019 By Matalea. Removal of anti-Jewish violence connection. Reinstated allegedly from ref:^WP:V
.
05:24, 29 May 2019. By FoliesTrévise. Removal of academic sources addressing Belarus. Reinstating poor sources: blog, se.pl tabloid, naukowa.pl bookstore, etc. V issues. BLP issues - stating BLPs wrote something they hadn't. See
WP:BLP

References

ISBN 0-8156-2969-9

ISBN 0-8156-2969-9

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If
WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts
)

alerted 03:44, 23 May 2019 AE appeal 3 March 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Trimmed.Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs above are all actionable at AE - they are mostly simple and very recent conduct violations. This is not an ARBCOM filing (which would focus, perhaps, on very non-mainstream sources VM has introduced/backed over a long period) - this should be actionable here. My interactions vs. VM have been civil and within policy - despite the abuse reported above. All interactions occurred at VM's initiative - showing up at an article I had edited.

VM's diff at AE, coupled with 07:00, 30 May 2019 (reported above) - is deeply concerning, and shows VM does not understand
MOS:ETHNICITY
violation - "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.. Citizenship and religion/ethnic-background are not equivalent on English Wikipedia. This sort of conduct has gotten editors blocked/TBANed very swiftly.

Icewhiz (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
VM reverted content introduced by a sockuppet. The revert clearly stated the concerns - diff - "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues.". In restoring this content - per
WP:PROXYING VM is responsible for it (and should check it carefully for any issues - meaning verifying every source (given he left un-archived deadlinks as sources - including the source for ethnic background, it seems unlikely this happened). The same sockfarm introduced very questionable content elsewhere - describing an anti-Jewish pogrom as something entirely else (lots of sources there too - the text just didn't match the sources) - this content discussed at this AE leading to indef TBAN (reported editor not relevant - solely bringing up to show what Loosmark had been up to in the topic). VM's response here that citizenship is the same as ethnic-background/religion - is a big problem.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:PROXYING he takes "complete responsibility for the content". I will note there are additional issues there beyond just "Jew Marking" - they are more complex to explain (and require examining sources, including some in Polish - most of Loosmark's additions have multiple properly formatted references - some of which are far from RSes, and some others do not support the text next to them (or even contradict the text - e.g. diff #3, which is an English language ref)) - I pointed out "Jew marking here" as this is a glaring red-line conduct issue that is also very easy to see in the diff, and doesn't require content examination. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Admin exercise: How fast do you indef-block a user who modifies
United States Senator from New York...." ? (But one of many conduct issues in VM's edits in the last two weeks - there are 14 other diffs up there on other issues)Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also note - VM's revert at 07:00, 30 May 2019 - was preceded by 06:59, 30 May 2019 on Lozisht (probably responding to ping in Talk:Lozisht#Russian Empire, Second Polish Republic) - 1 minute apart (do we have a timestamp in seconds?). It is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring (in relation to "mostly added by blocked sock. A number of NPOV, MOS, V, and SYNTH issues") in the space of 1 minute. (a pattern repeated elsewhere in his recent contributions). Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:REVERTBAN - "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason ... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." which indicates suspect content by banned editorsmshould be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek

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 Volunteer Marek

It's going to take me some time to properly respond. There's a lot here and I can't respond to it without providing proper context, diffs and examples of Icewhiz's own behavior that my comments are responding too. This dispute has been ongoing for sometime now - it basically started when Icewhiz began editing the topic area. This has been at WP:AE before and Icewhiz recently made an effort at WP:ARBCOM which was soundly rejected. You'll have to give me a bit of time here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really quick, even a cursory look at some diffs shows that it's nonsense and that Icewhiz is blatantly misrepresenting the situation. For example, second diff by Icewhiz [19], Icewhiz claims that my statement "Not even gonna take that extremist nonsense form you seriously" is directed at Dr. Jolanta Ambrosewicz-Jacobs. This is nonsense. The statement is directed at Icewhiz as the word "you" clearly indicates and his repeated derisive characterization of a professional historian and reliable source, P Gontarczyk, as a "radio historian" because... the guy gave an interview on radio [20] (there are more examples of this). That's right, Icewhiz is trying to claim that because a historian gave a radio interview, that makes them unreliable. That itself is a BLP vio - denigrating living people, and Icewhiz has been repeatedly warned about using Wikipedia to attack scholars he disagrees with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: - before I respond in detail, I would like to make a general note that at this point an ArbCom case might very well be necessary. I actually have a very large number of diffs which document extremely problematic behavior from Icewhiz, particularly in regard to BLPs, use of sources, and misleading invocations of policy that spans the last two years which show a clear pattern of conduct. The diffs themselves might go well beyond the word limit at WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: - thanks. With regard to the word limit - There's fifteen diffs here. Icewhiz's request is itself almost 1000 words (about double the allowed limit). It takes a lot more words to respond to an accusation than to make an accusation. It's simple to say "VM accused me of extremism". To respond to that I have to explain WHY I made that accusation, provide supporting evidence, and diffs. There's no way that I can adequately respond with under 500 words. It's unrealistic to ask me to do that. This is part of the reason why I think this might very well belong at ArbCom where a sufficient detail can be provided.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz: " *you* are the one violating BLP..", 05:36, 28 May 2019 - he was here (attacking a scholar he disagrees with) ditto
"You created a whole section dedicated to attacking OTHER living people" - WP:ASPERSIONS - false, created in 2012 by other editors. - the original section may have not been created by Icewhiz but its current shape (at the time of the diff) was constructed by Icewhiz in edits on May 8th [21] (and subsequent) and given its BLP vio title by Icewhiz [22] and here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:MJL thanks. But I'm still at a loss as to what that has to do with this WP:AE report and why Sir Joseph is bringing it up here. He seems to be insinuating some kind of "bad" on my part in that ANI (come on man, if you think I did something wrong, have the guts to come out and say it) but there I made only one comment, in which I actually agreed with Jayjg. I guess if you want to be more precise, in that situation you got one WP:SPA tagging certain "controversial" Polish-Jewish individuals as "Jewish", while Icewhiz on the other hand is running around and trying to tag the same/similar Polish-Jewish individuals as "Polish". My point there was, that in both cases it's kind of ridiculous and WP:TEND, since both individuals ethnicity and citizenship can easily be inferred from the context. The WP:SPA got rightly blocked/banned for this. Why Icewhiz was allowed to get away with the same kind of behavior is a good question indeed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:CPUSH. He says stuff like "the edit is deeply concerning", even bolds it. This "deeply concerning" language insinuates some nefarious bad action on more part, like, you know, Icewhiz, just can't believe that someone would make such an edit. He is deeply concerned. Very very very deeply. Come on! Does anyone seriously believe that he is "deeply concerned" here? Or is he just trying to pretend that a legitimate edit is problematic? What is suppose to be so "deeply concerning"? Icewhiz pretends that in that edit I "marked" a person as Jewish. Nonsense. What I did is undo a blanket revert by Icewhiz of well sourced text. There's six freakin' paragraphs that Icewhiz tried to remove under spurious pretenses. With sources. THAT IS WHY I UNDID IT. But Icewhiz pretends that my edit was something else, that it was all about labeling a person as "Jewish" (in fact I couldn't give a toss). Note that in the edit summary, I specifically requested Icewhiz to address specific concerns on talk. If he really was so "deeply concerned", then he could've said on talk "I don't think the person's ethnicity is relevant here", and I would have agreed. Instead he brought it up here. I'm sorry but there is no other way to describe this kind of misrepresentation except as dishonest. And the whole "deeply concerning" language is a weaselly insinuation which, if I understand correctly what he is trying to imply here, I take very serious offense at. If you want me to state bluntly what I think Icewhiz is trying to accuse-me-while-pretending-not-to-accuse-me off I can be explicit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The content was legit and sourced. The only reason for Icewhiz to blank most of the article is... I don't know. Again, if his issue was with the fact that the article mentioned the subject was Jewish then, as I said, he could've 1) explained that on talk or 2) removed JUST THAT PART. He did neither. Instead he came here and falsely pretended that my edit's sole purpose was to violate WP:MOSETHNICITY. Now he's inventing new excuses (there were deadlinks!) but these excuses only highlight the fact that his original accusation was false.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I also have no idea why Icewhiz is bringing up (third sentence, his last comment) edits made by someone else which were made somewhere else and eight freaking years ago, in fact on an article that I have never edited (afaik) and pretending that I had something to do with that. This is more baseless insinuation of some sort, trying to pretend that I'm responsible for something ... or other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"VM's revert at 07:00, 30 May 2019 - was preceded by 06:59, 30 May 2019 on Lozisht (...) - 1 minute apart (...) It is exceedingly unlikely that VM vetted the content he was restoring " - oh ffs, there is such a thing as having more than one browser tab open. As I type this I have 48 tabs open in three windows, with 22 of them being Wikipedia, and 4 of them being edits-in-process, which I have open while I am "vetting" the edit/sources. Is it not obvious how inane and bad faithed these kinds of accusations are? Like this is suppose to sanctionable? And to be sure - ALL of Icewhiz diffs in this request consist of absurd stuff like this. But hey, at least Icewhiz is "
civil" when he makes these ridiculous accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And I'm sorry, but wtf is this??? Did I edit the article on Chuck Schumer or something? Icewhiz's sentence appears to imply that I did. I didn't. What the hell does this have to do with anything here? User:Black Kite? User:El_C? Can someone explain this to me? No? Then please rein him the hey in because this is getting into straight up smears territory.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

