Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive265

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 PainMan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PainMan (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/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

Diffs

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

1. 03:33, 19 March 2020 Edits John Mitchel, a prominent Irish nationalist activist
2. 03:35, 19 March 2020 Further edit to John Mitchel
3. 03:51, 19 March 2020 Edits
   Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848
   , an Irish nationalist uprising against British rule
4. 09:14, 19 March 2020 Edits Land War, which is again about Irish nationalism
5. 03:47, 21 March 2020 Changes "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with
6. 03:48, 21 March 2020 Changes "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)", edits like this got him topic-banned to begin with

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20:25, 1 March 2020 You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Already subject to discretionary sanctions, see above section.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Standard discretionary sanctions makes it clear it isn't just limited to articles relating to The Troubles, but covering Irish nationalism in general.

@In actu: I guess it depends how you define "broadly construed". As the discretionary sanction in the case says it covers Irish nationalism in general. While The Troubles definitely started in the 1960s they can't really be seen in isolation. In the 20th century alone before the Troubles there was the 1916 Easter Rising, 1919-1921 Irish War of Independence, 1939-1940 S-Plan, 1942-1944 Northern campaign (Irish Republican Army) and 1956-1962 Border campaign (Irish Republican Army), and Irish opposition to British rule didn't start in the 20th century. I wouldn't object to this being closed with a clear message to PainMan as to the extent of the topic ban, if his edits are seen as a good faith mistake. FDW777 (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report has been made PainMan has made this edit (changing "Dáil Éireann" to "Dáil Éireann (Irish parliament)" and this edit (changing "Taoiseach" to "Taoiseach (prime minister)". That would appear to me to a continuation of the disruptive behaviour from before, albeit with a slight variation. FDW777 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

ArbCom Troubles restriction}} use the phrase pages relating to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland, and I quite reasonably thought that "edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" was the same as that phrase. As I said at 15:29, 19 March 2020 I would have no objection to this being closed with a clear message as to the extent of the topic ban, since the original notification did not include the full definition as listed in multiple other places. FDW777 (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

In addition if they thought Taoiseach (prime minister) was an acceptable solution to objections raised to their previous edit, surely the correct course of action would have been to raise it at the discussion I started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of Taoiseach (which he was notified about here)? FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning PainMan

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 PainMan

(Given the large amount of verbiage here, I hope going past the 500 word limit is acceptable; lot of ground to cover here.)

Apparently I stumbled in to a minefield completely unintentionally. I realize now what I should have done. I shouldn't have removed Taoseach (please forgive spelling errors) or Dail Eiriann. I should have added (Prime Minister of Ireland) and (Parliament of Ireland).

What I did not realize was this: On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov. It simply never occurred to me. So I guess that's on me. I had no intention of stirring up or participating in any sectarian nonsense.

If you could see my last name, you'd see that it's an ancient Celtic name that can be traced to 5th Century Ireland. My direct paternal ancestors left Dublin in 1845. Genetically I'm Scots-Irish and Catholic Irish. I am literally the biological product of the ancient struggle.

That having been said, I had NO agenda whatsoever other than simplifying reading the article for readers not steeped in Irish history. 99.999% of English readers couldn't tell the Irish name of the Prime Minister if ya held a gun to their heads. The term is obscure outside the island itself and the occasional BBC/British media story.

So I apparently caused a minor sh#tstorm unintentionally.

I object to the Topic Ban because it's utterly unwarranted. I am a VERY long time editor here. I have never vandalized or defaced a page. I've made a strenuous attempts to avoid getting into Revert Wars or other kinds of controversy. I had some negative experiences when I first started on Wikipedia. Encountering the people I call Page Commandos; they sit on the page like Spanish Inquisitors waiting to pounce. That's not what wikipedia is about for me so I rarely involve myself in it.

I don't really want to push it any further than that. To conclude it was never my intention to start a crap storm - let alone about a subject as contentious, tendentious and fractious as The Troubles (or the last 300 years of Irish history in general)

Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc.

I've made thousands of edits by now, 95% of them involved no changes in facts, but correcting typos, grammar and rewriting badly written sentences and sections. I gave several articles on Chilean history this treatment; they'd been clearly written by a non-native speaker and it showed. I was even thanked by two people for my efforts.

I love wikipedia and I want to make it as good as it can be.

I have no interest in ridiculous social media wars.

And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else.

Rudeness wasn't my intention; it was ignorance of the process. So I apologize for giving the impression of rudeness.

Since I've never been involved in the complaint/appeal process (whatever the formal name), I honestly didn't know where I was supposed to reply. One place I did so I found my contribution reverted into deletion.

I hope this entry isn't in the wrong place either.

To recap, I regret my part in causing this nonsensical affair. And I hope the heartburn doesn't linger.

Addendum

1.) Ok, waded through every entry. Some of this seems to fall under, to put politely, arcana.

when I changed the phrasing to the The Earle Erne that's because that's his proper title. He's not the Earl of Erne. To refer to him as "Earl Erne" would indicate - in Peerage Protocol - that it is a courtesy title and thus not the substantive title. I changed it and added the link to the 3rd Earl's article. Absent his connection with the land agent in question, the 3rd Earl would most likely be totally obscure. Thus printing his exact identity seemed superfluous. I am frankly baffled why this would be reverted unless it was just a case of being angry with me over the whole silly situation.

Finally - I apologize for causing a big ruckus. Was never my intention. I should have engaged with the editor who did the first reversion. Getting my back up as if it were a Face Book argument was dumb on my part. Getting in a revert was was also stupid. I avoided it for years. Don't know why I decided to do over this. None-the-less, I own my part of the dispute and following, ah, trouble.

2.) I feel that I am a positive asset to Wikipedia and I've added much of value to it. This includes three articles I authored (Ferrant Martinez and the Agri Decumates). I accept the nickname WikiGnome. It seems to fit my modus operandi.

3.) Also, please refer to me as "he/him." The utterly incorrect use of the third person plural for a singular, genderless pronoun triggers my Grammar OCD like nothing else.

4.) I have a lot of trouble with the mobile app despite uninstalling/reinstalling multiple time. I've seen exactly ONE notification from an admin. Also, routinely, despite telling me "EDIT PUBLISHED" it often doesn't not show up despite many reloadings of the page.

PainMan (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129 Wrt to the nature of the edits. Most harmless, and indeed useful, e.g. adding wikilinks etc. On the other hand, edits such as translating common Irish terminology could be interpreted as pushing an anti-Irish/pro-British pov, which is very much at the core of DS:THE TROUBLES. As we know, PainMan holds strong views on things Troubles-related (and language is very much at the forefront of the ideological struggle, on both sides). So on the one hand, they are clearly capable of making helpful and useful edits, but on the other hand allow themselves to drift close to the TBan. the former is to be encouraged, the latter of course discouraged; can the TBan be tweaked (not necessarilly expanded a great deal) to encourage the fomer and act as a deterence from the latter?

Easier said than done, I know; perhaps just add Irish language to the scope?

And although not relevant to the scope of the request—but for the record—it's my opinion that PainMan's repeated refusal to comment here is damned rude if nothing else. ——SN54129 14:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a content dispute...PoV pushing—if that's what's going on—always is. ——SN54129 16:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, there's a statement available from PainMan, although it's at User talk:Serial Number 54129#PainMan rather than here. On the assumption you don't a have it watchlisted, pinging @Ivanvector, QEDK, Guerillero, Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, RexxS, Graham87, and Swarm:, with apologies if i've missed anyone. ——SN54129 14:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (PainMan)

Swarm is right.

This report was filed on Mar 19 based on four diffs. Diff #1 changed the incorrect plural "were" to the correct singular "was", in an article about a guy who died in 1848, over 100 years before

The "Taoiseach (prime minister)" edit (Diff #6) happened on Mar 21, after this report was filed. This edit is not the same as the edits for which PainMan was TBANed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#PainMan. That report was based on edits where PM was piping "[[Taoiseach]]" as "[[Taoiseach|prime minister]]", which, for the reader, changes "Taoiseach" to "prime minister". By contrast, the Mar 21 edit adds "(prime minister)" after "Taoiseach". It does not replace "Taoiseach". Also, PM did not edit war over this. The other Mar 21 edit (Diff #5) also adds an English explanation of an Irish term, but does not replace that term, and there was no edit warring. Neither of the Mar 21 edits were on articles within the scope of the TBAN. So, no violation in the Mar 21 edits, either.

There is no violation in any diffs presented in this report.

Also, there is no rule requiring an editor to participate in an AE report against them, so it wouldn't be kosher to sanction an editor for "ignoring" an AE report, especially if the report is based on diffs of constructive edits outside the TBAN topic.

Finally, does PainMan have an IDHT problem? Does he continue to make the same types of edits, in the same topic area, that led to the TBAN? NO! The editor is making different edits, which are constructive, to articles outside the Troubles. Compliance with a TBAN cannot be a violation of the TBAN!

