Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive258

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 SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SashiRolls (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

AE article ban at glyphosate and original AE case for reference

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.[1]

Diffs

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

1. 06:39, October 27, 2019 Violates
   WP:ABAN at glyphosate and other articles where Tryptofish has edited first.[2][3]

1. June 4, 2019 Blocked for personal attacks in another topic after leaving GMO topic.
2. Aug 10, 2019 Blocked for edit warring and harassment again.
3. June 2017 1-year indefinite block.
4. Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
5. Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party.
6. Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 20, 2019 by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.[4]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the

• To address SashiRolls' comment below on "false claims", just read their Jill Stein AE case filed under both GMO and politics DS for behavior at
  talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• With El C's proposal for glyphosate, broadly construed, that would at least cover all the areas I linked above in the interaction analyzer where there were more topic-based issues than just interactions w/Tryptofish including
  talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Recent calls to sanction Tryptofish are in
  WP:POT/gish gallop
  (also contributing to length issues here) calling for those editors to be sanctioned was supposed to stop with the current one-way sanction by El C at the last AE even if it should be reformulated into a normal one-way i-ban and topic ban.

The original 2-way interaction ban between Sashi and Tryptofish was explicitly considered no-fault on Tryp's part, and the appeal had consensus there was no wrongdoing on their part when changed to one-way.[8] We've had multiple direct violations of Sashi's interaction ban easily crossing

talk) 17:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A full topic-ban considering the behavior not only directed at Tryptofish would simplify things though. The current article ban wording technically should keep Sashi out of the main controversial areas anyways, but outside of glyphosate and the main GMO articles, that might be hard for Sashi, admins, etc. to track.

talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• To be clear
  talk) 04:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Admins, just a note that this recent comment is a
  WP:BANEX either. Seraphimblade
  is on point with describing them as disruptive at this AE with continued pot-stirring comments like that and following editors against the ban.

This has been open for ~9 days now, and well above word limits because of that despite me leaving most of Sashirolls unsupported claims unaddressed with myself at ~1k words prior due to these admin comments and Sashi at >2k words. I won't harp on taking things slowly, but problems are piling up related to that. Their continued comments are convincing me my previous support for just a broad glyphosate ban was too lenient and unlikely to prevent disruption as

talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Seraphimblade, just for procedural clarification based on your comments[10][11], but I believe that's saying anyone could implement a wider topic ban without lifting the old sanction if that's the procedural concern? I wonder if bringing up specific language in the admin section would help bring things to a close? Tryptofish already provided standard template language here for clarifying the interaction ban and a standard topic ban for this DS area.

That said, that topic ban alone on top of El C's old sanction should functionally do the same for simplicity's sake unless I'm missing a detail. If considering options is why action hasn't been taken, the above could be proposed below as something concrete to consider acting on unless admins suggest better concrete options. Maybe that would help to get things moving forward. I'm on extremely limited time this week, but if there's anything I can clarify as the filer on topic scope if need be, I'll try to do so.

talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Seraphim, that should work, especially considering El C was clear they wanted an article restriction with the topic ban due to the behavior back in May (e.g., you could ignore all the problems that came up at this AE and it would still be a valid sanction change). Though just being clear that when you say GMO, you mean the general DS language provided for topic scope including pesticides etc. Some admins have forgotten in the past that the GMO case included pesticides, etc. and there has been confusion with topic bans when someone logged the official sanction as just GMOs while intending to cover the whole topic.

talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

[12]

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

I would suggest KoF start a clean request which recognizes there is no TBAN or ABAN logged anywhere. Too many words have been spilled into this page and several others because of this request. In any case, I will not be participating further for at the very minimum 3 days. I have 40 or 50 pages to translate this weekend. Sorry. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final Statement So a few people had comments this weekend. I'll take a break to reply.

One of the commenters I am only allowed to respond to here because of the fact that KoF filed this case, (erroneously) alleging a violation of an IBAN, because I reverted his deletion of another person (SJ)'s edit. That commenter (Mr. Trypto) has recently written over 9.3K in this thread and 8.4K in another discussion thread about things concerning me.

Despite my conciliatory efforts to get him out of my hair (I offered to delete the evidence page, for example, and hatted any reference to him on this page), they didn't take the hint and continued adding more and more comments to this noticeboard thread, and spreading disinformation about me at deletion review: e.g. "SashiRolls is also banned from GMOs" (source).

Let's read his words again: "I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction [2-way IBAN], it will be reinstated." --Tryptofish: 20:35, 5 June 2019.

Again, after bringing an initial case against me at AE in 2016, he has followed me to AE at least 4 times: twice for Cirt (Christmas 2016, May 2017), and twice in 2019 for Kingofaces43. He was particularly involved in lobbying against the CIRT unblock in 2018 ("strongest possible oppose") at AN, and followed me to AN/I with scary fish pictures. Since his part of the IBAN was lifted, he has opened discussions about my actions at RfA, alleged that "someone" hounded them at WT:HA, and said demonstrably false stuff at deletion review in addition to lobbying for sanctions here.

Perhaps Trypto himself, in the interest of fairness and the sheer volume of evidence, will voluntarily submit to the reinstatement of the 2-way IBAN given his difficulty staying away from me / not talking about me. Nope, Tryptofish has indicated he won't take responsibility for his actions. (actions = fishing for sanctions at noticeboards, speaking of which, I forgot to mention their comments on Kolya's unanimously rejected ArbCom case.)

Meanwhile, Laser brain is miffed. Laser brain has done 1/6 of the work I have in mainspace this year. I have never seen him on a single page I've contributed to, suggesting he might not be an expert on my skills or lack thereof.

Tony Ballioni says he has nothing to say about this case, but has taken the opportunity to make a speech about making sanctions clear. What could be clearer than a 2-way interaction ban? Certainly not a 1-way IBAN which sanctions the victim of a demonstrable pattern of noticeboard fishing.