We see VM here often enough, in several different subject areas, but in this case we see several diffs that are clearly actionable that are either blockable or are at the very least worthy of a TBAN and I don't think we need to wait for a full on ARBCOM case to settle this. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:If you don't want to read the whole thing, you can start with the first couple of diffs, and they are clearly actionable, calling people extremist and personal attacks is not allowed and is typical of VM's behavior. It should not be allowed to continue, especially in this topic area. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@El C:I understand that, but neither are allowed here, further, people have been blocked here for saying someone has a "nationalist POV." Further, that is just the tip of the iceberg with regards to VM's edits, and for some reason at AE he seems to always get away with things, so he continues with his ways. Whether he is blocked or not, a TBAN is in order.

As for the ANI thread, as it points out, there seems to be this disturbing fascination with a specific topic. And I do urge some admin to visit that ANI thread and start using a fishing net and throw out TBANs. While one person was oversight blocked, that is not enough. There is a resurgence of a POV that is making its way into Wikipedia that we need to stop fast. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is something about Zero's comment that just rubs me the wrong way. I just can't put my finger on it. It's also ironic I think considering the topic. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM, I mentioned the ANI thread because it was brought up in the OP, which is now edited to save word limit space. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

Question to admins: Is
WP:NPA
policy? If so, why is it consistently ignored?

"Very clearly someone went through the internet and tried to drudge up anything negative to add here" [23] - no, I didn't. It was actually a fairly harsh criticism of the subject's theoretical approach, that I think went well with the (many) other criticisms of his ideological involvement. Instead of a proper criticism (eg. on relevance or clarity), VM went for a personal attack.

"f no. Enough of these BLP vios and using Wikipedia articles as smear pages. I've tried to keep all the legitimate and well sourced criticism in the article to the extent it was possible but the over the top nasty and gleeful attacks DO violate BLP" [24] - about a completely RS and DUE criticism by Joanna Michlic, project director at Brandeis and a fellow at Harvard and UCL. Like most critiques in that article, this too was eventually accepted into the consensus.

"Stop making shit up" [25] - an oft-repeated phrase. It may sounds like an off-hand comment, but it's actually a serious accusation: that an editor falsified information. I don't understand why admins take it so lightly.

François Robere (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Instead of just looking at VM's statements to Icewhiz, one should consider whether VM's charges of bias have a solid basis. The fact is that VM is the only editor with the energy to counter Icewhiz's dedicated moulding of the entire Polish/Jewish area. Zero^talk 22:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An arbcom case for this would be appropriate, but it should be presented as an examination of the behavior of all the main editors in the Polish/Jewish area, not as a case by one of them against another of them. For that reason I think it would be best if an uninvolved administrator opened it. Zero^talk 02:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

@Volunteer Marek: For your convenience: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MOS:ETHNICITY on articles about Polish Jews (permalink). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

1) The peanut gallery concern expressed in the admin section below is certainly an issue, as some comments here (yes, including mine) are clearly from editors 'with a side'. But it is worth nothing that some of those sides are not about the Polish-Jewish topics, ex. the comment by editor above me comes from someone who to the best of my knowledge never edited PJ topics, and probably has sparred with VM over another topic area, hence their suggestion to escalate the proposed remedy (topic ban) more widely. Peanut gallery indeed. There is some merit in trying to get an ArbCom that would look into what's been going in with this topic area, because there is also merit in saying that the Polish Jewish topic area was stable for many years (with occasional edits from VM) until a ~year ago when two editors (Ice and FR) made their appearance. Which was, to some degree, helpful (I do find some articles have been improved, through I have mixed feelings about a few) - but, for better or worse, did upset this topic area, which was not a
WP:BATTLEGROUND
until that point.
2) I've been always supportive of
WP:IBAN
) are a good solution. I don't think there are any problems with VM content edit (outside an occasional edit summary); they all fit in the realm of regular content dispute and general 1RR and BDR. His talk contributions are, however, less constructive; to what degree there is baiting involved (and any boomerang issues), I don't feel competent to judge (as I am also a party in some of those discussions). But IF there is anything actionable in this, I'd think an IBAN would be more appropriate than a TBAN, since the issue is not about content, but about discussion attitude.
3) It is important to review diffs. Ex. the accusation of racism and such in [26] made by the op seems IMHO rather spurious. Yes, VM did say in his edit summary "rmv POV, rmv gratuitous stereotyping and ethnic generalizations" but clearly, he did not say this about an editor, but about content - he just removed the text " the stereotyping of Jews in Poland is widespread, particularly so in the church" which can, indeed, be argued to meet the description in his diff. I don't have time (and likely, word limit) to review other diffs here, but if this is one of the best (and the OR/V sections are pure content dispute, not fit for AE), then there's not that much here to see. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