I understand the filer's explanation that they thought those edits were within the TBAN topic, but they weren't. "The Troubles" is a 20th-century event, and PM isn't TBANed from everything Irish. As such, this report should be closed now as no violation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: FWIW, I searched for "Taoiseach" and checked three articles each from NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Economist, Hindu Times, Times of India, and CBC.CA, and every time they use it, they all also say "prime minister", usually in the forms "Taoiseach (prime minister)" or "Taoiseach, or prime minister" or "the prime minister, known as the Taoiseach", or something like that. I also looked at UK publications (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Irish Times) and saw that they don't do that, they just say "Taoiseach". This seems to be an inside-UK/outside-UK difference. (I searched Google News for, e.g., site:nytimes.com taoiseach and clicked on the first three results.)

Also wanted to note more generally that while there is local consensus on the MOS:IRELAND talk page, that's just local consensus, not the subject of an RFC or any other advertised discussion. Some editors commenting there didn't seem to believe that the word "Taoiseach" is not well known outside of the UK, but I think the RSes outside the UK substantiate that by explaining that Taoiseach is "prime minister" whenever they use that term. My guess is that if there were a full-blown RFC about whether we should explain in articles that Taoiseach means prime minister (or even use the term "prime minister" instead of the local-language title "Taoiseach", which is what we do for like every other country in the world), there would be support for one or the other.

Final note that I left a message on PainMan's talk page encouraging him to comment here. Because he only edits on mobile, he may not see the message for some time (note there's about a one-week delay in this editor responding to other messages in the past). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: *inside/outside-UK-and-Ireland, my mistake :-) I hear what you're saying about this being a political dogwhistle. Can you clue a clueless American in: if I call the Taoiseach the "Prime Minister" that means (bad faith version) what, exactly? That I think Ireland should not be an independent country? Is there an article about this or something I can read? I'm definitely completely ignorant of the political ramifications of using the term. Also, do the same political ramifications apply to the change in Diff #5 (calling the Dáil Éireann "Irish parliament")? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you for that explanation Girth, that does explain why those edits would raise some eyebrows. I guess it's like calling Myanmar "Burma". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this report is closed with a warning ... a warning from what? "Do not add '(prime minister)' after 'Taoiseach'"? "Do not correct grammar on 19th-century Irish articles"? Obviously not. So... what are we warning him about? May I suggest a

The only question that you have to ask is if the edits are a violation of the TBAN. It's clear that consensus is that the edits aren't. So it seems rather unfair and out of scope to now seek to expand a TBAN for edits that were never in TBAN territory. And that should be the end of this AE action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:If someone is TBANNED from India and they edit Pakistan that is not a violation of their TBAN. If one would say that is, then I can argue any article on Wikipedia is a violation of a TBAN because I can guarantee you I can connect any article to any subject broadly construed. "Broadly construed" is not some sort of magic wand we should use to ban people from this encyclopedia. "The Troubles" doesn't mean any article about Ireland and the UK, especially when the edits are not disruptive. Further, I stand by my claim that we should not be using AE to expand TBANs. If anything, this is an editing or content dispute and they can use the talk page or other noticeboards, but not AE. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I just point out that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister? I find it hard to sanction someone who is adding (PM) after a term that most people will most likely not be familiar with. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Girth Summit:there are over 2 billion English speakers in the world, the majority of whom don't live in Ireland or the UK. I just did a quick Google search of several US news sources and sites and the overwhelming majority use "PM" and don't use Taoiseach. In addition, my browser, redlines the word when I type it in, so it is not part of the English language where I am. Adding XXX (PM) after the word should be encouraged, not punished if we are not putting the page at "Prime Minister of Ireland" as we do for every other country. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Girth Summit

Just a note in response to Sir Joseph's assertion that RS in the English speaking world does not use the term Taoiseach but uses Prime Minister. I found that jarring, since my impression from listening to BBC Radio's Today program every morning is that they generally use Taoiseach. Quick bit of Googling - the BBC News website generally use Taoiseach, followed by an explanatory '(Prime Minister)'; the Guardian (left-leaning) and Telegraph (right-leaning) both seem to just use Taoiseach without explanatory parenthesis. It might be different in the US, but I don't think that assertion about the norms in the English speaking world is correct. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph, perhaps I misunderstood you - I read your comment to mean that all RS in the English-speaking world don't use it; if you meant that some RS in the English-speaking world don't use it, then I am happy to accept that. I'm just very aware that the choice of word, in this neck of the woods at least, can be politicised - yes, adding PM could be done innocently by someone in the hopes of making it easier for the reader; I assure you that it is also the sort of thing that a certain sort of person would do to make a political point under the guise of making things easier for the reader. I am not saying that's what is happening here, I don't know enough about the history of the editors involved, but just something that people should be aware of. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Levivich I hear what you're saying, and I want to be clear that I am not arguing for (or against) sanctions here - I'm just trying to provide a bit of context. I am entirely happy to accept that this is an inside-UK-and-Ireland/outside-UK-and-Ireland thing. However, this is a UK and Ireland issue - if someone were to be making political points around this thing, it would obviously be people within the British and Irish political spheres that they would be targeting them at - the sort of language used in that region is at least as relevant, potentially more-so, than that used elsewhere. I wholeheartedly believe that someone who knows nothing about the politics of this could come along, read the word 'taoiseach', and in good faith add an explanatory parenthesis after it. There are also people with a particular view on The Troubles who would do exactly the same thing to further an agenda, or even to troll people on the other side. Those are two extremes, and I'm sure that the majority of people, even in this part of the world, would fall between them. All I'm trying to do here is explain that the choice of which word to use, at least from a British/Irish perspective, is not politically neutral. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aspersions about this particular editor, I'm doing my best to explain why edits like this make some people feel uncomfortable - but issues around language are central to people's identity, and we should aim to tread as carefully here as we do around issues of gender identity and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This should be treated as a straightforward case with no action against PainMan being appropriate. The Arbitration Committee's ruling treated The Troubles, a late-20th dispute as a subject distinct from more general ones, even though it authorized discretionary sanctions in all three areas. The sanctions placed against PainMan expressly applied only to The Troubles. It would have been extremely simple for the admin placing the sanctions to quote the broader language found in the ArbCom ruling. Painman is entitled to rely on the unambiguous language of the sanction, to believe that the sanctioning admin meant what they said. Imposing a penalty on him for nondisruptive edits which did not violate the clear terms of the sanction placed on him would be unfair. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Swarm and The Big Bad Wolfowitz summed it up nicely. The idea that "broadly construed" in ArbCom decisions is somehow helpful is absurd. Anyone can claim that MANY articles are "broadly construed". I was once blocked based on an admin saying that anything having to do with America that was contentious in any way was eligible for discretionary sanctions under American Politics. "Broadly construed" so grey that someone should at LEAST receive a warning prior to a block and be allowed to challenge that assessment prior to being blocked.

This is so vague that borders need to be more clearly defined. I'm not seeing any disruptive behavior here (disagreement is NOT necessarily disruption) nor a violation of the TBAN. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Result concerning PainMan

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

• I realize it may be contentious whether these articles fall under "The Troubles, broadly construed" so I'll leave this for more comments, but in my opinion each of these edits is a clear violation of the topic ban and an AE block of no less than one month is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Partially struck. Not linked above AFAIK but the ban discussion is here. The pages presented as evidence of disruptive editing were Operation Flavius, Battle of the Bogside, Ulster Volunteer Force, Ulster Defence Association, Ulster Special Constabulary, and ETA (separatist group). All but the last of these fall within the scope of the ban as worded, and the last would not even if the scope were expanded. The disruptive behaviour was repeatedly changing "Taoiseach" to "Prime Minister of Ireland" (or variations) against consensus, and edit warring, across all of the articles. Since the topic ban PainMan has evidently respected it despite a series of outbursts on 9 March ([1], [2], [3]) and again yesterday ([4], [5], [6]). The pages they've edited since do not fall under that scope per other comments here, and they don't seem to be repeating the same disruptive behaviour, so I don't see the benefit of extending the topic ban and do not support it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 19:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

• I think this is purposeful skirting of the ban conditions by editing topics which are contentious and related to the topic area, just not directly, although one can easily say: The Troubles -> irish nationalism, hence construed. I see two options here: 1) extend the ban to the entire remedy area of TT (found in the case) which includes British and Irish nationalism (et al.), and 2) AE block. I say the edits definitely violate the spirit of the TBAN, and maybe also its letter. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir Joseph No such consensus as the one you stated has been established, it's not difficult to construe a connection to The Troubles, albeit it's a bit far. If an editor is TBANed from editing articles related to India, broadly construed and goes to edit Pakistan, would you classify that as a violation of the topic ban or not? There can be differing perspectives and this is one such case. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sir Joseph: Hence, the term "broadly construed". Pakistan was a part of the Indian empire, had Indian founders, always had a cultural and social similarity with India as well as consistently opposing views in world politics where their actions depend on the other country. It's still very much intertwined with the topic of India, you would disagree but a lot of editors wouldn't, hence my example. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, The Troubles started in the 1960s. So, the edits are not within the bounds of the topic ban. However, they weren't a great idea. I would extend the topic ban to all of Irish nationalism and not block --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This looks to me to be clearly against the spirit of the topic ban, but not the letter of it. Accordingly I think the topic ban should be extended to match the extent of the DS authorisation (The Troubles, Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed) with a warning to PainMan that any further boundary testing will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• According to our own article on the subject, The Troubles (Irish: Na Trioblóidí) were an ethno-nationalist[13][14][15][16] conflict in Northern Ireland during the late 20th century (emphasis added). I do not see these edits as violations, though I agree they're skirting rather close. Given that they were not apparently contentious or any type of misconduct, I would not extend the topic ban based upon them, but I would certainly warn PainMan that there will be no hesitation to do so if there's any trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Based upon the last two edits, I would now support expanding the topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The text of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles #Standard discretionary sanctions separately names three areas: "all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed." So I concede that the sanction applied on 1 March 2020, "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, broadly construed" doesn't strictly cover the other areas, although that may have been the admin's intention, and certain the spirit of the restriction, as Thryduulf so clearly reasons. I agree that an explicit extension of the topic ban to "You are indefinitely topic-banned from making edits relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed" would be a reasonable response to this request. That should then solve the issue one way or another. --RexxS (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I intentionally narrowed it (agreeing with the consensus formed and my own judgement) with the implied expectation that they would cease making contentious edits in the entire topic area. Apart from this, PainMan does not seem to understand that communication is required, the last time they did not participate in the AE request, then went to edit AE archives after their sanction to add a statement (which comes to me as a lack of

