Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive260

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 BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:28, 26 December 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/American politics 2 :

Diffs

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

1. December 21, 2019 violation of
   competency
   issue"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• July 20, 2018- "BullRangifer is warned that if they persist in making personal attacks and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, they may be topic-banned from the American politics topic area or made subject to other sanctions"
• March 13, 2019- "The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated."
• April 24, 2019-"Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. "

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 (see above)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is even the right venue for this complaint since the personal attack occurred on my user talk page. However, filing this since my ANI complaint was closed by El C, who instructed me to bring it here. The issue began when I nominated

@Aquillion:Here we go again, you love to take my comments out of context and I have never even once called another editor incompetent (so I suggest you strike that allegation):

• #1I was making a valid point after Mr. X insisted that I inserted
  WP:OR
  , I said he was mistaken, not incompetence.
• #2 I was calling out Mr. X for using
  WP:PRIMARY sources to justify his assertion that the word "found" should be used in relation to impeachment. [4]
  Of course he know better, he was just making a really weak argument.
• #3 After another editor claimed However Trump was found GUILTY of abuse of power and obstruction of congress by a "jury" of 535 members" [5], I was making a point that Bill Clinton was impeached and then acquitted by the senate (thus the history lesson).
• #4 A response to Mr. X who said McConnell created the bizarre situation by acting as Trump's surrogate. [6] The rest of my response which you conveniently omitted was We do not need to start a debate about who is to blame.--
  Rusf10 (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• #5 My entire post needs to be read. I was attacked by Neutrality, who provided misleading diffs (basically the same thing you're doing now), I did nothing wrong in the two diffs Neutrality provided and my full response (which you can read) proves it. Yes, I was frustrated that someone who calls themselves Neutrality provides only one side of the story.--
  Rusf10 (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

[7]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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 BullRangifer

Opening statement

Unless Awilley's one year sanction from April 13, 2019, on Rusf10 for their vexatious dramaboard filings against me has expired or has been lifted, this is a SECOND violation of the sanction in two days. This will be the FIFTH such frivolous filing, and the sanction was issued after the THIRD. Even if it's expired, this obsessive behavior should resurrect it, and with a vengeance.

MrX provided

This is a repeat of this closed filing at AN/I two days ago, closed by El C as not a personal attack. That should have been enough for Rusf10 to cease and desist.

Why Rusf10 is so fixated on me is puzzling. I have a talk page. Why don't they just talk to me? Why is their first reflex a battleground one? Why escalate differences, when defusion is better? "Blessed are the peacemakers" because they do not take perceived offenses to dramaboards.

Lest there be any confusion, the sanction on me only applies to article talk pages. My criticism of Rusf10 was rare; it was very specific; it was explained; it was on their personal talk page and not an article talk page; and it was not gratuitous or uncivil. Lack of competency is an accusation that should not be made lightly. I will let others decide whether my judgment of Rusf10's starting of that AfD was wrong, especially since it seemed to be a revenge AfD directed at MrX.

I see this as a thin-skinned response by labeling my justified criticism as a personal attack. The appropriate response is a ban hammer, multiple flying slimy-trout boomerangs, and other sanctions for holding a grudge and now trotting it out as a continuation of Rusf10's previous battleground behaviors. There are a number of behavioral violations here.

A couple days ago SPECIFICO wrote this: "In my opinion this report is boomerang-worthy on its own 2 feet. This is the kind of documented behavior that led to Rusf10's sanction and it would have been better to dispense a TBAN at the outset."

At the very least, this is an abuse of the Arbitration Committee, and at worst a question of a double sanction violation, competency issues, and obsessive harassment behavior. --

MONGO, thanks for the nice list of my participation on private talk pages and drama boards. The ONLY link which would, in the past, have any relevance here is the one to Spygate, and that one earned me a sanction which I have heeded. The context of my comment to User:Phmoreno was ignored, but so be it. They are now blocked. My comment was precise and accurate, but it was too sharp for an article talk page. Lesson learned. I don't do that anymore.

My sanction applies solely to article talk pages. I am not forbidden from expressing my opinions on private talk pages or participating in drama board discussions, and my comments are no worse than what is allowed for everyone else. What has been described falsely as "personal attacks" are criticisms. Drama boards are specifically designed for exactly that type of comment. I do not make them on article talk pages...anymore. --

Aquillion, this is actually Rusf10's FIFTH filing against me, and the last two were after Awilley had sanctioned and warned them for doing this type of thing. Even the clarification today contained a warning. The filings usually come without any warning.

We have a whole dispute resolution process which is skipped right over. I have a talk page which can be used. Instead, the nuclear option is used immediately. There is warlike behavior and there is peacekeeping behavior. The latter is not chosen, and that's what I consider battleground behavior. It's disruptive. --

MrX, the "accusation of having autism (Asperger syndrome)" is a false statement. Yes, seen with hindsight, my wondering/inquisitive comment was awkward, and I regret it and have apologized for it. As I have already explained to Onetwothreeip, I was seeking, in good faith, to see if there was some extenuating circumstance which could somehow excuse their uncollaborative editing patterns. That's how I am. Too much compassion. Others have since explained to me that I should not allow extenuating circumstances to affect my judgments about whether editing is according to our policies or not. Just look at the behavior.

I will not repeat the attempt to seek information from Onetwothreeip, or any other editor, about such matters in the future. It's far too easy for misunderstandings to occur and feelings get hurt. I don't want that. I clearly erred. --

Awilley, when you suggest I could retract my comment, are you referring to this one on a private talk page, the comment deemed by El C to not be a personal attack? I want to be sure I understand you correctly. I could do that, but are you sure you want to set such a precedent for censorship of uncomfortable, yet civil, private talk page discussion?

The alternative would be for Rusf10 to civilly discuss the matter with me, rather than immediately activating this AE nuclear option. I'm certainly open to discussing this with you and/or Rusf10. I always have been.

They are already aware that more than one editor considers some of their AfDs to be personal revenge, rather than policy-based. I was referring to non-policy based AfDs, not proper ones. There can be disagreement on that matter, and proper discussion should be used to come to an understanding.

Regardless, I appreciate outside viewpoints and constructive criticism, because I certainly can't "see myself as others see me." Those who know me here also know that I'm easily amenable to third-party opinions. --

RaiderAspect, you write: "Speculating that another user has Asperger syndrome and thus their opinions can be dismissed..." I totally admit my speculation was improper, I have apologized for it, and stricken it. The reason for my speculation was anything but for the reason you give. It was to seek the existence of an extenuating circumstance that would help me understand, and partially excuse, an ongoing pattern of disruptive behavior, totally unrelated to content or opinions, that is not amenable to the explanations and appeals from myriad editors and admins.

Because my son is an Aspie, and several members of my wife's family are as well, I know the symptoms and some of the behavioral patterns well. It's been our life for decades. Unlike the word "autism", which has a universally negative connotation, we consider Aspies to be a special class of often very gifted people with special abilities and talents. The negative side relates to social interactions, communication difficulties, and frequent misunderstandings.

Regardless of all that, I should not have speculated about that matter and will not do it again. (You may not have read what I have written about that.) After I had written the offensive comment, it was explained to me by several involved editors that I should not seek to find extenuating circumstances to excuse that editor's disruptive behavior. I should just look at the behavior and judge accordingly. I expect they will be brought before this or another drama board soon by someone who will bother to gather a few diffs. A few days worth would be enough, but I'm not the person to do it. I do not like these places. --

Thucydides411, context matters. The problem with Rusf10's actions is related to their misuse of drama boards, obsessive behavior toward me, and battlefield modus operandi. These boards are supposed to be used as a last resort. Disagreements, criticisms, and even personal attacks (which mine was not), should not be brought here unless other means have been exhausted. Rusf10's pattern is to take ONE criticism from me (and it may not be about them at all), and then, immediately and without any warning or attempt to seek a more peaceful resolution, drag me to a drama board and claim it was a personal attack, often with urging from MONGO. It's a battlefield, dispute-escalation, mentality. This place needs peacemakers, not warriors.

I don't know about you. Maybe you're perfect. Maybe your every word and comment is always unambiguous, perfectly worded, and never viewed as offensive. I'm not perfect. I'd rather get a response, be given an opportunity to see things from the other person's perspective, and given an opportunity to apologize and refactor my comment. That is usually my reaction. None of that happens with Rusf10. It's a knee jerk reaction. I get dragged here immediately for one seeming offense, usually judged by others to not be a personal attack.

Whether it was or not is of secondary importance. It's Rusf10's warlike way of dealing with the situation, and then abusing drama boards, that's the problem. In my young days, a very wise man told me: "The 'problem' is not the 'situation', it's how you deal with it." Rusf10 turns a "situation" into a "problem". They need other tools in their toolbox than the red

Rusf10 is incorrect in stating that I came to their talk page to make a bad faith accusation against them. In fact, I made a good faith accusation about their bad faith deletion nomination of an article that I wrote, because the nomination occurred 76 minutes after I reverted their edit on another article. Given the suspicious circumstances and my previous observations of Rusf10's conduct, my assertion that their AfD nomination was done for revenge was perfectly reasonable. - MrX 🖋 23:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert: 18:48 ➜ AfD: 20:04. - MrX 🖋 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I'm not the first victim of Rusf10's revenge AfDs. See User talk:Rusf10#AfD ←This was less than three months ago.

These can't all be coincidences. I request that an admin review this repeated

The Asperger's comment was awkward, but I believe it was made in good faith. The recent comments made to Onetwothreeip were probably the result of considerable frustration about recurrent editing behavior that was causing concern among several editors. That frustration was shared by myself and a couple of of other editors, but I believe everyone involved in the discussion was trying to seek understanding and resolution. Onetwothreeip was obviously offended by the harsh tone and assumptions, but I doubt that was anyone's intent. - MrX 🖋 04:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

Bullrangifer has been warned in the past to not call into question others "competencies" or to question their "competenance" and for battleground behavior. Since that warning, they have continued to personalize disputes and to question others competencies. It needs to be noted that Rusf10 brought this complaint to AN/I at first where administrator El C stated it should be here at AE,[8] so this is not forum shopping. Amazingly, even though BullRangifer has been repeatedly cautioned to not question the competency of others he does so TWICE alone in his opening statement here. For BullRangifer, Wikipedia is a battleground where he has created numerous essays in his userspace denigrating Donald Trump, any and all of his allies, FoxNews, conservatives and those that edit from an opposing viewpoint to his. BullRangifer focus is almost entirely within the AP2 topic area. Questioning his opponents competencies, insulting them, POV pushing and violating UNDUE are not helping to alleviate the acrimonious nature of editing in these arena.

--MONGO (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the admins commenting below, Rusf10 told me he took the initial complaint to AN/I as his previous complaints had little impact at AE. I mistakenly thought El C had recommended this go here or that it belonged here and I may have unnecessarily created a situation where I encouraged Rusf10 to file this here. However, for the record, my diffs are a mere cursory glance at what I see as insulting, belittling and policy violating personal commentary performed by BullRangifer against their ideological political opponents, behavior that was yet again demonstrated at the complainants talk just yesterday, where they offered about as poor an excuse of an apology as any I have read on this website. These are in no way a full compendium of those insults. You may wish to ignore this filing since it comes from someone you feel has some sort of vendetta against BullRangifer, but these diffs speak for themselves. No one made BullRangifer insult others...that is entirely on them. Your failure to act will only embolden the offender and likely lead to further complaints by others.--MONGO (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Here come the Suns

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Here come the Suns (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/ARBPIA4 :

Diffs

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

1. 22:18, 28 December 2019 "you have just basically admitted to lying"
2. 22:26, 28 December 2019 "Simply put: you lied"
3. 22:59, 28 December 2019 "You lied."

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Alerted, 13 September 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At

Firstly, I never claimed I had read the source in this instance. Yes, I relied on the info in the Wikipedia article.

Secondly, note HctS edit-summary here: "what;'s this "occupation: nonsense? It is Israeli territory, both before and after 1956".

Alas, anyone can check that Auja al-Hafir was in the middle of the demilitarised zone, between Israel and Egypt. (See eg the map in the 1949 Armistice Agreements-article). Now, I could could go on saying every 10 minutes that HctS lied, alas, that is not the way I edit.

Here are just some of the edits HctS have made in the past month or so, concerning me:

• 23:21, 28 November 2019. "your POV edits"
• 23:42, 1 December 2019 "You are the classic
  WP:NOTHERE
  editor"
• 00:10, 2 December 2019 "The misleading nature of her comment above is permeates her Wikipedia editing"
• 04:20, 2 December 2019 "But I do object to editors like you and Huldra misrepresenting the nature of other editors' arguments or the nature of previous discussions"
• 23:28, 20 December 2019 "You are not here to build an encyclopedia but to push a POV and play games"
• 00:08, 21 December "Like I said, you are here to push a POV, not to build quality articles."
• 22:21, 28 December 2019: "At this point, you need to walk away. Alternately, I could ask El_C to tell you to walk way, as you are being disruptive."
• 22:43, 28 December 2019: "That is pretty much the definition of being disruptive."

Note also that HctS received 04:38, 2 December 2019 a "friendly advice" from an admin: "You and Huldra appear to have some history (the details of which I am not aware and into which I do not want to wade) but I ask you to please keep your comments on topic."

I also note that HctS is following me around, (Of the 26 articles where we have edited 1 day or less apart, only Talk:Auja al-Hafir, and on their own user page did HctS edit first. Note also that many of those common articles have typically less than 10 views pr day, say Lone Tree Brewery, Awarta, Auja al-Hafir)

Funnily, in their rush to undo my edits, HctS even manage to undo my rv of vandalism (rv to red-linked article)(!) link

All in all; is this behaviour acceptable? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My full edit line here is: "Stop making up things: not in source that they were residents of Awarta", it is because the source never said the perpetrators were residents of Awarta, still that was said in the Awarta- article.

User:El C, if there is an interaction ban, you need to be very specific with the terms. Even if HctS is not allowed to comment about me on talk-pages, are they allowed to follow me around and undo my edits every day? Huldra (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C, if so, then I think you have to specify a time limit, say, HctS are not allowed to edit any article I have edited for x days following my edit. (Otherwise we will get into endless arguments about what was a revert, or not) Huldra (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C: again, I suspect we will have endless discussions about what is a revert/not revert. Would edits like this (just after my edit here) be counted as a revert of me? Huldra (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C: It is partially a revert, they reintroduced "(the perpetrators were later found to have indeed come from Awarta)", which I removed as duplicate information, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

Discussion concerning Here come the Suns

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 Here come the Suns

As Huldra notes, I challenged some of the statements in the article as unsourced. She reinstated them, still w/o a source, initially claiming (in an edit summary) that they were supported by a source (UNSCR 108). In the subsequent discussion on the talk page, I pointed out that 108 does not actually support the statement in question, and asked for a source. Huldra pointed me to a book by Morris. I responded that we need a specific source (e.g a page number). At that point she claimed the statement is supported by Morris, page 356 ([20]). Subsequently, she admitted she did not check the book to see if that is true, and in fact is not in possession of that book so could not have possibly checked it before claiming the statement is supported by that page. She basically just made it up. I don't know what to call those actions except a lie.

Response to Sharab Salam : She did not quote anything from a source, and I have not misquoted her. That source was in the article in support of a different sentence, and she claimed, without reading it, that it also supports the claim I removed. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: - I did assume a mistake was made, when I pointed out that the source she is referencing is used for another statement. She then admitted she had not read the source. Is it acceptable editing to claim a source supports something, when you have not checked that source, and can't check it since you don't have the source ? Note that contrary to what Zero0000 claims, she did "suggest the source might support it", she claimed it does. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: I take your point, and I have stricken out the claims of "lying". Can you address my question - Is it acceptable editing to claim a source supports something, when you have not checked that source, and can't check it since you don't have the source? Here come the Suns (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: "I never claimed I had read the source in this instance"- After you said the material is in Morris's book, I asked for a specific source, to which you replied "The source is in the article: Morris: Israel's Border Wars, p. 356. "[21]- what is that, if not a claim that you read page 356 of Morris and found the claim is sourced to it? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - What is a "one way interaction ban"? I can't comment on her editing, but she can comment on mine? With pearls like "Stop making up things" [22]? Here come the Suns (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: I see Zero0000 has taken issue with my use of "misrepresentation". Perhaps he'd like to clarify this, then (and note his use of "deliberate") "You think you score points here by deliberately misrepresenting sources? " [23]. It seems like more than one interaction ban is required here. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: I fixed the link, above. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El C: Thank you. So will there be consequences for that ? I don't think I have done anything that these two (Huldra, Zero) haven't also done, directed toward me. I at least struck out my offending comments. Here come the Suns (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @El C: Apologies for the refactoring, I was editing in my own section and hadn't seen you had already replied. To the point: It is hardly "one infraction". Where we have Huldra complaining of me calling her edits "POV", we have Zero0000 describing my edits as "giving only a nationalistic assertion "[24]. I could easily find more (just now, we have SharabSalam opining that "there was a "reasonable cause" to say that HctS was deliberately misrepresenting the source") just tell me how many you'd need. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @El C: I agree that each side is unlikely to convince the other of their positions, and I also accept that my responses have been less than optimal at times. I regret that, and will endeavor to do better in the future. What concerns me at this juncture, though, is that you seem on the cusp of imposing a restriction on me, alone, when comparable actions by the other side will be given a pass. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my "comparable actions" statement , above. I've been accused of following these editors around and undoing their edits, and this appears to be the basis of the suggestion for a 1-way interaction ban. Well, let's look a the following:

