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 Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (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:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : breach of WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:V - falsely accusing WP:BLPs of a possible war crime, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HARASS

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

#15:25, 31 January 2019: WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS - "Your past accounts have the same habit of lying about what a person said. I wrote that certain editors have a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. Please dont continue that habit of lying..."

Regarding a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive, has anyone ever considered McCarthyism or Witch-hunt? Unfortunately, there's no DNA testing that could ultimately prove that some of these editors simply may not have been NoCal socks. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here and here.

Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]

WP:ASPERSIONS applies to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. I admit I repeatedly called this obvious NoCal sock a NoCal sock. The "extremely Zionist or pro-Palestinian" comment, which is about edits, and not as dishonestly claimed above about an editor, however is not that. I can substantiate that each of the editors I named have a demonstrated history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. E.M.Gregory has authored Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, and a string of articles that had as their common topic "Palestinians as terrorists". Shrike, when not just reverting, followed this edit with this one. Icewhiz, well, thats a longer list. But here, a simple one, part-time historian, fine to use when it is a pro-Zionist voice as opposed to an actual historian who happens to be cited as a pro-Palestinian voice is A book by a visible activist and self described as Finkelstein’s magnum opus is both a monument to Gaza’s martyrs and an act of resistance against the forgetfulness of history. is definitely a WP:BIASED source. All those editors do have a history of pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing. That isnt an aspersion, its a fact. As far as calling this new editor an obvious sock of NoCal, well, dont be so obvious then. And for the record, the lie that I accused anybody of harboring any ethnic hatred is just that. A lie. I said, and say, that a number of editors who have taken it as their common goal to label a Palestinian woman an Israeli have that history. That is true. nableezy - 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these diffs I have no honest idea what they are supposed to violate though. A user declined a DYK based on what I view are spurious claims of "POV" made on the talk page by other users and I said they are purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV. Thats an aspersion? Directed against who? The civilian to settlers change was an error, I didnt realize that one of the victims was not a settler and only the others were. nableezy - 21:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was not mocking Shrike's English. I was curious as to how their usual level of English was so much more improved an AN. What I said is that based on his or her English in use throughout the project, I dont understand how they wrote that ANI post and I asked if he was directed to post it by somebody else. But thanks for bringing that one back up, cus I would still love an answer as to how somebody who would put in an encyclopedia article a sentence like professor from Wellesley College describe the book "comprehensive historical description and compelling psychological interpretation of the “delusions of a people under siege"" or comments Meantime all the article is without the proper context removing it. but is able to make a perfectly formatted complaint with excellent grammar and words I have never seen him or her use such as a view not shared by Cullen328 who saw this as a commitment to the community, or TonyBallioni who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable. nableezy - 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and another obvious similarity with NoCal, the above user is dishonest with my edit to User talk:LeahBorovi, neglecting to include I removed that their creation violated the arbitration case when I saw that it was created a few months prior. Seems odd you have such a similar style as NoCal in making a complaint doesnt it? nableezy - 21:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, you are reading way more into the userbox than what it actually is. Its a critique of Wikipedia and its issues with systemic bias. I do not have and have never had on my userpage any statement of support for Hezbollah. But at the time Wikipedia allowed statements expressing support for such entities as the IDF but disallowed ones supporting ones for Hezbollah. I see that as a problem, obviously. I didnt even make that box, credit for that goes to User:Eleland. And I dont believe pro-Zionist equals anti-Palestinian. I meant each of those editors does have either extremely pro-Zionist editing histories or anti-Palestinian ones. Not that the two are equivalent. Just look at the context here. One of the editors claims it is a BLP violation to call somebody a Palestinian. You want to tell me that is not "anti-Palestinian". To claim that even being associated with that title violates WP:BLP? That title never seems to be an issue when applied to a terrorist. But a girl that none of these people would think twice about had she not been an Arab who preferred to be called a Palestinian, it is so seriously a negative to call a person a Palestinian, that despite her family's express wishes, despite several reliable sources explicitly calling her a Palestinian, it is a BLP violation to call her that. Does that not fit the description of "anti-Palestinian"? Am I guilty of "casting aspersions" when I say that it does? nableezy - 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldenRing, as far as constructive, here is my providing a number of sources that say Ms Maasarwe was in fact a Palestinian, in response to the verging, if not outright, on racist claim that calling somebody a Palestinian is a grave BLP concern. I think that was constructive. Was it collaborative? I admit I find it hard to collaborate with people who say things like calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation, but I try. nableezy - 14:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the claim that I am still accusing every new editor who opposes him of being a NoCal sock, um no. The ones I do accuse of being NoCal socks however generally have a habit of being proven as such. A quick trip to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive would demonstrate that. nableezy - 16:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, after it was made clear that reliable sources call her a Palestinian, after her family's wishes that she, and they, be called Palestinian, Icewhiz has continued to claim that calling her a Palestinian is a BLP violation. Seriously, just work through that sentence replacing Palestinian with Jew. If somebody were to say that calling some person a Jew was a BLP violation, despite the express wishes of that family and reliable sources, including some of the ones that person was citing themselves, called them a Jew, that it was a derogatory claim to call a person a Jew, what would the reaction be? You wouldnt think that person could rightly be called anti-Jewish? nableezy - 16:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are also an ethnic group. nableezy - 16:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoldenRing, I wasnt clerking the request. I was striking all the comments made by the sock of a banned user per WP:BANREVERT. Here it isnt possible to simply revert the edits so I struck them. I apologize if that was out of order. nableezy - 11:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

Just my 2 cents: note that in no. 6 above, under The Kingfisher "Additional comments by editor filing complaint"...they link to a discussion from ...2008. What are the chances they followed each and every link on Nableezy's user page...compared to the chances of them knowing that discussion from a "previous life"? Huldra (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus, a history check: Hizbollah came into existence as a direct answer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. As for being called a "terrorist": my own, much beloved, and unfortunately late father was a "terrorist", once. Yes: between 1940−45 my father was a dangerous "terrorist", according to the rulers of our land. Some of the things he did carried a death sentence...if he had been caught. (Which he luckily never was). One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter", etc.

User:Calthinus: I am not advertising anything, I am just saying I understand where Hizbollah is coming from. They came into existence when their homeland, Lebanon was invaded in 1982. My father became a "terrorist" when our homeland was invaded in 1940. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calthinus: Says who? A long interview with Hassan Nasrallah was published a week or two ago; all the Israeli newspapers were saying that he threaten to bomb Tel Aviv. What he actually said, was that if Israel bombed Lebanon again, he wouldn't rule out bombing Tel Aviv, etc. A slight difference, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Icewhiz's comparison of Palestinian in Israel with Jews in the US: that is a comparison of apples and oranges. The US is a country for all its people, while Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state". (If the US had defined itself as, say, a "Christian state", then it would have been comparable. But it doesn't.) And, when Israel defines itself as a "Jewish state", you cannot possibly expect the 20-25% of the population who are not Jewish, to primarily identify with it. It is like having your cake, and eating it too: it can't be done, Huldra (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...aaaaaand The Kingfisher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked as a Nocal sock. Can we please end this report? And Nableezy: in the future: please go direct to CU, cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus[edit]

Imo -- I've had mixed interactions with Nableezy, case of a user who is passionate so is willing to devote time (positive) but this can come at the cost of fights on controversial issues (meh). Some of things I've seen him saying from time to time do really need to stop, especially on this very fraught topic area. One must comment on the edit, not the editor, and AGF. Case in point, [| he calls editors] most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors, plus all the aspersions regarding socking and etc. I understand that wiki has a lot of POV/nationalist/uncivil crap on it but if you treat people like that, you become part of the problem. I also object to the possible equation he made of "pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian" -- I personally like to think most people are generally pro-human, they just have different viewpoints. Furthermore if you believe that pro-Israel equals anti-Palestinian it's really hard to see this going with being able to work cooperatively with people on the other side. Which is a shame -- the best articles are made through people cooperating while having opposite viewpoints. I often don't see the effort being made.

Case in point about the lack of conciliatoriness -- note the defiant note on his userpage about being not allowed to support Hezbollah in a userbox -- [[3]]currently on Nableezy's user page -- imo, even if one supports Hezbollah, this is not a good way to signal that (if?) your goal here is to build an encyclopedia together with others. Hezbollah's goal is to "obliterate" a state of 8 mill people, spreads wild conspiracy theories that Jewish people are responsible for spreading HIV, etc -- even someone who would like to with others can be honestly really put off by that. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: then you and I both have in common having familial ties to people who might be called "terrorists". But I would never advertise it, because I understand that on Wikipedia where the goal is an encyclopedia, not the homeland (mind you, I don't share the views of my distant cousin), it's better not to express your admiration of groups that -might- have killed another user's girlfriend/dad/etc, and at the very least clearly would not mind doing so. So no, no freedom fighters either, because that's not what building an encyclopedia is about. --Calthinus (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: -- to be clear, I didn't think you were advertising. Instead I was saying I wouldn't advertise my own connection, to be clear that (a) I don't agree with that individual and (b) I don't think showing these things ("this user supports Hezbollah") is a good way to introduce yourself on your user page to users who are meeting you for the first time ... Wiki is a very tense place. Expressing admiration for "freedom fighters" who want to "obliterate" a separate country, accuse an entire ethnic/religious group of spreading HIV, etc... doesn't help. --Calthinus (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: okay fair. But a better way would be to have a box saying that you oppose IDF boxes as the Hezbollah box is bound to be misinterpreted. Regarding the attempts to counterexplain Hezbollah, I dispute these but in any case it's kind of common knowledge that most Israelis (and in fact probably many non-Israeli Jews) will see that in a very different light.--Calthinus (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC) this latter part being in response to Huldra -- i.e., Hezbollah has been saying since 1985 they want to obliterate Israel, the books are full on it.[reply]

Commentary on Aiia Masarwe issue[edit]

Just wanted to point out here -- I did not join in when the editors noted were trying to remove the description "Palestinian" from her page, because I did not agree with that but I think it is entirely wrong to paint this as some massive infraction on their part. You have to understand, in Israeli society, which is in a state of a low level permanent war, that label is very much heavy and can be interpreted to mean "fifth column". This is not some simple issue of Icewhiz or others allegedly pushing their POVs and Nableezy calling it out, instead it is a case where there are two sides and some on the "Palestinian side" appear unable to accept that the other side could have been editing in good faith -- even when, in this case, I personally also disagree with them. Instead of helping create a good atmosphere, Zero is actually egging Nableezy on to assume bad faith in his comment. --Calthinus (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: "Palestinian" is a national group, Jew isn't quite. The closer equivalent would be Israeli -- but not really since there isn't another country with a similar issue to the Israeli Arab vs Israeli Palestinian one. A better example : calling an Arab from Khuzestan "Iraqi". An Iranian might very well claim that was a BLP offense (well maybe BDP -- biography of dead persons) as per the Iraq-Iran War. --Calthinus (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: yes this is true, but the point for me I guess is that Palestinian -- simultaneously an ethnic group but also a national group -- can mean "fifth column" hence Icewhiz may have convincingly been editing in good faith. I.e. see also Turkey not calling Arabs in Hatay Syrians, same for Iran in Khuzestan vis a vis "Iraqi" -- even though ethnically if we were going to assign Hatay or Khuzestani Arabs to a group, Syrian and Iraqi respectively would probably be valid and many do identify that way. As I said I actually agree with your position on that article given that her family expressedly said that she called herself Palestinian -- but I don't think this was necessarily an anti-Palestinian push by Icewhiz and etc.--Calthinus (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Debresser[edit]

I know only one thing, and I have said it before: this editor is systematically aggressive in both his style and in his disregard for the opinions of others regarding proper editing and editing behavior, and his contributions in the IP-area are in the final account more disruptive than positive. I have not examined the present accusations in detail, but Nableezy has been guilty of all of the types of transgressions he has been accused of one time or the other, most of them more or less permanently. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]

@Nableezy: if it's so obvious, SPI is thataway. If there isn't enough evidence to support a sockpuppetry investigation, then continually making allegations of socking is textbook ASPERSIONS. Regarding no editor named NoCal has ever been registered on Wikipedia [4], the first result in the search box for "User:NoCal" (how I navigate pages) is User:NoCal100, so it really doesn't take a genius to work it out. I personally think there's scope here to AGF, but could be proved wrong by an appropriately filed SPI. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 01:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kingfisher: I did see that you'd cited a Google search, I just wanted to add that there's more than that way of finding out. I'm not sure about topic banning Nableezy from referring to editors as socks like that, as I think doing so would imply that it's OK for other editors to do so. I'm by no means knowledgeable on the NoCal case, but every editor overlaps with somebody eventually. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

How long would an editor last after claiming that it was a BLP violation to call someone Jewish? Hours at most. But when someone claims it is a BLP violation to call a dead person a Palestinian, even after her family begged everyone to call her Palestinian on account of her being, duh, Palestinian, well...what can be said? Nableezy's description of such editing as "extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" is understatement. There was a concerted effort at Killing of Aya Maasarwe to remove the word "Palestinian" from the article and nobody should imagine for a moment that it was motivated by article quality.

As for the diffs referring to Israeli occupation of the West Bank, in this edit Icewhiz deleted 149,943 characters claiming to be motivated by article length. Anyone looking at what was deleted will see how well it matches Icewhiz's very strong pov. So Nableezy's description of that edit was correct too.

So who is the greatest danger to the project: those who endlessly push their political pov and "support" it with tendentious argument, or those who call it for what it is?

AGF is an important principle on this project, but as WP:AGF makes clear it is not a permanent free pass to behave badly and expect everyone else to pretend that you aren't. Zero^talk 01:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz knows full well that nobody would ever claim it was a BLP violation to call someone Jewish except for a mundane reason such as lack of source (which doesn't apply here). Anyway Icewhiz gave quite a different reason: "this potentially implies allegience to a group in conflict with the state they are citizens of". (Compare to "Asserting that an American is Jewish is a BLP violation because this potentially implies allegiance to Israel" to see the underlying problem.) Then Icewhiz followed up with this masterpiece: "this BLP family lives in Israel and that identification here has real world consequences for ths family - consequences that may put real life people in danger". (Icewhiz is extremely familiar with Israel, yet believes this rubbish? In fact, no Israeli who has heard of Aya needs to be told that she was Palestinian.) Now he wants to deflect attention by listing entirely unrelated circumstances and irrelevant commentary.

Note that I am not asking for sanctions against Icewhiz; that will come another time. My purpose in posting is only to provide some context to the current case. Zero^talk 10:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

The entirety of the statement above, by Zero000, is a repeat of an AE report just closed on 14:55, 31 January 2019 as "Not actionable; content dispute.". Zero000 did not notify me of the allegations above. Is this not WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior?

In regards to Zero000's hypothetical Jewish labeling question, we would: (NB: diffs here not discussed in the closed report)

1. Very quickly block users Jew-Marking Americans of Jewish decent in the lede - we wouldn't accept such a marking on Jerry Seinfeld, Larry David, or Woody Allen (we do mention Jewish roots in the body). An edit such as Nableezy's 00:50, 29 January 2019 (where "Israeli" was turned into "Palestinian citizen of Israel" in the first lede sentence) would not be acceptable on most American-Jews ("Jewish citizen of the United States" ?!?!?!). A search for "Jewish citizen of" on all articles leads to 6 hits - pre-20th century, a movie role, and the Berlin office of AP in 1937 (in a ref quote) referring to Helmut Hirsch in this way.
2. We would swiftly block editors placing Hebrew prior to the native language for Jews outside of Israel (even in a non-DS area). For instance - an edit placing (or removing) Persian after Hebrew in Siamak Moreh Sedgh - would be seen as unacceptable. Yet in 21:42, 31 January 2019 Nableezy placed Arabic prior to Hebrew for an Israeli citizen (official language: Hebrew), as well as removing a source from a BDP (leaving the Hebrew name un-sourced). He also - 21:43, 31 January 2019 wrote "She was a Palestinian Arab with an Arabic name. Even if the Hebrew should be included (and I dont actually think it should be), it shouldnt be first." (no Israeli in that comment). Flip that on a Jewish-Iranian? Block.

Nableezy has an AE past for "Palestinian" use - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive103#Nableezy - "Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January 2012."

I too have noticed Nableezy's hostile behavior in the last month, and hats off to @The Kingfisher: for taking the time to comb through the edits and present all this. In the space of 253 edits in January 2019 (entirely, or almost entirely, to I/P topics) Nableezy has managed to be hostile towards (counting by named editors, and "you"s addressed to people he responded to in the diffs above): @The Kingfisher:, @Sir Joseph:, @Shrike:, @E.M.Gregory:, Icewhiz, @Lagrange613:, @LeahBorovoi:, + a serious BLP vio in turning non-settlers into settlers. 7 editors + BLP vio - in 253 edits.

In regards to Nableezy's argument he was addressing editing history - the argument itself is entirely unconvincing, and is resoundingly refuted by diff10 in the report above - 06:35, 22 January 2019 - in which Nableezy refers to "the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia" and " the more extreme pro-Israel editors".

Finally, in regards to use of "Zionist" - some of the alleged "extremely pro-Zionist" editors never said they were Zionist (e.g. myself). "Zionist" itself has a long history of being used as a pejorative - from the USSR,^[1] in recent years in the West,^[2][3] as well as Hezbollah - which uses "Zionist Entity" to refer to Israel,^[4] and "Zionists" to refer to Israelis and supporters of Israel (against which Hezbollah's moqawama (resistance / struggle) has carried out attacks - including civilians). In some circles "Zionist" is stigmatised and anchored to "Nazism".^[5] Icewhiz (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: - The OP semi-grouped by article/topic. The first 7 are Israeli/Palestinian labelling on the edge of the conflict. Diffs 8,9,10, 12 are core conflict - Israeli occupation of the West Bank (e.g. [5]). As is 13 - 2017 Halamish stabbing attack. Diffs 14-16 concern an AN report which was also on ARBPIA. Diff 17 is on a user page. Diff 11 is a post following IDF field hospital for Gazans which is core conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere[edit]

• See Debresser's and Calthinus's comments - I agree with both.
• Content disputes should be left out of this thread.
• Continuing where Calthinus left off: For most Israelis the face of Hizbollah (apart from its loquacious chief) is this man, who bashed the head of a four year old child with a rock and shot and drowned her father dead in front of her; then, upon release from Israeli prison, got a hero's welcome by Lebanon and Syria's heads of state. Expressing public admiration for this sort of people is for me a red flag that one is not here to promote good faith and cooperation. François Robere (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Yes, Nableezy could have been more astute by avoiding calling a spade a spade.

It’s not for third parties to interrupt the presentation of the facts by extensive debates on the topic itself. But at least, given the contaminated character of I/P discourse generally, the terms being used here should be clarifed. References to extreme forms of Zionism have been around a long time, here, here,and here, to cite a few examples. There is a distinction between (secular) Zionists who consider the project essentially completed in 1948 (e.g.Walter Laqueur the conservative Zionist historian of the movement, whose hostile views of post 67 extremist Zionism I cited here), and those who, in the wake of 1967, think it an ongoing project, to be completed by the integration of (nearly) all Palestinian land into Israel and the relegation of half of that state’s population to a special regime of law not applied to people of Jewish ethnicity. Representatives of both these positions edit here (legitimately). Wikipedia's articles are comfortable with the former, embattled by the latter, for the simple reason that 'extremist Zionism' refuses to recognize that in a dispute between two parties, to be covered neutrally, you cannot persist in rubbing out the other ethnic narrative and feign 'neutrality'.

The word ‘Zionist’ is not a term of opprobrium in Israeli usage, to the contrary, and most Israeli politicians are proud Zionists beginning with Benjamin Netanyahu. It is ridiculous to make out, by citing some Lebanese or Iranian cleric, that, ipso facto the word is POV-charged. Icewhiz gives the impression of being on the extreme end of the Zionist spectrum in numerous edits. The following shows his position unequivocally.

in making this comment, branding several Israeli scholars ‘ on the fringes of the Israeli radical left’, he declared that in his view, moderate Zionists, rabbis and scholars of high distinction and international repute are not only ‘radical leftists’ but worse than that, on the extreme fringe of that 'radical' (extremist) 'leftist' group. This is an example of the extremist attitude Nableezy deplored.

Extreme Zionism consists in attempts to either contest mention or erase from the historical picture ‘Palestinians/Arabs’, when people of that origin constitute half of the population of Israel/Palestine, or to paint them as a terrorist security threat. Many editors here do precisely this, but they watch their p's and q's. This is all over the page which elicited Nableezy's remarks, at Killing of Aya Maasarwe.

‘Zionist’ is a legitimate (self-) descriptor in Israeli usage, since it is the doctrine underlying a legitimately constituted modern state, whose status as such under international law cannot be equivocated. Extremist Zionism, according to its many Israeli critics, wants the reality of Palestinians to disappear one way or another, and editors who persist in battling every use of trhe ethnic designator ‘Palestinian’ are not ‘moderate’ or neutral. They espouse in practice an extreme form of ethnonationalism, for which, in this area, there has been considerable tolerance.

Calthinus, I have responded to your remark about us all being ‘pro-human’ on your page.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

Regardless of the content dispute, this area is subject to higher level sanctions and ASPERSIONS is subject to discipline. Nableezy repeatedly calls people socks and if he thinks people are socks, he can file a sock report, but casting aspersions is not the way to go. And yes, for the record, I was blocked for stating that Nableezy was anti-Israel, so yes, stating that someone is "anti-Palestinian" is fair game to be blocked, if we want to be fair and impartial. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

• Just to be clear what Nableezy is referring to in the section just above this, The Kingfisher has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of NoCal100. [6] Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

• I'm struggling to see Nableezy's edits here as constructive or collaborative. However, these edits are IMO at the very edge of the "broadly construed" DS topic and I'd like to hear other admin's opinions on the scope before taking action. I'm thinking quite a narrow topic ban (probably just this article) but again would like to hear others' thoughts. GoldenRing (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nableezy: You, I think, have been around long enough to know you don't comment in other people's sections here. GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The account that brought this to AE has been blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100 I'm striking their edits. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that there is no longer an active complaint, I'm inclined to close this without action, without prejudice to examining this conduct if a complaint is made by a non-sock editor. Sandstein 12:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This would make perfect sense to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 2 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 Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (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:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions : breach of WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:V - falsely accusing WP:BLPs of a possible war crime, WP:CIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HARASS

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

1. pertaining to Israeli occupation of the West Bank - directly related to the conflict
   1. 06:35, 22 January 2019: WP:NPA,  WP:ASPERSIONS - "You are allowing some of the most extreme pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian editors on Wikipedia ... But because the more extreme pro-Israel editors dislike this article it isnt NPOV?"
   2. 01:22, 22 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS  - "You are very purposely reducing exposure of a topic and doing so based purely on facile claims of POV"
   3. 16:41, 27 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Ive seen a destructive attempt in which an editor excised material not to their personal liking, but no I have not seen any constructive edits reverted"
   4. 00:54, 26 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Icewhiz did not spin anything off. He chopped off parts that he would rather not be covered on Wikipedia"
2. Killing of Aya Maasarwe - conflict related as the content dispute is over labeling as Israeli, Palestinian, or a combination thereof.
   1. 19:35, 29 January 2019: WP:NPA,  WP:ASPERSIONS - "I am saying is that you, and for that matter Shrike, E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz, all have a history of editing on one end of a POV spectrum. Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian..."
   2. 18:39, 29 January 2019: WP:NPA,  WP:ASPERSIONS "Now this may be impolite to say, but the number of users with a history of extremely Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing..."
   3. 22:20, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "If she were Jewish there is zero chance you would be arguing .... Literally zero chance"
   4. 21:02, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS - "Yes, of course, E.M.Gregory, serial author of Palestinians as terrorists articles, he knows more..."
   5. 20:23, 29 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS -"This is only a problem for editors who, we all know this to be true, are very much on one side of the POV spectrum"
   6. 18:25, 29 January 2019: WP:CIVIL - "What the fuck does ..."
3. pertaining to IDF field hospital for Gazans - directly related to the conflict
   1. 21:36, 27 January 2019: WP:ASPERSIONS,WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HARASS - warning a user who hasn't edited in 4 years and did nothing wrong (edited prior to WP:ARBPIA3).
4. pertaining to 2017 Halamish stabbing attack - directly related to the conflict.
   1. 18:32, 29 January 2019: changing civilians to settlers - which doesn't pass WP:V and is a BLP vio vs. the surviving widow and small orphans who lived in El'ad which is not a settlement. Nableezy is aware of the potential illegality of settlements ("war crime" - 22:38, 9 January 2019) - by calling the non-settler civilians settlers, Wikipedia was making a a false accusation of possible war crimes towards the BLP widow and orphans (as well as one of the deceased). Labelling people as "settlers" (contrast "illegal immigrants") is questionable even if verifiable, all the more so when this is a false claim.
5. pertaining to this AN thread which exlicitly mentions ARBPIA and ARBPIA edits.
   1. 17:15, 19 January 2019: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level) - "Your English on ANI was much improved as opposed to your ....". Note this is related to ARBPIA since Me and Nableezy are both active in ARBPIA (see diff2) and since the AN report in question also included several diffs on editing in ARBPIA and mentioned ARBPIA specifically.
   2. 17:49, 22 January 2019: WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after reverted by me his prior request.
   3. 18:16, 23 January 2019 - WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (mocking English level), WP:HARASS as posted after I have explicitly hatted the section and said he wasn't going to answer these pestering posts.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 08:23, 4 January 2012 - TBAN  6 months.
2. 15 December 2011 - "Nableezy is restricted from adding the word 'Palestinian' to any articles until 15 January 2012".
3. 10 May 2011 -  TBAN 2 months
4. 4 December 2010 - TBAN 4 months
5. 16 April 2010 - TABN 2 months.

(While these are old, XTools shows that Nableezy significantly curtailed his editing after the 2012 TBAN).

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

notified 04:51, 3 August 2018

alerted other user 21:36, 27 January 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. I have filed this following prior close with "without prejudice to a good-faith complaint". I must add that even that the original filer was blocked as a sock there are proper forum to make such accusations by making them in article talk space its create a toxic atmosphere that is not suitable for our collaborative project
2. Was warned here 18:58, 29 January 2019 that "comment violates Wikipedia policies" and it was suggested to retract. Replied 19:16, 29 January 2019 "Nah.", and then continued to attack editors - 19:35, 29 January 2019 as "Extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian" (diff in list above).
3. AE precedent - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Debresser - an editor was TBANed for 2 months for saying once(!) - "but only if there would be some more input from editors who are not necessarily in the anti-Jewish/Israeli camp". Nableezy, 04:18, 16 July 2017, saw this as " baseless personal attack" and called for banning. TBAN was upheld on appeal: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser. The repetitive labeling in the diffs above are far more egregious.
4. AE precedent2 - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive245#AmYisroelChai - indef TBAN from AP2 for politicizing disputes (in a less egregious manner than above).
5. Block precedent - Sir Joseph blocked on 11 November 2015 for 19:07, 11 November 2015 - " So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel." - a single anti-Israel use towards Nableezy.
6. Calling someone "extremely anti-Palestinian" is quite offensive and implies ethnic hatred by the labelled editor.
7. Please note Nableezy's userpage where he says he supports "the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist" but "due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming..." - linked to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Hezbollah userbox.
8. According to WP:WIAPA: "Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government...". Labeling Wikipedia editors as "extremely pro-Zionist" exposes them to government persecution in several countries. For example Iran (editors may reside, travel, or transit through): "Group Of Evangelical Christians Arrested In Iran And Labeled 'Zionist Christians'" [7], or a philosopher imprisoned and questioned for his alleged writing of "papers in support of the Zionists".[8].
9. Zionist, as a proxy for Israel ("Zionist entity") or by itself, has a long history of pejorative use and is a personal attack.[9][10][11][12][13]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]

Its nice of Shrike to, again, take the mantel up for a banned editor. But fine. Again. There are editors who have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Some of them have been making claims that verge into, if not jump directly to, racist claims that even calling somebody a Palestinian is a BLP violation. I've already said number 4 was a mistake, was unaware a single victim was not a settler. The rest is not "casting aspersions", Ive very much documented why I say these editors have a history of extremely pro-Zionist or anti-Palestinian editing. For example, the new filer of this complaint, says it is ASPERSIONS to say he or she has a history of pro-Zionist and or anti-Palestinian editing. Well here you change Jewish terrorist to Jewish militant and in the very next edit, in the very same article, an article on a settler shooting four unarmed civilians, add Palestinian terrorism as an easter egg link to Palestinian political violence. Is that not extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian. E.M.Gregory has authored Anti-semitic anti-Zionism, List of deaths and critical injuries caused by Palestinian stone-throwing, and a string of articles that had as their common topic "Palestinians as terrorists". That is not a history of anti-Palestinian editing? Icewhiz at this very article has repeatedly said that even calling a person, despite the sources doing so and her own family requesting so, a Palestinian is a BLP violation. That it is so severely negative to call somebody a Palestinian that even with sources it violates BLP to do so. How exactly does somebody even pretend that is not anti-Palestinian is rather beyond me. Yes, I said that a group of users who all have a history of extremely pro-Zionist and anti-Palestinian editing have taken it as their shared goal to expunge a persons own identity from the article. And they do it shamelessly I might add. That is manifestly true.

Its nice to see my calling your buddy an obvious sock is no longer cited as an aspersion.

And since Shrike, as you are now claiming I mocked your English (I wasnt). Could you please tell us if you wrote this complaint, or, if like this very complaint you are making now, it was written by a banned user and you posted it on their behalf? Because I have never seen you write so many consecutive sentences in perfect English. You have never, as far as I can recall, even used the apt, much less used it aptly. Can you tell us what aptly means? Because editing at the direction of a banned user is a violation of WP:BAN, and if you are writing sentences on talk pages likeMeantime all the article is without the proper context removing it.Its clear WP:POV violation but on AN writing about who aptly noted that while "controversial subjects" is so overly broad that it is unenforceable then I question why you cannot use that level of English in talk pages, to say nothing of the uniformly poor English used in articles by your good self. Who wrote the complaint and why did you post it on their behalf? If they were not banned they could have done it themselves.

User:Bellezzasolo, you know that is an essay right? Can yall accept that I do not make unfounded claims of somebody being a sockpuppet? That I was just waiting for that sockpuppet to provide a bit more evidence to file? nableezy - 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That user was emphatically not found to not be a sock of NoCal100. It was archived as nobody wanted to look at it. If and when that particular sock picks back up, a new report will be filed. Please do not misrepresent the situation here. It isnt grave dancing, I was genuinely curious. I cant expect a sock that had not yet been reported to answer honestly about if the 30/500 rule has made a difference, I was hoping one that had been reported already might be willing to. nableezy - 16:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

On a point of order. The gravamen of this charge sheet is with some slight editing, copied and pasted from the prior complaint run up by perhaps the most deleterious puppet-master in the history of wiki I/P articles. That is shown by the repetition of the spelling error, TABN, reproduced from the archived report. In reproducing the gist of that material virtually verbatim it looks, disturbingly, like Meat puppetry, unwittingly certainly, but proxy editing objectively. This is now the 30th attempt to get Nableezy banned (A trip down memory lane), 20 of which were dismissed, and the last 5 for the preceding 7 years were dismissed as frivolous or withdrawn. That is no guarantee of immunity, but piping a sock master’s files looks odd, as was odd the cheer squad commending the first complaint when it was obvious for months that Kingfisher was one of NoCal's socks (I think there is another, - only Nableezy seems to be able to sleuthe up proof for what is otherwise a strong subjective impression which, as such, is not actionable,- and this influences the way one judges the flow of a talk page). I will not comment on the merits, but Nableezy is not the only person to note that Shrike’s English is normally full of grammatical errors (here and here, to the point one does not know what he is saying) except when he files an AE complaint. Nishidani (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing. I have edited without complaining with about two score editors who had all of the hallmarks of being socks, purely on stylistic grounds and certain minutiae. In the I/P area 95% of socks come from the one POV, and one has to just live with that, since the empirical proof is very hard to come by. I don't make AE reports, or SPI reports when I see this. In the latter regard I am totally technically incompetent in any case. I keep the knowledge to myself (give your private bag of clues away, and the sockmaster learns to avoid them), and put up with the gaming - even when the evidence of two editors who I was certain were socks (NoCal and this chap) was cited by Arbitration against me for my old permaban. In my book an 'editor in good standing' is judged by the quality of his editing, not by the fact that (s)he has a clean record to date. I don't regard editors as 'in good standing' who smear as radical 'leftists' moderate Zionist rabbis or scholars who have been bombed, or stabbed by terrorists for expressing 'liberal'(classic English sense) or 'humanist' opinions. But I don't complain either. Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bellezzasolo[edit]

@Nishidani: - that's what "closed without prejudice" means. Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. - WP:BE. That makes it quite clear that editors are allowed to endorse a sockpuppet's AE report, if they think it was grounded. As an example of a civility issue: while it did transpire that they were a sock, Do not ever call someone a sock puppet on an article or user talk page or in any edit summary. Doing so is often considered uncivil and can actually get you in trouble. If you suspect they are a sock, then file a report at WP:SPI or put a polite note to this effect on any active admin's talk page. Reporting them at WP:ANI or WP:AN is discouraged. - WP:DWS. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just have one thing I am really curious about. Does it bother you even a little when one of your accounts is found out? User talk:Attack Ramon - Nableezy had just filed an SPI. There's absolutely no need for such an interaction (and the SPI was closed without action.)
• A collection of your usernames has pointed to the language in WP:ONUS, a part of WP:V. - User talk:TheGracefulSlick. Again, another throwaway accusation of sockpuppetry.

Some form of warning is needed for the above behaviour. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Essay or not, it's really just applied WP:ASPERSIONS. There's absolutely no need to go around calling people sockpuppets until you file an SPI. In both of the interactions I mention above, the editor concerned was not deemed a NoCal sock, and is still in good standing. The first one comes across as GRAVEDANCING too. It's just completely unnecessary and not particularly CIVIL. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I never said that Attack Ramon was found not to be a NoCal sock, inferring so is misrepresenting my comment. If you notice, I was careful in saying that the SPI was closed without action and the editor concerned was not deemed a NoCal sock. It's well known that SPI cannot prove a negative. However, without proof of a positive, any accusations of sockpuppetry should be kept there, per AGF. If you suspect sockpuppetry, you can quietly build a case. Throwing your suspicions around in content discussions really doesn't seem helpful. If you're so curious about them, you could try emailing a blocked account (do you really think that an account under investigation would admit to sockpuppetry?). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

Just a little note about WP:AGF: it is rather difficult to AGF, when you are dealing with serial liars like Nocal. What was really illuminating to me, was a discussion with a Nocal−sock a few years ago, on Talk:Walid_Khalidi#Khalidi: he basically argued for keeping stuff in an article, even when it was clearly false.

Now, over the years I have found many mistakes in books which are clearly WP:RS; books by, say Benny Morris, Israel Finkelstein, or Walid Khalidi (see here). And I will fight, tooth and nail, to keep those mistakes out of any Wikipedia article. That someone, even a serial lier, can argue to keep them in, is truly shocking to me. So, sorry, when his socks are concerned: there ends my AGF, Huldra (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88[edit]

I'd suggest closing this with no action. Most of the filer's comment (which I hear is a copy-paste from that of a blocked sock, but that's really beside the point) amounts to "User X on the pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian side was blocked or sanctioned for Y, I think what User Z on the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli said/did is equivalent to Y, therefore you must sanction user Z to be fair". The conflation of what User X did and what User Z supposedly did (or, rather, the repeated insinuation that what User Z supposedly did was much worse) appears to be entirely subjective, with virtually all of the long comment consisting of links to prior sanctions of User X. I don't see anything of substance here, except perhaps the possibility of a strongly worded warning that "closing without prejudice" does not necessarily mean "please reopen immediately". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

• As I commented at the previous request, I'm doubtful that this falls in the scope of DS. The more I think about it, the more I think not. This is all about the question of someone's nationality, who is otherwise completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Out there in the real world, this has nothing to do with that conflict and it is only related here because some editors have decided that it is desperately important to them. I would close this with a reminder to Nableezy that they are expected to edit collaboratively with others from all over the "POV spectrum". GoldenRing (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nishidani: Since the close of the previous section was explicitly without prejudice to an editor in good standing bringing the complaint, I don't see the relevance of your comment here. If you think you've found more NoCal socks, SPI is thataway. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would close this with no action: I see nothing approaching sanctionable here, only frustration about a very sensitive topic, which is understandable if not perfect behavior. I would oppose closing it with any formal logged reminder, but sure, I agree with GoldenRing that everyone should get along regardless of what side of the ARBIPA spectrum you fall on. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 5 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 The Rambling Man[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:09, 7 February 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

These are all from between 20:18 6 February 2019 and 00:10 7 February 2019 at WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard:

1. [15]: Speculates negatively as to why the members of ArbCom did not consider desysopping Alex Shih
2. [16]: Questions or reflects on the general competence of (the members of) the Ombudsman Commission
3. [17]: Appears to dismissively question or reflect on the general competence of Natureium
4. [18]: Edit summary and comment appear to dismissively question or reflect on the general competence of Bbb23
5. [19]: Questions or reflects on the general competence of (the members of) the Ombudsman Commission
6. [20]: Appears to negatively reflect on the general competence of Drmies
7. "this is definitively bullying on a grand scale": Speculation about an editor's motivations
8. "You are seeking, very hard, to catch me out at every step of every edit I make": Speculation about an editor's motivations
9. "continually berate me"; "continual accusations": Speculation about an editor's motivations
10. "please stop harassing me, following my edits": Speculation about an editor's motivations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Here and at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Arbitration Committee.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

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]

I literally have had enough of Softlavender's harassment now. I can't take this any more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG[edit]

I don't have much sympathies for TRM's communication style but this request is ridiculous. You need to understand the context of TRM's statements and most importantly, the sanction, imposed by the committee, is not a tool to hunt TRM with. I will urge for an rejection.∯WBG^converse 07:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

Yes, as Sandstein has just noted in the section below, this report is an overstretch. I have watched from afar for some time and wonder if Softlavender now needs some encouragement to leave TRM alone. There are plenty of other people who are capable of reporting should circumstances appear to justify it. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 one's just plain silly. The restriction wasn't intended to police every single statement TRM makes and I don't think any of examples listed above, in context, violate the sanction. I'd dismiss this entirely. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that this is actionable. The first set of edits are, broadly speaking, criticism of Wikipedia governance bodies, and concern the editors at issue in their "official capacity", so to speak, rather than in their individual capacity as editors. It would be very problematic, from a wiki-constitutional point of view, if ArbCom authority were to be used to sanction criticism of ArbCom itself. The second set of diffs reflects disagreements about the sanction to be enforced here. These are not the contexts in which restrictions like this are usually applied (cf. WP:BANEX). Sandstein 07:51, 7 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 Willwill0415[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Wumbolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Willwill0415 (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

AP2 topic ban

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

1. 7 February 2019 Copyediting a politician's article
2. 7 February 2019 Editor should probably not edit in the incel topic

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27 November 2018 AP2 ban for 6 months

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm unsure if the gender ban was appealed. If no, the edit #2 above is a violation of it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Willwill0415[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 Willwill0415[edit]

All I did was put a comma in the Mosler article lol, how is that bad? I wrote maybe a third of the article, and people liked it, so I think Ive been useful to that article. I already submitted an arbcom request and an ANI about the incel article months ago the only people who care about the article basically bullied me and everyone else who wrote neutrally about incels on that article (last year). I got sent from Arbcom to ANI last year, where a group of ideologues and people who admit on wikipedia about a political agenda against incels topic banned me to get me to stop challenging them on the talk page. To repeat myself, Involuntary celibacy as a sociological concept was purged from Wikipedia as a political goal by veteran Wikipedia and ideological feminists that dominate the incel talk page. Its a 30 or so person "consensus" that roams Wikipedia engaging in political fights under the pretense of preserving Wikipedia. Involuntary celibacy as a sociological phenomena isnt dependent on the misogyny of the incel boards. But people claim that is so, and thats utterly ridiculous, and the lack of professionalism of the Wikipedia community continues to astound me. Also, note that love-shy redirects to that incel page full of yellow journalism in a negative-feedback-loop from Wikipedia too. This article reads like an encyclopedia dramatica article. If someone complains about the incel article, theyll probably get topic banned, even though involuntary celibacy (or incels) isnt fundamentally a gender issue. Its a mental and societal health issue as defined by academic sources. Also, my recent contributions to the incel article today were kinda sloppy, but my contributions last year were better.

Statement by Jorm[edit]

Willwill0415 is not here to edit the encyclopedia in good faith. A simple glance at their history will tell you all you need to know about them - including their stated intent to immediately violate their topic ban from American Politics and to the surprise of no one, they've done it.

This will continue ad nauseum.--Jorm (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Willwill0415[edit]

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

• Note As Willwill0415 has continued to violate their topic ban since this AE report was opened, has removed large amounts of content from Incel (twice), and given their previous history, I have blocked them indefinitely. Note that this was not an admin action taken in response to this AE request; I saw the problem as I have Incel watchlisted and have come here after looking at Willwill0415's previous edits. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• User has been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite. User still has an active TBAN from gender issues listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#GamerGate 2, and the edits at Incel are a clear violation. The politician edit is a minor violation of the other TBAN, but I would consider that to be intentional boundary pushing. I would favor reindeffing the user as an AE sanction, over Black Kite's discretionary block. Is that something we can do here, or nah? Maybe it's not necessary, IDK. ~Swarm~ {talk} 23:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bureaucratically speaking we can't do that, Swarm, as discretionary sanctions blocks can only be up to one year long.[23] That may be the reason why the shrewd Black Kite chose a common or garden block. Though I have seen an arrangement whereby a user is blocked for a year per DS, with a regular block waiting in the wings to take over when the year is up. To my mind, there is something displeasing about that.. sort of lawyerly. Anyway, I think Black Kite's indef will do the job, and I support it. Bishonen | talk 03:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Closing accordingly. Sandstein 08:46, 8 February 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

Karumari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Karumari (talk) 18:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of India-Pakistan, imposed at [[24]]

I was informed about it here: that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/882241628

Statement by Karumari[edit]

I have avoided editing articles where other editors raised objections to some of my edits. Subsequently, I have asked on the talk pages of articles if a particular reference could be used as a source before editing any other article. I want my topic ban to be lifted completely as I believe I am refraining from editing articles where there are objections, voluntarily. I have not indulged in any edit war. I am not sure if my links are as they should be-someone please correct them if they are not. Thanks!

Statement by JamesBWatson[edit]

Karumari has certainly made a good-faith attempt to keep out of topics where his or her editing has been considered problematic, and I acknowledged that on his/her talk page when I imposed the topic ban. However, as I also said then, the effect has not been to end the problems, but merely to move them to another topic. More than one section of Talk:Anti-Hindu sentiment shows Karumari unable to understand what he or she is told. To give just one example, he/she seems to be sincerely unable to understand that women entering the Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala because they think excluding women is wrong does not mean that they are doing so to express "anti-Hindu sentiments". Indeed, many of them are Hindus themselves. It may be, in fact, that Karumari's difficulty in understanding the problems with his/her editing will be there no matter on what topic he/she may edit, so that they will not be able to edit successfully anywhere. However, I have gone for a topic ban rather than a block in order to give Karumari a chance to learn, away from issues to do with Pakistan and India, where there are issues on which he/she clearly has strong feelings which may make it more difficult to stand back and see things in perspective than for other topics. I really think that accepting this topic ban, and editing for six months on other topics, will give Karumari the best chance of eventually settling in as a Wikipedia editor, and being able to continue to edit, without either getting blocked from editing altogether or else leaving in frustration because of continually finding that every attempt to be helpful is rebuffed by other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde[edit]

The problem here is not that Karumari has edit-warred, but that they have demonstrated a persistent inability to understand our policies on verifiability and WP:NOR, as is seen here, here, here, and here. As such, I recommend that this appeal be denied; I think Karumari needs to learn how to edit in compliance with these policies in a less contentious area. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by Karumari[edit]

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

• Decline. I think the topic ban is the right thing for this editor at this stage. Go and learn the ropes in less-controversial areas. GoldenRing (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

• Koertefa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Fakirbakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
• any other sanction regarding tag-teaming or forming a "cabal" on Wikipedia

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editors have formed a practical "cabal", with the purpose of fixing what they call "ethnic bias" on Hungarian, Slovakian, Romanian history articles and they have been doing this for a long time (translation sometimes required, google translate should be enough to get the general picture):

Assistance/Collaboration/Consensus building[edit]

• Norden asks for support on Battle of Hermannstadt (was Sibiu at the time)1. The same plea is made to Koertefa and Fakirbakir. Borsoka, Fakirbakir, and Koertefa support it 2. None of the editors had previous input into this.

• Fakirbakir asks for help, emphasizing that it's about a Serb editor and Slovak editor, and asks to make the article "free" again3. Koertefa obliged4.

• KIENGIR asks for help with an editor "disrupting" the Austrian Empire (and bring reinforcements) 5. And Fakirbakir helps6.

• Norden1990 asks for opinions7. And is swiftly supported by Borsoka, Fakirbakir and Koertefa 8.

• KIENGIR again asks for help (some weird things going on, read it) 9 and both Fakirbakir and Borsoka support him 10. The supporting editor had no previous input on that page before.

• Norden1990 Asked for support here 11, and Koertefa obliges 12.

One Team, One Mission[edit]

• How communicating in Hungarian on the talk pages presents certain advantages 13.

• Stubes99 (a sock of his) makes and angry jab at Borsoka. At one point Stubes99 makes a personal attack (several actually) on Borsoka, but the one answering is Norden1990 - who by the way reminds Stubes99 how little he had to add to the "project", and that he's more of a liability than an asset. Stubes99 fights back against Norden1990, angrily juxtaposing himself to the new "star" of the year - Borsoka. Stubes99 fights back and... whatever. Please notice though the "ethnic cleansing on sensitive topics" 14.

• How 15 the team consensus is used to push the PoV they want.

• A rally call, fight the good fight, for the credible PoV.16.

• And how a discussion about a map exemplifies what PoV the team is working on 17. Fakirbakir calls things as they are (which is not a NPOV...). But they go further... and decide to call that a NPOV basically. And you can read about the team's map-creating business here 18.

• Norden1990's temporary departure, and his goodbye to Fakirbakir, Borsoka, Koertefa (which all respond in kind - Koertefa just above the section, Fakirbakir and Borsoka in the section). Some of the administrators here may also notice a pattern - how the block was "unfair" in the PoV of the "team" 19.

• A lengthy conversation on how they must fight against Slovakian and Romanian editors, on how KIENGIR is admiring Borsoka, Koertefa, Norden and Fakirbakir for doing the "right" thing, about how the administrators cannot understand their fight, about how the Balkan and Eastern European mentality needs to grow up and lots of other exciting stuff. About the mission, in general. Very nice read until Borsoka reminds KIENGIR that maybe this is not the right place for such a conversation (obviously).19.

• And last, but not least, a combined activity 20 of the users, that needs no comments, as the list of topics combined with their own admission on what their "mission" is on Wikipedia is more than enough to give the full picture.

Other users whom may give more insight

• Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• PsichoPuzo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Rgvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Koertefa
• Norden1990
• Borsoka
• KIENGIR
• Fakirbakir

Discussion concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

• Statement by Koertefa

• Statement by Norden1990

• Statement by Borsoka

• Statement by KIENGIR

• Statement by Fakirbakir

Statements by other editors with insight in this case

Result concerning Koertefa, Norden1990, Borsoka, KIENGIR, Fakirbakir

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

muffizainu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Muffizainu (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Sanction appealed. sanction case

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

diff

Statement by muffizainu[edit]

The topic ban was initiated after I created the article “Khafd”, which is the Arabic term for the term for female circumcision. Wikipedia has similar pages defining Arabic terms, for example, the male equivalent practice, which is called “Khitan”. The Khafd page was created after a lengthy discussion on the FGM page, here and here. Following that talk, I reverted to doing doing research on the term Khafd, and drafted the page accordingly. In this page, I added multiple credible dictionary references (including Britanica) to define the Arabic term.

I am also aware on the difference of opinion on the debate around FGM vs Female Circumcision vs Cosmetic Genital Surgeries; it is for this reason, and to be neutral, the “Khafd” directed the link to the original FGM page for more information.

I have also pointed out many inaccuracies in the FGM articles in the past, which have all been ignored. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. However it seemed that only one side was heard. In the past few years, more and more academics are having reasoned dialogue around biases surrounding FGM, and I’d be happy to continue that dialogue on Wikipedia.