  WP:CIR). Their justification last time was that they do not get talk page message notifications on their phone, which even if makes sense, talk page message notifs are also sent to emails and you can still access your talk page if not notified, it's a general expectation to do so. The template {{Userlinks}} also notifies editors on the mobile interface (correct me if I'm wrong). And yet again, PainMan has not participated in this AE request. --qedk (t 心 c) 10:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @QEDK: I've just tested in my sandbox, and the {{userlinks}} template does generate pings if the edit adding it is signed. Notifications on the mobile web interface work as they do on desktop. On the Android app you have to explicitly look to see if you have notifications (which can only be done when viewing the main page I believe), but when you do look you do see notifications of pings and talk page messages (I presume the iOS app works similarly but I don't have any way of testing that). Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, struck. On a technical note, the mobile advanced web interface and the mobile desktop version both show notifications by the way. --qedk (t 心 c) 13:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just looked at their contributions list, and it seems they only edit using the Android app so we can't be certain they've seen the notifications or talk page messages. They do not have an email set so that option isn't available, and I'm not certain what else we can do? Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt this will go any different from last time. --qedk (t 心 c) 22:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's certainly looking that way. I'll be generous and give them another ~8 hours but if there is no response by then I'll be closing this with the extended topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never commented in one of these things before but I think it's also worth considering these edits to Charles Boycott, another topic related to Irish nationalism, which I just reverted because I saw them as mostly detrimental. I don't want to get any further involved though ... I only have that article on my watchlist because I found his life story fascinating. Feel free to move this comment if it's in the wrong place. Graham87 05:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really see these edits as disruptive? In one instance they changed "Boycott worked as a land agent for Lord Erne (John Crichton, 3rd Earl Erne), a landowner in the Lough Mask area" to "Boycott worked as a land agent for the the Earl Erne, a landowner in the Lough Mask area". The revision has an extra "the" but otherwise removing the awkward parenthetical seems like a reasonable improvement to me. You reverted stating "makes the text more stilted" but I think the reverse is true. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Graham says he saw them as "detrimental", not "disruptive". You have to remember not every English speaker shares the same idiomatic usages, and the phrase "a land agent for the Earl Erne" sounds archaic to me. Graham, who is Australian, might well find that a very odd use of a definite article. You wouldn't write "a land agent for the King George". Taking into account the overlinking, I have to agree with Graham that those edits were not an improvement to the article, and don't improve my confidence that PainMan's contributions outside of the strict range of their current topic ban are likely to be a net positive. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While The Troubles discretionary sanctions are authorized so that they can be expanded beyond The Troubles, the relevant sanction here was not, the edits here do not violate the ban, even "broadly construed", nor do I see them as disruptive enough (or at all) to justify expanding the scope of the ban, even though we can. There is no violation here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Swarm: even though they are repeating nearly the exact sort of edits that initially got them topic banned in the first place (most recent diffs) you really don't see this as at all disruptive? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, to be honest, I don't see how the edits themselves are inherently disruptive or problematic. If they are, it's not obviously apparent to me. Can you explain what's actually wrong with them? I'm not seeing it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the last two diffs are enough to warrant expanding the topic ban to "The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed". These edits are identical to some which prompted the topic ban being imposed in the first place, only on different pages. There is a widespread consensus that the use of these words is OK (e.g. here) which means that continuing to make these changes without discussion is disruptive. I agree that the other diffs don't reasonably relate to the Troubles, our article describes the Troubles as starting in the 1960s and nineteenth century history doesn't count. Just as a topic ban from the American Civil War wouldn't cover the entire history of race relations in the US. Hut 8.5 08:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• We need to do something here, in any case. So unless there are any strong objections, it seems the general (though not unanimous) consensus here is to expand the topic ban accordingly. I'll leave this open for a bit to hear any objections, but otherwise will close with that result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah, woah, woah. We need to do something? Why? I mean I may still be missing something, but I'm honestly not seeing what behavior warrants expanding the sanctions. The diffs were reported as violations of the existing topic ban, and it has subsequently been established that they are not in scope. The secondary consideration is then whether the edits were disruptive on their own merits. Looking at the diffs I literally can't comprehend how anyone could say they are, even in the context of the past disruption. The user was sanctioned for making a contested edit and then engaging in an extreme edit war over it, and then he did not defend himself at AE. I get that. A fairly acute violation, but I get it. But none of the diffs are continuing that behavior. In fact, he's straightforwardly avoiding repeating the edit that got him into trouble. This report literally appears to be erroneous, based on a misunderstanding of the sanctions. None of the diffs are problematic on their own merits in any way. I don't know why you're chomping at the bit to railroad this guy for apparently doing nothing wrong! Like I said, if I am missing something, please explain it to me! But my current reading of the situation is that we'd literally be sanctioning a user for nothing, basically rubber stamping an erroneous report. It doesn't make sense. Yes I get that the last two edits look similar to the edits that got him sanctioned in the first place, but they're not the same edit, nor is there inherently anything wrong with simply providing a translation in good faith. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because he was informed that Wikipedia refers to the Taoiseach as the Taoiseach, not the Prime Minister of Ireland and continued to add the English translation. I'm most worried about the edits on the 21st. The rest of the edits weren't a great idea, but aren't alarming. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean should he have deleted the literal English word for something because he doesn't think people know what it means and then edit war over it in an ACDS area? No. Is that the same thing as adding a simple explanation after a relatively uncommon word that some people might realistically not know the definition of? No, it's not. It's not the same offense. There's quite simply nothing inherently disruptive in trying to explain what a "Taoiseach" is in good faith. Yes his methods in the past did become disruptive, by way of edit warring and not communicating, and he was correctly sanctioned for that. However he's not in violation of those sanctions, broadly construed, which means he's allowed to make bold, good faith changes to articles. No, he's not allowed to do so disruptively, but I have yet to see anyone actually allege that he did anything disruptive or in bad faith. Without wading into the actual content dispute of whether those edits should be made, they are not inherently disruptive. It's a content disagreement. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is making very similar edits (and yes, as is apparent, calling the Taoiseach the "prime minister" is apparently contentious, as we clearly see here), in an area pretty well adjacent to one in which he's gotten sanctioned for making such edits. If he didn't know that would raise objections and be contentious, I believe he should have—but I suspect he rather did, especially after last time. That's the conduct issue. I don't really have any opinion on what the article ultimately should say, but I think it should have been clear to a reasonable person that those edits weren't a good idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the term Taoiseach in favor of a "translation" when "Taoiseach" is the correct English word is understandably contentious from a content perspective, though it was primarily a problem because it was accompanied by edit warring and a failure to communicate, not because it's some inherently "bad" edit or part of some malicious POV-pushing campaign or whatever you're implying. As I said, the previous incident does not, by any stretch of the imagination, translate into some bizarre notion that calling the Taoiseach a "prime minister" in any way in any article is some sort of inherently disruptive edit. The Taoiseach is a prime minister, there's no beating around the bush, and just because "Taoiseach" is the technically correct term to use doesn't mean that it's not a relatively uncommon term and that everyone will magically know what it means and that any good faith efforts to explain that it is the prime minister are some horrible offense. That's not contentious. We don't need to be using AE to railroad some guy for making literally harmless attempts at improving a reader's understanding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• His statement linked above is basically just saying that he's a
  WP:AGF. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, but the other side of the coin is that PainMan was only at AE six weeks ago, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262 #PainMan, for doing exactly the same sort of edits that this complaint reiterates. They seem to have learned nothing and they insist that they are right that non-Gaelic speakers don't understand the word "Taoiseach". They are going to go about their gnoming, regardless of what anyone else says, even if it means edit-warring on 1RR AC/DS pages. Look at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles #Use of Taoiseach and contrast that with PainMan's talk page. I really don't want to see a long-term editor and valuable Wiki-gnome sanctioned, but they can't keep on doing things their way when nobody else agrees. What's the minimum needed to bring them round? --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean I don't know how much more thoroughly I can argue that there's nothing inherently wrong with trying to explain what a Taoiseach is. His mistake was edit warring over it, and not engaging in discussion, but the edits themselves are not that big of a deal. It's not like anyone is alleging that he's some sort of POV-pusher, or is doing anything malicious or in bad faith. Taoiseach is not actually common word in English that we can necessarily expect the average reader to be familiar with, and the motivation for explaining it as being a "prime minister" is perfectly obvious as a reasonable, good faith attempt at improvement. Now, should we do so? That's a matter for a petty content dispute, nothing more, but the answer is not that we must not. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can question the malintent of the edits, but to what purpose? PainMan has a 100%
        WP:IDHT approach in this area, for context see User talk:Johnuniq#PainMan situation. Their response to the initial TBAN and consequently, the entire affair is subpar and shows no understanding of why the initial TBAN was placed and why this AE request was also filed, if they had displayed a modicum of understanding with "I get why my edits were disruptive and I can see why my recent edits were questionable w.r.t the TBAN", I would be more willing to align with your perspective, I dislike sanctioning editors as-is. I'm questioning PainMan's competence given that 1) this already occurred once, 2) multiple editors have engaged with them since (as they also have), 3) they still don't accept or understand why they were (and are) being sanctioned. As such, I'm much less willing to believe that no preventive measures will be the correct way to deal with this. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You're still invoking the disruption of a past incident, in which the user edit warred and failed to communicate, an incident which was formally reported, actioned and closed. It is always worthwhile to examine past context when there is current disruption. However, in this current report, there is not any current disruption. There is only uncontentious editing in good faith, none of which is in violation of any policy, sanction, or conduct expectation in a DS area, and as such is quite simply not actionable. No one is alleging that there is any existing problem tied to the subject area. Even the "similar" edits to the past incident, which some people are falsely claiming is some sort of offense, are obviously not contentious on their own merits, they were not even reverted over any major point of contention but merely because they are "not necessary", which the user has stated that they are fine with accepting and moving on without any fuss. There are quite simply no violations to be actioned here. If you feel that there is a larger competence problem, that's fine, I encourage you to pursue that in an appropriate way, but the alleged "violations" we are considering in this particular report are not reflective of any behavioral problem in the subject area in need of sanction. There's simply no violations. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's best that an uninvolved administrator close this, it's been a while and there's no point keeping this open longer than necessary. I doubt PainMan will give us reponses other than via proxy and I don't think that'll change, and there's no point keeping this languishing around for more than two weeks. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Based upon PainMan's statement, I think the message has been gotten. Given that, I'm okay with this being a warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems appropriate, although the warning should make it clear that repeating the kinds of edits mentioned in this request would be very inadvisable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet again, "the kinds of edits" you're referring to are in themselves harmless and not disruptive. The notion that they are is a complete fabrication based on the fact that they were associated with disruptive conduct in the past. That does not make the edits themselves problematic. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have made your objections well known, but that doesn't change the fact that 8 other AE admins find the edits problematic. I would be okay with a warning --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 12:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do find the edits problematic, in the sense of skirting around the edges of the spirit of the topic ban, but having seen PainMan's reply, I no longer think any further topic ban extension would be necessary or appropriate – quite the opposite, and I would support any future appeal against the current topic ban because it is creating more drama than it prevents. I would certainly agree to a simple warning in order to get this closed, although I think the message has already been driven home. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 9 April 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 Varun2048

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Varun2048 (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#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

The following are all topic ban violations:

1. 11:45, 5 March 2020 (diff oversighted): Argued regarding inclusion and exclusion of the names of politicians in Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 9 § Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME
2. 10 March 2020: Argued in favor of temporarily pausing changes to article in Talk:Jyotiraditya Scindia
3. AltNews et al. document the site to have propagated fake news on multiple occasions." and "Sources supporting OpIndia to have disseminated fake news:" from OpIndia
   article, marked as a minor edit with no edit summary
4. 12 March 2020: Removed 2,857 characters of text from Manohar Parrikar article, marked as a minor edit with the edit summary "Spelling edits"
5. 13 March 2020: Fixed spelling in Manohar Parrikar article
6. 14 March 2020: Argued in favor of mentioning the arrest of politician Ishrat Jahan in Talk:2020 Delhi riots
7. 21 March 2020: Changed description of climate in Shillong
8. 26 March 2020: Removed sentence "The State Government has allocated 80 hectares of land in Pilani." in Pilani article
9. 27 March 2020: Changed description of climate in Parassala
10. 29 March 2020: Changed number of states in Indian National Congress article
11. 7 April 2020: Changed description of rainfall in Neriamangalam
12. 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Kerala
    article
13. 13 April 2020: Removed the words "some of them have been described as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP)" from the lead section's description of defamation suits filed against The Wire

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 March 2020: Topic banned from "editing articles related to India (broadly construed) for a period of one year"

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 2 March 2020 by QEDK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above diffs show 13 topic ban violations. Varun2048 had previously been warned for violating their topic ban on their talk page at Special:Permalink/950666674 § Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction on 13 March, with another comment on 17 March. Varun2048 acknowledged the warning, which contained a suggestion to "stay off all India pages", on 14 March.

I am also concerned about the prevalence of

• The 5 March comment was solicited by Trojanishere on 07:57, 5 March 2020 (diff oversighted) at Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 9 § Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME.
• The 14 March comment was solicited by Souniel Yadav at Special:Diff/945531895.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/950666674

Discussion concerning Varun2048

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 Varun2048

I do not deny the charges against me. I am new to Wikipedia and I feel I was handed a 1 year ban unfairly. However, I have not appealed the ban as I have not understood properly the right method to appeal the ban. I have decided to stay low honoring the ban and 5 edits after explanation of terms of ban were explained to me were harmless minor edits. Some were arguing in talk page(I was/am not aware the ban extends to voicing opinion on talk page). I understand I have not been proper in following the policy of Wikipedia and I leave it to the wisdom of the administrations to take whatever decision they deem right.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Varun2048

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

• Given that the user has made only 84 edits on Wikipedia, their talk page is full of warnings, both before and after the topic ban, and given that the edits are unambiguous topic ban violations, I conclude that the user is not net positive, and the community is wasting more time on them than is getting back in terms of creation of encyclopedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that they probably aren't a net positive and I'm going to block them for 1 month (which the maximum amount for a first block). I'll also warn them that any further problematic editing will likely result in an indefinite block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 13 April 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 Wikieditor19920

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Zloyvolsheb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikieditor19920 (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#Remedies : Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 14:15, 10 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
2. 20:08, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
3. 20:12, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
4. 20:25, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
5. 20:28, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
6. 20:42, 11 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Muboshgu.
7. 17:28, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and Muboshgu.
8. 19:15, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
9. 19:28, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "You need to stop personalizing disagreements and focus on the content, not the contributor."
10. 20:33, 12 April 2020 Accusation of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb.
11. 21:13, 12 April 2020 Zloyvolsheb to Wikieditor19920: "I am going to once again ask you to tone it down. Next time you attack me for 'pushing POV' when the majority of editors here are opposed to what you propose I will report you."
12. 21:42, 12 April 2020 Wikieditor19920: "If you don't want to be accused of POV pushing, don't make the talk page a forum for your personal evaluations.... This is blatantly non-compliant with
    WP:NPOV
    ."
13. 23:57, 12 April 2020 Yet more accusations of POV/bias against Zloyvolsheb and The Four Deuces – after two warnings at the same page, same day.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [7] Wikieditor19920 blocked for disruptive editing at Talk:Ilhan Omar by Doug Weller on March 18.

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

[8] Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I haven't been very involved with the Bernie Sanders article: in fact I made just three edits there before April 10. (Now four.) Specifically, I made a minor copy-edit to Bernie Sanders on 27 Feb [9], changed the portrait on 9 March [10], and removed several sentences regarding Sanders' comments on Cuba on 13 March [11]. After the revert I received a thanks notification from one contributor and support at the talk page from another, TFD. I made no more edits over roughly the next month when, on April 10, Wikieditor19920 suddenly came to my talk page to accuse me of "selective POV" because of that ONE revert on March 13: "This strongly resembles POV pushing and attempted whitewashing. I suggest you stop." [12].

Despite three out of five editors so far involved in the discussion at Talk:Bernie Sanders#Cuba disagreeing with him, he has continued to accuse us (mostly myself) of pushing a POV. I asked him to not personalize and focus on the content. He persists. Wikieditor19920 was previously warned by admin Bishonen, who wrote below the DS alert

"If you continue to attack those with different opinions than yourself as dishonest, utterly biased, and sneaky, you may be topic banned from American politics." [13]

Maybe that's the appropriate remedy. I've had much more luck working productively with other people, and have never before dealt with someone whose every talk page reply includes an accusation of "selective POV" or "POV pushing" or "whitewashing" against another editor (diffs show over 10 attacks or accusations in just two days, some are minutes apart). That does not facilitate a content-focused discussion, and indicates a battleground mentality. I previously told him that any concerns about others' conduct belong at an administrator noticeboard, and explicitly encouraged him to seek that review if he found it necessary. [14]

I don't want to eliminate Wikieditor19920 as some kind of content opponent - he has a right to his views. But I would suggest at least some kind of further warning to Wikieditor19920 to avoid making any more personal accusations of POV pushing or similar (as in his latest talk page edit [15]), with the understanding that he will be blocked or topic banned if he continues his attacks. I am not interested in seeing a

Comment in response to Wikieditor19920's statement: Wikieditor19920 paints me as accepting one standard for "critical sources" about Biden and another for Sanders. Nope. I accept reliable sources for any article. The difference I see is the issue of

Comment on misused diffs: Wikieditor19920, this [17] is a very clear misuse of diffs that makes it look like I said the opposite of what I said. I am assuming you made an honest mistake. You're pointing to this diff: [18] ("not covering anything was reported in the news"); please use the corrected diff [19] ("we are not covering just anything that was reported in the news"). Obviously that changes the meaning, let's try to be fair. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Stricken: Wikieditor19220 corrected as asked [20].[reply]

Response to Buffs: Actually, contrary to your statement, I wasn't very involved on the Bernie Sanders talk page before April 10 either. I had made only a few comments there, one when I made the revert on March 13. Notably, Wikieditor19920 did not joint the discussion there until April 10, when I asked him to use the article talk page. Instead he first came to my user talk page with an aggressive accusation of POV pushing. By the way, Wikieditor19920 recently made a better talk page contribution in response to a comment by Gandydancer. I am starting to appreciate his perspective better now that he's made that substantive comment and I'm rethinking my own, but that would have been much easier to do without the barrage of bad-faith accusations he's launched at me (and a few others) in the last three days.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning Wikieditor19920

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 Wikieditor19920

Zloyvolsheb is a regular at Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and shows a clear double standard editing controversies at both pages.