I'm not that familiar with the dispute/s, even though I'm the one who applied DS to History of the Jews in Poland (WP:AEL#2019#Eastern_Europe — yes, I realize it's in Central Europe!). There's a lot of evidence to review here, which is difficult to do (for me, at least) without additional context. At any rate, although, at a glance, this report seems worth looking into, it may actually be better suited for a separate Arbitration case. I'm a bit undecided about that. But in light of the ANI (which I have not had a chance to review) having been oversignted, that perhaps should be the course of action here. I await other respondents (including VM, himself, of course), who are perhaps better informed than myself, before I make up my mind. El_C 18:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await to hear what VM has to say first — hopefully, it will be expressed with more civility and good faith than the manner in which those diffs depict — but, if we are to take action, I am leaning toward a topic ban. And perhaps also something along the lines of the no personal comments sanction that Awilley applied to SashiRolls. El_C 18:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM, take your time. No one is going to close this report before you get a chance to respond in detail. As mentioned, I still haven't decided whether this should be brought before the Committee, or settled here. Please do try to observe the word/diff limit, though. Thanks. El_C 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM, the length of Icewhiz's request work to their detriment. I suggest they shorten it to the accepted limit, focusing on just the most egregious examples (and that would be my suggestion to you, also) — it's not unlikely that less lenient admins than myself would prefer taking no action on that basis alone. El_C 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SirJoseph, it's one thing to call someone an extremist, and it's another to call someone's point of view extremist. Because a point of view can suffer from misconceptions, whereas extremist people tend to do extremist things. Calling someone an extremist would be straight out personal attack. Not that calling someone's point of view extremist is a particularly civil way to engage with another editor — I'm not saying that, either. El_C 20:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VM, if this assistant professor is not considered notable (failing
WP:PROF), and the source in question is, indeed, an open access journal, then I don't see a BLP issue that's preventing us from stating this is so (in an edit summary, as the basis for its removal). El_C 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Icewhiz, VM is claiming that he was not Jew marking but that that was just a by-product of reverting multiple paragraphs removed by you. He even says that he does not object to the subject's Jewish background being removed. El_C 04:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, regarding your item that begins with "VM reverted content introduced by a sockuppet" — I'm not seeing any edits by VM listed in that item. El_C 04:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, VM is not obliged to check whether longstanding material that had been in the article for 8 years is somehow in question for one reason or another. Your edit summary hints at the problem, but it is just too terse. So, I do think such a massive removal on your part should have been prefaced by an article talk page explanation to that effect. That would have saved everyone a lot of trouble and rendered all of the highly problematic accusations as to Jew marking redundant. This isn't to say that VM's revert was the right call, either. They, too, should to have gone to the article talk page rather than immediately revert, even if only to ask "what gives?" El_C 17:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, if the edit removes longstanding text (8 yrs), then a talk page notice was, in fact, due. El_C 17:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind continuing to respond to queries here, but as mentioned in my opener, this may be more suited for Arbitration (as much as we may want to lighten the Committee's workload). Three other admins appear even more conclusive about that, so it looks like this is what's gonna end up happening. El_C 17:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest this needs to go to ArbCom now, otherwise we will be back here again soon, and the environment of AE with its associated peanut gallery is probably not conducive to such a complicated issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is very likely something actionable here, at least on the part of Volunteer Marek. But the (perhaps quite legitimate) scope of the complaint exceeds what can reasonably be reviewed and decided at AE by a single admin. We are best suited to dealing with cases involving one or two diffs of clear misconduct. I support a referral to ArbCom. Of course, if anybody else wants to spend half a day looking through all of this and coming to a decision, feel free... Sandstein 08:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Sandstein and Black Kite. This is rather complex to be handled by the action of a single admin here. An actual arbitration request would have structured presentation of evidence and a longer period of time to review and sort it out, and I think that's going to be required here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tryptofish

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found

WP:UNINVOLVED

).