Regarding glyphosate I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last three months. My prediction is that it will be hard to find, because it doesn't exist. Many of my additions this year have remained (or were moved to another related mainspace page by an admin). It's difficult to see what the complaint is. Here it appears to be that I reverted Kingofaces43 once and reverted my reversion as soon as it was suggested I should, which I would submit is not nearly enough to topic ban someone.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link added to a previous case I was uninvolved in. This helps to explain why Laser brain & Seraphimblade showed up here (they were involved in that case). Also I think folks should be aware of this free-ranging battleground strategy discussion between KoF & Trypto on 31 October 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe anyone spoke of removing the IBAN. I certainly didn't. This thread demonstrates very clearly that a 2-way IBAN is the only way to get Trypto to stop lobbying for sanctions even when no evidence of disruption in the glyphosate topic area has been produced. It's funny how some are then trying to conflate glyphosate + surfactants with GMO.

I was just reading a blogpost about the state of the GMO "battleground" back in 2013 (after reading the Kingofaces43 v. D. Tornheim case Trypto linked to). All I can say is that I'm glad I've never edited in the GMO area. (Upon further analysis, I see that the Séralini affair was added to the GMO topic area five days after my last edit to that article.)

The connection between a pesticide and a genetically modified organism is pretty slim, I would have thought, but reading Gen. Fish's battleplan (above), I see that blurring the boundaries is part of the gameplan. It appears that if you once add RS like Le Monde or the NYT to the "glyphosate" or "Séralini affair" entries you can now be banned from writing about thousands of entries on food, agriculture, and weed/bugkillers, broadly construed? Na, surely people have more sense than to magnify 0 violations in a topic area into a ban from a wider one...

Speaking of good sense, maybe someone will come along and observe that trypto quite clearly has violated the terms of his parole in this very thread (as well as in several other highly visibile venues: RfA, WT:HA, DRV). !vote 2-way IBAN and everyone wins. Maybe even topic-ban KoF & Trypto from GMO for their over-investment in the topic area and watch the sky not fall. It only requires a little courage. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs: DS/GMO talk page notices were added to glyphosate on 21 May 2019 & to Séralini Affair on 21 May 2019 (at my request, since it was being claimed I should have known that these pages were part of the GMO topic area, yet there was nothing on the talk page or the mainspace page showing that...) 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Of course, Trypto doesn't want anyone to realize that it is very problematic not to be telling encyclopedia readers about the special regime of sanctions cooked up. I believe that it was decided that standard procedure for pages related to a topic was to put a talk page notice on those pages. Neither glyphosate nor Séralini affair had such a notice. Regardless, I violated no special GMO rules on the page, either in May or since. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Trypto has provided a diff! Now, how can this diff from 10 May 2019 be construed to violate DS? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Fact: the reverted edit was moved to Monsanto legal cases here (by an admin) without there being any disruption after discussion on the talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: During this long period of being roped up here, my arms have grown tired. As a result, I have asked Darwinbish if they would like to come gnaw on anyone's ankles. (§: I'll stay here in the stocks, y'all can get a head start for the hills, if you want.)

Case Summary:

• 20:34 26 Oct SJ added referenced information about an op-ed written for Forbes by Henry I. Miller with the help of Monsanto.
• 00:46 27 Oct KoF removed "ghostwriting" language used in the NYT article, the name of the person involved and the date of the Forbes article.
• 12:39 27 Oct I reversed KoF's removal of information, not finding an active discussion about it on the TP 12 hours later.
• 17:26 27 Oct KoF filed an 8.6K complaint at AE
• 18:59 27 Oct I reversed my 12:39 27 Oct edit at the first opportunity to do so.
• 13:38 10 Nov: 15 days later, after the typing of >100K, the AE case concerning this single edit has not been decided.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

This request has been open since October 27, and is starting to look like a festering wound. I'm tired of logging in every day to see whether anyone has made a decision. So I'm going to try to make this real simple.

As for the existing sanctions against SashiRolls that affect me, I request that you make two (2) changes:

1. Change the existing 1-way sanction that is about SashiRolls interacting with me to a standard 1-way
   IBAN
   .
2. Change the existing ABANs that apply to SashiRolls to a standard
   TBAN from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
   .

And that's it. I'm pretty sure that all of the admins who have commented so far (other than Sandstein's stated intention to close this) have already indicated support for these two adjustments. As for any additional block or other sanction, I don't care. I'm not looking for punishment. Just a better way to stop the disruption as it affects me. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm, DGG, Vanamonde93, Laser brain, TonyBallioni, and Seraphimblade: This discussion has been open too long. Please simply enact what I describe just above. It will be easy to do. And if you cannot do that, please explain to me why you cannot do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the relevant diff of SashiRolls being
  aware of GMO DS: March 30, 2019. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And if the issue is awareness of which pages were about GMOs broadly construed, here's May 10, 2019; look for "agriculture, pesticides, GMOs". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to thank Seraphimblade, and I hope that this will be the resolution. I find it interesting that another editor mentions an appeal to ArbCom. I decided yesterday that, had no one decided to close this complaint by today, I would request an Arbitration case, so I'm quite prepared for such a case. Do keep me informed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nblund

Just going to butt in here: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I'm definitely involved with regard to SashiRolls. I think this interaction, my previous experience at ANI, and the even older AE discussions linked above point to a consistent pattern of asserting incredible levels of bad-faith on other editors in topic areas involving left-wing anti-establishment politics, while simultaneously demanding the assumption of good faith for his own actions.

Most discussions I have with SashiRolls contain multiple variations on the theme in the final sentence of his comment to EL_C here: an over-the-top, evidence-free, non-specific allegation of malicious intent that is guaranteed to derail the discussion if anyone bothers to address it. By the same token: I suspect that everyone pretty much recognizes that SashiRolls' off-handed accusation that Tryptofish has "harassed him" (here) is absurd, and yet — because it has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute — it sort of just slides by without a remark from anyone.