• Diff Defends inclusion of Joe Biden sexual assault allegations based on coverage in multiple reliable sources. (Analysis that I agree with, because it is grounded in reliable sources.)
• Diff At Sanders article, regarding the controversy over his remarks on Cuba and Castro, he sets a new standard: only if it has an impact on the race, not whether it is covered in reliable sources. He argues it did not have an impact and engages in some irrelevant, hard-to-follow polling analysis (all of this is presented as an argument for exclusion).
• Diff At Biden, says that the NYT article was not necessary for inclusion, and that Intercept and Fox (second tier sources) are perfectly sufficient for inclusion of sex. assault allegations Diff.
• Diff At Sanders, argues that a full-page article on the controversy in the NYT is insufficient for inclusion, and claims (without reference to a secondary source) that "Obama said the same thing" and provides link to a YouTube video.
• Diff Sarcastic comments about "corporate media" as a response to other editor providing reliable sources supporting their point at Biden.
• Diff At Biden, appears to properly rely on sourcing policy, unlike at Sanders, where subjective/political points are argued and reliable sources are unaddressed. Diff.
• Diff Here, suggests that an editor is ignoring multiple RS on sexual assault allegations because it doesn't "align with their perspective." See more below.
• Here and Here, makes arguments totally inconsistent with those made at Bernie Sanders about coverage in reliable sources being sufficient for inclusion. See Diff.

Additional diffs

• Diff Opens a discussion about reinserting controversy on Biden inappropriate touching based on limited sources.
• Diff Cites BLP and PUBLICFIGURE as requiring inclusion of controversies published in reliable sources; at Sanders, argues for exclusion of controversial remarks published in RS as insignificant. Diff.
• Diff Proposes including criticism of Biden for legislation, provides one source. Contrast w/ arguments at Sanders dismissing reliable source coverage Diff.
• Diff Critical comments on Biden's past controversies, suggesting he is unreliable (implicit expression of disfavor of the subject.) Contrast w/ sympathetic comments at Sanders defending him as wrongfully labeled controversial by "Democratic elites." Diff.
• Diff Argues at Biden that just a few reliable sources, dealing with highly BLP sensitive material are sufficient; exact opposite points made at Sanders, and regarding less BLP sensitive material.

Zloyvolsheb suggests I attacked other editors. That wasn't my intent; I was critical of arguments that I saw as reflecting a POV at that page, and I believe this is borne out by the diffs. Zloyvolsheb claims they are not looking for a warning, but brought an AE report on our first interaction and demanded I not post on his talk page when I raised the above concerns with him. I might attribute Zloyvolsheb's arguments at Sanders to a lack of familiarity with policy, but his strongly argued points at Biden tell me that they know better. (Shortened from original.) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Objective3000, Black Kite, Guerillero The suggestion that I "attacked" other editors is false and disproven by the diffs; I was clearly critical of arguments giving inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate reasons for removing reliably sourced content. Objective3000's accusations suffer from a similar lack of evidence, but this is an editor with an axe to grind who I've warned for stalking after apparently following me to discussions I have been involved in across WP to disagree with/criticize me (as he's doing here). Guerillero, I'd urge you to reconsider striking your comment. Zloyvolsheb claims that they do not intend to "eliminate an opponent," but they brought an AE on our first interaction, for what everyone here so far has agreed had little basis. Now threatened with BOOMERANG, user suddenly says they "appreciate my perspective," but this, too, strikes me as disingenuous.

Look at the disparity in arguments between Biden and Sanders for this user. User lists a host of conditions at Sanders[22] for including a simple controversy over remarks, which user argues meeting would make it "too long" and then therefore unsuited for the article. This was for a two-sentence explanation. At Biden, user sets a far lower standard for the most sensitive BLP content.[23]

Zloyvolsheb is reacting, retributively, to the fact that I correctly noted a bias on their end and called out their political arguments as inappropriate. This is a misuse of AE. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Do not accuse me of making assertions about behavior, which is any editor's right to do (and which you are doing here), lightly. It's a fact I presented evidence on your talk page and raised a concern about WP:STALK previously. However, I'm not going to debate it with you further here or get baited into a petty back-and-forth with you, since we've been here before.

@Buffs: Appreciate the careful consideration of the talk page; I agree that sometimes inappropriate arguments aren't worth responding to. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued bludgeoning, civil POV pushing by Zloyvolsheb I'm just going to note that here, Zlovyolsheb wrote approximately three full-length paragraphs at Talk:Bernie Sanders continuing to object to exclusion of the material and posing a litany of demanding questions about policies that they deftly cited at JB, basically bludgeoning the discussion, and, yet again, applying a totally opposite standard between the two pages for covering controversies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User continues to make specious arguments at

WP:BOOMERANG, not just for misusing AE, but for the filer's clear POV editing at of controversies Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. If anyone can find their explanation about this discrepancy in how they edit controversies convincing or sincere, I'd be shocked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Newslinger: I just want to clarify that Zloyvolsheb and I do not disagree on how to handle the Biden sexual assault info. Our disagreement was at the Bernie Sanders page; I noted their contributions because I believe they illustrate that this user is applying a double standard. I also find their arguments at Sanders to be tendentious. But I will accept your feedback and try to reframe my arguments as you suggest. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request I'd politely request that anyone reviewing this report also consider what I have provided evidence of here: evidence that Zloyvolsheb is indeed engaged in editing to further a POV, as shown by efforts to remove reference to controversies at the BS page with tendentious arguments and fervently advocating for inclusion of controversies at Joe Biden with policy arguments that they do not follow at the former. I will no longer call attention to these at the Bernie Sanders talk page, since I've been encouraged to focus on content not editors. I do believe this is an issue with this user warranting AE review. I will not open a separate report because I've already made my case here. This is not because I agree or disagree with them at either page: Indeed, while I disagree with them at Sanders, I agree with them at Biden. This is because I believe it's obvious that this user chooses to apply wholly different standards at these two pages and makes political, not policy based, arguments.Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Wikieditor19920 has been accusing other editors of POV pushing on multiple pages for some time. They have threatened to report multiple editors to admins -- five or six times for me alone. Their attempts at such have all failed. IMO, a warning might result in a more pleasant atmosphere. O3000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikieditor19920: Repeatedly falsely accusing someone of stalking is a personal attack. This habit of focusing on editors (e.g. claims of POV-pushing, stalking, threats of admin action) instead of content does not help development of consensus or make for a comfortable editing environment. And frankly, doesn't look good to make an attack in a paragraph denying that you make attacks. O3000 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never stalked anyone and I object to these repeated false accusations. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone suggest to Wikieditor19920 that edit summaries are not the place to make accusations?[24] And, again remind the editor to FOC? O3000 (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Request that Wikieditor19920's be directed to shorten his reply to the required 500 words...he's way over. Buffs (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WikiEditor's edits, after re-reading Bernie's talk page, I'm not seeing personal attacks. I'm seeing. WE being flustered by Z & others' insistence on standards outside what we have for WP. I think his exasperation is reasonable, but I would remind him to maintain a cool head. Buffs (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikieditor19920

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

• Seems like an easy BOOMERANG, to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a sanction here, but neither do I see a boomerang. If you look at Talk:Bernie Sanders, pretty much all of Wikieditor19920's last dozen edits to it (including one from less than two hours ago) have in some way attacked other editors that have opinions he doesn't agree with, mostly accusing them of POV-pushing. Note that this isn't just aimed at the OP here, but to at least three other established editors (Muboshgu, The Four Deuces and Gandydancer). I'd suggest that Wikieditor19920 be reminded to comment on the content, not the contributor. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I Struck my comment --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• After reviewing all of the diffs, I agree that Wikieditor19920 should be reminded to
  policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Wikieditor19920, thank you for accepting my feedback. It might take more effort to phrase arguments as I-messages (e.g. "I think we should apply the same standard..." instead of "You are [...] applying standards totally inconsistent with..."), but the extra effort pays for itself when it prevents an arbitration enforcement filing. I don't think any further action needs to be taken on this report. — Newslinger talk 09:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • request for comment on Talk:Bernie Sanders, which worked well for the Joe Biden article, may accelerate this process if the consensus is not clear. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Agree with the above; nothing sanctionable, but focus on content. Also, a general reminder that brevity is a virtue and it's harder to evaluate claims when there's a massive wall of text to work through. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:43, 22 April 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 Janj9088

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Janj9088 (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

[25] :

• You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
• You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article.
• You are required to abide by a civility restriction
• Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance

The above restrictions are clearly visible when you try to edit the article in question.