• [25] - I edit Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement, 3 hours later, Zero0000 is there to partially revert me [26]
• [27], I edit Awarta, 30 minutes later Zero0000 is there to revert me
• [28], I edit Zionism, 4 hours later Zero0000 is there to revert me
• [29], I edit Nabi Samwil, 10 hours later Zero0000 is there to partially revert me
• [30] I edit Rafah, 7 hours later is there to partially revert me

These are just from the last 2 weeks. There are many more. Here come the Suns (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SharabSalam

Huldra said "but I read it when I was working on the

Al-Hamma Incident and Al-Hamma, Tiberias". Yet, this editor keeps saying she admitted she didn't read the source. Based on this behaviour, trust me this will not be the last time this editor will come again to this board.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

El_C no, he is saying that she has admitted that she didn't read the source. She didnt say she didnt read the source. She said she doesnt have it at the moment. HstS has no right to say something isn't in the source when he literally has no access to it. This trolling behaviour by calling other editors liars in the talk page multiple times should not be forgiven. See also Zero post below. Did you read it? --SharabSalam (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, where is the apology? I am not seeing any apology made by "HctS" to Huldra. If you clicked ctrl-f in this page and searched for "apolo" you will find other editors who apologies for their mistake. Their mistakes werent even as grave as HctS mistake and yet there is no apology made in Huldra's talk page or even here by HctS.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, there was a "reasonable cause" to say that HctS was deliberately misrepresenting the source. See the discussion. HctS regularly and in daily basis accuses Huldra of lying.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

There was a paragraph in the article which had a citation only in the middle of the paragraph, so one could only guess whether the source supported all of the paragraph or only the part before the citation. Nothing to get excited about.

First HctS changed some of the paragraph both before and after the citation, giving only a nationalistic assertion as an edit summary.

Then HctS changed "village" into "junction" without explanation or source. (Actually it had a Town Planning Scheme awarded in 1947, so it wasn't just a road junction.)

Finally, HctS removed a sentence. Since it followed the citation it can be called unsourced, but it is true and easy to source and the rest of HctS's edit summary is false.

Huldra proposed on the talk page that the source given in the middle of the article might support all of it. Neither Huldra nor HctS had the source available, so it came down to "Have you checked the source?" backwards and forwards. As a content dispute it is trivial, and tomorrow I will edit on the basis of the same source (which does in fact support most of the paragraph). The problem here is that HctS crossed the line by repeatedly calling Huldra a liar. This is an unacceptable way of conducting a dispute. Zero^talk 13:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, now HctS has written "you are misrepresenting what it says" to me, which is another accusation of dishonesty. One would think that in the midst of a case against HctS for casting aspersions, s/he would at least be more careful. Clearly s/he just doesn't get it. Zero^talk 23:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have 6912 pages on my watchlist, including all ARBPIA articles that I'm aware of. I can make mistakes, but I am happy with all the partial reverts that HctS lists, all of which were good edits that I carefully explained. Zero^talk 06:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Here come the Suns

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

• @
  Assume mistakes were made, instead. Otherwise, I have yet to review this request in detail, so I reserve my judgment, for now. El_C 13:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Here come the Suns: even so, best to assume there's been an oversight rather than exclaim these are lies. El_C 15:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: thanks for striking. Indeed, counting on one's recollection is not optimal. Best to have the source at hand to confirm as well as provide the exact page number/s, excerpt if requested, and so on. El_C 16:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SharabSalam: unless I'm missing something, HctS is saying she hasn't read it in this instance. El_C 21:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SharabSalam: the offending comments have been retracted. That means that forgiveness here is actually quite viable. Although the retraction does fall short of an actual apology. El_C 21:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In light of Huldra's latest diffs, perhaps a one-way
  interaction ban would be sensible, after all. El_C 23:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Zero0000: misrepresentation does not necessarily imply accusations of dishonesty or bad faith. One could claim misrepresentation to be taking place in error, therefore, in good faith. El_C 23:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: they would not be allowed to do so. El_C 23:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: the link for your latest diff is broken. El_C 23:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: they would be allowed to edit the same articles, just not interact with you or to undo your edits. El_C 23:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  aspersion. El_C 23:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Here come the Suns: for one such comment? No, not likely. El_C 23:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: please refrain from refactoring comments that have been replied to. El_C 23:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: no, that is not a revert. El_C 23:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: oh, okay. El_C 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @SharabSalam: perhaps so — perhaps not. I don't know. I am admittedly not greatly familiar with the dispute. I am also unable to immediately go through walls of text which involve multiple sources. El_C 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: clearly, the two sides are not going to agree on fundamental questions. The question is whether a civil discussion devoid of accusations of bad faith can commence. Sorry to say, but I'm feeling less than optimistic at this time. El_C 00:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: I'm actually inclined to see what other uninvolved admins have to say before doing anything unilateral. El_C 00:23, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Here come the Suns: I find it reasonable to assume that Zero has those articles watchlisted. El_C 00:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking over
  WP:FOC to a ban of some kind seems appropriate. A warning for a topic like this would be backed by the likelihood of a broadly-construed topic ban if similar problems occur again. I would add that HctS's most recent post at talk (23:26, 29 December 2019) fails to engage with the comment HctS was replying to. The earlier comment included a quote from the reference and a reply should address whether or not the quote verifies the disputed article text, with reasoning. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Appealing user

Xenagoras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Xenagoras (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

31 hour block for

WP:1RR violation on article Tulsi Gabbard

.

 Block log.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Doug Weller (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 Xenagoras

This block by @

MrX, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your statement as "confirmation", "I did not say that violated 1RR. I just wanted to make sure that you didn't in subsequent edits"[39] appeared like confirmation of 1RR not broken so far to me. All of my 5 edits happened in very fast succession to make it obvious that they are part of one editing sequence. I did not revert twice anything you wrote. My edit from 18:57 in section Early life and education that you refer to reverted your edit from 13:15, and you did not revert anything I wrote in that section Early life and education after 13:15, therefore my 18:57 edit was a singular revert of your edit from 13:15 as well as part an editing sequence. Xenagoras (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Moved to editor's section. Please comment only in your section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

It was clearly a 1RR block which I didn't think needed an explanation. Xenagoras made three edits, then MrX made one. Xenagoras made 2 edits after that with the last one being another revert. I have no idea why they still fail to acknowledge that. The issue isn't one of reverting the same edit twice, it's simply that it wasn't a string of five reverts, with a break of 14 minutes between MrX's edit and Xenagoras's fifth edit. That's plenty of time for someone who is editing an article that they clearly know is under 1RR and who has had a previous warning - see User talk:Xenagoras#1RR. Maybe if it had been just a minute or two a free pass with another reminder might have been ok, but that's just too long a gap. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Xenagoras, you misrpesented what I said. I did not "confirm" that your 5 edit-sequence did not violate the. I wrote that I "did not say" that you violated 1RR. In other words, I was silent on the issue. However, it appear that you did in fact make a second revert [40]. While your 18:44 edit appears to be part of a series of edits, your 18:57 edit raises some doubts. - MrX 🖋 22:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Xenagoras

• The block will expire automatically at 04:00 hours UTC. ——SN54129 12:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Xenagoras

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

• Xenagoras violated 1RR, as Doug Weller has already explained above, but I'll do it again. I was going to give diffs, but I believe it's really more informative for my readers to look at the article history, here. The relevant edits by Xenagoras (five edits) and MrX (one edit) are currently twelve lines down, running from 18:34 to 18:57 13 January (UTC). Xenagoras's first three edits, 18:34, 18:40 and 18:43, count as one revert. Then comes an edit by MrX at 18:43, not sure whether that's a revert, and it doesn't matter. Xenagoras's fourth edit, at 18:44, is Xenagoras's second revert. But if that was all, I wouldn't sanction it, because they could well have made that fourth edit without being aware of MrX editing in between, both looking at the timestamps and looking at the text that was reverted.