It looks to me like that problem has been ongoing for years, it hasn't improved despite multiple sanctions, and, yes, I suspect it has gone unaddressed partly because the admins most familiar with the behavior end up feeling burned out and/or emotionally involved after being on the receiving end of it. I understand it would probably be draconian to suddenly turn this AE request in to a referendum on SashiRolls' long-term behavior, but I just want to note that what is on display here is more-or-less the norm, and I really doubt a topic ban will address the root problem. Nblund ^talk 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I appreciate El C erring on the side of unblocking.

This report should be closed as no violation. It is based on one diff: this one, which was restoring sourced content that KofA removed here. This is not an edit war, this is one revert. It's not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp, because it's a revert of KofA, not Tryp. It's not a violation of a TBAN because there is no TBAN. It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded. So, there's no violation here.

It reads to me that when Sashi reverted KofA, KofA's response to that was to take Sashi to AE, and allege it was a violation of a TBAN that he had already had explained to him did not exist. This is the weaponization of AE, and it should be discouraged. Sashi hasn't edited that article or talk page since May, and one revert gets him reported at AE? I find it outrageous.

Finally I note that on Sep 27, both Sashi and Tryp (along with other editors) were pinged to a thread (about a content dispute involving KofA, incidentally). Tryp posted in that thread; Sashi did not. That's evidence of Sashi complying with the IBAN even though Sashi doesn't agree with it.

Reverting KofA's edit was not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp. Unless there is evidence of Sashi violating the IBAN since it was imposed, this report should be closed as no violation. Also, before we institute a TBAN from a topic area, we should probably have some diffs of disruptive editing in that topic area from, say, within the last 30 days. – Levivich 03:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryp: perhaps you missed the part where I wrote "It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded." Not sure where you got the idea I didn't remember the ABAN. What I find simple is this: Sashi hasn't violated the 1-way IBAN since it was instituted. Ergo, there is no further sanction that is needed to keep things "peaceful" between you two, because things are already peaceful. Unless you have some diffs of recent disruption to share? – Levivich 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: What diffs are there showing disruption since the one-way IBAN was instituted?

@Tryptofish: A diff from May? Seriously? You're wasting people's time. The one-way IBAN is obviously working fine. Sashi hasn't interacted with you since then and isn't even appealing it or anything. If you want Sashi to leave you alone, as you say, and they have been leaving you alone for six months, why do you keep posting here? – Levivich 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: You cannot institute a TBAN against an editor with zero diffs of disruption. You can't TBAN someone today for something they did six months ago, if they haven't continued doing it since. To do so would be a blatant abuse of our policies, which says sanctions are preventative, and not punitive. I understand that the rules are that any admin can unilaterally institute a sanction, but if an admin abuses their admin powers and blatantly violates our policy by instituting an entirely punitive sanction on the basis of zero evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last six months, I will take it to Arbcom and ask them to remove the admin's bit. – Levivich 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

I agree fully with the statement by Levivich above. I urge that it be read, and if need be, reread, line by line.

For personal reasons, I make this statement extremely reluctantly, but feel strongly that it needs to be made, especially in agreement with the reference to the “weaponization of AE.”

My thanks to Levivich, and I strongly agree that this report should be closed as no violation. Jusdafax (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Seraphimblade: I agree with the objections to your proposal by Levivich and Mr. Ernie. I also suggest a review of this link provided by SashiRolls regarding the strategy discussion (Sashi’s term), which I feel should be taken into account. Since there are a couple statements now mentioning ArbCom, it appears that regardless of the outcome here, that the matter is far from being concluded. So it goes. Jusdafax (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Impose a standard 2 way IBAN between Sashi and Tryptofish. Contrary to Trypt's earlier statement, they have obliquely referred to Sashi several times since the 1 way was imposed, have popped up for comments everywhere Sashi has been discussed, and what I can only assume was sarcastically using the "thanks" feature for an edit I made on Sashi's page supporting the 2 way back in June. This is the easiest solution here, so please impose it and close this. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that I am now considered by Tryptofish to be an "enabler" of SashiRolls for showing up to speak some common sense. FWIW you can check my thanks log here to see Trypt's thanks. And yes it was for the diff they linked. For someone who has "entirely stayed clear" of Sashi they have an awful lot to say here, and at all the previous noticeboard discussions. Simply reinstate the 2 way mutual IBAN, call it no fault, and let's all move on. There's been no disruption to article space. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I object to your proposal. There is no shown disruption in this report to that topic area. Typically such bans are preventative, which would require showing problematic edits in that topic area. This is purely a minor foul against a difficult to understand custom sanction. A mutual no fault IBAN between Sashi and Trypt solves any problems. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Any TBAN on GMOs must include Monsanto and glyphosate, as they are the bêtes noires of anti-GMO activists. This should be made more clear. An IBAN can't really be an automatic ABAN, that would be far too prone to accidental error (and indeed deliberate gaming). Guy (help!) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning SashiRolls

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

• This auto-ABAN concept would be unusual, and it's not mentioned as part of the sanction in the AE close or in the ACDSLOG, where it's noted simply to be an IBAN. IBAN itself has no such provision, and it in fact explicitly allows editing the same article without direct contact (in fact, the community recently overwhelmingly overturned an AE block in this situation). It's unclear to me whether this was just an erroneous statement by El_C, or if it was specifically intended to be an expanded IBAN with an automatic ABAN from any article edited first by the other user. This needs clarification first. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: Just as a procedural note, we cannot actually indef block under Arbitration enforcement; blocks are limited to a one year maximum. You may discretionarily block as you see fit. This seems to be trending towards a revision of the existing sanction, simply due to the fact that the existing one is impractical. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (
  topic ban alongside a one-way interaction ban, which we can still do. Sorry for the lapse. El_C 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Assayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page for which administrative measures are requested

Gas van

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Impose source and revert restrictions in line with

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations

adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.

The article on the gas van is used to propose the narrative that these were actually a Soviet invention.[28] After a prolonged discussion in June 2018 consensus was reached to focus upon the German use of gas vans in the Holocaust and briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union only in a section in the main body of the article.[29] After a controversial IP edit[30] on 28 September 2019, which lead to a page protection for edit warring[31] User My very best wishes started to basically restore the earlier version[32], [33]. These edits were immediately challenged by me[34] I got reverted within minutes[35], on another occasion even while I was still working on the article, using an “in use”-template.[36] Without going into details of the revision history, it is fair to say that there is no consensus to restore or expand the extensive section on “Soviet gas vans”. Input was sought from uninvolved users to no avail.[37], [38], [39], [40]. Such input[41], [42] got reverted anyway.[43] During the RSN discussion on a local Crimean nespaper it was raised, that this topic area was under strict sourcing restrictions, In fact, the article Gas van is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. For example, Gas vans were used at Chełmno extermination camp. Since it has been maintained that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were first used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets, the "Soviet gas vans" were effectively integrated into the narrative of the Holocaust. Otherwise it would make no sense to prominently insist that “the gas vans were used by the Soviet NKVD in 1930s".[44] It is worth noting that Holocaust deniers highlight this alleged “prehistory” of the gas vans. Therefore, strict sourcing restrictions are all the more important. Despite input from uninvolved users that the Crimean newspaper article looked “totally unreliable”, “irrelevant”, and “absurd”, there is not much hope that this input will be reckoned with.[45]. See also [46] for a violation of 3RR. @EdJohnston: had been asked to impose sourcing restrictions, but effectively declined[47].--Assayer (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing request

I will not reargue the whole matter here. Suffice it to say that both My very best wishes and Pudeo rather argue ad hominem than on content. Strange to read that trying to build consensus through discussion and by soliciting outside opinions is somehow branded “epic struggle”. To claim that this is merely about a few RS they do not like is plainly a misrepresentation of the discussion. Even worse, Pudeo insinuates denial while they could have known the content I proposed for inclusion.[48], and takes citations out of context, e.g. that I responded to My very best wishes linking to texts by known Holocaust deniers. I do maintain, however, that my request is not about content, i.e. who invented or used gas vans, but if a certain part of the article is exempted from sourcing restrictions or not. El_C has captured that point very well. Once that issue is resolved, enforcement requests focused on editors’ conduct may follow. Maybe ARCA is the place to go. Maybe I withdraw this request and file a request against individual editors. But the issue will still have to be resolved.--Assayer (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Paul Siebert

Actually, a behaviour of one party of that dispute has been brilliantly described as scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. By applying source restrictions, we will deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing, because good quality sources say virtually nothing about the "Soviet gas van" topic. Currently, the Soviet gas van section is based on a heavy use of the following sources:

Primary:

• Григоренко П.Г. В подполье можно встретить только крыс… (Petro Grigorenko, "In the underground one can meet only rats") — Нью-Йорк, Издательство «Детинец», 1981, page 403 (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage).
• Александр ЛИПКОВ, "Я к вам травою прорасту…", Alexander Lipkov, Kontinent, N 123, 2005 (collection of memoirs).
• Шрейдер М.П. (Shreider M.P) НКВД изнутри: Записки чекиста. (NKVD from within. Notes by Chekist ), Moscow: Возвращение, 1995. (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage)

Russian tabloid/newspaper:

• Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012. An op-ed article in a local Ukrainian newspaper, authored by some local self appointed historian with unknown credentials. During the [RSN discussion], not a single user except the one who added that source supported the idea that that source is reliable.
• Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) This article cites no historical documents, so its fact checking and accuracy cannot be established. Most likely, it just reproduces the facts from this publications:
• On the way to the place of their execution, the convicts were poisoned with gas (Russian), by Yevgeniy Zhirnov, Kommersant (This source is cited in the article too, thereby a false impression is created that two journalists made independent research of that subject).

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297 - a very questionable book authored by Archipelago author. It was widely criticized for antisemitism. In this book, Solzhenitstyn says Jews must repent for invention of gas vans.

In addition, the article is using several English sources, each of which cites the same

Source restrictions will allow us to purge the article from all questionable primary and questionable sources, and the long, exhausting and senseless dispute will die.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I double checked, the admin that applied this restriction cited

@El C: I myself was thinking about ARCA. Actually, usage of poor sources is a root of many conflicts covered by ARBEE, so I have no idea why the sourcing expectation clause cannot be expanded onto the whole area. In my opinion, that may be a universal solution, which is not directed against some concrete source and some concrete POV. If no action will be taken regarding this request, I am going to prepare a broader ARCA request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @

@Swarm: there were three separate RSN threads (conclusions of all of them I support), and one NPOV thread. Have you read all of them? Have you read the whole talk page discussion (including the 2018 discussion on the same subject? Anyway, if all admins will confirm that this article is already under the said source restriction, that is the very outcome that I wanted. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

I have added a sourcing requirements notice to the article talk page (which I have suspended while this is being discussed), but now I'm not so sure about that decision, because the dispute is about the Soviet Union in the 1930s rather than what the article is chiefly about (Nazi Germany in the 1940s). See my talk page for more context. El_C 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I think you're missing the point. The question is whether these sourcing requirements should apply to the article when the specific dispute (but not the article) is out of their scope. Perhaps, though, this is a question better suited to ARCA. What do you think? El_C 16:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandstein. I'll still leave the article talk page notice suspended, for now. Depending if other admins also agree with your position, or if there is an ARCA filed. But I appreciate the clarification. El_C 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that once this request is closed, I am likely to un-suspend the sourcing requirements notice — unless there is an ARCA filed, in which case I will hold off. (Unless, of course, if there is also further input concerning the notice itself here.) So please let me know about intentions to file an ARCA immediately after, that way an un-suspension/re-suspension could be avoided. El_C 19:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

• Why did Assayer and Paul file this WP:AE request? Because Paul wants to do this (his edits immediately after the editing restriction imposed bt El_C). In this edit Paul just removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to Lydia Golovkova who is a primary curator of records of people executed by NKVD at the Butovo firing range, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which are RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell the same as scholarly sources (some of which noted by Pudeo below), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story.

• To sanction someone, an administrator must first place a notice on the page (per the rules), exactly as El_C did. Yes, it might be reasonable to put such notice and specify that it is about edits on Polish history or about Nazi Germany section. But there were no any disputes about this section. However, placing such notice for the whole page would mean excluding the content and sources completely unrelated to Poland and WWII. Was that intention by Arbcom? I do not think so. Placing such notice would mean overstepping the boundaries defined by Arbcom. If that happens, then a request for clarification or amendment to Arbcom might be needed.

• I do not think whole article Gas van is covered by the sourcing restriction for the Polish history. According to Arbcom decision, it cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.. It uses language like "articles on the topic", not "broadly related to". This is not an article "on the topic of Polish history" although a part of one section about Nazi Germany is indeed related to the Polish history.

• What is happening here, in my opinion? Assayer and Paul are trying to misuse the decision by Arbcom about limiting sources on Polish/WWII subjects in order to remove the content on the Soviet NKVD crimes in 1930s which is completely unrelated to the Polish/WWII subjects My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nug. What a

Solomon judgement, very literally! Now this entire disagreement is moot. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Assayer writes in this very statement: briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union. It has already been showed on the talkpage that besides Russian sources, Western scholars state Soviet gas vans as a fact. Besides the works of others like Catherine Merridale, Robert Gellately, Timothy J. Colton's 1998 Harvard University Press book states: Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo.

So Assayer, perhaps you should already accept this as a fact and stop bludgeoning denial on the talk page where you already have made 76 edits?

Assayer's lamest insinuations are rather disruptive as well:

• 13 June 2018: I got the impression that generally the interest primarily stems from the importance of the German gas vans and the perceived irony that the Soviets might have come up with a gas van first. In fact, Holocaust deniers relish this.
• 22 October 2019: I know that Grigorenko has been cited by Holocaust deniers. You are really not sure if this needs to be reflected on the page? So you suggest to use works by Holocaust deniers?

Paul Siebert has made these insinuations as well: [55]: Don't we find it worrying that the article reproduces the narrative of the book published by the known Holocaust denier's publisher house?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations: "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. ... Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action. "

If "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" is interpreted to mean any article which mentions Polish history of that period at all and the whole content of those articles was included, that would mean, for instance, that editors writing about animal euthanisation or executions in the United States or Korea in the gas chamber article would need to use exceptionally high quality sources or risk being sanctioned.     ←   ZScarpia   18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Nug

Paul Siebert stated above[56] that the article should be subjected to

@Sandstein: Do I understand you correctly that the sourcing restriction already applies and that El_C's note on the talk page to this effect [57] should be restored? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Gas Van and sourcing requirements

• I would take no action. As submitted, this is a content dispute. Who invented and used gas vans is a content issue. AE does not resolve content disputes. If specific editors consistently and seriously disregard sourcing requirements, make an enforcement request focused on their conduct. Sandstein 09:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: In my view, the "Antisemitism in Poland" article sourcing expectations already apply to Gas van. That is because the remedy states that it covers "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland". The article Gas van contains material about this topic, insofar as it addresses the use of gas vans in Poland. Accordingly, the sourcing restrictions apply to the entire article, including as regards the use of gas vans outside of Poland. These restrictions can be enforced against individual editors via AE requests. No further admin action is needed in this regard as well. Sandstein 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To various queries: This is my interpretation, other admins may disagree. If you want authoritative advice, ask at
  WP:ARCA. From my reading of the (as usual) vaguely worded remedy, any article that contains substantial text about Polish WWII history is an article "on" Polish WWII history, and the remedy then applies to the entire article, not only to the Polish WWII history content. Does this make sense? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but we apply remedies as they are written. Sandstein 20:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:BOOMERANG. This does not fit into the AE remit, so no action at this time seems correct. Guy (help!) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Agree with no action. This is a content dispute. Handle it like a content dispute. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's fairly uncontentious that Sandstein is correct in that Arbcom's blanket implementation of this sanction covers this article. It seems fairly obvious that this article is within the scope and that it applies to the article as a whole. However, reading the recent RSN thread, many users view this as legitimate content dispute as opposed to your claim of a behavioral problem regarding unreliable sourcing, and coming directly here after that looking for a "purge" is not a particularly good look. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pinchme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :

Diffs

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

This is for a number of related IPs, which all appear to have been used to edit List of concentration and internment camps in the past week by the same individual.

1. 1 November 2019 This first edit was reinstatement of challenged material to List of concentration and internment camps. It was also from the edit that began to show that this editor has a changing IP address, which initially made it hard for me to know if they were in fact the same editor.
2. 1 November 2019 This edit reinstated the challenged section heading change, in addition to beginning their NPOV insistence. It also violated the 1RR sanction.
3. 1 November 2019 Here once again they reinstated the challenged section heading and violated 1RR, despite having been warned of the discretionary sanctions for the article on one of the IPs' talk pages (see below). Their accompanying talk page note is where this again-different IP seemed to show they were the same editor.
4. 2 November 2019 Another edit reinstating the challenged section heading.
5. 9 November 2019 It was at this point this editor began reinstating the NPOV tag to the section in question, despite multiple editors disagreeing with their assessment, on the talk page.
6. 10 November 2019 This was one more edit violating 1RR and challenged material sanctions for reinstating the NPOV tag. It was also the IP that they received the discretionary sanctions notice on. (see below)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

This group of IPs doesn't appear to have had any prior blocks.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

They were made aware of the sanctions on at least two of the IP Talk pages: 1 November 2019

2 November 2019

Additionally, another user posted a note about the discretionary sanctions on the talk page: 2 November 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been quite disruptive. Their proposed edits run counter to the recent RfC about this specific content. They have posted on the article's talk page, but do not seem interested in engaging with a productive discussion, such as ignoring requests for sources, disputing the accuracy of the RfC's conclusion, and denying that content experts are not experts. This is not merely a content dispute however, because as you can see the editor in question is repeatedly breaking the discretionary sanctions in their pursuit of changes that go against the community's decisions.