Diffs

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

1. Revision as of 03:03, 28 April 2020 Uses bunch of non-scholarly sources such as Pch24.pl, and website www.wehrmacht-polacy.pl
2. Latest revision as of 11:29, 28 April 2020 reverts with statement Are you afraid of historical truth? What's wrong here? This violates both You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article and Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers.
3. Revision as of 08:52, 28 April 2020 quickly created sockpuppet account used to revert, with comment Undid revision 953621738 by Piotrus (talk) great sources!

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Anyone editing the page is alerted about discretionary sanctions, there is a huge wall of text that opens up stating You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article. You are required to abide by a civility restriction Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans, and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page. An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is due to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for edits and pages relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully. Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm. Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision.

Also worrying is the fact that immediately another account was created to reinsert the edits[26]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Janj9088

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 Janj9088

(user is blocked for 31h for sockpuppetry)

Statement by Piotrus

Setting aside the fact that the user reported here is in violation of discretionary sanctions visible on article's talk page and in the edit mode but also in violation of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations I also find it very suspicious that this account Fireslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was created, first to revert at the affected article, then apparently to stalk my edits. I think some quick blocks are in order as I think it is apparent that Fireslow is a sock that is not here to build encyclopedia, but to create mischief. If there is a CU around they could check if there is an obvious connection to the other account, but it is also possible it is a different troll who has been infesting this topic area recently and is just playing around. Hopefully when I wake up tomorrow this will be dealt with with a semi on article and a block on the obvious troll sock accounts... here's hoping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Why are we even here? Cannot someone apply

• This seems unambiguous. POV-pushing, aggressive edits and edit summaries, and sock-puppetry. That sounds like time for a siteban. Guy (help!) 15:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Pace RexxS, I formally propose a one year AE block which any uninvolved administrator is free to extend to a CBAN of whatever duration, after discussion at AN or ANI. Guy (help!) 22:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with
  WP:AN for site bans. Any uninvolved admin could issue an indefinite block on the evidence, but it wouldn't be an AE action. --RexxS (talk) 18:06, 28 April 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 Yae4

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Yae4 (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/Climate change#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 2020-03-28 Adding Forbes comment by Roger A. Pielke Jr., a climate change contrarian, for claims of "suppression" of a climate change contrarian - sourced, bizarrely, to a profile attacking Pielke in the "DeSmog blog".
2. 2020-03-28 Forbes blog (non-RS, see
   WP:RSP) with extensive quote from Robert L. Bradley Jr.
   (a promoter of a free-market anti-interventionist position on climate change), promoting climate change denialist talking points.
3. 2020-04-24T06:19:56 Reverts to include citations to primary material at climate change denialist group the
   Global Warming Policy Foundation
   .
4. 2020-04-06T17:04 New article presenting climate change denialist talking points, e.g. extensive quote from musician Harold Ambler dismissing climate change as "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind".
5. 2020-03-30 adding invalid tags to Skeptical Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted then again and again.
6. 2020-04-02 Addition of
   synthesis serving to undermine the reputation of Climate Feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by cherry-picking superficial criticisms from an assessment that was overwhelmingly entirely positive (see talk:Climate Feedback
   ).
7. [28] (admin only(, adding references to https://principia-scientific.org/, a seriously fringe website, on now-deleted Mototaka Nakamura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8. [29], initial creation of Mototaka Nakamura, seriously cites Cooley, Richie (2019-09-22). Climate Change and Bible Prophecy. Richie Cooley.
   ISBN 978-0-463-55559-0
   . as a primary source.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months 2020-01-15 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In Yae4's view many articles have been "FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists".

Holding a fringe POV is theoretically fine, Wikipedia does not require ideological groupthink, but his POV comes across in disruptive article edits and talk space activism promoting idiosyncratic and non-mainstream views in a contentious area at a time of heightened political tension, and that is not fine.

I believe that a restriction from at least mainspace editing related to climate change is justified. Explaining reality-based policies such as

diff

Discussion concerning Yae4

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 Yae4

• Immediately before this, I questioned three JzG/Guy Guardian "blogposts" sources. (Reference
  "Guardian blogs"). Previously, I created Climate Forecast Applications Network, which remains after JzG/Guy's speedy, delete
  .

1. Roger_A._Pielke_Jr. is expert on "policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change." At Noticeboard JzG/Guy: I don't know if it's reliable or not. At least it has the advantage of supporting the mainstream view., and kept/updated DeSmogBlog sources in articles. Prior Forbes blog source was reverted because "author has strong personal POV."
2. Blog sources and attribution rules seem inconsistently applied. I've observed practices (#1), and sought guidance. Robert L. Bradley Jr., Phd "with distinction," and decades experience, is "author of several books on energy economics."
3. was discussed at Judith Curry, where, there, was consensus. Climate Models for the Layman is essentially identical to (self-published) Climate Models for Lawyers on Curry's blog site, and presents her views.
4. Harold_Ambler, author, musician, teacher (rower and surfer), got much notice, co-wrote/edited Ever True, history of Brown Crew (cited), wrote Don't Sell Your Coat, was controversially published on HuffPost, and got US Senate attention.
5. Skeptical_Science has many self-published and blog sources, bias, noted long ago; my assessment.
6. I wrote 41% of Climate Feedback, which demonstrates useful, lasting contributions. However, poor (Axios), non-attributed sources remain. "IFCN concludes its investigation into Science Feedback complaint" was removed, but several Poynter sources remain. NPOV should say they were certified, but all 3 annual IFCN/Poynter reviews had criticisms, and they were investigated; Conclusion: "the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."
7. /8. Mototaka Nakamura, ScD : impressive qualifications, decades climate modeling, noticed by numerous sources, some stronger, some weak; h-index 60% above widely cited blogger Dana Nuccitelli (13 versus 8).

JzG/Guy's

• "huge anti-fans": See "huge fan" by recruiting editor.

• Jlevi criticism contrasts previous: "Good going!", "Awesome work here." Bringing sources to Talk pages? Apologies for "collapse" if offended; noting 7 back/forth self-revert-indecision. When admin/editor JzG/Guy uses "bizarre" DeSmogBlog and Guardian blogposts, etc., I sometimes "step back" (disengage).

• @Jlevi: You now have two articles deleted, same as I have two, except yours were in less contentious "tech" topic area. I don't think it's a wiki-crime to try and fail. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If Hob Gadling may "turn over a new leaf" after civility issues, this enforcement seems out of proportion.
• Definition unsure; however, Bishonen and El_C seem "involved." (history available)

• @Bishonen: You closed a related article delete, which is no problem as "purely admin role." However, you said you were "already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern," indicating "strong feelings" before this. (Aside: Why had you not communicated such concerns?) @El C: Closed a Noticeboard which is "purely admin," however, felt strongly enough to delete communication from talk page, during direct communication attempts with JzG/Guy. Earlier involved in Snooganssnoogans dispute; Snooganssnoogans created Climate_Feedback, #6 here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PaleoNeonate, My creating Dave Hakkens, Precious Plastic, Stephen_Yafa, or David J. Rose while banned from "climate change broadly construed" seems doubtful. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite: Not sure I can take space or time to discuss it here. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @PaleoNeonate:Thank you for at least previously attempting an explanation of general WP climate topic guidance. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Only in death:First "climate" involvement was mid-January, non-neutral titled Noticeboard. -- Yae4 (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Buffs, PackMecEng, JFG, Atsme, and Springee:, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  JzG has an extensive POV essay (TL;DR). -- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I would also like to point at "Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here" at the current

This suggests that this may be a domain-specific problem That is also my impression and Yae4 demonstrated an interest in some Computer Science articles; I don't think that a site ban is necessary and it could prevent potentially useful contributions. —PaleoNeonate – 04:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JFG: You do not appear to realize that persistent civil POV pushing in relation to various articles, with the promotion of unreliable sources, is disruptive and wasting the community's precious time. The report is not about a content dispute. —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jlevi

The user does not tend to follow core editing policies on climate-related pages, operating in a manner that make it difficult to engage constructively. I will highlight some

- diff from 21 January 2020 Non-RS sources restated on the talk page without any RS-related arguments after removal from a BLP entry (diff Jan 19).

- diff from 23 January 2020 Unwillingness to discuss issues and focus on content.

- diff from 23 January 2020 More ref-bombing without consideration for source quality.

Similar behavior occurred in a recent AFD:

- diff from 20 April 2020 Ref-bombing with demonstrated lack of understanding of

- diff from 20 April 2020 Unwillingness to 1) discuss further, or 2) to consolidate sources.