However, Xenagoras's fifth edit at 18:52 is definitely a second revert. They're actually reverting what MrX did in between, so they were clearly aware of it, and can't reasonably have thought their five edits were consecutive. (I do not mean to say they're claiming it in bad faith, but that they fail to understand what "consecutive" means.) Xenagoras, you refer to

WP:3RR for saying all your edits are consecutive, but that policy actually says "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." My italics. You violated 1RR, and the sanction was proper. Bishonen | talk 10:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC). PS, no, I misread Xenagoras's fifth edit, and have crossed out what I said about it. Their reverts still weren't consecutive, and I don't believe they could have reasonably missed MrX's intervening edit. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply

]

Uhm, Doug and Bishonen, given the timeline, and the fact that MrX's intervening edit was to a paragraph other than the one Xenagoras worked on next, I don't think it's reasonable to assume Xenagoras must have been aware of MrX's edit. I'd tend to assume good faith here and consider that Xenagoras was still genuinely thinking of his edits as an unbroken sequence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out that Xenagoras couldn't necessarily be expected to notice MrX's intervening edit when he made his fourth edit, Future. But his fifth edit was 14 minutes after MrX, and I think he should have checked the history in the meantime. But I'm not against assuming good faith here, even though I'm surprised Xenagoras still thinks all his edits were consecutive. I mean, I would have thought he'd at least have looked at the history when he wrote this appeal. But nm, if it depends on me I'll neither oppose nor support granting the appeal. I hope some more admins post before the 31 hours are up. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• I would sustain the block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The block wasn't the type of clearly incorrect or abuse of discretion action that would necessitate reversal. It was a short block that's already expired. So, I would close this as moot, and Xenagoras should take it as a reminder to be cautious editing articles under 1RR, so as not to even inadvertently cross over that line. Articles under such sanctions are under them for a reason. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from gun control; imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187#Arthur Rubin Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#Arthur Rubin, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2015#Gun control

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HJ_Mitchell&diff=935978650&oldid=935855599

Statement by Arthur Rubin

I realize that Wikipedia's (possibly consensus) POV on gun control differs from mine, and I have no intention of arguing the point. I would like to be able to discuss factual errors in gun control articles (although I don't intend to seek them out), and whether events (loosely) related to gun control should be in year and decade articles. My previous topic ban on the Tea Party movement has been reduced to a 1RR/week restriction. I'm not appealing for further revision of that because I believe that to be reasonable for most articles, if reversion of vandalism and spam are exempted. I wouldn't mind if this restriction was removed entirely, but I would settle for reduction to a 1RR restriction. This is, I believe, my first appeal of the January 2015 sanction.

Link to sanctions now fixed.

As to factual errors, I'm afraid there are no correct answers. As I don't intend to seek out the articles, I will only make changes if the "facts" are changed by one of the many vandals who randomly change numbers, dates, and locations. Otherwise, I'll discuss the matter.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Arthur Rubin

• Given the length of time which has passed under sanctions without incident, I don't think there's any reason not to go with El_C's proposal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I wanted to reply in response to a comment Vanamonde93 made with regards to at least this edit [[41]]. The comment was that this edit ignored sources and were based on personal POV. I'm not sure that is correct. Having worked on this same article, though a few years later, I think you will find the current consensus lead is similar to the one proposed by AR. Additionally what AR proposed is supported by the NYT source both in that the term is largely used by those who want to regulate and objected to by those who don't want to regulate. The phrasing not as neutral as it could be but it's not outright POV pushing. It also appears that, at that time, AR was dealing with an editor, Lightbreather, who was later banned from Wikipedia in large part due to her issues with POV pushing on gun related topics. Regardless, I think the 5 years since this incident and a lack of any current issues should be more than enough to allow a resumption of editing in that topic area. When dealing with a request to lift a tban there are 4 possible scenarios based on two variables. The first variable is will the ban be lifted (Y/N)? The second is if lifted will the editor stay clean? So long as we believe that tbans are not a punishment we should want the outcome of every tban appeal to be "Y-lift + Y-stay clean". If the answer is No-No well we dodged a bullet (forgive the metaphor) but will never know it. If the answer is Yes-lift, No-got dirty the the tban can always come back. However, if the answer is No-lift but in reality the editor would have stayed clean, well we are now just punishing which is against Wp:BP policy. The risk associated with a lift is really not that bit hence why not err on the side of lifting? Springee (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Arthur Rubin

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

• @Arthur Rubin: It seems like you linked to the wrong AE archive page. El_C 02:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it has been half a decade, I, for one, don't object to revoking the ban by supplanting it with a 1RR restriction (which, itself, I think, can also be revoked after, say, a year of un-problematic editing in this topic area). This, of course, on condition that if
  tendentious editing resumes, including on talk pages, the ban is to be re-applied without the need for the same burden of proof as the 2015 case might have demanded. In other words, cautious editing should still permit for Arthur Rubin's perspective to be voiced, again, so long as it adheres to encyclopedic standards. El_C 02:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Vanamonde93: I guess my view is that we ultimately risk little in giving the proposal (as worded above) a chance, although indeed I would have liked to hear more from AR in this regards — they seem to be somewhat wary of commenting followups on their own AE appeal, for some reason. El_C 15:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would normally want to wait for a statement from the sanctioning admin, but as HJ Mitchell's activity seems rather sporadic, in this instance we're unlikely to receive one. Given that relaxing the Tea Party topic ban does not seem to have led to a repeat of the problems which led to that sanction, I would support trying the solution proposed by El C, that being relaxing the restriction to 1RR at first, with that to be possibly removed in the future as well if problems don't resurface. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with Seraphimblade. Seems like a good solution. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Though it's been a while since this sanction was imposed, I find edits like this and this, both cited in the enforcement request that led to this sanction, to be very concerning. The statement above does not directly address my concerns; there's too much wiggle room in the term "factual error". Arthur Rubin in a POV-laden area such as this, how do you intend to determine factual correctness in articles? Yes, that is a leading question, in that there's one correct answer; and I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the TBAN until we have that answer. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What concerns me about the diffs presented in the original enforcement request was that AR was, essentially, ignoring sources and arguing from personal authority. He is perfectly entitled to his own opinions on guns, but any material he adds needs to gun-related articles needs to reflect what reliable sources say. In the absence of any acknowledgement of that fact (or to put it another way, in the absence of any acknowledgement of why things went wrong five years ago), I would decline this request. If reverting vandalism is all you need to do, AR, you don't need this lifted; reverting vandalism is an

  exception to most topic-bans, including this one, as far as I can see. @The Blade of the Northern Lights, Seraphimblade, and El C: I'd appreciate your thoughts. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Springee: There is a world of difference between what the version AR added, and the current version. The language we use matters as much as the factual detail; and it is therefore critical for our language to reflect that of the sources. I don't know if AR read the sources or not. In his appeal, though, he makes no undertaking to adhere to reliable sources, and that's a problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all old edits, and the ones for which the sanction was imposed. I don't see any indication that AR has been involved in current misconduct, including in the Tea Party area for which he was also sanctioned. So, I certainly agree that the original sanction was warranted, but I still think it's time enough we can try loosening it. If problems like that recur, well, it'll be right back in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: I guess I'm not willing to assume that someone has learned from something just because it happened a long time ago (we generally ask folks appealing their sanctions to explain what they did wrong, do we not?), but if there is agreement among the rest of you, I won't stand in the way of loosening this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:13, 22 January 2020 (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 Notagainst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Notagainst (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

Diffs

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

Examples of not trying to find consensus

• Talk:Climate_crisis#Can_this_article_be_saved? Notagainst did a big rewrite of the article. Initial objections about POV were ignored and editing continued away from objections even after the discussion was started.
• Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Sense_of_crisis This pattern continued: Notagainst added a subsection, and continued expanding it (e.g. 1 January) during a discussion on whether it should be removed for being off-topic/POV.
• Talk:Bushfires in Australia#Significant redirection of content? Further continuation, with Notagainst performing some 35 edits after this concern was raised. After tagging them, they continued to ignore the concern about POV and added more information to the section under dispute (12 January).

Examples of failing Wikipedia:Verifiability by misrepresenting sources

• 19 December Inserting statement that climate change is already driving mass migration with four sources, two of which don't talk about the past/current state at all. Also falsely claiming report is from IPCC, when it's instead from IOM.
• 19 December Leaving out important context (worst-case scenario). Removed verification failed tag on December 29 without correcting various mistakes.
• 19 December Inserted five sources, none of which supported statement. Later corrected, but I think still in violation with
  WP:NPOV
  .
• 20 December Amended number, but source (UN) still explicitly states this number is guesswork and the report cites works that describe the number as apocalyptic.
• 2 January Other examples of wrongful attribution: not scientific American, but somebody published by them.

Examples of personal attacks

• 24 September Personal attack directed at me: "it seems you just run with the bullies."
• 9 September, 28 September, 6 November, 6 November Personal attack directed at group of editors "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers." and Sounds like you might be a climate crisis denier? and more.
• 12 January Personal attack at me: what kind of person does that?.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• 15 July 2019 notified on talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notagainst is a prolific editor of some of the most widely-read pages about climate change. I regret that I feel obliged to ask enforcement instead of working together on improving this important topic. The disruptive editing consists of a persistent refusal to engage seriously in consensus building and objecting to community input. Furthermore, they are editing so much that other editors don't have time to verify, often with a high rate of mistakes. When other editors comment on mistakes or on other content disputes, the editor often continues editing the article in the direction other editors objected to. The editor also frequenty uses personal attacks, even after being called out on them. Frequent editor concerns are about POV pushing. That this type of editing occurs on widely-read pages makes it more urgent in my view.

start of later contribution I'll respond to two of NA's points.

1. This reflects my concerns that NA isn't able yet to distinguish reliable sources from semi-reliable sources. Take the last source in the list, an article in the Foresight magazine. This article makes claims about what the UN forecasts about migration. The magazine doesn't quote the report they take this information from, but the numbers correspond to the 2009 IOM report. This UN report contains contains a literature assessment, in which they discuss these numbers. They make it clear that they have serious doubts about those numbers, so saying that the UN forecasts them is a clear mis-characterisation by the Foresight magazine, making this article, and possibly this source, unsuitable for Wikipedia.

4. Incorrect, I started formulating a request on 22 December.

[42]

Discussion concerning Notagainst

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 Notagainst

The simple answer as to whether "wikivoice is not a principle" is that WP has a pillar called Neutrality. WP:wikivoice redirects to WP:NPOV. That page does not mention wikivoice in the list of contents. There is a section among the contents called Policies and guidelines. It contains dozens of related policies - but wikivoice is not among them. WP does not have a principle, a guideline or a pillar called wikivoice. This is not my belief. It is a fact. Notagainst (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) On her user Page, Femkemilene says she is “a PhD researcher on climate variability and change”. As such, she is required to employ academic standards of accuracy and verifiability to include material in her research. WP does not require the same level of accuracy as academic research and she and I have butted heads because she tries to impose her academic standards on Wikipedia. Other editors follow her lead. In the pursuit of accuracy, they ignore the WP principle requiring neutrality and balance.

For instance, in this discussion on the level of migration attributable to climate change, she says she “deleted two of (my) four sources because they did not support the statement…(which read: ‘Global warming is already driving mass migration in different parts of the world.’) That’s not to say they are wrong, but just that we can’t trust them at face value… Estimates of migration called primarily by environmental factors and specifically by climate change are highly controversial.” There were four citations for the statement in the article.

• Migration and Climate Change, The IPCC

• Climate Change Is Already Driving Mass Migration Around the Globe
• 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants
• Environmental Migrants: Up To 1 Billion By 2050

These are all reliable sources making somewhat different claims about how many migrants there will be. What they all agree on is that there will be millions and that these are largely attributable to climate change. But Femkemilene refuses to trust them because they don't meet her academic standards.

2) In this discussion, Femkemilene demonstrates that she deletes material she doesn't agree with or which doesn't reach her academic standards, instead of adding other material that would provide balance.

3) In this discussion on Sense of Crisis, she splits academic hairs over the difference between the effects and responses to global warming.

4) As an authority on the subject, Femkemilene seems to take personal offence at being challenged. In this discussion, I pointed out the inconsistency in her claim that she believes there is a climate crisis but that she failed to support this view in discussions on the climate crisis talk page ("what kind of person does that?"). She was clearly offended and initiated this arbitration. Notagainst (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5) RCraig claims climate crisis is just a value-laden term. And yet 11,000 scientists were happy to do so in a RS which means it meets the criteria for inclusion - but he and his 'half dozen' colleagues deleted it. They use the mythical wikivoice to ignore the principle of balance and neutrality. Notagainst (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6) In regard to seeking consensus with these editors, that's almost impossible when they consistently ignore basic WP rules about using reliable sources to achieve neutrality and balance - and kid themselves that wikivoice is a real WP principle which justifies their collective deletions.Notagainst (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RCraig09

I encountered substantial and repeated violations by Notagainst in

• 22 Sept: "Wikivoice is not a principle - it doesn't exist."
• 28 Sept: "the page has been taken over by climate crisis deniers"
• 29 Sept: "Your lack of logic is simply astounding"
• 7 Nov: "That's nonsense."
• 21 Nov: "There is no discussion of the climate crisis on the global warming page" — (In fact,
  Global warming#Public opinion and disputes
  )

I concur with Femkemilene. Notagainst is a prolific, methodologically careless, and stubborn author who plays loose with facts in service of an outside agenda, and engages in incivility in the face of constructive reasoned comments by experienced editors. —RCraig09 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supplemental (21 Jan): Notagainst's comments, including fresh ones on this very AE page, demonstrate an ongoing inability to distinguish between an encyclopedia that describes a topic neutrally (global warming and climate change) versus a personal opinion characterizing the topic using a value-laden term (climate crisis). He even criticizes subject matter expert Femkemilene for taking a properly different approach with respect to that encyclopedia article versus at her university. And to this day (21 Jan 2020), Notagainst continues to dismiss the important distinction between (objective) effects of GW/CC and humans' (subjective chosen) responses to GW/CC. An editor seeing that "half a dozen or so editors" deleted his content, might step back to reassess his own actions in light of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. — 23:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC) and RCraig09 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Springee)

I had only limited interaction with Notagainst when editing the Climate Crisis page. Like RCraig09 I found they failed to listed to the concerns of others and didn't follow CIVIL in the face of pushback. I'm not surprised they ended up here. I do think they have good intent but they should learn the ropes on less political topics. Ideally I would suggest they get some mentoring as to the best ways to handle topics like those related to climate change. Absent something like that, perhaps a self imposed 1RR restriction? If this comes down to a topic ban I would suggest something like 6 months or a demonstration that they understand the issue and it won't happen again (edit: by or I mean a 6 month tban but the ability to appeal any time so it could be lifted right away). As I think they are essentially acting in good, if misguided, faith, I would suggest any editing restrictions be lifted with minimal effort if/when they can articulate an understanding of the problem. Springee (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clayoquot

@

@Clayoquot, Please provide a link to the policy section on WP where it describes wikivoice. There is a redirect to WP:NPOV. I cannot find anything anywhere which describes wikivoice as a policy. Notagainst (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notagainst:. The link you are requesting is the link I provided. I am not understanding why, after being given this link several times, you still say you can't find a description of wikivoice as a policy. The link that multiple people have given you is to a section of the Neutral Point of View policy called "Explanation of the neutral point of view". This section uses the phrase "in Wikipedia's voice" twice. Is it not clear that when people say "wikivoice" this is an abbreviation of "Wikipedia's voice" and that the Neutral Point of View policy gives guidance on what is appropriate to say in Wikipedia's voice? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Notagainst

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

• Notagainst, the editor against whom this request was filed, has not put in a statement but has since edited and was properly notified. Accordingly, I think this request should be reviewed since they have apparently decided not to provide their input. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade that
  topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @
    WP:ASSERT. If you were more familiar with other topics you would know that the community relies on the wiki voice principle in numerous discussions, and policies follow standard procedure, not the reverse. I have not yet examined the evidence or your response (apart from the wiki voice issue)—does your response above address the evidence or is it claiming problems with other editors? If the latter, please be aware that such comments are off-topic here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Notagainst: Editors posting in the #Result concerning Notagainst section of this report are administrators and a good starting point would be to assume that they are experienced and their comments should be carefully examined. For your information, with certain conditions that are satisfied in this case, any uninvolved administrator can issue a topic ban or other sanction without consultation. My posts immediately above raised certain points. Since then you made two edits here (1 + 2) to add your point 6. I also mentioned that claiming problems with other editors is off-topic here—what is wanted is a response to the evidence presented. If you think another editor should be sanctioned, start a new report on them (I would not advise that in this case). Do you want to qualify your above responses? If so, please do it very soon because this has to be closed.
    I have now looked at most of the evidence. The mass migration issue can possibly be excused as enthusiasm backed by enthusiastic sources. Some of the diffs (example) show minor battleground behavior which is not sustainable in an area under discretionary sanctions. @Notagainst: Do you want to make a commitment regarding how you comment in the future? Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am closing this with a topic ban as Notagainst is not taking advice:
    • In diff I reminded the user that all responses must be in [the user's] section, yet their next edit was to comment in another user's section.
    • I gave strong hints at User talk:Notagainst#WP:AE procedures that Notagainst should review comments here—I wanted their response to my above explanation regarding WP:WIKIVOICE but that did not occur. Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2020 (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 Kmoksha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kmoksha (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/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

Diffs

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

1. 24 Janary 2020 (8283 bytes), 25 January 2020 (5494 bytes) – excessively long posts
2. 20 January 2020 – neither agreeing nor disagreeing with my attempt at summarisation
3. 20 January 2020, 25 January 2020 – refusal to admit subsectioning - see also this User talk discussion
4. 23 January 2020 – refusal to participate in DRN
5. 17 January 2020, 23 January 2020 – Repeatedly ignoring the secondary sources that have been cited, and arguing based on PRIMARY sources or inferior secondary sources.
6. 27 December 2019 – Asking questions and turning the answers into arguments (as in a court room cross-examination)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 December 2019
• Placed a {{
  Ds/aware
  }} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(426 words, 2584 characters, 19 diffs of the user conduct)

This conduct is occurring at the page on

One example of this is the issue of the beneficiaries of the Act, which he raised first on 12 January using some out-of-date information from Intelligence Bureau. I asked him to look for sources by a sample google search, the very first of which explained the subtleties of the issue pretty clearly. However, there are five more mentions of "beneficiaries" on the talk page as of today, including this proposal on 23 January.

Kmoksha's second action on the mainspace was to revert my edit where I expanded a one-sentence summary of an important topic ("Relationship to NRC") to a fuller discussion. After considerable prodding, Kmoksha produced an explanation for his revert, whose long and tedious discussion manifested the majority of the problems listed above. Other than those surface issues, the discussion has been essentially one of

Kmoksha's long rambling posts have blocked the consensus-building process by discouraging other editors from participating. He has been told by El_C to condense his posts. He has also been told by RegentsPark that he is coming across as being tendentious. None of these had any effect. His refusal to even participate in a DRN discussion is mystifying. So at this point I have no option but to ask for him to be sanctioned from this topic.

• It is ironic that the editor states here once again that "Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content", whereas I pointed out above that I had conceded. This is an extreme case of
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
  .

Also worth noting is the continued allegation that "there was an ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC"" when I expanded the section. There was, but it was regarding some content that the editor wanted to see added. It had nothing to do with my expansion. This kind of obfuscation and gaslighting pervade the entire discussion of the editor, making any collaboration essentially impossible. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

26 January 2020

Discussion concerning Kmoksha

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 Kmoksha

Constant flip-flops of Kautilya3 are visible even in his submission here - complaining of "long posts" but where concise and proper answer was possible and given, he still complains instead of responding to it. From day1, Kautilya3, editors toeing similar lines with him are putting vague, false accusations on me while themselves violating several Wiki Policies like

False Allegations previously successfully refuted by me - with no response to my refutations by El_C etc. -

• "Pushing Government viewpoint" - My response - My concern is to improve wikipedia articles. I raised Government FAQs because it was prominently covered in Indian media including by source referenced in article. Kautilya3 thanked me for raising that link and said it can be used to expand "Government response" section. My proposed critique along with Government response. proves my effort of NPOV, disproves repeated allegations of "pushing Government viewpoint".

• Stonewalling, "Multiple threads" - Response1 , Response2

• Response to Tendentious editing

• Long posts - Response

• Response to accusations regarding ignoring secondary sources, using primary sources for argument - See here Even though I have quoted Kautilya`s own referenced sources for argument, Vanamonde still falsely accuses me of using Primary sources for argument.

Improvements in article due to my efforts* -

• First and second edit had useful parts like spelling corrections. My suggested sentence was added to article - see here. But edits were reverted within minutes, without trying to conserve useful parts.

• Beneficiaries of the Act - Only because I pointed out inconsistency of text of accepted sources` article and wiki article, Kautilya3 changed article sources, made changes even today.

• Consensus in talk page on expanding sections from article using accepted sourced link in article and modifying second sentence of lead

While there was ongoing discussion on improving NPOV in section "Relationship to NRC", Kautilya3 removed present text of section having word "concerns" and made it more definitive although all his referenced sources were having words not definitive like "not clear", "worries" etc. and own POV pushed for that. Other editors - YN Desai mentioned haphazard manner in which content was edited and holding addition of proposed content. Abhishekaryavart also agreed. Leaving discussion at Talk page, Kautilya3 went to DRN. I requested to continue discussion at Talk page to which DRN volunteer agreed saying other involved editors should have been invited. Coming back to Talk page discussion, Kautilya3 again moved my posts to start new discussion subthread. I wanted to have discussion in one thread since other editors had already commented in previous thread.

Despite consensus against him, Kautilya3 has not responded to concerns of removing word "concerns" from previous content and making section definitive, with contradiction by his own given references. To stop POV pushing, I request uninvolved editors to ban Kautilya3, Vanamode93 from this topic.

• @El_C, I have already put my statement in the assigned space in under 500 words. It is not clear what is your exact request. Besides this, this section says that this section is to be edited only by uninvolved persons. You and me are both involved in this case. But since you have pinged me, I am forced to respond here. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C, You had been pinged by the involved editors and you took part in the dispute discussions. So, you are certainly involved in this dispute. -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are secondary sources in the CAA 2019 article which are quoting text from Primary sources when needed along with analysing them. See example - here When needed, I used similar secondary sources for argument at article Talk page since I did not find any Wiki policy prohibiting that nor did other editors show it to me even on requesting them. I sincerely tried to follow Wikipedia policies, see accepted content and links in the wiki article itself and adjust with other editors as much as possible.-- Kmoksha (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Update - Even Today, I was pinged by another editor at the Talk page and asked a question which I happily answered and also corrected format errors in that thread. See here

* Despite all my efforts which lead to improvement of Wiki article and is clearly helping other editors, I am being repeatedly blamed for "Tendentious Editing" etc. Seriously ? And no proper response was given to my refutations. To be really helpful, the specific wrong which editor is doing should be pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior should be given. That is what really works instead of just copy pasting link of a Wiki policy and vaguely accusing others.

* The accusing editor says that he had "conceded". But did he really concede ? Because after that he wrote a comment with 3 bullet points and expected a long answer from me. When I gave a concise and proper answer to that, the editor came here and started multiple accusations including "long posts" instead of replying to my clear and concise comment.-- Kmoksha (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update2 - Today more consensus in the Article Talk page thread I started. Contrary to claims by accusing editor, etc. , most of my threads have resulted in consensus, improving article and helping other editors. I had started a "Request for Comment" on the article Talk page and had given 3 options to support or oppose my proposal or to come up with better proposal to improve a line of lead of article. Today, even more editors agreed on an alternative proposal for lead of article. See - here

@Bishnonen , The Blade of the Northern Lights Would you like to give details and explain that when my talk page threads clearly lead to improvements in article, consensus and helping other editors, how it is disruptive, "Tendentious Editing" etc. ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

Sanction a PartialBlock from the article, as an AE action. One of the reasons, as to why I took the article off my watchlist. ∯WBG^converse 12:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abhishekaryavart

As I was pinged, I am writing here my views. Dismiss the AE request on Kmoksha. I found his posts perfectly readable and without any issues. This AE request on Kmoksha has no substance whatsover and is clearly a harassment tactic. And put a topic ban on the persons harassing. -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 is putting his own words regarding what the Intelligence Bureau deposed to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, pushing his own POV and violating

WP:SYNTHESIS. See - here -- Abhishekaryavart (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand Kmoksha's talk page posts, and I've generally been unsuccessful. I think this is less a case of egregious POV-pushing, and more an inability (or unwillingness) to understand how we use sources of different kinds to construct a neutral and coherent article; for instance, an inability to see that a paragraph in a reliable secondary source that the source attributes to the government is the equivalent of a government press release, and not the same as a statement of fact made by the same source. I'm not going to recommend specific actions here, because I've gotten a little deep into this, and Kmoksha hasn't been engaging in edit-warring or similar; but their ramblings on the talk page are a genuine pain in the neck. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Kmoksha

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

• A
  tendentious editing. El_C 23:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not to be repetitive, but Kmoksha, please condense your statement in this very request. El_C 07:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kmoksha, I was uninvolved and I remain so. El_C 07:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kmoksha, no, that is not how it works. Also, please limit yourself to your own section for the remainder of this request. El_C 07:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  topic ban within the next 24 hours. El_C 22:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm in favour of that, El_C. Bishonen | talk 12:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Tendentious editor. Too much
  bludgeoning (compare immediately preceding diff). @Kautilya3: the user is not obliged to participate in DRN, per your point 4, whether or not their rationale for refusing makes sense, but I agree with all your other points. I suggest an indefinite topic ban from Indian subjects, to be appealed no sooner than after six months. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Concur with the above. Obviously disruptive in this topic area, and the failed efforts at lawyering above confirm the need for a topic ban. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 31 January 2020 (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 Volunteer Marek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

007Леони́д (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 30 January 2020 (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 discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Gdansk vote as laid out in Talk:Gdańsk, Talk:Gdańsk/Vote, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). According to Gdansk vote, changes against it are treated as vandalism. Foul language showing disrespect against Wikipedia:Five pillars.

Diffs

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

1. [44] Against Gdansk vote that says after 1308 is Danzig. Also poor writing as "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" is inconsistent with itself.
2. [45] u.s..
3. [46] Against Gdansk vote. Wrzeszcz joined to Danzig hundreds years ago, when German. Rich German history. Became Polish in World War II after Red Army took city, expelled Germans, and gave to reborn Poland. Gdansk vote says shared locations should mention the other name form in parenthesis in first time in article. Marek removed.
4. [47] Also removal of (Danzig) in first mention against Gdansk vote.
5. [48] Against Gdansk vote that tells "use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945". Also against article title Danzig rebellion. As described in vote, the city was a Germanic city then.
6. [49] Foul language at users.
7. [50] World War II denialism at different article against NPOV. Warring against other users. The Polish INR's work on World War II history was described so by professor Georges Mink in scholarly paper.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I searched in archive, and saw many hits, but not sure what to place here.

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 June 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Dear sysops, I am sorry if I formatted this wrong or am acting wrongly. I met Marek at Polish INR article, that was in the news because of the Polish boycott of the Auschwitz liberation ceremony. Polish president boycotted as speaking slots were only given to world powers that liberated Europe. Marek was hostile at me, and started accusing me of being here back in 2005 because I changed in one article a Gdańsk to Danzig. I told this to my family, and they had big chuckle as me being on Wikipedia in 2005 is impossible in so many ways. When I made this first change, I did not know Gdańsk vote. I did this change based on my intimate knowledge of the Bay of Gdańsk (Danzig) and its history, and since the sentence of "the Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk)... Gdańsk" was inconsistent with itself.

While posting on Polish INR, Marek linked [51] to Gdansk vote. I then read the vote carefully and acted according to it in some articles. After that, he accused me on my talk page of being here back in 2005 because of the vote, when he told me about the vote!

Marek told me of Gdansk vote, that is how I learned.

Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute; they are older than this page)". Wikipedia pages tell it is in force. I reported here because I saw this board on Marek's talk history. The Gdansk vote says edits against it are like vandalism, should I have posted on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism?007Леони́д (007Leonid) (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

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

If anyone here believes even for a second that this is genuinely a brand new account who just “happens to know” about an obscure vote from 2005 (which is no longer in force anyway having been superseded by WP:MOS) and who knows to go running to WP:AE when they get in a dispute, then I got a bridge to sell you.

This is a sock puppet of indef banned User:Icewhiz (who was very active at the IPN article) or one of his friends (also indefinitely banned users Jacob Peter or Kaiser von Europa - the three have been talking on off-wiki sites like Wikipediocracy and previously Reddit’s WikiInAction)

For the past three months, ever since Icewhiz got indef banned, Poland related articles have been inundated with literally more than a few dozen (more than 30 by my last count) of brand new, transparently sock puppet accounts, which have basically picked up right where Icewhiz left off when he was banned. The situation is freakin’ ridiculous. It’s too many for SPI, many of them have been editing from behind proxies and as soon as one gets banned, two more pop up.

The whole thing feels like a sick joke or at least a complete abdication of responsibility by people who created this mess. I think it’s time to go to ArbCom (again!) and ask them to address this situation.

The diffs here don’t violate any DS. Volunteer Marek 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid was making edits based on the Gdansk vote before I said anything (for example [53]). In fact, that's why I said something. On top of that he files a perfectly formatted AE report only after a week of being on Wikipedia. There's several phrasings in his report that are typical Icewhiz-ism (believe me, I had to deal with the guy for almost three years, and then he went on a campaign of harassment against me and my family - I know). It's a freakin' sock. Just like the other 30 or 40 socks that have appeared on Poland related articles in the past two months. Volunteer Marek 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone still have doubts? Ok. Here is 007Leonid making his first edit at IPN [54], barely a week into his new found Wikipedia career. It's to restore an edit by another sock [55]. At this point ShoooBeeDoo was called out for being a sock, and User:Reaper Eternal blocked him on a check user check, so I figure this is when Icewhiz figured "it's time for another sock to jump in since ShoooBeeDoo is burned". This is how ridiculous the situation is. The sock puppets have sock puppets who have little sock puppet grandchildren. Volunteer Marek 14:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C - yes!!! In 15 years here I've never seen so many socks and SPAs flood a topic area but checking the history of other contentious topics it looks like the exact same phenomenon occurred in India-Pakistan topics after that case was settled and in Palestine-Israel topics when that case was closed (interestingly, Icewhiz was involved in that topic area too though I don't know enough about it to know if there's a connection). Same thing is needed here. Volunteer Marek 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also a quick note to User:Piotrus - while Icewhiz, User:Jacob Peters and User:Kaiser von Europa (all three indef banned) were indeed all discussing this stuff on Wikipediocracy (and reddit going back to March of last year) I do want to note that most other people on Wikipediocracy ridiculed or criticized them. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Francois Robere. I've asked them previously NOT to post to my talk page. The reason for this is very simple and straight forward: Francois Robere's main buddy and Wikifriend has doxxed me, made threats against me, contacted my employer and threatened to hurt my children. He has subjected me (and also several other editors) to really nasty harassment off wiki (on wiki too but that's why he's indef banned). This harassment was ongoing since at least March of 2019 although it wasn't possible to tie it directly to Icewhiz until November. All along, Francois Robere ... "collaborated" with Icewhiz on several dozen articles [56] always supporting Icewhiz and reverting on his behalf. In addition to ... "cooperating" on articles, as far as discussions go, during the ArbCom case evidence was presented [57] which showed that Francois Robere and Icewhiz had together participated in over a hundred discussions on Wikipedia and in all but one instance they strongly agreed with and supported each other. Francois Robere was also very active in the Icewhiz ArbCom case [58], supporting Icewhiz 100% and agitating on his behalf. Ever since the end of the case, as mentioned above, several dozen brand new suspicious SPA sock puppets accounts have popped up in this topic area. Francois Robere was there along with them every step of the way:

• In this latest episode you have two socks (one already banned) (User:ShoooBeeDoo) and the filer of this report) which showed up to an article. When their edits and fake status as new users was challanged, Francois Robere was immediately there to defend them and revert on their behalf [59] [60] [61] (and subsequent) and [62] [63]. Of course his comments are all couched in terms of "let's discuss (the sock puppet's) content rather than pay attention to the obvious sock puppeting" but they all amount to same thing: "let my banned friend sock puppet in peace".
• This isn't the only instance. FR supporting a likely Icewhiz sock AstuteRed (on an article and topic heavily edited by Icewhiz previously): [64] [65].
• Francois Robere supporting the harassment of User:My very best wishes by another sockpuppet (User:Batbash, now banned) - MVBW was another of Icewhiz's targets, with help from FR - [66]
• Francois Robere supporting another throw-away likely Icewhiz sock (on an article Icewhiz heavily edited) [67] [68]
• Extensive support and tag teaming between Francois Robere and another brand new sock puppet looking account [69] [70] [71] [72] AGAIN making edits very similar to edits Icewhiz made prior to his ban.

This is just off the top of my head and on short notice. There's at least half a dozen more instances where suspicious looking accounts have showed up, made pretty much the same edits as Icewhiz, then after they were challanged, Francois Robere showed up to defend them and facilitate them. I should note explicitly at this point that my interaction ban with Icewhiz was specifically rescinded so I could address the issue of Icewhiz sock puppeting given the harassment that he was engaged in. That's what I'm doing here.

So to anyone with half a brain it's obvious what's going on. Before Icewhiz and Francois Robere closely "cooperated" on several dozen articles, always agreed with each other in discussions and unquestionably supported one another. Then ArbCom happened and Icewhiz got banned, while Francois Robere managed not to get sanctioned. Consequently Icewhiz began socking on mass scale and this socking was/is being enabled, protected, facilitated and coddled by his old Wiki friend, Francois Robere. Before FR tag teamed with Icewhiz. Now FR tag teams with Icewhiz socks.

Now. If somebody threatened to harm YOUR children (and I'll spare you the disgusting details) would you want to have their close buddy post little passive aggressive taunts on your talk? Hell no. How would you feel if that person followed you to several articles just to mess with you by reverting you and encouraging the socks that come for you? It's odious shameless behavior. FR needs to stay as far away from me as possible. You are who you hang out with. You are who you support. Maybe FR didn't make the threats himself but to this very moment he cheerfully supports the guy who did.

I am 100% happy to revisit this with ArbCom since it's their failure to include Francois Robere in their decisions that has led to this situation and why the topic area of Poland is STILL the freakin' mess as before - the ArbCom case didn't actually solve the problem. Volunteer Marek 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add: " if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece" <--- The problem is that what FR regards as "good content" for some strange reason correlates very closely with "it came from a (Icewhiz) sock" (rather than a shirt or a codpiece) which is the actual problem here. And no, this content is not "good" since it's *exactly* the kind of content that led to Icewhiz's topic ban (

(and seriously if you have to go back TWO YEARS to find a weak-ass example of supposed "incivility" (it's not incivility it's simply disagreement and criticism) such as this [73] on my part, it kind of illustrates that you got nothing here and are just trying to deflect). Volunteer Marek 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(as for the t-ban violation - yes I accidentally violated it here. But how did that happen? Well.... that's actually interesting in itself. The original text about this Kurtyka guy had no mention of ANYTHING to do with WW2. In no version of the article prior to Jan 28th did the text concerning Kurtyka mentioned the Warsaw Uprising Museum [74]. The Kurtyka text was indeed under dispute (it was originally added by the other sockpuppet User:ShoooBeeDoo) but it concerned ONLY modern day Polish politics. Here is me removing that text previously - note again, nothing about Museum or WW2. So... how did the part about the Museum get in there??? Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh! That's right, in his edit warring, [75] 007Леони́д snuck it in. Basically 007Леони́д added a completely irrelevant tidbit ("such as the Warsaw Uprising Museum") to a sentence which otherwise had nothing to do with WW2. Why? Well, gee, maybe it's because he's not a new user and he knew damn well about the topic ban??? I mean, if you weren't convinced before that this was a sock puppet, his awareness of the topic bans pretty much gives the game away. So he added just some irrelevant text about WW2 to a piece of text under discussion so that I couldn't remove it without violating the tban or wouldn't notice (which true, I didn't, my bad, I should expect this kind of sleazy tactics by now).

And then.... Francois Robere comes running to AE to bring it up. Did I mention how FR facilitates and supports Icewhiz's sock puppets? Volunteer Marek 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(btw, I have already self reverted that edit awhile ago once I realized what 007Леони́д and Francois were up to) Volunteer Marek 19:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Francois Robere: ""interaction analysis" is practically useless in heavily trafficked pages" - these aren't "heavily trafficked pages". A lot of them in that analysis are obscure articles, with obscure sources, and obscure issues. Nice try though.
• Francois Robere: "insinuations that he can barely prove for the banned editor, let alone this one" - these are not insinuations. The indef ban for Icewhiz is the proof in the pudding. If you are still trying to pretend that it wasn't your good wiki-friend who was behind all these disgusting attacks on me and my family, you're even worse than I thought. Anyone who would defend an editor who threatens to harm another editor's children has no business on Wikipedia (or any kind of collaborative community project). Don't ever post on my talk page again.
• As noted elsewhere by myself and others I'm not the only editor whom you've targeted with your harassment (by leaving taunts on my talk page and following me to articles). You've done the same to User:Mymoloboaccount and User:My very best wishes and supported socks who were doing the same. This is a pattern which shows that you've wholly embraced the tactics (not just the problematic content editing) that got Icewhiz booted. Volunteer Marek 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

All things considered, it's a good opportunity to get rid of another obvious sock (

FR, you really should know better then to support ban-baiting socks, particularly given who is likely affiliated by them and your connections to that indef-banned editor. One would expect you'd distance yourself form someone who has been indef banned for harassment and such, and not continue being their partisan. How hard is it to admit one was wrong? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

A couple of days ago VM left this vaguely threatening comment in an edit summary,[76] in response to me reminding him of

As for the T-ban violation[85] - he's banned from article on the history of Poland during WWII,[86] yet he removed content mentioning a WWII museum in an article that's all about WWII and Communist-era historiography. It's a clear vio of his T-ban, and not the first one[87][88][89] (nor is it the first time he violated any ban [90][91][92]).

Oh, and the TA is crawling with "socks", as evident by this comment by Reaper Eternal. In case you're wondering, the thread was opened by VM after I got the page protected to stop him and several others from "edit warring". François Robere (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Piotrus, you misunderstand two things: I don't support editors ("socks" or otherwise), but content. If the content isn't good, then no amount of "nice" will make me support it. Conversely, if the content is good, then I don't care whether it came from a sock, a shirt or a codpiece. Tell me, in our recent engagement at Institute of National Remembrance (and its Talk), how many of the "socked" sources did I support? How many did I restore? Half? Less than half? So what's this nonsense about? And what's this nonsense about "affiliation"? Are you affiliated with Poeticbent? Tatzref? Any other blocked editor? Any of the "socks"? No? Me neither. And I'll never hold it against you either, because AFAIC we're all responsible for our own behavior, and not an inch more. If anyone wants to play politics, that's their prerogative; I don't. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MyMoloboaccount: The problem isn't with anyone "hounding" you, it's with you making mistakes like somehow messing up my comment and sticking a TOC in the middle of the page.[93] Earlier this month you plagiarized a source.[94] Last month you got into an argument with Ermenrich for the n-th time on Walter Kuhn, and tried to drag K.e.coffman into it.[95] At about the same time you asked Ealdgyth, who only has 100,000 edits or so, to cite the rule that says refs come after punctuation.[96] So please, instead of lamenting your "withdrawal" (from which you already returned a couple of times [97][98]), enjoy it. François Robere (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Volunteer Marek's deplorable comments above: This did not start today, nor because of anyone's "doxxing" - VM has been attacking my integrity for almost two years,[99][100] from our very first interactions, gradually adding more and more accusations over time.[101] None of them was ever accepted at ANI, AE, ArbCom or anywhere else, yet he continues to make them with zero evidence. That's harassment par excellence. And here, knowing that "interaction analysis" is practically useless in heavily trafficked pages, he adds these rancid insinuations that I had anything to do with his alleged "real life" harassment - insinuations that he can barely prove for the banned editor, let alone this one. The truth underlying this complaint is that VM is one of the rudest, brashest editors around; he has berated, swore at, insulted, or otherwise antagonized (or even harassed) dozens of editors. He is of ill temper, perennially assumed of bad faith, and no matter how many times he's urged to change his ways,[102][103][104][105] he never will. But he shouldn't be allowed to besmirch others; if nothing else, take a stand on this. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

The ongoing obvious sockupuppeting in EE area needs to be dealt with, not only in regards to sockuppets but also in regards to sockpuppeting on behalf of infamous Icewhiz, who openly bragged about falsfying sources and his ethnic prejudices; nothing good comes from such a hateful editor being allowed to hurt Wikipedia by manipulating some many pages and sources in the name of ethnic hatred. Since I have been trying to protect some content with varied success I have too been subject to harassment and attacks to such degree that I have largely withdrawn from editing Wikipedia, despite knowing that several articles edited by Icewhiz contain false information or manipulate sources. What's the point when the crusade by another sock is being allowed to continue? In regards to FR I concur that the editor has been engaging in questionable behaviour towards these who disagreed with Icewhiz and his ongoing snipes at my personal contributed to my withdrawal, this led me to even openly ask him to stop posting on my page[106] and requested him to stop harassing me on Wikipedia[107]. FR needs to finally stop waging this this battle on behalf of Icewhiz and let other editors edit in atmosphere of cooperation and scholarly friendship, and not in battleground one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) FR: Your aggressive behaviour above is exactly what I am talking about. Your interpret any discussion or request for sources as a conflict-instead of treating it as an exchange of information to improve quality of the article. There is nothing wrong in asking another editor what he thinks about reliability of sources by Nazi followers about history of Poland, nor is a simple request for clarification of rules on edits anything wrong. Your comments telling me to "enjoy my withdrawal from Wikipedia" as reaction to my remark about ongoing disruptive socks damaging articles being distracting to editors is quite disappointing. We are here to create encyclopedia, and should behave like scholars, not as aggressive posters on internet forum. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek

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

• So many new EE
  500-30—I'd encourage participants to request the Committee to formally enact this via motion. Enough is enough. El_C 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Volunteer Marek: applying 500-30 to EE articles is an option that is available to admins right now. I suppose it would help if the Committee were to state that this ought to be done more systemically, like in ARBPIA. But one of the problem is that there are not that many active admins for that topic area (myself, for example, I'm much more active with administrative intervention at ARBPIA — a topic area, where I am more familiar). So the question of enforcement would still be an issue even with that 500-30 motion enacted. I know you suggested the Committee appoints some sort of rotating EE panel of admins —as far as I know that has never been done on Wikipedia— which I suppose is something worthy of brainstorming, though I'm not sure how practical it would be. But who knows. Ultimately, what the EE topic area needs is more admin boots on the ground. El_C 15:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Having 500-30 EE requests at
  RfPP, like we do with ARBPIA, may well be enough to turn the tide. El_C 15:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We accept AE reports from obvious sock/meatpuppets now? 7 days editing? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without action per Black Kite et al. If anyone who is actually editing the topic area in good faith wishes to raise concerns then they can do it themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]