Appealing user: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 2-way IBAN: [27] (apparently not logged), resulting from this AE: [28]

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish

What I'm requesting: A modification of the IBAN that lifts the portion of it applying to me, thus changing it from 2-way to 1-way.

Explanation: The

Kingofaces43, which was not about my conduct. Admins can get a good, quick tl;dr of the issues underlying my request by reading the discussion at El_C's talk page, here: [29]. El_C says that he has no objection to this request, without further consultation with him, if the consensus here is to grant it: [30], [31]

.

My initial statement in the case, I believe, clearly and succinctly sets out the problems of the other editor's interactions with me: [32]. The other editor followed me around; I never followed him. The other admin who reviewed the AE case, Vanamonde93, stated that I was actually one of the few [involved editors] whose conduct I have no complaints about: [33], and that he would have preferred a 1-way IBAN instead: [34], [35]. El_C has explained that he did not base his decision on anything in my conduct, and regards the 2-way ban as "no-fault", having done it simply as a way to quickly resolve a dispute where the evidence had become overly complex: [36]. (I apologize for having added some lengthy material to my own initial statement there, but I did so in order to refute some wild accusations against me, and my having done so is obviously not disruptive conduct – nor should I be blamed because other volunteers didn't have enough time to investigate everything.) In short, I did nothing wrong that would justify a restriction on me, and I think I can be trusted not to violate a lifting of the part of it that applies to me.

Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Tryptofish

Result of the appeal by Tryptofish

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[D-H-3] ISBN 0-8156-2969-9

[4] ISBN 0-8156-2969-9

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 274: / Line 274: @@
 *I tend to agree with {{u|Sandstein}} and {{u|Black Kite}}. This is rather complex to be handled by the action of a single admin here. An actual arbitration request would have structured presentation of evidence and a longer period of time to review and sort it out, and I think that's going to be required here. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 {{hab}}
+==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Tryptofish==
+<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved {{#ifeq: {{PAGENAME}} | Administrators noticeboard | editors | administrators}}" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small> <p><small>''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]]).''</small></p>
+; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Tryptofish}} – [[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
+; Sanction being appealed : 2-way IBAN: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&type=revision&diff=897899256&oldid=896955614] (apparently not logged), resulting from this AE: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=897898497#SashiRolls]
+; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El_C}}
+; Notification of that administrator : ''The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a [[WP:DIFF|diff]] of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.''
+===Statement by Tryptofish===
+'''What I'm requesting:''' A modification of the IBAN that lifts the portion of it applying to me, thus changing it from 2-way to 1-way.
+'''Explanation''': The [[WP:IBAN|IBAN]] (which includes some important [[WP:ABAN|ABAN]] components) was issued by {{u|El_C}} as the result of an AE filing by {{u|Kingofaces43}}, which was not about my conduct. Admins can get a good, quick tl;dr of the issues underlying my request by reading the discussion at El_C's talk page, here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&oldid=900190785#SashiRolls_AE]. El_C says that he has no objection to this request, without further consultation with him, if the consensus here is to grant it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=900122358&oldid=900120529], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=900161183&oldid=900160326].
+My initial statement in the case, I believe, clearly and succinctly sets out the problems of the other editor's interactions with me: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=897374726&oldid=897360106]. The other editor followed me around; I never followed him. The other admin who reviewed the AE case, {{u|Vanamonde93}}, stated that I was actually {{tq|one of the few [involved editors] whose conduct I have no complaints about}}: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=897413897&oldid=897392084], and that he would have preferred a 1-way IBAN instead: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tryptofish&diff=prev&oldid=898007328], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEl_C&type=revision&diff=899721164&oldid=899721025]. El_C has explained that he did not base his decision on anything in my conduct, and regards the 2-way ban as "no-fault", having done it simply as a way to quickly resolve a dispute where the evidence had become overly complex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATryptofish&type=revision&diff=898008648&oldid=898007328]. (I apologize for having added some lengthy material to my own initial statement there, but I did so in order to refute some wild accusations against me, and my having done so is obviously not disruptive conduct – nor should I be blamed because other volunteers didn't have enough time to investigate everything.) In short, I did nothing wrong that would justify a restriction on me, and I think I can be trusted not to violate a lifting of the part of it that applies to me.
+Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
+===Statement by El_C===
+===Statement by (involved editor 1)===
+===Statement by (involved editor 2)===
+===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Tryptofish ===
+===Result of the appeal by Tryptofish===
+:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
+<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
+*

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards