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 FkpCascais[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FkpCascais (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

• [1]
• [2] Topic ban from everything related to the Balkans

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

1. 20:00, 26 December 2018 FkpCascais edits a Balkan article violating his topic ban
2. 20:02, 26 December 2018 FkpCascais edits a Balkan article violating his topic ban
3. 21:09, 24 December 2018 FkpCascais makes a Balkans-related edit violating his topic ban

Diffs of previous re

levant sanctions, if any :

1. [3] FkpCascais is currently topic banned from everything related to the Balkans

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

FkpCascais is currently topic banned from from everything related to the Balkans [4]. They are trying to have their topic ban modified (in order to be able to edit Balkan football articles) but there is no decision for modification yet [5]. A few days ago he was blocked for the same thing [6]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning FkpCascais[edit]

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 FkpCascais[edit]

OK, I really expect the worst now, like being banned forever or similar... Yes, some time ago I found out József Lakatos was a Hungarian footballer who played in Spain as well, and he was not Romanian as initially sugested as some Yugoslav sites. I have a passion for these first sportsman that played in different countries and I love to make them their articles with their complete story. I thought moving him from Romanian to Hungarian list want be a "Balkans issue" and I though no one will find it hurtfull...

The first and second edits are just moving him to a right list. The third edit is inside my sandbox (am I banned from editing my sandboxes?). Anyway, it is nothing political or controversial. I really think the admins should start questioning why these few editors are so commited to get me eliminated from Wikipedia? I was recognised as awesome Wikipedian just a couple of month earlier. Now I am finding myself in this extremelly uncomfortable situation just because I was alone asking an unpleasent question in a historical article and I backed my claims with sources (at time I was in process of bringing more RS to the table). Wouldn´t proper Wikipedia protocolo just procede to a kind of RfC and bring a neutral editor to decide it, and we would be moving on? I want touch anything until a decition is made, I promise, cause I see otherwise i will be block and I am currently unabled from contributing to my area of speciallty. FkpCascais (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 89.164.154.220[edit]

@Salvio giuliano and Sandstein:. I think that he is still violating TB by posting opinions like this [7]. I had to ping him so other editors can see that I pinged everyone who participated in the discussion. Then he went to put his opinion on the matter by trying to camouflage it as an "I can't respond" post. Were will we come if he will each time he is pinged leave an opinionated comment and say "I shouldn't respond." 89.164.154.220 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning FkpCascais[edit]

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

• Because this is an apparent violation of my topic ban that is in the process of being appealed at WP:AN, I'll let other admins make the decision about how to proceed here, but I'll note that I consider it very bad form to violate a topic ban during an ongoing appeal and after being blocked once already for the same kind of violation. Sandstein 21:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this is clearly a case of FkpCascais violating their Balkans TBAN, I mean the first two diffs are from pages about football in Serbia. They clearly couldn't wait to find out the result of their appeal, and just edited in the TBAN space regardless, which shows a disregard for proper process. I think a block is justified, say, a fortnight to a month. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this a clear violation of the topic ban; so I support a block. However, the latest AE block was for a day and, so, I think the duration of this one should not exceed a week. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:00, 27 December 2018 (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 أمين[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

ARBPIA 30/500 Editors need to have 500 edits.

Sampling of diffs from today: diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• User was warned by Huldra
• User was warned by Shrike

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning أمين[edit]

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 أمين[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning أمين[edit]

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

• @Sir Joseph: You should be capable of filling in a template and providing working diffs.
  The violations of the general prohibition are clear cut. It has been explained to them repeatedly, but the user shows no sign of having ever read their own talk page. Blocked for 1 week to enforce the general prohibition, but any admin is welcome to unblock if they reasonably believe that this editor understand the general prohibition and will abide by it. GoldenRing (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2018 (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 أمين[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

أمين (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition :

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

1. 04 Jan Creating article that dealt with the conflict mentioning "Israeli Occupation"
2. Date Explanation
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 30 Dec 2018 Was blocked by User:GoldenRing and unblocked by User:TonyBallioni
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Its clear that user can't differentiate what belongs to the conflict and what is not

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning أمين[edit]

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 أمين[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning أمين[edit]

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

• Looks like a pretty clear violation to me. The user has been made aware of the arbitration restriction, continued editing, was blocked, and then got unblocked after they convinced the unblocking admin that they understand the restriction. And then edited in the area again. Now we probably need a longer block.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I blocked for a week, with a note. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning DBigXray[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GenuineArt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

Noting that there is a limit of "20 diffs", I am presenting recent diffs where DBigXray has falsely accused editors of paid editing, socking and violated other forms of WP:NPA/WP:BATTLE:

• 2 December: WP:ASPERSIONS was violated because DBigXray accuses the discussants of this and this discussion to be engaging in paid editing/COI, despite no editor has been ever reported or ever convicted of paid editing or COI.
• 2 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: continuing unfounded allegation of paid editing by saying that the "statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"
• 5 December: WP:NPA: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots&diff=872127465&oldid=872124942 5 December]: WP:CIVIL: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."
• 7 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: continuing unfounded allegation of paid editing by saying "discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts".
• 7 December: WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"
• 16 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Checking the block logs of AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir, there was only 1 user who was a sock out of 19 discussants as of 16 December. But DBigXray makes unfounded allegations that "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"
• 16 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Claims an editor to be a "Blocked user now on IP" and to this day this allegation remains unfounded.
• 18 December: WP:BATTLE, WP:ASPERSIONS: Makes unfounded allegations about 11 editors to be engaging in meat puppetry or sock puppetry by saying "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"
• 18 December: WP:BATTLE: Doubles down with the unfounded allegations by saying that he has "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting", however no actual "evidence" has been produced.
• 18 December: WP:CIVIL: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you ae forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."
• 18 December: WP:FOC and WP:CIVIL: "No I cant help you to read"
• 23 December: WP:FOC and WP:BATTLE: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".
• 24 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: No blocked users participated in the DRV yet DBigXray claims that "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."
• 24 December: WP:ASPERSIONS: Makes unfounded allegation of sock puppetry with the comment "Talk about sock and more socks appear"
• 29 December: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE: In place of filing SPI with proper evidence, DBigXray tries to get rid of an opponent by making unfounded accusations of other user being a sock and demands them to be blocked as soon as possible.
• 29 December: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLE: Like above, DBigXray makes unfounded allegation his opponent is a sock of a banned editor and requests a "WP:NOTHERE block".

All of these incidents came after a warning from ANI that this sort of behavior will result in block.

I believe that these diffs qualifies as the clear evidence to establish that there is a recurring pattern of disruption. While there are issues with use of poor sources, wikihounding contributors, copyvio, and other problems, I decided to leave them due to limit of diffs. GenuineArt (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:: DBigXray has been already warned about possibility of topic ban under WP:ARBIPA.[10] Before that he was warned for his 1RR violation.[11] More recently, DBigXray was warned after drawing enough complaints for his overall behavior on ANI from November. This warning was also posted on DBigXray's talk page.[12] The reported misconduct came after all these warnings.

There has not been one editor who was convicted of COI in both of these discussions (1, 2). But DBigXray, just like here, has been adamant with his unsubstantiated claims that both of these discussions involve paid/COI editors. He had been told by Amakuru (an administrator) to stop labelling editors as COI editors without proper investigation on an appropriate noticeboard but DBigXray refused (User talk:DBigXray/Archive2018 2#Jaggi Vasudev).

The claims of sock puppetry against users made by DBigXray have been misleading because there hasn't been any example that was referred as "sock" by DBigXray and they later ended up getting blocked as sock in the cited examples. DBigXray made 7 reverts in only 4 days on Rafale deal controversy against 5 editors in total. Pattern also includes engagement in non-neutral editing and use of very poor sources [13] despite being told to do otherwise.[14] Due to diff limit I can't provide more evidence of problematic editing including misrepresentation of sources, deliberate wikihounding of opponents, but bottom line is that DBigXray behavior has only worsened even after those many warnings by admins. I don't think one more warning will create any difference.

One can also take a clue from this report where AGK asked DBigXray to trim down the statement, yet DBigXray refused to trim. DBigXray only does what he wants and same thing happens everywhere else, no mater what is being said to him. GenuineArt (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I have added the brief explanations now that how those diffs contain violation of conduct policy or guideline. GenuineArt (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

[15]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning DBigXray[edit]

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 DBigXray[edit]

Relevant threads for the Dispute at Jaggi Vasudev

• WP:ANI/Regstuff, Jaggi Vasudev, Isha Foundation
• Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Requested move 20 October 2018
• Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 November Jaggi Vasudev

diffs have been copied and response inline for ease of reading.

• 2 December 2018: the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev [16]

The exact comment was "Note to admin It is clear to me that based on the !voters at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and here, the PR machinery of Jaggi Vasudev and the members of the Friends and Fan club of Jaggi Vasudev have been mobilised enmasse to filibuster and bludgeon the move process. What is more interesting is that some of them are even tag teaming and edit warring [17][18][19] to hat !votes that are against their POV."

In my comment at MRV I had not taken any names and by the phrase "PR machinery" and "fan club" I was referring to the 3 editors who I had tagged in the RM discussion. In my comment at MRV I had also noted that I was annoyed by the reverts of the other set of 3 editors who were taking turns, to hat and hide an MRV comment, that disagreed with their own opinion. After getting reverted a second time by this set of editors at MRV, I made this comment as a note to the closing editor to not discount the hatted comment, and also made a thread at the MRV talk page to bring this disruptive hatting to the notice of other MRV participants to revert it. After a while another editor Erik, expressed his concern at this biased hatting calling it totally wrong and the hatting was removed by another editor here, Strangely, this time no tag-teamer reverted him to hat it again or protested against unhatting.

My note above at Move review was responded [20] by Rzvas. saying "No one here is paid by Sadhguru."

• 2 December: "that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum"[21]

The actual comment was my response to Rzvas.

"Although I did not claim so, but your statement that "none of them are paid by Sadhguru" is interesting. I assume that sort of statement is coming from a written affidavit on an offline mail chain/forum that in my opinion, seems to be going on. It would be interesting to know what else is mentioned over there. Knowing that one of these participants on the talk page User:Regstuff has already been site banned for Paid editing."

• As I explained above I had given my reasons to believe that "The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts,". Another editor at the MRV discussion had expressed concern at the passionate comments [22] by an MRV participant, who did not disclose it in his first comment but later on admitted on the same thread that he was "influenced" by the teaching of Jaggi Vasudev. I take this admission further vindication of my comment above.

• 7 December: "Consensus is not counting of the heads but on the weight of the argument. The RM discussion was canvassed with COI and SPA accounts, so the number game should not be used to claim a consensus here.".[23]

I have already explained above why I said this and the three COI/SPA accounts [24] of RM discussion

• 18 December: "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others."[25]
• 18 December: "No I cant help you to read"[26]

• The relevant thread for this discussion is at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Hatnote

This was a discussion about a hatnote that ErikHaugen had added and B2C had removed. Hatnote = "Sadhguru" redirects here. For other uses, see Satguru, should be restored. The removal of this obviously useful hatnote is non constructive and misleading users (looking for Satguru) and leading them to this page with no alternative route to the article they may be looking for. Sat/Sad/Sadh are phonetically same for Indian languages. a discssion on this B2C stated that "I know nothing about this subject other than what I've learned from looking at usage in English sources." and claimed that he did not believe any reader looking for Satguru would type Sadhguru on english wiki. To this comment I had replied that "If you know nothing about Indian languages then this problem is even more severe, you are forcing your lack of knowledge onto others. A large population of Indian population writes Satguru as Sadhguru in english" After which I gave multiple examples[27] of people using variants of the word Satguru/Sadhguru/Sadguru.

The list of 20 examples was provided, yet B2C asked[28] me to reduce the list to only those using Sadhguru, as well as Notable enough for wikipedia [29]. My response [30] "No, I cant help you to read. Remember, Notability is for Topic, RS is for content, dont mix the two."

• 5 December: ""Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article."[31]

This is related to the ongoing content dispute at Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots Where Orientls has added [32] controversial content into the infobox of the article that I had objected to. Orientls responded falsely claiming consensus, to quote, [33] "People have reached a consensus here. Show us where was consensus for edit because it existed here for many years "

I responded to his claim of many years and clarified that the dispute was still not resolved.[34]

• 5 December: "Revert mindless tagging by POV Pusher"[35]
• 7 December: "your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here"[36]

• Relevant thread for context Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots

In my comment responding to the controversial and highly inflated casualty figures in Sikh riots, being added into the infobox with poor sources,

quoting myself from the talk page discussion " it appears as though your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is very poor. In link 1 the author says Sikhs have "said" 20,000 were killed. Here in 2nd link [37] you are quoting the numbers stated by the "president of Khalistan council" as a reliable source. in the third link you are trying to pass the belief of the blogger as fact, to quote the blog "It is widely believed that at least 20,000"... As has been already called what you have been doing here is a clear cherry picking of biased and unreliable source that has printed wild allegations on the numbers, in an obvious attempt to inflate the casualty figures of the infobox and the article lead. This is a blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS to push your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here."

• 16 December: "this AfD was SOCK and MEAT infested"[38]
• 18 December: "one can see several of these nationalistic editors... cannot possibly participate in these India-Pak deletion discussion, and hence the need to mobilize other editors (or SOCK) from the larger groups who are not (yet) sanctioned by Arbcom"[39]
• 18 December: "responded above with the evidence of clique based voting"[40]
• 24 December: "even the DRV has not been spared by the puppet masters."[41] (despite no blocked editor participated here)
• 24 December: "Talk about sock .."[42]

Relevant thread for context of the above 5 diffs.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Pakistan administered Kashmir
• User talk:RoySmith AFDPAK
• Wikipedia:Deletion review Pakistan administered Kashmir

At the DRV Cunard had first raised the point about the possibility of nationalistic editors participating in the AfD based on his own observation from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Sockpuppets, and the "India-Pakistan" logs at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. another editor had asked evidence for sock/meat so I responded with the evidence that I had collected that had made me to suspect the sock/meat puppetry in this AfD. I added my own observation and evidence. So I see myself as suspecting an obvious problem and sharing my viewpoint along with the evidence that I collected.

Later on after a few days of the closure of AfD 2 of the AfD participants were blocked as Socks [43] while the DRV was ongoing.

Joe Roe, who had closed the DRV had noted in his closing statement [44] that "The original AfD was affected by sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry"

• 16 December: "Blocked user now on IP"[45]

Special:Contributions/Bassem.gergess was already blocked for the same edits after which he returned with an IP [46]

• 23 December: "This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve".[47]

Relevant thread for this dispute on Talk:Rafale deal controversy

• Talk:Rafale deal controversy#Supreme Court section
• Talk:Rafale deal controversy#Clean Chit
• Talk:Rafale deal controversy#Decision making process

This topic is currently in the news, I started editing this on 23 December, immediately after my first revert, I joined the talk page discussion, and to resolve the issues if any.

MBlaze Lighting had made blanket reverts of my article improvements without adequately explaining his objections about the content. On the talk page, he added 5 diffs with personal attacks without explaining his real objections to the content he reverted, to this I responded "Instead of having a confrontational attitude against fellow editors that got you banned indefinitely from India pakistan articles by ArbCom  [48] why don't you edit in a collaborative manner. This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve. I have explained my edits in the edit summary. you say you have succinctly outlined your concerns, but all I see above is your accusations and my diffs above, I need you to explain what you think is the problem with those edits (with evidence for your position) so that I can respond to it."

• 29 December: "This is clearly not a new user and a sock of someone....block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE, the sooner the better."[49]

• Relevant thread User talk:cyberpower678#DBigXray

This new editor was making disruptive AfD nominations, He was aware of a month old thread at ANI closed by Cyberpower and was asking for my block for that. I noted [50] that this editor was engaging in disruptive edits and based on his edits appeared to me as a sock of someone. I suggested Cyberpower to block this account Special:Contributions/FreeKashmiri for disruption and WP:NOTHERE.

cyberpower agreed with my observation [51] saying this editor indeed appeared as a sock of someone.

• 29 December: "reminds me of another banned editor User:Towns Hill. recommend a WP:NOTHERE block"[52]

• Relevant thread User talk:Kautilya3#Copyvio

This editor had been editing India Pakistan related articles with a Pro Pakistani bias. The editor also noted that they were in touch with others via emails [53] [54], which is an admission of edits based on offline mails. Based on their edit history they made similar edits (that were made previously by a banned editor) and filing complaints against users they did not even interact. Some example diffs diff, diff, diff, diff, so I had noted that there was a similarity in their editing patterns.

To conclude my response on the above allegations, I never had any disputes with GenuineArts so far. He had made a complaint against me few days back at ANI with intentions to get me sanctioned. I am not sure, but based on the recent multiple threads that had been started against me at ANI by a particular set of editors, I see that as a part of a concerted effort by this set of editors with whom I am having ongoing content disputes on articles. All these attacks against me have begun since 29 October when I participated in the WP:RM discussion at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev and voted oppose against the proposal. I regularly participate at WP:RMT amd WP:RM discussions, I had never edited the page Jaggi Vasudev before my participation at its RM discussion. The content dispute with some of "these editors" are still ongoing at Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014, Talk:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots. "These editors", I am having disputes currently include Capitals00, MBlaze Lightning, Raymond3023, D4iNa4, Orientls, I note that 4 of these are also under indefinite India-Pakistan topic ban [55]. This thread at ARE is fifth such attempt (after 4 threads at ANI in a short period) in the ongoing efforts by participants of these content disputes, to bypass these content disputes by getting me sanctioned. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I have made some more prunings, I have tried my best to be brief, but there are 20 diffs (400+ words) from multiple content disputes that I had to respond to and I also had to copy each diff so as to clarify which diff, I am responding to. 500 words ÷ 20 = 25 words per diff. I cannot possibly explain a diff in just 25 words so I would request the admins to accept this response.--DBigXrayᗙ 00:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that GenuineArts has now started added six month old difs and the difs/threads that have been already discussed at ANI before. Bbb23 in his closing statement of a recent ANI thread had also noted this dredging up of old threads. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I have participated in close to 500 AfDs, where one can review my contributions. I believe it is unfair to make assumptions on the basis of one or two controversial, sock disrupted AfDs. Regarding the Talk:Rafale deal controversy and Rafale threads 1 , 2, 3, it must be noted that others who participated in talk page are unwilling to even discuss the actual content. The article as it stands still has multiple issues of WP:OVERCITE, source misrepresentation, biased content etc. My contributions at the Rafale deal page had greatly improved the neutrality and content issues and it can be verified. At its talk page, I had made sincere attempts to discuss whatever objections Mblaze and others were having and yet the actual content problems have not been explained till date, in spite of asking several times. These editors were going to great lengths talking about editor but were clearly evading the fruitful discussion of the content. Since the Rafale thread is being mentioned here, I now feel that the comments on Rafale talk page were made more so, with intentions of using it at a report such as this on AE rather than reaching a consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG[edit]

GArt; do you think your edit-summary over this edit is any conducive to maintaining a collaborative and collegial editorial atmosphere? ∯WBG^converse 19:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning DBigXray[edit]

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

• @DBigXray: At 2,100+ words, your response is over 4 times the allowed length. Would you please replace it with a clearer, shorter rebuttal of the principal concerns raised by this enforcement request? AGK ■ 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. While it's still over, your submission is now more manageable. Thank you. AGK ■ 11:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find a lot of this report underwhelming at first, especially since a lot of the socking / COI claims have since been vindicated. I do see a bit of a problem with DBigXray throwing these accusations around without requesting administrative action; if you're accusing someone of socking, you should really be making use of SPI or not making the accusation at all. And the more I see of DBigXray's TP style, the less I like it. The AfD linked above, the related DRV and various talk page threads I've come across have a distinct element of BLUDGEON to them. And this is a particularly fine example of stonewalling. I'm not sure whether any of this rises to the level of sanctions, but a logged warning here is going to be a minimum, IMO. I'm still thinking on it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll not be taking action here because the request does not contain evidence that these were, in fact, false accusations of disruption, or explain how exactly the reported diffs violate any applicable Wikipedia conduct policy or guideline. Sandstein 12:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to recommend any action either here, except to say that we are rapidly approaching the point at which the whole ARBIPA issue possibly needs to be elevated to ArbCom. I'm pretty sure most admins are thoroughly sick of WP:AN/WP:ANI/WP:AE/WP:AN3 being flooded with attempts from editors in that arena to have their "opponents" topic-banned or blocked, dealing with IP and registered socks, tag-teaming revert squads, terrible sourcing ... for example there is one report currently at ANI and four in the current archive... it needs to stop. Black Kite (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rajulbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Snooganssnoogans (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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans: Contains many diffs following a similar pattern of conduct as the one complained of here. Previous AE brought by User:TParis and resulting in the following sanction implemented by User:Dennis Brown on 24 May 2017: Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017)
2. 12/1/2018 - Inserted ", a pseudoscience," after "Creationism" in violation of WP:SYNTH;
3. Edit-warred over biased content 12/2/2018 - Edit warred over biased content.
4. 12/2/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV phrasing improved by another editor.
5. 12/11/2018 - Edit-warred over removing opinion framed in Wikipedia's voice, saying "No need to attribute."
6. 12/2/2018 - Introduced blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice.
7. 12/3/2018 - Agressive instance of WP:OWN.
8. 12/3/2018 - Reverted sourced information added to article with the justification of "...cant access the book but it doesn look like a rs]
9. 12/3/2018 - Insists on non-NPOV language like "X falsely claimed that...." in violation of WP:SYNTH
10. 12/18/2018 - Edit-warred over "white supremacy" language.
11. 12/9/2018 - Inserted non-NPOV language in violation of WP:SYNTH ("falsely claimed...")
12. 12/26/2018 - Edit-warred over clearly non-NPOV language -- calling org "amateur website" as opposed to "fact-checking organization." See article history generally, exercised WP:OWNership.
13. 12/4/2018 - Introduced patently non-NPOV language "alleged reports" -> falsehoods; "reporting false stories"; "false claim"... in violation of WP:SYNTH.
14. 12/6/2018 - Reverted another user's improvement to an article because the sources cited "are by clowns."
15. 12/4/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
16. 12/8-12/10/2018 - Edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
17. 12/8/2018 - Introduced 'falsely claimed' in violation of WP:SYNTH
18. 12/9/2018 - Edit-warred, called other user's addition "self-serving nonsense."
19. 12/17-12/17/2018 - Edit-warring over POV.
20. 12/17-12/18/2018 - Edit-warring.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned multiple times by multiple users, including but not limited to, by User:TParis, User:Dennis_Brown, User:Sandstein, and User:Lord Roem at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.