- diff from 23 April 2020 Collapsing another editor's comments outside the

Edit: Added mainspace examples. Jlevi (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I to a large extent take Springee's points. Yae4 brings a lot of enthusiasm, and that's worth supporting. If it were tempered with some judiciousness in the future, then all the better. I'm somewhat more bearish than Springee on the probability of reform, given that article deletions would probably result in reappraisal of one's actions for most (and Yae4 will soon have a third deletion due to lack of awareness of policy), but a permanent topic ban would probably be excessive. Jlevi (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

If this person is such a problem, why have they not been blocked for any length of time? [30]. It seems that this should have been done prior to

El_C & Bishonen How can we be past warning if they have never been warned or sanctioned? PackMecEng (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Correct it is not required. That is not what I was saying though. Why go straight to a sanction when no warnings, sanctions, or issues have occurred before this point? Generally they get a chance to correct problematic behavior before a restriction. If this is something that has been going on this long I would expect to see something, anything in fact before this. PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just feels wrong when an one side of a content dispute brings the other in to get sanctioned, especially given how weak the evidence is and general lack of disruption for the topic area. PackMecEng (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

I don't see much more than disagreement about content here, and the accused editor has replied cogently to accusations. The matter could be settled by a reminder to tread lightly in a DS subject matter, and strictly adhere to RS sourcing. Sanctions such as a TBAN would look punitive rather than preventive at this time. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

Appears to be a case of a new editor needing a mentor rather than a t-ban or a block right out of the box. Lighten up - let's not run-off all of our newbie editors. Remove your dentures and gum 'em first, especially those who just need a little guidance. It's a learning process. If your ban hammer trigger finger itches, go fight some vandals...j/s. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Seems like a new editor who probably can contribute once they get the hang of things. A knock upside the head followed by some guidance, not removal from the island, is probably the correct remedy here.

I would start with telling Yae4 the fact that you are here and admins are discussing some form of possible sanctions is a good sign that you dune messed up. But that doesn't nessicarily mean you are a lost cause or can't be fixed. Here are some generally true things that many new editors miss. 1. Not everyone who disagrees with you or reverts your edits s a POV pusher. When you are new, much like a teen you know you are right and those who object are cleraly wrong. That is often not the case. Often it's because you aren't following accepted practices that often aren't obvious to new editors. Things like getting consensus before making changes when edits have been rejected, asking for help if you are certain you are right but, dang it, editors just arnen't hearing you. Sometimes it's good to look back at article histories and see how/why people were able to get consensus for changes. Sometimes it's understanding that you just aren't going to succeed if its you vs several editors. Anyway, when new and enthusiastic it's easy to cross invisible lines then end up here. 2. Pay attention to the diffs above. Try to understand why they are being used as evidence against you. At the same time, for anyone who posed a diff, please be willing to explain why it's wrong so Yae4 will have the knowledge needed to avoid similar mistakes in the future. As for the appropriate "knock", perhaps a warning or perhaps a short term tban (say 1 month). As this is the first official anything I would suggest something other than an indef. Give the editor some rope. Hopefully they will use it to build a bridge not a noose. Springee (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley, Bishonen, and RexxS:, could I offer an alternative suggestion. Several times I've suggested what I have called a soft-indef tban. The idea is that the editor is tbanned until they can show they understand the issue. The idea is that as soon as the editor understands what they did wrong and stops doing those things, the tban becomes punative rather than protection. So in a case like this where there is no prior warning history the tban is indef but also understood that the bar to lift it is light. So they can appeal almost right away (I would suggest waiting at least a week) and if they can explain what bad behaviors they will avoid in the future it gets lifted. The worst case scenario is the ban is put back in place. The best case is that we didn't needlessly tban an editor who was going to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

To those above saying 'Oh they are a new editor'. Check the editing history, despite only starting in August 2019, they are by no means anything close to what a new editor would be.

Quack Quack. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Yae4

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

• I could support a
  topic ban. I think the documentation establishes that as an appropriate remedy. At the very least, there needs to be a logged warning alongside a commitment to do better. But we may be past that point now. El_C 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• PackMecEng, an (extra) formal warning isn't really necessary in order for sanctions to apply immediately. There is no such requirement. El_C 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PackMecEng, this is a volunteer project, sometimes things slip through the cracks. There is always the prospect of a successful appeal in a while, so that's where I'm still leaning. It doesn't appear likely that Yae4 is able to edit in this topic area without disruption. That is a fact. El_C 20:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am, I have been and will continue to be uninvolved with respect to Yae4. El_C 20:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yae4, that action was taken as an uninvolved admin. Having done so does not make me involved. El_C 15:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I was already following Yae4's tendentious editing with growing concern, and I find JzG's collection of diffs and links above convincing. The user only recently changed a fire-breathing section header on their userpage from "Hall of Shame (or Articles FUBAR'd by climate change alarmists)" (quoted by JzG above) to the blander "Hall of Shame (or articles not consistent with "reliable" source coverage)". Support a topic ban from climate change broadly construed. I do think we are past the point of warnings. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• @
  WP:INVOLVED. What is the history you mention? Bishonen | tålk 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• @Yae4: this is getting ridiculous. I won't respond to further sealioning from you. We'll just have to see if any other admins think my post that you mention, clearly visible right here, one inch higher up, suggests I'm "involved" with you. Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• @Yae4: without prejudice to your position, you appear to be at almost twice your allowed word limit. Would you be kind enough to trim back to no more than 500 words, please? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Yae4: I don't see any problem with the four articles you mention, even if you were under a climate change topic ban. It would be climate change that is the defining issue, not the environment in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Having reviewed the request, I'm minded to issue a 12 month topic ban from making any edit on any page related to the climate change topic, broadly construed. Unless opinion here opposes that within the next 24 hours, I'll enact the ban. --RexxS (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I like that,
    other Wikimedia projects, and then appeal the ban, perhaps after six months — having hopefully learned lots about our principles, policies, and customs. If they can point to constructive editing in those other areas, the appeal is very likely to be granted. Mind you, I won't exactly object to your proposal. I'm just very fond of the "learning while topic banned" principle. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC).[reply
    ]
    • You've convinced me, 'Shonen. An indefinite topic ban isn't necessarily forever, and an appeal after six months seems very reasonable. If you want to do the paperwork before I get around to it, please do. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  WP:RGW going on.) It would be nice if that energy could be redirected, which is why I do support a topic ban. What would you think about doing a 6-month topic ban with a warning that returning to pushing fringe narratives after the ban expires will result in the topic ban being reinstated as indefinite? ~Awilley (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Awilley: I could have some sympathy if I hadn't seen this morning's edit by Yae4. Did you see that? There's no appreciation of what the complaints against them are. I think I prefer putting the onus on Yae4 to demonstrate good editing and appeal a ban in six months, rather than someone else having to demonstrate further misconduct after Yae4 just sits it out. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I had seen the userpage, not the edit. (I just had to look up FUBAR.) That was part of what convinced me of the Battleground mentality. I don't typically expect a user to appreciate the complaints against them while they are in the process of being topic-banned. My hope is that they will come to appreciate them in time. If not, it will be less time-consuming for you, me, Bishonen, El_C, or any single admin to reinstate the topic ban than it would for us to go through an appeal here. ~Awilley (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also open to the suggestion by Springee. Maybe the easiest way to do that would be to stipulate that the ban can be lifted by any single admin (as opposed to going through the whole process here) when that admin is satisfied that Yae understands the problem and is willing to remedy it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I draw the opposite conclusion: someone editing in exactly the manner complained of, while facing the prospect of a topic ban, seems even less likely to me to come to appreciate what is required after the event.

The process for appeal is laid down at

WP:ACDS #Appeals by sanctioned editors

. The first port of call suggested is the admin who imposed the sanction, so that whenever the appeal is straightforward, it can be accepted without unnecessary fuss (this already is a "tban lite"). Therefore, if an appeal is heard at AE, or at AN, or at ARCA, it means that the enforcing administrator has either not been consulted or opposes it. In either case, you're not looking at a straightforward appeal and it is not obvious that the sanctioned editor has demonstrated the good editing expected for the topic ban to be lifted.

With all due respect to Springee, they don't have to make the difficult decisions, nor clean up the consequences of not getting them right. The idea of any admin being able to lift an AE sanction cuts across the setup of AE, where the judgement of the enforcing administrator is paramount. I would not be happy to see an AE action – especially one imposed after consultation and consensus at AE – simply being overturned by another admin without "the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator".

The result of allowing a topic-banned editor back to editing in the affected area without being reasonably certain that they will not cause problems again, will be more disruption to the encyclopedia and another debate here to re-impose sanctions. I prefer some means of being reasonably certain.

Nevertheless, as I don't see any prospect of consensus for my proposal made yesterday, I'll withdraw the offer and await other solutions. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: I don't know of any administrator who would unilaterally overturn the sanction without looking deep enough to be "reasonably certain" that the problem is resolved. (Do you?) Another idea if you don't object: I'd be happy to place an indef topic ban myself and then handle the appeal (if it comes) on my own too. If that doesn't work then I won't stand in the way of the indef. ~Awilley (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I don't know of any administrator who could unilaterally overturn any AE sanction placed by another admin without being de-sysopped – no matter how deeply they had looked. You can take any reasonable AE action you choose, of course; that's the whole point of how AE works. But you would do so in the knowledge that I had concerns over the lack of any indication of the time you expected Yae4 to observe the topic ban. I can't speak for Bishonen, but her comment to me above seems indicative of a similar position. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with RexxS. Usually people are on their best behaviour when their behaviour is being discussed on a noticeboard, as opposed to cocking a snook at the discussion, as here. Yae4 restored his

belligerent

header "FUBAR'd by climate alarmists" to his page just a couple of hours after RexxS's original topic ban proposal above. That's a poor look. I don't know what is in Yae4's head, but it certainly could be that they really want this attack on their opponents on their page and realise they won't be able to put it there once the topic ban is in force. "Unpromising" would be a weak word for that.