I know requests for enforcement for older edits are usually dismissed here as stale, but I included all of them from 1 November to today to highlight the pattern, which was initially hard to make a case for with the shifting IP addresses.

The list of IPs used for specific edits made to the article itself are 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:AB, 107.77.214.158, 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46, and 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A. In addition, on the talk page they have also used 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:45, 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E, 166.216.158.172, and 76.103.195.119.

If this is the wrong venue to try and address this issue, please don't hesitate to let me know where I should instead take this.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Just in case, I notified the four IPs: [58] [59] [60] [61]

Discussion concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

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 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

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

• I've semiprotected the article for two weeks due to disruptive editing and edit warring from multiple IPs, who may or may not be the same individual. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

My very best wishes (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.

Diffs

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

1. Date: 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Ignoring the RSN discussion consensus.
2. Date: 14:33, 7 November 2019 Re-adding the source (Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union^[1]) that was recognised as unacceptable during the talk page discussion mentioned in the Diff #1 (see "Additional comments" section for more details).
3. Date: 19:40, 28 October 2019 Accusation of bad faith. Cherry-picking.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on on 05:09, 7 November 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs #1&2. In my opinion, this is a clear example of

1. [62] I started a discussion of the source.
2. [63]: MVBW claims the source is ok.
3. [64]: Slatersteven says they don't know if the source is mainstream, but agree that it is op-ed, and should be used with attribution.
4. [65]:
   Fiamh
   is hesitant on this source and agrees that it is reliable only as a primary source about author's opinion.
5. [66]: Darouet says the source is totally unreliable, and that pushing this source feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet.
6. [67]: François Robere says the source is unacceptable per sourcing restrictions.
7. [68]: User:Assayer objects too, but he is an involved user, like I and MVBW.
8. [69]
   Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources
   .
9. [70]: TFD also disagrees with usage of that source (I personally find some of their arguments unconvinsing, but my opinion is not relevant here).

In summary: not a single user, except MVBW, expressed a clear support of the source, and many of them were clearly against its usage. Two other users concluded that source is op-ed, actually, a primary source that describes the opinion of the author, and, therefore, should be used with attribution only. Nevertheless, MVBW claims he does not see any WP:RS-based reasons not to use this source (Diff #1), and he re-added it into the article (Diff #2) without attribution.

Regarding the diff #3, MVBW claims that I misled others by misinterpreting newspaper's disclaimer. To support this claim, he selectively quoted the disclaimer, and he omitted the key sentence. The extended quote (the sentence omitted by MVBW is in bold) says: "The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials." Obviously, in that context "the authors" means Sokolov, so my statement was correct. I refuse to believe MVBW does not understand that (he cites this sentence in his another post), so it is hard to imagine that this mistake was a good faith mistake, not a

@Sandstein: Well the AE format a catch-22: to prove persistent and outrageous ignoring of consensus, one has to present a long list of user's actions, but AE word and diff limit does not allow that: in reality we have a long and barren discussion on the talk page where that user is repeating the same arguments again and again, and that behaviour clearly fits DE criteria. However, due to AE format limitations, I presented just one short case that is possible to describe briefly. If a longer list of evidences is needed, it is more suitable for arbitration, which I will do if this case is declined.

Regarding the topic ban, your wording was quite clear any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE. As previous AE cases demonstrated, that topic is devoted to the events that happened before WWII, and is not related to the conflict around Hitler-Stalin conflict.

I am also reminding other admins that I am not interacting with MVBW (no comments on him, no responses, etc), and Nug is perfectly aware of that, so his request for an interaction ban is insincere.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

• This is a retaliatory filing by Paul and a violation of his topic ban issued by Sandstein [71], which explicitly prohibits filing such AE request. Just a few days ago, Sandstein reconfirmed that such ban is still in force [72]. In the process Paul falsely accused me of vandalism and of edits "aimed to whitewash Hitler" [73].

This is not the first such violation on WP:AE by Paul. For example, he recently came to WP:AE specifically to accuse me, without any actual evidence, of "scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel", asking admins to "deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing" and mentioning very same RSNB discussion as in this complaint: [74]. That should stop.

• The RSNB request [75] was started by Paul. I do not think there is any policy (WP:RS)-based reason to exclude the source in question. I can explain more with diffs about diffs 1-3 by Paul if any admin suggests it. Speaking about diff#3, here is what I said on RSNB: [76].

• As a note of order, I never submitted a single question or request about gas vans on any noticeborad. Paul and Assayer did it on at least four different noticeboards (or more). For example, here Paul and Assayer argue to use a blog post by unknown person [77] (this blog post [78]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko. There were other threads [79],[80], [81],[82]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking about topic ban violation, if this is not WWII-related, how did it happen that Paul mentioned Hitler twice in his inquiry to Sandstein [83] ? My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nug

Paul misleadingly characterised the publication as a local Ukrainian newspaper on RSN[84], it is in fact a Russian language newspaper based in Sevastopol, Crimea. Russian wiki does have an article on this newspaper in question, the Crimean Echo [85], and google translate indicates that the editor-in-chief is considered an “honoured journalist” and the newspaper has won numerous awards including one “For professional excellence”. One of the features of the newspaper is that it brings in “historians and publicists from all over the CIS talk about important events”. Evidently

• This AE filing is tedious, and Paul also implicitly attacked MVBW as a “civil POV pusher” without evidence in discussing this case on El_C's talk page[88]. MVBW is clearly not, having reminded that I need to follow RS policy[89] This filing itself is a violation of the AE sanction upon Paul Siebert. In closing the AE report (which included evidence of Paul’s behaviour on the Gas van article), Sandstein banned Paul from editing WW2 in Easern Europe topics "and also any continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request". Paul’s squabble has long ago become tedious, we have seen it in the way Paul has continually squabbled over a number of sources provided by MVBW on RSN[90], most being deemed RS in the end. And the recent filing
  WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements where Paul sought a mechanism to sanction MVBW. This harrassment of MVBW has gone on for a long while now, I had hoped splitting the article would help in taking the heat out, but evidently not. —Nug (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would decline this request. Like many similar previous ones, it reflects a content dispute (whether a particular source should be used or not). AE does not resolve content disputes. "Ignoring consensus" is not a conduct problem that warrants sanctions, except in extreme cases, which this evidence does not establish. I am minded to ban or block the next user who drags gas van-related content disputes to AE. I will not even read any replies that pertain to the content dispute, sources, etc. so you can all save yourselves the effort. Sandstein 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As to whether this request is a violation of my topic ban of Paul Siebert, it looks quite possible to me at first glance, but I'll let other admins handle this if necessary. Sandstein 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Dispute detailed in the request does not encompass WWII, so again, this isn't a topic ban violation on the part of the filer. But I would also decline this request as being outside of AE scope. I made it rather clear with my last AE close that with the contested article having been split into
  Nazi gas van, the former is no longer subject to the aforementioned restrictions, so there is basically nothing for AE to do here. El_C 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Request concerning WP:GMORFC

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms

Additional comments by editor filing request

Don't worry, this will be very easy. Atypical, but very easy.

At

The proposed revisions are entirely minor. They consist only of:

1. Correction of WP:Linter errors.
2. Correction of some page numbers in the cited references.

That's all. The reason for correcting those page numbers is that, at the time of the RfC, a few of the sources were published only online, in advance of hardcopy publication, and the page numbers subsequently changed for the paper versions. These issues came to light when some bots, and some editors making gnomish revisions, discovered them. The discussion leading to me making this request is at User talk:Tryptofish#WP:GMORFC. The proposed revision is here: [91], and a combined diff of all of the changes is here: [92]. You can see the "before" here: [93], and the "after" here: [94].

I do understand that making this request for such minor changes is somewhat over-the-top. My reasoning, however, is that I don't want to open up a precedent for some future editor making substantive changes saying something like "but you let them change it without getting permission." So I'm doing this "by the book".

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GMORFC

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 Kingofaces43

As Tryptofish linked, I set up the changes in my sandbox, though unfortunately the large amount of text/refs makes showing the specific changes in the diff interface difficult in one edit. In short, you can look at individual step-wise edits at

• Support As far as I can tell it's just general housekeeping with no change in meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• On review, everything looks reasonable and in order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, this seems fairly straightforward and benign. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Harshil169

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION :

Diffs

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

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Harshil169

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 Harshil169

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Harshil169

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

Request concerning MyMoloboaccount

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MyMoloboaccount (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/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations

Diffs

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

1. 03:31, 17 November 2019 The restored sources are: a) course notes from
   UT Austin ("Cienciala notes 2006"); b) an unknown website ("pw25"); c) a popular newspaper ("Rzecz
   ").
2. 18:21, 17 November 2019 Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source)
3. 18:53, 17 November 2019 Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions.
4. 23:05, 17 November 2019 In the source: "several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters"; in the text: "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army".

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Took part in the relevant ArbCom case and PD discussion.[95]
• Referred to the decision in an edit summary.[96]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Note that the sourcing restrictions expanded upon by ArbCom apply to source representation as well as to source choice.
• Molobo's editing practices have been discussed extensively,[97] before he decided to take a "long Wikibreak".[98][99][100] He is well aware of the issues with his editing.
• DS do not require TP discussion. That said, discussion did take place.[101]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[102]

Discussion concerning MyMoloboaccount

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 MyMoloboaccount

I note that François Robere didn't even attempt to discuss with me at all his opposition to the edits or possible improvements. This seems a bit battleground behavior in my view.

• Rzeczpospolita is a mainstream reliable publication, neverthless I didn't contest FR second removal.I still believe the infromation it supports isn't controversial and it can be used as source-but I will not reintroduce it if this isn't supported.

• Anna_M._Cienciala is a high quality source:
• was a Polish-American historian and author. She specialized in modern Polish and Russian history. Graduating with a history doctorate in 1962, she taught at two Canadian universities for a few years before joining the history faculty at the University of Kansas in 1965. She retired in 2002.

• sentence ""several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters" and "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army" mean the same basically and further text states that Home Army was praised in these witness reports ie ""the Home Army is openly praised in the testimony of Salomon Liberman". I find hard to see anything controversial here-again FR didn't even discuss anything, and I would be open to any discussion how to praise it differently-however, again it is bit difficult to see controversy here.

• Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions. Wrong. The article is about Radzilow, and Radzilow is the exception mentioned by author. I don't believe it is necessary to mention that in other locations it was different, but this could be added. Again no discussion was made to phrase it differently and edit war took place. FR didn't engage in any discussion on talk page.

• Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source)That's wrong-Zimmerman mentions at least two examples of protecting communities by AK-Hanaczow and Lviv where numerous Jews were saved by Wladyslawa Choms who was an AK officer in charge of the operation. And that is just at brief glance.