• @Salvio giuliano: As a means of showing it's not a content dispute, I'm perfectly happy to accept a ban on interacting with this user. His edits are an issue. I'm not going to comb through 11,000 diffs to point out which ones, especially because someone before me had already done that. The issue has been raised. If no one else sees an issue, then I'll just crawl back into my little corner and edit Wikipedia here and there when I get the chance. School's starting back up anyway. I was just horrified by what I saw as a drawn out attack on Wikipedia's neutrality in this particular domain.--Rajulbat (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm fine with you guys closing this. @Beyond My Ken: Um, that's not true. Congress is bicameral. But this is not the place to talk about it.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Black Kite: I share your opinion regarding time wasted.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
      • Under protest, I have provided 20 or so diffs. His anti-neutral editing practices are readily discernible from his list of contributions, but I'm jumping through the hoops here in the hopes that someone takes action. As for "open[ing] up proceedings investigating [my] edits," @Drmies, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide.--Rajulbat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
        • On the punitive measures you guys are considering (short- to mid-term topic ban or warning on vexatious complaints), my input is that all three would have the same effect. My takeaway from this experience is that you don't consider Snoo's civil POV-pushing a problem here. I thought for sure it would be. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia for a temporary topic ban to have any effect. You see, I will have no time to edit (except for correcting a typo here and there or rescuing a dead link) during the semester that starts on Monday and ends in May. I think Snoo is civilly wiki-campaigning (the opposite of NPOV) on a schedule that outpaces a 40-hr workweek; he seems to think that's OK; I think it's antithetical to the noble purpose and lofty pillars of Wikipedia; you guys seem to think it's OK, or at least, "not sanctionable."--Rajulbat (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[56]

Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]

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 Snooganssnoogans[edit]

I'd just like to point out that in #14, I'm defending Tim Scott, the sole African-American Republican Senator, from poorly sourced attacks on his intellect and competence.[57] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the editor Rajulbat should be sanctioned. His/Her history of contributions look like valuable contributions to the project before the editor ventured into American politics a couple of days ago. The editor just seems to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Editing in American politics, and understanding how Wikipedia policy is applied on controversial, contested and high-profile topics, is complicated and confusing (which is something that I've experienced myself - I was rightly sanctioned by admins for violations of Wikipedia policy when I was inexperienced). Provided that the editor demonstrates an understanding of NPOV and RS (i.e. why saying "false" in a Wikipedia article is OK when reliable sources say it), as well as a promise to not stalk me, I would suggest the admins just warn him/her. A few days ago, I asked the editor to show me reliable sources that contradicted content that I added to the Mitch McConnell page - I would like that the editor be allowed to send me those reliable sources if and when he/she finds them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX[edit]

No evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note by Beyond My Ken[edit]

@Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm,...yes, it is true. Congress does indeed have two houses, but Senators are never referred to as "Congressmen" or "Congresswomen". Let me repeat that: NEVER

And, yes, this is the place to talk about it, because the fact that you don't know this is a strong indication that you really don't know much of anything about American politics, and that this report is, indeed, simply an attempt to squash an adversary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what's this malarkey about providing diffs "under protest"? You expected people to make a decision about another editor's behavior based on your say-so alone? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with Sandstein's comment that a topic ban from American politics for Rajulbat would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We are all responsible for our own actions, no matter who gave us what advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So, if the OP is going to be so busy that any kind of temporary topic ban in American politics isn't going to have any effect on them, the obvious answer is to make it an indef topic ban, and the OP can come around knocking when they have the time and interest to edit in that area again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328[edit]

Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs provided since my initial comment do not include any evidence of misconduct so this complaint is without merit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010[edit]

I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. –Davey2010^Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomGnome[edit]

I can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be reigned reined in from pushing POV, and the appropriate policy is applied consistently, no matter where the editor's apparent political sympathies may lie. RandomGnome (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before invoking the boomerang, I would ask admins to take into account that an administrator, TP, commented on the ANI that Perhaps a new AE case is warranted. While I obviously cannot comment on the merits of the theoretical AE case TP had in mind, or if they would ever have filed it, the comment could be seen as good faith counseling from a senior editor. I think this needs to be taken into account before handing down overly-prohibitive sanctions to a relatively new user. RandomGnome (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galobtter[edit]

The filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, does the OP define "non-NPOV" as anything that he personally thinks isn't neutral?...that would explain a lot; this not understanding that NPOV cannot be defined without looking at the sources would justify a WP:TBAN from AmPol. Diff 11 refers to a vile, oft-repeated conspiracy theory/smear that definitely should be referred to as "false" and considering "falsely claimed" to be SYNTH says more about Rajulbat than Snoogansnoogans - it'd be nice if people actually read policies when referring to them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

Lack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.--MONGO (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000[edit]

Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing articles under DS is fraught with varieties of discomfort. A place where some admins fear to tread. (OK, just too intelligent to partake.) Abuses of the drama boards over content disputes, IMHO, need be taken seriously. If I understand correctly, Awilley has suggested a one week TBan and Sandstein three month. I’d suggest something in between, on the side of Awilley’s direction due to the small number of edits; but taking into account the damage of bringing editors to AE for content disagreements. A geometric mean would be 25 days. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

The diffs presented do not indicate any problem rising to the level of sanctions. In fat in several cases a barnstar would be a more appropriate response. When sources call people alt-right, white supremacists or whatever, so do we. The fact that some folks don't like it is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TParis How we represent sources is a matter of editorial judgment, but to state that a Wikipedian is engaging in BLP violations when they cite entirely mainstream sources for a characterisation that partisans dislike is simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis[edit]

• OP shouldn't be sanctioned for acting on my opinion. I wish they'd have taken more time to do this properly, though.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @JzG: It depends on the source. Some sources are very prone to make a huge stretch to cast wide nets.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki[edit]

There's nothing here. Snoogans is an editor who clearly is not a Trump supporter, which if you squint hard enough could be an NPOV concern; we might not have any editors left with that test. I also strongly dislike content additions like [58]; Varney did not address Gohmert's slurs, which were characterized as anti-Semitic, moving the segment on. seems to be implying more than it should about Stuart Varney. None of that is going to result in any action here.

A boomerang may not be necessary (as I doubt Rajulbat knew what they were getting into), but a short one (as either an AP2 TBAN or a ban on filing administrative complaints) wouldn't be harmful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans[edit]

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

• There is going to be no action here unless you provide evidence, in the forms of diffs to sanctionable conduct. Otherwise, this is casting aspersions and bordering on boomerang territory. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with GoldenRing; if no evidence is provided within the next 24 hours, I'll be closing this AE with no action. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that diffs have been provided, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing sanctionable in there. I don't support a topic ban on OP, however: personally, I'd rather start off with a warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur. Sandstein 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• +1. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As far as I can see here, the filer opened a complaint at WP:ANI during which at least six admins commented that their editing was more of an issue than Snoogans ... so he then opens an AE with no evidence on the same subject? The phrase "complete waste of everyone's time" springs to mind here. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• What Black Kite says. Plus, I'm waiting for someone to open up proceedings investigating their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to the phrase "including but not limited to". Drmies (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got as far as diff six of the laundry list the OP has posted. My approach to many of those issues have have been slightly different, but I have yet to find anything sanctionable. Diff 1 is the old AE request. Snoogan's edit summary in diff 2 actually points to a discussion where a relevant consensus is evident. Diff 3 involved a reinstatement of sourced content removed by a newbie who didn't discuss the relevant content either before or after their removal; as such, the revert was appropriate. Diff 4 involves two reverts over 36 hours; not nearly enough, by itself, to concern me. Diff 5 concerns a removal of attribution, but that isn't actually prohibited, per YESPOV; the question is only about the degree of support for a given view in reliable sources. The content introduced in diff 6 is explicitly supported by the source. And really that's as far down the list as I'm willing to go, because this is entering WP:BOOMERANG territory, and I for one would be willing to consider a topic-ban on the OP. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be amenable to an American Politics t-ban for the OP here, per Black Kite. If that doesn't have support, we definitely need a logged warning about forum-shopping and frivolous requests. Vanamonde (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that adding diffs (which in many cases aren't even diffs) hasn't improved the complaint. Looking at the first few items, I too see a mixture of content disputes and insufficiently substantiated allegations of edit-warring. You can't prove edit-warring with a single diff; you'd need several showing repeated reverts. Examining one diff at random in more detail, this edit is alleged by Rajulbat to "introduce blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice." However, I see nothing objectionable (at least from a conduct perspective) with this edit. One could perhaps quibble about whether the persons mentioned there should properly be described as "white nationalists" (as they are in the cited CNN source) rather than "white supremacists", but this seems to be a content rather than conduct issue to me, and certainly not non-neutral editing to a degree that would warrant sanctions. This complaint is abusive. I am in favor of a American politics topic ban of Rajulbat for three months. Sandstein 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this some sort of joke? These "diffs" mostly don't show any issues apart from being "edits the OP didn't like". Some of the "edit-warring" is actually fixing issues introduced by others (in one case by a sock). Also, the OP needs to go and read what WP:SYNTH actually means - hint, it doesn't mean "describing something or someone in a way I don't like". Examples: Inserting the wording "was false", "falsely" or similar in an article is absolutely fine when the sources show that thing was false. Or go and read the Young Earth creationism article and see what it says about pseudoscientific beliefs. Sigh ... I think we need a sanction here. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: - hence the suggestion of a topic ban from American politics. Stops the problems, lets them carry on editing elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not at all familiar with the OP but I skimmed the AN/I discussion that led to this and I don't think this request was intended to be the forum shopping that it appears to be, and the initial lack of diffs could be written off as unfamiliarity with AE. I do think a warning about frivolous requests would be appropriate, perhaps even something with set consequences like User:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#Auto-boomerang_sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Awilley. And to respond to @Rajulbat:'s latest comment, the problem is not that we don't think civil POV-pushing is a problem (it is) it is that you haven't demonstrated that this is what is happening. GoldenRing (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on this discussion, there is substantial concern about Rajulbat's competence in editing in the American politics topic area, i.e., not being able to distinguish between non-neutral and other editing. Rajulbat is accordingly topic-banned for three monts. Sandstein 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Philip Cross[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Alextiffin88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (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

[Philip Cross topic banned ruling] :

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

1. 08/01/19 It was well known that Riley had entered the political debate prior to this editing. As you can see from the page now there is a significant amount on politics.
2. 08/01/19
3. 23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place.
4. 29 November 2018 Explanation: Editing Monica Sims BBC Radio producer, Controller of Radio 4, Editor of Woman's Hour.
5. 2 December 2018 Editing The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear BBC documentary by a British documentary film-maker. The Wikipedia article contains: "...where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority."
6. 31 December 2018 Editing Geeta Guru-Murthy Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months in May 2018 see link above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months in August 2018.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link

Riley News Article

A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.

I have added new information links above which I ask be looked at too. May I specifically bring your attention to #23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place. Is this not something that should be considered

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Explained on Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Discussion concerning Philip Cross[edit]

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 Philip Cross[edit]

Statement by (Alextiffin88)[edit]

Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles.

Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case.

The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.

I'll add that I added the reference to the tweet in the belief that it was relevant. She used "Ayran" which is highly inappropriate.

The "stepping into the political arena" was an appropriate phrase which has now been resolved in talk. My bad I'm new.

If I was trying to disruptively edit her page, I wouldn't have requested it be protected as, I'd then be blocked from editing myself as I'm not an admin.

Instead I got a warning template for reverting what I believed to be a fair interpretation of the facts.

Indeed she is now attending Parliament with the home secretary next week and is in the political arena.

This was a genuine arbitration request due to the George Galloway connection. I'd rather her page be protected as soon as possible.

I even said to PC on his talk this is to clarify things.

Her page has turned into edit wars between certain users. You ask a question you get snapped at.

I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless.

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

At the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits (combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll further note that the filer's edits to Rachel Riley may merit attention - diff - using twitter to suggest - "show that although fighting antisemitism she inadvertently or not used an antsemitic trope. Then included reference to 2012 tweet showing use of Ayran." (on what was quite obviously said ironically - an ironic self-use), as well as the somewhat unsourced assertion she "stepped into the political arena in 2019" in the lede - reverted twice - diff, diff (first added by an IP diff - 20 minuts prior). Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I sent a message to the Arbcom mailing list with private evidence pertaining to this filing. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The new diffs, above, besides being stale are on a radio producer/children programming person, US necon / Islamism, and a journalist/actress (who covered the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal in the 90s) - these are not related to post 1978 UK politics. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NSH001[edit]

Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom case, inter alia, was about Cross adding negative material to the wiki bios of people he disapproved of, while adding favourable material to the bios of those whom he approved, among which Kamm was prominent. I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that this is a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", which clearly applies to this diff. The second remedy states that he is banned from "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". I suppose that a lot depends how one interprets "broadly construed", but I contend that posting a quote from Kamm falls into that category, especially when the article linked to unequivocally is about British politics. I agree with Vannamonde's point that it is really not possible to separate news media and journalists from politics, when that is what they're discussing. Cross should, at the least, be warned against testing the boundaries in this way. --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the 2017 Complainant from the original Philip Cross arbitration case and the earlier, ignored complaint over Luke Harding's page. This particular breach, the link to the Oliver Kamm article, is the most egregious. It is a conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Philip Cross) and also an attempt to put on record at Wikipedia an article from Cross's special friend, Oliver Kamm, attacking those who had complained about Philip Cross and calling them conspiracy theorists. Yes, attacking the very same people that Philip Cross obsessively worked against over years, turning their pages into attack pages which, very eventually, led to his topic ban. Kamm's attacks on his political enemies over the Philip Cross case are 100% post-1978 British politics. I note that Cross has already been found to have broken his ban and yet here he is again, seemingly unable to help himself. And why would he worry? There are plenty of people here to say, “Nothing to see here, move along please.” Wikipedia, if it once again does nothing for such a blatant breach, or simply punishes the complainant, will add to the public disrepute that the mishandling of the case has already brought on it. 121.72.171.202 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13, re your block of Alex Tiffin, this does not look to me like the behaviour of a typical sockpuppet, but rather an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user. See the discussion on my talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I finally got round to looking at Rachel Riley's twitter feed. Here's one of her posts on 8 January: "For months now, I’ve been speaking out to highlight the growing problem of AS in the UK." Her tweets are full of abuse aimed at alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, including calling "antisemites" many people who really aren't. This is part of a campaign which is attempting to use (in my opinion obviously bogus) claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. This had been going on for months before Cross edited the Rachel Riley article, and Cross, without doubt, would have been fully aware of this. The fact that her article had nothing of this when Cross edited it is irrelevant; anyone aware of the vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn would have been aware of her tweets. Her twitter feed contains stuff like "Fuck off George Galloway", and libellous material I won't repeat here. So I don't accept the claims below that the first diff doesn't relate to "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", it obviously does. --NSH001 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

[posting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics]
The diffs presented by Alextiffin88 are not violations. The single diff provided by NSH001 is closer to a violation but the edit is only tangentially about British politics (Kamm is someone who is not a politician but is known for strong views about British politics, but this story is not about politics or their political views) on a page that is not about British politics and it is also stale (getting on for 3 months old). We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed, not violations of unwritten restrictions based on what we think the case was actually about (regardless of whether our thoughts are right or wrong). In this case that means Cross is banned from the topic of Post-1978 British Politics, not from "adding positive material to bios of people he approves of or adding negative material to bios of people he disapproves of" - and it's also worth noting that the edit in question was not to a biography.
In summary I would advise Cross not to get any closer to his topic ban than this, but absent a clear pattern of boundary-pushing or crossing I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other editor}[edit]

Result concerning Philip Cross[edit]

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

• I see no violation here. While the restriction is broadly construed, it is not a ban from editing any biography of anyone who has ever made a public comment on politics. Unless something much more substantial comes up in the next few hours, I'll close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, while the edits of Alextiffin88 are perhaps not the most wonderful ever, they do appear to be engaging on talk and co-operating with others. And since this is not an area under discretionary sanctions, there is not so much we can do here, even if we thought action was needed. The committee will deal with any private evidence as they see fit without our help. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing a violation here. None of the new diffs are either edits about UK politics or edits to pages primarily about UK politics. I am therefore going to close this. GoldenRing (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone my close because NSH001 has asked me to. I still don't think the edit linked is a violation of the ban, though I do think it is not a million miles away from a violation. If any other admin feels inclined to act on it, they are welcome. I will not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I agree with Thryduulf. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not too happy about some of these diffs, but I wouldn't be willing to apply a sanction here. All but the first and last diff are to pages and content falling outside the scope of the sanction. The first diff is to a page that later came under the scope of the topic ban. It can be argued that PC should have known that when he edited it, but I can't see anything to suggest the connection was obvious. The link to the news story was a bad idea; it's not related to parliamentary politics, but certainly related to the broader scope of British politics. For that, I would consider a warning at most; but really what we need here is for Philip Cross to realize that continued editing of topics relating to British news media is equivalent to testing the boundaries of his ban, whether he intends it that way or not; it's nearly impossible to separate the news media from the politics of any country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The request is meritless. These edits and pages are not about British politics. I would take no action. Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've blocked the filer because he was abusing multiple accounts, for what that's worth. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing accordingly. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

David O. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AndInFirstPlace (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

[59] (Discretionary sanctions 1932 cutoff) :

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

1. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
2. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
3. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list

User has gone against 1RR three different times, reverting each specified time outlined above. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 01/15/19 Blocked for disruptive editing

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

Discussion concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

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 AndInFirstPlace[edit]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

For the record, in their 5 day editing career AndInFirstPlace has

• Gotten in disputes with multiple editors on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
• Taken one of those editors to EWN [61] (closed without action)
• Had a Post-1932 American Politics DS notice placed on their talk page [62]
• Filed an AN/I report against an editor who was simply trying to explain how admins worked on Wikipedia [63]
• Filed an RfA -- apparently copied from someone else's RfA -- deleted by an admin per NOTNOW [64]
• Was handed down a short block for disruption [65]
• Filed another AN/I against the admin who deleted the RfA claiming that the admin called them "autistic", but it turned out that the "autistic" reference was in the material they had copied from when they filed their RfA [66]
• Is the subject of an AN/I due to messages they left on another editor's talk page [67]
• Is the subject of this AE report.

That's all within a five day period, which might be a record of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, Acoterion's block of AndInFirst place was not a DS block, it was for "disruptive editing." I really think this is an AN/I matter and not an AE one -- and not for the adding of Andrew Yang to the list (a content dispute), but for their overall behavior. It's quite possible, given AIFP's inability or unwillingness to slow down and listen to the advice they've been given, that this may, in time, become an AE issue, but I don't think it is at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I could be wrong. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries is under 1RR, and AIFP has made many edits to the article within 24-hour blocks, so it's quite possible that they violated the 1RR sanction, but I don't think David O. Johnson's "diffs" show that clearly. Someone (not me) needs to go through AIFP's contributions from the last few days to see if they violated 1RR; or someone could simply issue a "final warning" to AIFP not to violate 1RR with an explanation as to exactly what that means, and the clock can start ticking again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning AndInFirstPlace[edit]

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

• I'll take no action unless it is promptly explained how this violates any conduct policy or guideline and therefore warrants sanctions. Sandstein 06:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Very clear 1rr violation and generally problematic. I'm on mobile now but when I reach my desk I intend to block for 36 hours and tban for a period of months. GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done. GoldenRing (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning AmYisroelChai[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. January 23, 2019 Assumption of bad faith; broadly discrediting reliable sources.
2. January 8, 2019 Politicizing disputes.
3. November 13, 2018 Discrediting reliable sources and a vague legal threat.
4. November 13, 2018 Assumption of bad faith
5. August 29, 2018 Assumption of bad faith; politicizing disputes. Warned
6. August 29, 2018 Politicizing disputes. Struck

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. April 26, 2018 Topic banned

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on April 26, 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on February 5, 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[68]

Discussion concerning AmYisroelChai[edit]

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 AmYisroelChai[edit]

regarding

• aug 29th edit I struck it
• aug 29 I wasn't wrong his comment was politicized by the media because he is a republican
• nov 13 The accuser admits to pushing his own views so how could me saying he is be a problem
• nov 13 RS doesn't mean or at least shouldn't that people who write the articles are automatically reliable if they are writing an opinion article with a blatant bias and I was referring to WP:LIBEL
• jan 8 I didn't politicize it Soibangla did
• jan 13 RS is decided by consensus so editors biases can color that consensus and for some reason opinion pieces are considered reliable because they are in an RS. I think I am correct as shown on multiple pages regarding Trump where anything that's anti Trump is added because so called RS say so for example Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections where you have a timeline from 1986 - 2014 all before Trump decided to run and before russia could interfere with the election as the election campaign didn't start until at the earliest 2015, for any other page this timeline would have never been added let alone kept as it is idiotic to say that Trump visiting moscow in '87 led to russia interfering in an election nearly 30 years later or the rest of the timeline for example October 15: Trump praises Putin in an interview on CNN. I can find multiple times clinton or obama or any other person praised putin. but since opinion writers wrote articles saying that it gets added.עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC) either way i struck the edit[reply]
• as for the edit to death of a nation that doug referenced it was biased opinion which didn't belong as it was written which as you can see from subsequent edits that the correct version is now there.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning AmYisroelChai[edit]

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

• This is very clearly not behaviour that is at all helpful to a collaborative project, and I'm thinking that a topic ban from the whole American Politics sphere would be good here, probably for three months. Maybe combined with an indefinite restriction on politicising discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed I wasn't aware of the three-month topic ban mentioned below, which does indeed push me towards a much longer sanction - six months or indefinite with appeal in six months and yes it needs to be broad not just focused on Trump or Russian interference. Thryduulf (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Above, MrX mentions a previous one-month topic ban from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, placed in April 2018. However, I note there has been another similar ban since then: a three-month topic ban placed in July 2018, also from everything related to Donald Trump or Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, placed by Doug Weller.[69] (Thryduulf probably wasn't aware of that one, since it wasn't listed.) These short bans don't seem to have improved his practice or attitude any. I noticed his sour discrediting of reliable sources today myself, January 23, 2019, and was inspired by it to renew his DS alert for American politics, just to make sure there isn't a gap in his "awareness" when the previous alert expires in a couple of weeks.[70] His style obviously tends to suck the oxygen out of the talkpages where he posts in that way. Still, I'm not sure whether we need to topic ban him again. That's because I don't know if he is the worst on these pages, and also because Mr X's diffs are rather spread out, going back to August 2018. But if discussion here suggests a topic ban I won't be against it, and I do think it should in that case be indefinite, and from post-1932 American politics in general. It's time to stop piddling with one month and three months, and with Donald Trump and specific issues, for this user. All this micromanagement is very wearying. Bishonen | talk 14:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• I pretty much agree with Bishonen. When you've had repeated sanctions and chances to change your approach, we've killed enough time giving you chances. Next ban should be indefinite, with an appeal allowed in six or twelve months. GoldenRing (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies. my bad. I will say that almost as soon as I did it I regretted making it so narrow and only a month. When I saw this edit[71] Tuesday to Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time? I wondered if it was time to do something more but got distracted. I think it's probably time to ban him from the area entirely and indefinitely as suggested above. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doug, the topic ban you placed on AmYisroelChai in July was for three months — it was the previous ban, that he got in April, that was for one month only. Placed by Sandstein summarizing an AE discussion, I think. Anyway, you have nothing to apologize for, and I'm going to fall in with you: I support an indefinite Tban from post-1932 American politics. Bishonen | talk 17:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

Appealing user

KidAd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 month block

Administrator imposing the sanction

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by KidAd[edit]

I am aware of the parameters of my block, and I have complied with them. I reverted vandalism on the the page of a journalist and I have been engaging in debate on whether the first lady and second gentleman of California should be referred to as "first partners." These people are not politicians or political appointees, staffers, or public employees. I edited no information about policy or contested political opinions. On the page of the former Buzzfeed journalist, I reverted persistent vandalism with the help of other editors. It was never made clear to me that I couldn't edit the pages of journalists. I have complied with my topic ban thus far and believe that this new block is unjustified. If Ian.thomson wants to insult my competency, let him. KidAd (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: @TonyBallioni: I retract this unblock request and plan on logging out effective immediately. I suggest that you do not waste any more time on this. I initially attempted to comply with the topic ban after my block timed up, but found myself slowly inching back to editing topics that interested me (on the periphery of post-1932 American politics). I stand by these edits as made in good faith and productive, but I understand that they were in violation of the topic ban. I have nothing more to say about this it is not in my best interest to pointlessly argue with administrators. I Thank all involved for your time. I now plan on stepping back without any further excuses and diverting my efforts to other pursuits. KidAd (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2019 copied from KidAd's TP.Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ian.thomson[edit]

I hadn't quite thought that this would end up in front of ArbCom but I'm not sure if/how things would have gone differently. As Nil_Einne pointed out at ANI, in this edit, KidAd should have absolutely realized that he was editing an article that related to post-1932 American politics. Had I spotted that diff before carrying out the block, and had I known that KidAd was going to argue with a straight face that articles about American political journalists and spouses of American politicians and political consultants have nothing to do with American politics, I'd've just gone with an indef. I simply can't imagine simultaneous competence and good faith in the face of that (un)reasoning, just one or the other at most. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Innisfree987[edit]

• Support block. As another example, KidAd repeatedly (starting here) tried to nominate Ashley Feinberg, a journalist who often reports on politics, for CSD despite multiple editors declining, and failing that, nominated to AfD saying that perhaps the journalist would one day be notable if she ends up publishing this generation's equivalent of the Pentagon Papers (here, for anyone unfamiliar). I don't know whether overlooking their own invocation of the political involvement reveals bad faith or a major WP:CIR issue, but if the bottom line is that an editor continually tests the limits of their topic ban, the TBAN isn't working to prevent disruption. That AfD alone has wasted the time of ten editors--eight ivoters unanimously voting keep and two more who helped get it listed properly. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question by Beyond My Ken[edit]

@KidAd: Please explain what the phrase "Broadly construed" means to you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just read the egregious Wikilawyering on his talk page. I am no longer interested in this matter. Appeal should obviously be denied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by KidAd[edit]

Please note that this appeal was heavily edited by KidAd after it was copied here.[72] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC) Related:[reply]

• User talk:KidAd#Blocked
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#KidAd, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#KidAd

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To present just one example, KidAd edited Markos Kounalakis, the biography of a person who is a political scientist and foreign policy analyst, who is the president and publisher emeritus of the well known political magazine Washington Monthly and who co-hosted a radio show about politics, and who has helped establish chairs in politics and democracy at two major universities. KidAd's argument that editing this biography is not a violation of their topic ban on post-1932 politics broadly construed is disingenuous and laughable. The block should stand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said one his talk page (and he agreed to do), "Don't be that person who stands right on the line he isn't allowed to cross with his toes across the line. Stay a mile away from the line you cannot cross. Make it so that if anyone accuses you of violating your topic ban the unanimous opinion will be that they are crazy." --Guy Macon (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by KidAd[edit]

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

• No opinion either way on the block, but noting as the block was for an AE TBAN violation, I felt it makes sense for it to come here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian.thomson, this isn't in front of ArbCom, but because the initial topic ban was made under WP:AC/DS it's an arbitration enforcement block, which is why I copied it here and mentioned the need to log it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, but I don't buy the idea that the partners of high-profile political figures aren't covered under your TBAN, especially when your arguing about their official title. As an example, I'm pretty sure edits to Melania Trump or Michelle Obama would be covered under a post-1932 politics ban. Definitely within the scope of the sanctioning admin's discretion, so I'd uphold. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline the appeal. While a first spouse can be notable for reasons unrelated to that position, the edits (example) by KidAd related to that position and therefore to the person's quality as a political figure. Sandstein 22:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure there is a grey area here, between political journalists and journalists who occasionally cover politics; between activist authors and authors who sometimes comment on politics; and between edits to the biography of California's first related to her role as first lady and edits related to the rest of her life. None of the edits presented in the second ANI linked above fall into this grey area. They are all either on subjects that are squarely political or are about aspects of the subject that are obviously political. I would decline the appeal. If KidAd seriously contends that the title of the first lady is not a political topic then we are probably moving into CIR territory, but I would still let this block play out. GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This was not an accidental transgressions into a grey area, it was multiple instances of editing subjects squarely within the topic ban and then trying to wikilawyer about it; and then there is the edit warring over the speedy deletion tag at Ashley Feinberg. This was a good block that I endorse. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning FeydHuxtable[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FeydHuxtable (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

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed: Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions : An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. . .

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

Edit warring:

1. Oct 23, 2017 Initial edit-warring of content back in; first notified of DS after this point.
2. 15:55 Jan 27, 2019 Restored content from previous edit warring with no changes in talk consensus.
3. 3:11 Jan 28, 2019 Edit-warred content back in despite second 1RR and DS reminder previously.

Battleground:

1. Jan 27, 2019 Accusing those who disagreed with their edits as tag teaming.
2. Jan 28, 2019 Aspersions: Folk could easily form the perception you're editing from a Fringe pro pesticide POV.
3. Jan 28, 2019 Considers relying on secondary academic sources for content Fringe POV pushing & wiki lawyering nonsense

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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.[73]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

FeydHuxtable is more or less thumbing their nose at the 1RR and behavior discretionary sanctions involving WP:ASPERSIONS about pesticides, etc. while interjecting persistent battleground behavior. They initially edit warred this content back in 2017 after it was initially removed for exactly the same reasons as it was yesterday without gaining consensus on the talk page. I removed it again yesterday re-reminding them of the DS, WP:ONUS, and 1RR. They reinserted it anyways today without gaining consensus.

The underlying content dispute involves their on a primary source related to insect species decline with underlying causes of agricultural land use, pesticides, etc. for an area of Germany. I've been trying to get across that there are plenty of peer-reviewed reviews that take priority and discuss insect biodiversity and changes to due to agriculture, pesticides, etc. or by how much at an appropriate summary level for articles like Insect#Diversity and Insect_biodiversity rather than editor synthesis zeroing in on one primary study that is given relatively little weight in secondary sources.

That’s not to hash the content issue out further here, but just background since they are also casting aspersions claiming I'm trying to cover up the insect decline, fringe-POV pusher, etc. on the talk page section despite by suggesting the above. That kind of behavior became such a problem before the ArbCom case that arbs passed the GMO aspersions principle linked above as people coming in with that attitude commonly pull a bull in a china shop act like we’re seeing here and miss basic parts of the discussion lacking the ability to follow WP:FOC policy.

Instead, FeydHuxtable goes into soapbox diatribes largely unrelated to the content, edit wars, lashes out at editors, etc. as outlined above and can be seen at Talk:Insect#Biomass_decline. There’s also this in response to warning of the DS: If Im perma banned, I'm perma banned. (Obviously Id not get a formal perma-ban, the worst would be an indef, but as there's no way I post an unblock suggesting I wouldn't edit in the same way again. . .).

I'm at a loss for how to handle their behavior at the article alone any further since they've made it clear they don't care about the discretionary sanctions, and it's distracting from what should be basic content discussion. That kind of behavior often eventually leads to topic bans in this subject if allowed to keep up. This is low-key right now compared to some past problem editors, but the DS were directly imposed to keep this nonsense out of the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:, please remember that pesticides are explicitly mentioned as being within the scope of the DS. The background needed to discuss the content of the subject partially involves pesticides, and I was directly accused of "Fringe pro pesticide POV" on the talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Discussion concerning FeydHuxtable[edit]

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 FeydHuxtable[edit]

Like user:Kingofaces43 Im at a loss at how to proceed. Our perspectives seem so different I see little chance of us finding common ground. So as per my last post on insect talk, I said I'd consider keeping out of Kings way, including not making further edits to articles about bugs. Had hoped that might be the end of our dispute.

The dispute is about much more than a German study; the central issue is the global decline of the insect population. There seems to be unanimous scientific consensus that this is a major issues. A few scientists have argued that warnings of an impending ecological collapse due to bug decline may be exaggerated - but even they agree the decline is a problem that warrants further investigation and funding. Accordingly, I see the omission of the decline phenomena as an even greater NPOV violation than it would be to delete any mention of man-made global warning from climate change. Granted, King has never flat out claimed we should have zero coverage, but they have deleted all mention of it. Their talk page contributions seem such spurious wikilawyering nonsense that Ive not seen any way to productively engage.

It's not true Im thumbing my nose at 1RR & DS. I am indifferent to whether Im indeffed, but its important to me to conduct myself with honour, which includes respecting our communities norms and other editors time. Even by King's own words, the applicability of the DS tag was "borderline" I see their use of the DS tag as possibly a feeble & manipulative ploy to help push a Fringe PoV. I dont recall mentioning pesticide or other biotech on insect or any other article. While I may sometimes remark about biotechs corrupting effect on science, it's also my opinion that biotech has and will continue to be a huge net +ve overall, essential to feeding & caring for the world's growing population.

I had previously warned King that if they take this to the DS board, they may not like how it ends. I was prepared to argue they warrant a boomerang, due to the impression some of their edits create of them being a pro pesticide shrill. The thing is, per my last post on talk, Ive came to see it's possible they are posting from a sensible good faith perspective, just one I can't fathom. The fact they've chose to square up against me on the DS board makes me think its even more likely they are good faith. So I don't recommend any sanction against them, maybe just a gentle trout slap for wasting your time with this unneeded filing. As indicated, I was already planning to try & stay out of Kings way, so not sure there is any need for action here. Just in case you feel my behaviour warrants an indeff, my last words are to wish all fellow editors the very best of luck. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

This is a prime example of how "broadly construed" is easily turned into "anything at all." The edit is question was not about pesticides, therefore any reasonable construction would find it acceptable. "Broadly construed" would imply that the party could not even write about a person who was ever stung by a bee (deliberate example), or had an allergy to honey. It is long past time for the "broadly construed" superhighway to see its exist ramp, and this would be a good place to start. Collect (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning FeydHuxtable[edit]

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

• Not actionable, in my view. The 1RR does not apply because the page insect is not related to "genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals". The "battleground" edits are predominantly about content, not other users. Please, you two, find some way to resolve this content dispute outside of AE. Sandstein 22:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree not actionable, as there's nothing directly about GMOs in any of these edits. FH's edits speak towards pesticides, but not "GMO pesticides", so falls outside the DS. There are proper UNDUE concerns but that's a discussion for the talk page or other places. --Masem (t) 22:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Masem: The scope of DS is "all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed." I haven't looked to check the merits of this report, but pesticides are definitely within the scope of DS, not just "GMO pesticides". GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But, this is "Insect", not "Pesticide", and the additions are about the broad class of pesticides, not just manufactured ones. If this was an edit to "Pesticide", I could rationally accept that as under "broadly", but to get Insect under that, that's just too far off the intent of the original case. --Masem (t) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Masem: Yep, having looked a bit further I can't see Insect falling under the GMO 1RR rule. In fact, given the only mention of pesticides in the diffs given came up because someone posted the GMO DS notification on their TP, I can't see these edits falling within the GMO DS. GoldenRing (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Icewhiz[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Icewhiz (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda and (2) : disruption

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

1. 12:23, 28 January 2019 Icewhiz changes "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Palestinian citizen of Israel]]" to an "[[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]]" And "a [[Muslim-Arab]] family of [[Palestinians|Palestinian]] descent" to "an [[Arab citizens of Israel|Israeli Arab]] family.", thereby removing the word "Palestinian" from the article.
2. 20:59, 28 January 2019 Shrike does the same

• 22:09, 25 January 2019 further example of recent disruption: Icewhiz removed 149,943 from an article (he did not move it, just let it "disappear"), without discussing the removal first.

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on
• 07:23, 30 November 2018: Icewhiz

• 13:08, 4 January 2019: Shrike

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: Aya Maasarwe was a young woman, recently raped and murdered in Australia, see Killing of Aya Maasarwe. She was from Baqa al-Gharbiyye, Israel, and according to her family, "The family has contacted media organisations asking [..] to reflect their wish for her to be identified as Palestinian."link I have filed this report against Icewhiz, as he started the removal of the Palestinian identity (after the article have been mostly stable for days), but Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his same edits.

They refuse to undo their edits, even after being challenged on the article talk page, and being made aware of the Maasarwe family's wishes.

Black Kite: Shrike left the article calling her only "Israeli" in the lead. Her families wishes are further down. What if we called an African American for "black" in the lead, and then further down added "his/her family wanted him/her to be known as "Afro American"?

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 22:38, 28 January 2019 Icewhiz notified,
• 22:39, 28 January 2019, Shrike notified

Discussion concerning Icewhiz[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Unlike Huldra, I took the discussion to the article talk page opening a discussion after Huldra reverted. Mainstream outlets such as BBC and AP (WaPo reprint) use Arab-Israeli (without Palestinian - which is a highly charged political stmt for a citizen of Israel to say about themselves - many do - but many do not) - which is the standard term for Arab citizens of Israel. Huldra participated in Talk:Arab citizens of Israel#Requested move 2 September 2018 (20:59, 3 September 2018) and was acting against consensus by changing a piped link to that article. With 23:00, 21 January 2019 and 20:36, 28 January 2019, Huldra introduced an opinion piece (and attributed reporting on the op-ed by Khalik) - [75], [76] that challenged mainstream coverage (which quite widely did not say Palestinian) - to make an unattributed assertion on a BDP and BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the 25 January edit, I was acting in accordance to Wikipedia:Article size - I made a bold edit - and immediately opened a talk page section (22:16, 25 January 2019) - on an article that required trimming that whose trimming was discussed for months - Huldra then reverted (and did not participate in the dicussion other than to assert this was "undiscussed" [77]). Also - personal attacks by Huldra - 21:25, 28 January 2019 - "And you are spitting on them. Shame, shame, on you" (you - directed at an editor - myself). And 21:13, 28 January 2019 - "We are spitting on her family" - we clearly directed at a group of editors (including Shirke she was responding to). Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]

Just as we don't allow article subjects to dictate the content of the article about them, we follow RSes, not the desire of the family. Given that the quality of sources was increased in the course of the edit, furthermore that Shrike has noted the family's desire, in a DUE manner. This is frankly a frivolous report stemming from a new content dispute. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TracyMcClark: Even a Guardian article [78] uses Israeli. The article you cite uses Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship (I discount the second Guardian article [79] in Huldra's revision, as it is an Op Ed). So at best the Guardian gives no consensus. In comparison, Icewhiz's version cites the BBC and the Washington Post. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (TracyMcClark)[edit]

What Icewhiz describes as "op-reds and reporting on advocacy - not a RS..." in their edit summary is actually sourced to a news report in the Guardian [80] in first place.

Sure Belle, that was almost the same article going online 4 1/2 hours earlier before they knew more.

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

This is a frivolous request and should be closed as such. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopedia. We don't edit the encyclopedia because a family member wants certain words in there, we report on truth. The victim was an Israeli. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

No comment on the Killing of Aya Maasarwe edits, but regarding the removal of 149k from Israeli occupation of the West Bank, that was preceded by months of discussion at Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank about size and npov issues, including a recent thread about the article's DYK nomination potentially being in jeopardy due to the ongoing content dispute. Both Huldra and Icewhiz have participated in that discussion (as have I). Icewhiz posted to the talk page after making that edit, and since being reverted by Huldra, Icewhiz has continued discussion on the talk page (and hopefully Huldra will join the conversation, too). I see this edit as a bold move to try and break a logjam in discussion, not as a violation of DS. ^Leviv_ich 06:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

@Black Kite: My version is better because its actually follows our guideline WP:ETHNICITY.Also if my edits wasn't so good what do you think about removing "Israel" from the article [81] --Shrike (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bella[edit]

So..the deceased and the family identifies themselves as Palestinians. [82] Sources (removed by Icewhiz) also describe the dead as "..a Palestinian Arab of Israeli citizenship.." [83], "A Palestinian with Israeli citizenship"[84] "The 21-year-old was Palestinian, yet because of the title of her passport, she was described in news reports as Israeli or Arab-Israeli"[85] Icewhiz eliminated every word "Palestinian" from the article [86] including the sources and replaced it with "Israeli Arab" adding references of his choice, that don't identify Maasarwe as "Palestinian". Why not quote both classifications?? I don't believe this was a good faith edit. Sensitivity of the matter is quite obvious. It is natural to expect the opposing side being offended and provoked. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by E.M.Gregory[edit]

Just for clarity, we have no source on how the deceased self-identified. All that we can source (beyond the fact of Israeli citizenship) is that the family identifies as Palestinian and that the family after her death asked the press to identify her as Palestinian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria[edit]

Icewhiz seems to have continuously discussed edits on the relevant talk pages. If there was a disagreement in reaching consensus, perhaps a RfC could have helped, but this request is uncalled for. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Icewhiz[edit]

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

• This is a content dispute, and as such not actionable. The request identifies no applicable conduct policy that these edits could violate. Sandstein 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• To be fair, Shrike did include this later in the article (and before this AE was filed) - diff. Having said that, I don't see why the original wasn't better - it does smack of eliminating "Palestinian" from the article. But unless there's a clearly defined pattern of the two editors avoiding 1RR by tag-teaming articles, there isn't an issue here, and doing it on one article doesn't reach that point. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that there are no further admin comments, I'm closing this. Sandstein 14:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Rambling Man (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/The_Rambling_Man#The_Rambling_Man_prohibited: "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence.