The difference between you, AW, placing an indefinite ban on your own + handling an appeal on your own, and RexxS doing it on behalf of AE, seems rather finespun, since Yae4 would in any case be encouraged to go to the "placing" admin first with an appeal. The differences would be a) it sounds from the way you put it like your verdict on that appeal would be final, whereas RexxS's could be appealed further to the admins or the community, at AE or AN. And b) an appeal to you could be made quickly, whereas one to RexxS + AN/AE would have little chance before six months had passed. Which of the differences is it that makes you prefer your own suggestion, or is it both? I'm not sure I believe in a), btw — surely if an admin declines to lift a sanction, it can always be appealed to the community? Bishonen | tålk 03:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bish, a) doesn't make sense to me at all, so closer to b) I think, but without any arbitrary timeframe. Could be a month, could be 6 months, could be a year, could be never. The idea was a simple way to implement Speingee's "lite" suggestion by allowing the unban to happen at a lower level (like a regular unblock) instead of going through the AE process. Nothing special about me; you or Rex or anybody could do it. I just volunteered because I had brought it up. Anyway it looks like the consensus here is for indef, and I won't stand in the way of that. ~Awilley (talk) 05:21, 30 April 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 Eternal Father

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eternal Father (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

Diffs

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

1. 2020-04-28 cites a Fox News opinion piece in support of tendentious content on Michael Flynn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by NorthBySouthBaranof
2. 2020-04-28 introduces negative BLP content to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Wikieditor19920
3. 2020-04-28 Editoriliaising at Mike Cernovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), rverted by Grayfell
4. 2020-04-24 Unsourced promotion of Mike Cernovich, reverted by JzG
5. 2020-04-20
   WP:UNDUE promotin of Mike Cernovich at Jeffrey Epstein, reverted by Calton
6. 2020-04-19
   tendentious addiution of Mike Cernovichg at Investigative journalism, reverted by JzG (n.b: there is consensus at talk:Mike Cernovich
   that he is not a journalist, and he admits he only calls himself one to trigger people).
7. 2020-04-18 Promotion of Mike Cernovich at Roger Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverted by Grayfell; reinserted and reverted by Calton; reinserted and reverted again by Calton; reinserted and reverted by Muboshgu

There are plenty more where those came from.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Eternal Father came to my notice as a result of promtional editing of

Case in point: Draft:Hoaxed (2019 Film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was declined on 15 April and 19 April, by different reviewers, but Eternal Father created it by copy-paste into mainspace anyway at Hoaxed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), leading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoaxed with attendant canvassing (e.g. [32]).

It seems clear that Eternal Father is a fan of Mike Cernovich's work, which is a red flag in itself given that Cernovich is pretty much universally described as a right-wing provocateur or troll. He's also a fan of Project Veritas. This likely explains the recurrent problem of failure to understand what constitutes reliable sourcing on Wikipedia, as exemplified in the Hoaxed article, and what constitutes OR/SYN, per the Cernovich article.

In order to reduce drama, I think Eternal Father should have a 12 month topic ban from AP2, to give him time to learn Wikipedia's sourcing and content policies in areas less prone to strife. Guy (help!) 09:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG A narrower ban would be fine by me but should probably include O'Keefe / Project Veritas and Jack Posobiec as well, since those are also a focus. I agree that the principal problem as seen to date is centred on Cernovich but I read it as right-wing faux journalists (not disputing your underlying point that this is much narrower than the entirety of US politics and, implicitly, that excessively broad sanctions are to be avoided). Guy (help!) 16:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[ diff]

Discussion concerning Eternal Father

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 Wikieditor19920

I definitely had a big problem with this user's addition at the Joe Biden article. It strings together information to suggest guilt in a way that sources do not explicitly do, and some sources have taken active efforts to avoid, namely conflating the Biden inappropriate touching with the sexual assault allegation. Whether this on its own warrants a ban, I don't know. I've seen a lot of concerning behavior at Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden and I doubt all of it will be sanctioned. I don't think that revert on its own warrants a ban rather than a warning. However, if it's part of an overall pattern of POV editing as JzG suggests, a ban might be appropriate. Will leave that for others to decide.

@

(Edit) I've moved EF's reply to his section, since he chose to reply directly under my statement. This is after I asked him to do so himself here and on his talk page. This user does not follow rules even when asked to do so. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eternal Father

Note: more information can be found on the talk pages of those articles Several users have consistently reverted edits, a pattern which may indicate political bias on their part, if not for assumed good faith. None of the edits have been found to be factually untrue and fall under subjective and matters of opinion, like how reliable sources, like Bloomberg and Fox News consider Cernovich to be a journalist, it seems multiple editors "oppose" this because they don't like his work. From my perspective, simply adding basic facts (backed by RS) is considered "promotion" by those that simply don't like Cernovich or other figures. As for BRD, I've seen plenty of B (bold), R (revisions), but not, however, much discussion on the talk pages by those that have make the revisions.

Why do the articles on Steve Bannon and Sean Spicer get to include an infobox module of their military record, but not Cernovich or Posobiec (whose article calls him an "internet troll" and has multiple instances of neutrality violations)? That doesn't make much sense to me.

The Mike Cernovich article, along with others, does not currently have a neutral point of view. He filed several motions, which are public record and have been substantially reported on. To deny this is to deny fact, which is against the spirit of Wikipedia.

1. The Michael Flynn source may include opinion, but the supplemental court filing is fact, and the statement from his attorney indicated that exculpatory evidence ("Brady Disclosure") was produced. Once those documents are made available to the public, this will be expounded upon further.

2. The same content is in the main Joe Biden article, and should be in the allegation article, as his other instances of confirmed inappropriate behaviour are relevant.

3. A simple analysis of the diff logs will show that JzG was the one who first "editorialized" the Seder section of the Cernovich article, under the deceptive guise of "removing unreliable sources".

Original: "On November 28, 2017, Cernovich published a post on [Medium] that resurfaced a deleted tweet progressive talk radio host Sam Seder wrote in 2009 joking about convicted statutory rapist and fugitive film director Roman Polanski.^[1][2] The tweet read,"

JzG: "Cernovich promted a conservative attack on Sam Seder"

4. Cernovich has been considered part of the IDW.,but again, that is a subjective matter of opinion, and it seems that Wikipedia is dependent upon the press to decide. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html

5. There were only 3 parties to the motion: Alan Dershowitz, and then Mike Cernovich filed along to that motion, and then the Miami Herald. So "other media" doesn't make sense in that context.

6. I believe the accuser is referring to the addition of investigative journalist and Project Veritas Chairman, James O'Keefe (not Cernovich), to the list of notable investigative reporters, to which I see no issue.

7. Allegations of jury bias in a Federal case are a serious matter, especially given the publicity that it received. Cernovich did, in fact, file a motion to unseal the jury questionnaires., which is a relevant and notable detail of the Roger Stone Trial.

Overall, this seems to be a matter of the accuser's narrative, not facts, as those have not been disputed. Eternal Father (talk) 10:10, 28 April 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 Venue9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Venue9 (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

ARBIPA

Diffs

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

1. 02:57, 3 May 2020 and 03:01 3 May 2020: Gives
   WP:FAKE
   sources, along with purported page numbers and quotations
2. 09:15, 3 May 2020: (1) Changes the post with FAKE sources when countered (2) Also claims at the bottom that my comment of "I am relieved" amounts to support for his claims
3. 13:22, 3 May 2020: Claims at WP:Redirects for discussion that I had agreed with him
4. 13:34, 3 May 2020: When I deny that I had agreed with him, he doubles down saying that I did!
5. 18:30, 3 May 2020: When another user challenges him, he triples down again. Supposedly, "this hoax" meant "not a hoax". This claim is then repeated further four times: [33], [34], [35], [36]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. 15:02, 1 May 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This account is only a few days old, but the user has devoted the majority of his 70-odd edits to claiming that the Indian political leader

The user's contribution was to supply three citations that appeared before 2004, which he later admitted he just copied from the Catalan Wikipedia. When asked for page numbers and quotations, he produced random page numbers and made-up quotations. When challenged on these, he started revising his earlier statements. Meanwhile, having gotten convinced that this was a HOAX, Akhiljaxxn submitted the redirects for Antonia Maino etc. for discussion. The user showed up there and started claiming that I had agreed this was not a hoax. When quizzed by me as well as other users, he continues to persist with this ridiculous claim.

Essentially, the charges are source misrepresentation, gaslighting, obsession with FAKE information, and possibly a politically-driven agenda. Casting aspersions, which happened before he received the ARBIPA alert, is no less of a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Venue9

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 Venue9

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Venue9

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

• Blocked indefinitely per
  WP:NOTHERE as a regular admin action, i. e. not per DS, which don't do indefinite. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply
  ]

• Compare also this SPI. Bishonen | tålk 23:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]