Ongoing harassment

This unfortunately follows a strain of personal attacks and wikistalking FR has been engaging in for a while now:

• When I mentioned that I have nothing against mentioning that Nazis targetted Jews as victims of genocide, FR responded "that's a lie" despite me actually entering following sentence in the article with Jews targeted for immediate extermination [103]

In response FR stated you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".' [104]

• When I quoted Nuremberg Trials that state Nazis committed genocide against Poles as well FR responded

[105] This is all damaging to Wikipedia, and the nice façade you're putting up for our fellow editors [106] I'm sorry, but this is just a load of dishonesty and ignorance. Molobo brings a legal definition; I say we can't use it (it'll be OR)

[107] It's lies, obfuscation, and inability to admit a mistake

Going even as far as carrying out accusations of "

After that he started contacting admins asking for sanctions about me but was rebuked several times [108] rebuked [109] asked to use proper venue [110]

Long story short:I mentioned Poles were victims of Nazi genocide, quoted reliable scholars and Nuremberg Trials. FR went ballistic after this and started using personal attacks, gunning for sanctions and wikistalking me-this has been ongoing since August--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to My very best wishes

I note source restrictions do not mention history notes published on University pages. Anna Cienciala was a professor and her history lectures are published on website of University of Kansas; this seems a reliable source and high quality ones.Again-there is no mention about history lectures not being allowed;this should be clarified.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by My very best wishes

1. Yes, this looks to me like a violation. Diff #1. This seems to be a self-published source by Anna M. Cienciala. Is not it?
2. There is no doubts that MyMoloboaccount knew about this editing restriction. However, was not it necessary to place a notice on the page per Arbcom instructions to sanction someone? My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning MyMoloboaccount

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

• The request is actionable in part. MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week.

  (A) Only the first diff is actionable. As to the remaining diffs, it is neither explained nor apparent how they might violate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. I therefore disregard them. (B) As to the second diff, it is also actionable only in part. (B.1) Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy. (B.2) The use of the lecture notes by Anna M. Cienciala violates the remedy. These notes are neither a "peer-reviewed scholarly journal", an "academically focused book by reputable publishers" or an "article published by reputable institutions". The reputation of the author is irrelevant. What matters is that this is not one of the types of publications allowed by the remedy. (B.3) The same applies even more clearly to the use of the source http://www.dws.xip.pl/PW/bron/pw25.html (the "pw25" reference). This site looks like some kind of military blog, it is not in English and the link does not even work. This is the worst kind of sourcing imaginable.

  As to the sanction to be imposed, MyMoloboaccount does not seem to have been sanctioned previously. The remedy states that "Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." This means we cannot impose a topic ban for the first violation. But the decision also provides: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month." This means that a block is the only allowed, and therefore mandatory, enforcement action. For violating the ArbCom decison, MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. Sandstein 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually #3 is also actionable: it is a serious misrepresentation of a source in a contentious area. That's edging towards final warning territory IMO. FR is correct ion characterising this edit as removing the vital context that this is a minority view, albeit a significant minority (as the source says, "Several opinions comprise an exception"). I'm as fed up with these guys scrapping as anyone else is, but that is not kosher. Guy (help!) 00:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Kazemita1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics

Diffs

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

1. 30 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "Removing undue content. There is enough explanation about MEK related matter just prior to this", but this is false; the information he removed has not been discussed anywhere else in the article.

1. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "See talk page about the reasons why it is undue" and in the talk page discussion, says You added this piece which is not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article., but this is false; the information he removed describes the group behind an attempted attack on the MEK on European soil.

1. 1 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says “There is no need to combine the two sentences. It is already long enough.”, but does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources.

1. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says "per Admin's comment (copyvio)", but he does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources.

1. 3 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1 removes reliable sources from the article, but doesn't give a reason why.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 5 May 2019 Kazemita1 warned for edit warring on the
   People's Mujahedin of Iran
   article.

1. 14 May 2019 Kazemita1 blocked for edit warring on the
   People's Mujahedin of Iran
   article.

1. 3 July 2019 Kazemita1 final warning for edit warring on the
   People's Mujahedin of Iran
   article.

1. 16 September 2019 Kazemita1 restricted from making any edits to the
   People's Mujahedin of Iran
   for 2 weeks for edit warring.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict.

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kazemita1 has edited the

The Diffs of edits provided show that despite past sanctions, he is still engaging in edit warring. Kazemita1 uses the article’s revert restrictions to add and remove contested content while failing to provide relevant explanations for his edits. He has been successful at imposing his edits this way, even though his reasons are often misleading or irrelevant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Pinging @Kazemita1: Notifying that there is an AE report concerning your edits.

Discussion concerning Kazemita1

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 Kazemita1

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kazemita1

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

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

Request concerning Actionjackson09

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Actionjackson09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

 :

Diffs

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

Don't worry, this is clear cut process and shows user has too much positive views about Indian religion i.e. Swaminarayan.

Actionjackson09 is removing criticism of

1. This is their one of the first edit in which they removed criticism and paradox of person who is believed to be religious head by Swaminarayan sect. They just gave summary that removed paradox section.
2. In this edit, user has removed the sourced criticism from Swami Dayananda Saraswati on Swaminarayan calling it fringe and undue. They referred the talk page discussion but it was related to article
   Criticism of Swaminarayan sect
   and came on this page after merge.
3. This edit is reversal of criticism by Morari Bapu to Swaminarayan, supreme figure in this sect, they refered talk page discussion but third opinion was that content should be placed. See this discussion. (The content was removed from Criticism of Swaminarayan Sect because it was not quaifying criticism but this user is saying that if this was removed from that article, so, it shouldn't be here.)
4. In most of the discussions, they directly come and say that there is consensus to do so without pinging the person who added it. Check this aggressive revert in which they refer to consensus that content should be removed but the consensus was completely opposite and users who objected never came back to sell their arguments after issue was solved. They said they can't understand the language and thus, it should be removed.
5. Again, in this edit, user has removed the Mahatma Gandhi's criticism on Swaminarayan by saying that removing poorly sourced section while it was clearly sourced. Point to be noted is praise has not been removed, only criticism.
6. In this edit, user removed the explanation from other temples which was written in
   WP:DUE
   way to encounter claims. This directly implied that Akshardham Delhi (this sect's temple) is largest temple without explaining sides and claims of other temples.

--