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

There's three distinct edits in the last hour that violate TRM's restriction. I'm supplying the full sequence of edits for the sake of context:

1. Drmies prunes some content from the article Neil Warnock [87].
2. The Rambling Man reverts Drmies [88], with the summary including the phrase "perhaps avoid editing things you know absolutely nothing about in the future", which itself is a violation of the restriction, as it is a reflection on Drmies's competence
3. Drmies posts to TRM's talk page [89].
4. TRM responds [90].
5. Drmies replies [91]
6. TRM responds a second time [92], a response which includes the comment "Get over it, you're wrong, and you're one of those who will never know how to fix it", alongside other incivility.
7. I see this stuff on TRM's talk page, click on the edit, find that it's both redundant and a borderline BLP vio, and revert TRM [93].
8. I post a comment to TRM's talk [94], edit-conflicting with TRM's reply above, mentioning the fact that the quote he is reverting into the article was already present in a different section.
9. TRM reverts for a third time [95] (there's a revert of an IP in between those of Drmies and me), and uses an edit-summary that is a speculation about my motivation if there ever was one.
10. TRM replies on his talk page, challenging me to file an arbitration request [96].
11. As I type this, TRM challenges me again, despite my not having made any edits in the interim [97].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Several, visible here and at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All I want is for him to stop yelling at other folks this way; the weeks since ARCA were blissfully friction-free, and I don't know why TRM felt the need to be rude today. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alex Shih: Are you saying these diffs do not constitute violations, or are you saying they do, but a block isn't required? If it's the former, I think we may have to go back to ARCA, because I find it difficult to come up with language that would be a clearer violation of this sanction, which suggests the sanction is unworkable. If it's the latter, I actually have no problem with that; contrary to TRM's beliefs, I'm not desperate to have him blocked, I would just like someone besides me to tell him that that sort of commentary is a violation of the sanction, and that he shouldn't say stuff like that again. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alex Shih: If TRM recognized that the edit summaries and the commentary that followed on his talk page were inappropriately personal, I'd withdraw this myself. Given that he felt the need to revert me despite knowing the content was unnecessary (I don't think there's anyone here who thinks the same quote should have been pasted into the article twice), I not optimistic about that happening. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Alex Shih: I do think the most recent amendment makes a difference here; not so much to the need for a block as for a need to acknowledge that this behavior was over the line: without such a recognition, we're asking for this sanction to be ignored. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this isn't where we draw the line, @Alex Shih and Alex:, what is? Are you saying that because no matter what he does a couple of folks will always insist he has done no wrong, we should ignore his ARBCOM restrictions completely? That does seem to be something for ARCA, much as I hate to go there. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Drmies: "he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me" – the fact is that TRM's revert wasn't just wrong, it was obviously wrong; and when I pointed this out, he reverted me anyway. AGF has its limits; it's hard to believe that that edit was about you and not the content (and the subsequent one was about me). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified.

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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 The Rambling Man[edit]

Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom, demonstrates a serious lack of ability of the posting admin to go through standard approaches to content dispute and a really savage need to get me blocked. Tragic. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(It's just a side issue, but the section that Drmies unilaterally deleted has been prominently discussed on UK radio, that Neil Warnock article was subject to plenty of exposure and debate, and most of what was there was already well sourced, including the well-covered Brexit issue that this "edit war" was about too.) The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender[edit]

I find TRM's statement puzzling. "Unclear as to why this has to go to Arbcom": Vanamonde already presented TRM's express directive to take it to ArbCom: [98], [99]. "Could I also see clear diffs where I have "post[ed] speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." please?": Vanamonde already posted that: [100].

As for myself, it looks to me like Vanamonde's case is pretty cut-and-dried and airtight. Softlavender (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: It sounds to me like you are trying to explain away what are clearly multiple violations of TRM's sanctions. There are no conditions on the very clear and specifically worded sanction, and you are trying to insert conditions, exceptions, and exemptions into it that do not exist. If you want there to be conditions, exceptions, and exemptions in the sanction, I suggest you file at WP:ARCA. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih[edit]

I think TRM was responding to the edit summary "How is that a controversy? also, who cares" (highlighted for emphasis), which really isn't constructive in the first place. In the subsequent edit summary, TRM did explain their revert as "was hugely covered in UK press, and something which is relevant and something our readers would expect to see" before making the first "speculation" that is in question here. It doesn't appear neither editor realise the quote was already in the article? So this just feels like a misunderstanding, and I'd think the sensible thing would be for that to be acknowledged and move on. Yes TRM was rude, but not as irrationally as one would expect. In contrast I find Drmies's first post to TRM's talk page a perfect example of borderline baiting ("...big guy. Be proud"), and I cannot really see any disciplinary action being taken here. The purpose of the restriction should be to prevent TRM from being incessantly hostile and combative, and by that standard this entire ordeal was rather mild in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I would say it's the latter. The comments especially the subsequent ones are violations per se, but the same sort of violation that have been declined on every occasion in the past for not being a violation on the spirit of the restriction, I think. I wouldn't look at the subsequent responses because they are arguably provoked responses; TRM shouldn't make personal commentaries but no one should be making personal commentaries against them as well. Focusing on the initial comment alone, could The Rambling Man just acknowledge that it would have been far more helpful to just focus on the issue itself (seems to be about unproductive edit summaries and unilateral deletions based on personal opinion) instead of commenting about what people know or don't know; not only because it's not nice, but unnecessary because by explaining their revert like they have done, the point was delivered across already. Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Softlavender: That is precisely not what I am doing, and looking at Vanamonde's response to my comments would reveal just as so. The potential ARCA you are suggesting has already been filed and discussed extensively ([101]), in which you have participated. Regardless of the latest amendment, the subjective nature of this restriction would mean that similar to previous enforcement requests, this kind of request would simply end up being yet another "yes/maybe/no violation, block not required". Alex Shih (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I disagree on that the most recent amendment made a difference, but agree on that some sort of recognition on where to draw the line is needed. I just don't think this is one of them for reasons I have stated. Even the latest comment not included your diffs ([102]), in which I think is the most problematic of all and probably should be block worthy, has many ways in which "no violation" can be argued. I do think TRM has been deliberately pointy with the restriction, so moving forward that should be where discussions needs to be based on. Alex Shih (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

But then this--I don't know if this is because I'm an admin, and we all suck, or because I'm me, and I suck. What I do know is that it's bad manners to display that kind of personal hostility in an edit summary. I don't care if he blasts me on his talk page (I don't look at it, and after he first pinged me and then told me to fuck off I haven't looked at it, though someone pinged me from it, I believe), I really don't. But don't take that hostility into edit summaries, for everyday viewers and editors to see. Alex, if you're wondering why I responded why I did, it's because that remark ("you don't know shit, there's a million references even though only one is cited") was in an edit summary, in what would everywhere else be called a personal attack or at least a lack of AGF. If my edit is wrong, he can explain this in human language, focusing on the edit, not on me--this is standard operating procedure: focus on the edit, not the editor. TRM used to be an admin; he should know this.

I'm not sure I care much whether TRM gets slapped on the wrist or blocked for this, or whatever. Of course it's a violation, but meh. But if one of you could tell him that if he wants me to leave him alone, he should start by leaving me alone, that would be great. Seems straightforward to me. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning The Rambling Man[edit]

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

• This whole back-and-forth could've been handled better by both parties and I don't think this was particularly helpful either. That said, I'm of the opinion this edit summary does constitute a violation of the imposed sanction. Moreover, I'm troubled that TRM doesn't seem to acknowledge what they said was, at bottom, uncivil and unproductive. Were there not a specific sanction to stem this kind of behavior, I'd probably close this with a warning and leave this be since there's a part of me thinking this is overblown; but seeing as this is not the first time, I'd support a short block up to the 48 hours allowed under the terms of the December amendment. This temptation to spat with others over trivial content disputes needs to stop. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• It's pretty clear to me that this violates the restriction. Even in their short response here, The Rambling Man manages to violate the restriction again: "a serious lack of ability of the posting admin" is a reflection on their competence, and "a really savage need to get me blocked" is a speculation about their motives. And it's continuing on their talk page ("[the user] is unable to deal with the regular edit conflicts ...", "a tragic inability to cope with the real world"). This cannot be anything but an intentional violation of their restriction. It is quite possible to resolve content disputes without calling into question the personal qualities of others. I question whether a 48 hour block would accomplish anything or whether we need to return this to ARCA. Sandstein 08:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Because there are no more admin comments, and nobody has imposed a block, I'll refer this to ARCA and close it here. Sandstein 11:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Goosemuffin[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA :

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

1. 6 September 2018 Personal attack
2. 8 September 2018 Personal attack
3. 8 September 2018 offensive ethnic rant
4. 30 January 2019 personal attack, dark conspiracy allegations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 10 September 2018

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think the diffs speak for themselves. It seems that the editor is unable to deal with "Hindus" in general, or anybody that has different views from himself. He has been told politely, by third party editors to avoid personal attacks. His posts have been modified by deleting blatantly offensive bits and even reverted. He has received a user warning and a DS alert. Yet he is back here today with the same kind of attacks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[103]

Discussion concerning Goosemuffin[edit]

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 Goosemuffin[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Goosemuffin[edit]

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

• Waiting on Goosemuffin to reply, but if nothing very convincing is forthcoming, I think an indefinite block (as a normal admin action) is the appropriate response. Sandstein 14:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If this user had not edited pages to which I have contributed content, I would block them myself. As it is, I agree with Sandstein that a normal indef is most appropriate. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked. I agree Goosemuffin's comments from September 2018, and resumed on January 30, are irreconcilable with our policies. The attacks diffed above are all directed at the same user, DBigXray. I quote from each: "Unfortunately he is overly active on this page and should stop contributing because he cannot control his biases", "[I] have investigated you and your activity. It's an absolute lapse in judgement that you, as a pro hindoostani and hindutva activist, think it is appropriate to be so heavily involved in editing and monitoring a wiki about an anti-india seperatist movement. Relieve yourself immediately from activity on this page." "DBIGXRAY - SHUT UP YOU HINDOO ACTIVIST LOSER". (This in response to a well-grounded NPA warning from DBigXray on Goosemuffins' page.) And recently there was this: "I suspect [DBigXray] is a paid activist for the indian government and hired to push their narrative. I am severely disturbed by his willingness to openly cite biased Indian newspapers - a country with a press freedom ranking of 138 and an easily identifiable bias on this topic speicifically. It's time to start thinking about getting DBigXray off of SIkh wiki's all together." This last is not even on somebody's talkpage, but at Talk:Khalistan movement. The running theme of all the diffs is an attempt to drive off a user by insisting that user is editing in bad faith — perhaps a paid activist for the Indian government — and has no right to edit Khalistan movement, an article about a Sikh separatist movement. I have blocked Goosemuffin indefinitely for persistent nationalist harassment. This is an ordinary block, not per DS, so there are no special rules for unblocking the user, if any admin wants to. I'm leaving the discussion open in case anybody wants to continue to discuss other options. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  They've only made 16 edits and are very clearly NOTHERE, so the most sensible option is an indef, and so hatting this as that has been done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Boundarylayer[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Boundarylayer (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#Battlefield_editing :

Although the subject matter in the three diffs I provided all relate to nuclear power and renewable energy, that is part of the broad subject of climate change because (A) it is by definition part of climate change mitigation and (B) Boundarylayer himself said as much in a 2012 table-pounding, "As an environmentalist, I'm incredulous that you seem to think that the building of a gas power plant over a Nuclear plant, is a victory for you? Yet you are aware that Global Warming is also caused by gas… even before this reactor was cancelled,(and dashed the potential of the reactor to save millions of tons of CO2 being emitted) the IPCC already expected us to overshoot the 2 degree Kelvin of warming limit it has set, because we are increasingly using more and more fossil fuels, and this will result in the evacuation of millions of people….. I echo the opinion of the International Energy Agency, that the use of both Nuclear power & Renewables is necessary" [104]

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

1. Jan 31 2019 BATTLEFIELD EDITING in vio of civility policy at WP:ESDONTS; Here BL names another editor in an edit sum for purpose of attack using words "disregarding", "undermining", "pushing their own favorite fringe primary sources", and doing "fantasy-engagement". Even if these were true, there is a civil way to deal with such problems and duking it out in Edit sums is not one of them.
2. January 23, 2019 Battlefield editing.... names me an "ideological" editor; deletes my housekeeping note which I added per WP:MULTI to keep the discussions at different venues organized. The section heading where this takes place is also his creation, where I'm implicitly labeled a "quack editor"
3. January 10, 2019 Tendentious/CIR.... after BL reverted a revert without any discussion, I tried to explain that 3RR is not what makes an edit war but the first un-discussed re-revert is an opening salvo in an EW. I was trying to be helpful. In response he ran me down with ...Really? It's a first salvo...In a what now? lol How can you even write such nonsense without suffering a case of severe cognitive dissonance? It's good comedy man, keep it up. Especially with this, your penchant for coming onto my talk page drumming up all these fake accusations....

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Boundarylayer does have a topic ban for pregnancy/abortion and various blocks. Since I'm only asking for a formal warning in the nuclear & energy topics I'm not going into the details of that prior history at this time.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• DS alert for Climate change given Jan 9; Although the venues in question are on pages titularly related to nuclear power, this is broadly related to Climate change mitigation as Boundarylayer himself has said (see prior sections above)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Boundarylayer does not accept advice from mere editors so at this time I am formally asking for a word of caution from an admin.
• @Sandstein: Thank you for commenting! I respectfully ask you to reconsider. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a whole working group on prevention. Key to this work is deciding what technologies can move the ball forward, and a critical element of that policy debate is Energy return on energy invested. Amory Lovins has staked out a position on this issue (anti nuke, pro renewable). Finally, in case you overlooked the quote from Boundarylayer he himself links these topics. I'm not asking for a sanction. I'm asking for a warning, after which if problems continue I'll probably seek community sanctions. If you push this off to DR (without a warning) then the likely result is more of the same battle attitude which usually makes reasoned discussion impossible. With a warning - include one for me if you like - the chances of DR success increase, and if necessary its easier for admins to see which ed has the problem. Incidentally we have tried RFCs. The result is usually walls of text and low participation. My goal is attract level headed collaborative minded eds. For all these reasons, I think it (A) is climate change broadyly construed and (B) in the interests of prevention not punishment marking a time with an admin warning will help down the road. Thanks for reading and at least giving a moments thought to reconsidertion even if you don't change your mind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If admins are convinced the nuclear vs renewable debate is beyond scope of WP:ARBCC, then even though this is technically AE, do you think you could give him/me/us a civility and collaboration warning anyway, just not under ARBCC? I'm not testing the scope of the ruling here, just trying to prevent future problems or lay a benchmark in time to show warnings had no effect, which happens first. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please close This was only a request for a warning. Two reasons to close are (A) admins think this was the wrong venue (my apologies) and (B) Boundarylayer says he will be away for an unknown number of weeks, anyway. Thanks for your attention, sorry about screwing up the venue choice. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Boundarylayer[edit]

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 Boundarylayer[edit]

This desire to drum up apocalyptic notions of attacks and battlefields, is simply part of the ongoing WP:STALK conduct of news and event guy which they have truly disturbingly engaged themselves in, these past weeks. As they curiously like to to invent scenarios that demonstrably did not take place and by doing so, generate these groundless and laughable vexatious complaints for cautions and other spurious nonsense.

Let's take their attempted inversions, one by one. Here the WP:HOUNDing has involved the putting in block capitals to prime the arbitration viewers, into seeing what is to follow as MORTAL COMBAT, COMMENCE FIGHT. Well if it's in blocks, who can argue with that. lol. Yet actually it's just a re-iteration of what I wrote on the talk page, that thomas, the other editor needs to come back with secondary sources, that's how wikipedia works and they are indeed "disregarding" and "undermining" wikipedia policy by blanking an article and similarly engaging in absolute fantasy building by declaring consensus has formed, when in actual reality, no such consensus exists. That's you can all agree, the very definition, of what it is, to engage in fantasy. I would hope you'd agree?

Here BL names another editor...for purpose of attack.For the purposes of attack? Really? Here guy is really seen in full, as attempting to fantasize events and motivations and cast those aspersions onto another editor, they are hounding? One truly wonders?

1. Jan 31 2019 BATTLEFIELD EDITING in vio of civility policy at WP:ESDONTS; Here BL names another editor in an edit sum for purpose of attack using words "disregarding", "undermining", "pushing their own favorite fringe primary sources", and doing "fantasy-engagement". Even if these were true, there is a civil way to deal with such problems and duking it out in Edit sums is not one of them. ]

On the place point there again. Myself and Thomas are actually discussing on the talk page, not your fantasy notion of 'duking it out in the Edit sums' that you just concocted. One misrepresentaion from guy after another, could it be, for the purposes of WP:HOUNDing?

Next, this is really where the weird WP:STALK campaign reaches some disturbing levels. As you can see, guy clearly came onto an article talk page, simply because I was there and then once he was there, with the most astounding case of motivated reasoning, guy personally decided toread-into what I wrote and continues to this very day, to believe, I was talking about him. Yet guy is neither mentioned, again contrary to what they just claimed. Nor is he the editor on that article, to whom I was referring. So can you tell us guy, what is your explanation for thinking this is about you? As you are neither named as you have disturbingly claimed here nor ar you implicitly labeled. - Whatever that means.

Yet Mr. guy again has framed it, as apparent MORTAL COMBAT, where I'm in his fantasy, naming him. Neither of which are anything close to reality, nor are they even plausible. Guy has never explained why he insists with this fantasy of theirs and it's truly a little troublingly, at this stage, as you can imagine.

1. January 23, 2019 Battlefield editing.... names me an "ideological" editor; deletes my housekeeping note which I added per WP:MULTI to keep the discussions at different venues organized. The section heading where this takes place is also his creation, where I'm implicitly labeled a "quack editor"]

Claming people 'named you' and you were implicitly labeled a "quack editor", when you're in actuality [A]Not even an editor on the article you followed me to, and [B] in the real world, clearly not named, or even mentioned in passing by me there, at all. So can you explain to us, why you think, or really, why you want to build the fantasy, that this was me, talking about you?

I'm genuinely getting worred about you man. While coming onto my talk page continuously with all this demonstrably fantastical stuff man, was actually good comedy, at one point. I'm taking this I want him to be punished arbitration, as the epitome of WP:HOUNDing.

1. January 10, 2019 Tendentious/CIR.... after BL reverted a revert without any discussion, I tried to explain that 3RR is not what makes an edit war but the first un-discussed re-revert is an opening salvo in an EW. I was trying to be helpful. In response he ran me down with ...Really? It's a first salvo...In a what now? lol How can you even write such nonsense without suffering a case of severe cognitive dissonance? It's good comedy man, keep it up. Especially with this, your penchant for coming onto my talk page drumming up all these fake accusations....

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will be away with work for the next few weeks, so anyone filing any more of these things, or the result. I won't actually see. It's really regrettable. As with this, I will be considering WP:BOOMERANG, as I hope you can all see, this repeated attempt to hound and inhibit editing with this following me around and these spurious proceedings and warnings, it's all well past the point of just kind of ridiculous at this point. With guy following me around wikipedia, the leaving of trollish comments during discussions that they acknowledge as such on their talk page, canvassing, jumping in to celebrate when talk-page discussions are pointed and guy feels like he can prepetually misrepresent and cultivate into a grand-narrative of warring. It's all together at this point, past the point anyone should just have to struggle on with.

When I've some free time during work again, I will be back.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas pow s[edit]

I am engaged in the dispute with BoundaryLayer in the EROI article.

BoundaryLayer's conduct is frequently odd, in my opinion.

For example, I provided three meta-analyses from notable researchers, which summed up data from 250+ scientific articles on a topic. BoundaryLayer insisted that the 250+ studies are written by paid solar power advocates as part of a grand swindle: "Pumping out reams of papers ostensibly to grease the wheels on the swindle train?... With their fantasy-world-building statistical tricks?"

At the same time, BoundaryLayer suggests that the meta-anaylsis, dervied from many independent studies, was produced in a collective marijuana-induced haze: "The only nonsense here is believing that solar PV is whatever solar advocates say it is. Tomorrow if EROI is declared a zillion... You don't have to build anything man, the energy just flows, pass me a joint yo."

Please note that the EROI for solar PV in the meta-analysis was 14.4, which is totally unremarkable and moderately lower than other sources of energy. It was not "declared a zillion" by people who were passing marijuana joints amongst themselves as part of a swindle train, nor was there any risk of that happening.

BoundaryLayer appears to have a hysterical or histrionic debating style, including odd, fabricated personal accusations against researchers in the field. Often, BoundaryLayer posts odd, emotional accusations against the other editors of wikipeida. Much of what he writes consists of odd personal remarks. Sometimes he writes mildly insulting remarks toward the other editors ("Are you trying out to be a comedian next?" and so on).

However, I'm not sure if it warrants disciplinary action. He's not horribly insulting or vicious. I think it might warrant a comment or remark from an admin, but nothing more serious than that. I doubt that any remark to him will have any effect anyway, since this appears to be an established behavior.

Thomas pow s (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, BoundaryLayer just posted a remark that I have a "truly revealing level of fantasy-engagement". That is a comment about an EDITOR, not the topic. It's that kind of thing, which is happening all the time. That said, he posts nothing horribly insulting or vicious.

Thomas pow s (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Boundarylayer[edit]

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

• This is out of the scope of discretionary sanctions, in my view. While there are certainly aspects of nuclear energy that relate to climate change, the edits and pages at issue here do not. I would therefore take no action and refer the parties to WP:DR. Sandstein 19:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Sandstein. These edits do not fall within the scope of DS. If we construed the scope this broadly, all of economics, politics, quantum mechanics and many other fields besides would also be included. GoldenRing (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]