Going forward in good faith. I propose a lifting of the ban on the following conditions:

1. I will no longer directly make contributions to articles or edit war. I will also not make excessively long debates over any part of content and instead I will use consensus from RFCs where there's a very controversial issue.
3. There was some confusion ie. when I created the new article, the editor did not object to its deletion via proper articles for deletion venue so I had concerns about a single editor redirecting it to another article calling it POV fork where as it was thought to have its own references. In the least it was supposed to be AFD'd. I feel it was unfair to request a ban based on that. I will ofcourse accept any consensus in all regards. I'm not going to enforce my views, this, I can of course agree to.
5. Editors decide content where as admins enforce behaviour as far as I understand. I will definitely be happy and agree to abide by all rules including avoiding any kind of POV pushing which was perceived of me. However, I simply want a say in consensus.
7. I agree to go for new controversial articles via articles for creation process if that is necessary ie. if the admins think it will help as a good faith gesture from me to lift the ban. I can voluntarily do this.
9. I have not violated the ban through the ban period as of yet and want to support Wikipedia with constructive edits.

Statement by AGK[edit]

Thanks to GoldenRing for notifying me.

Reading the appeal, I suspect muffizainu still does not grasp why I topic-banned them to begin with. Muffizainu would need to display a radical change of attitude in order to convince that the problems exhibited in 2018 had been addressed. Consequently, I cannot recommend lifting or amending this sanction.

AGK ■ 21:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by muffizainu[edit]

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

• This will be closed shortly if the required notification of the enforcing administrator is not made. Sandstein 07:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified AGK on behalf of muffizainu. Yes, they should have done it themselves, but repeated refiling of requests due to process defects gets tiring. GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• And this is the sanction being appealed. GoldenRing (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose lifting this restriction. The topic around FGM is an extremely sensitive topic in which there are many different opinions. Wikipedia must be a platform where multiple sides of the story are shared with good references, and that is what I proposed to do. This is pretty much a textbook case of not understanding what led to the restriction. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upon re-reading the original discussion which led to Muffizainu's topic ban, I'm convinced the ban should not be lifted. Also, it seems reasonable to ping User:SlimVirgin for information. Bishonen | talk 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• I would decline this appeal based on AGK's arguments. Sandstein 22:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also decline. As there appears to be a consensus early on, I am closing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 8 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 VwM.Mwv[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

VwM.Mwv (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:A/I/PIA :General prohibition, 1RR, disruptive editing

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

1. 13:14, 13 February 2019 re-addition of reverted material to an article in the topic area
2. 16:20, 12 February 2019 Disruptive editing - using Talk page as a forum
3. 04:12, 13 February 2019 Disruptive editing - reversion of collapse of off-topic Talk page comments
4. 04:40, 13 February 2019 Edit-warring - second re-addition of collapsed section, following reversion of first reversion by a third editor
5. 05:32, 13 February 2019 Edit-warring - third re-addition of collapsed material (subsequently self-reverted)
6. 10:12, 21 January 2019 Editing in topic area, following notification of General Prohibition
7. 21:02, 22 January 2019 Another example
8. 17:00, 30 January 2019 And another

1. 17:57, 9 February 2019 One more
2. 20:14, 30 January 2019 And yet another

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)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

VwM.Mwv is a very new editor (account created on 6 January 2019). Almost all of their 200 edits have been to articles in the Palestine/Israel conflict area, and they were notified of the arbitration ruling and general prohibition on 9 January. Despite this, they have continued to edit extensively in the topic area - a sample of such edits is listed above.

The editor has also been using Talk pages as a forum, polemicising about the subject rather than discussing improvement of the articles. See for instance this edit at Talk:Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne, and several edits [25][26] at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. In the course of thewse edits, the editor explicitly states that another editor is "anti-Semitic".

After I collapsed (without deleting) some of the editor's off-topic comments and the replies, and left them an explanation on their Talk page, they started to edit-war to reverse the collapse, as detailed above.

The editor has already been warned about edit-warring on another article in the topic area, but continued to edit the Talk page disruptively. Under the Genetral prohibition, "Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive". This editor's comments have become disruptive. Combined with the personal attack and edit warring, they cross the threshold for a sanction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning VwM.Mwv[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 VwM.Mwv[edit]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

• Some of his edits for example in Resilience party has nothing to do with the conflict and the article is not marked as belonging to the area the same applies to other articles.
• user:RolandR Did you ask the articles to be ECP protected if you really thing that they belong to the conflict? --Shrike (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning VwM.Mwv[edit]

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

• Clear violations of the general prohibition despite it being explained to them, plus personal attacks. Blocked for one week. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:46, 13 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 Cristina neagu[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cristina neagu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [27] 14 February 2019 Wikipedia is not comparative, it brings to mockery, please read the rules (regarding the EU, I will leave it that way in order Romania to do more efforts) Explanation: Hi Cristina, I don't know why you interpreted as "mockery" the mere fact that Romania is ranked at the same corruption perceptions' level with Cuba and Malaysia - is it not your perception that Cuba and Malaysia are somehow generally "inferior" to Romania and the fact that the perceived corruption level in Romania makes them as "inferior" as them? Mentatus (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
2. [28] 13 February 2019 Look, I was pissed off because our greatest kings, Burebista and Decebalus (Dacian), and Emperor Trajan (Romania) were deleted. Explanation for her psychological drive to perform WP:TE. Our kings? Romanians did not exist back then.
3. [29] 13 February 2019 First came the Hungarians who removed parts of our history in order not to be offensive to anyone, secondly you are coming and you are deleting everything. I will probably choose the most important images, because you know nothing about Romania since you are a Canadian trapper. Explanation: not necessary.
4. [30] 15 February 2019. Heartfelt but totally immature comment, during AE scrutiny. Same applies to [31] and [32] (both same day as the former).

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. [33] 11 February 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and pushes a nationalist POV. A six months topic ban from East-European politics and history, broadly conceived, would be all right.

@Mr rnddude: I agree with a formal warning and subsequent scrutiny. My impression was that she did not get the point to refrain from WP:TE, although she did not lack wise advice.

We rarely have problems with holding opinions off-wiki; we do have problems with on-wiki behavior.

I had agreed with Mr rnddude to let you go with only a formal warning, but then came [34]. Do you realize that you're making yourself a disservice with such statements?

Is [35] supposed to be funny?

About [36] and [37]: do provide evidence for you claims, otherwise you have just made it more difficult for yourself.

Provide clear-cut evidence that I'm using "techniques of manipulation", otherwise you just make it harder for yourself. When I was prepared to let you go with a formal warning, why did you have not seized the opportunity?

Injustice, mockery, false proofs, these are serious charges. But if you cannot provide evidence for your claims, you'll be the one found guilty of casting aspersions.

I have stated My impression was that she did not get the point to refrain from WP:TE, although she did not lack wise advice. What could you have done to avoid a TBAN? Refrain from performing WP:TE, obviously. My two cents are that you have continued WP:TE, but I let admins be the judge of that.

We're intellectuals. We don't listen to mere rhetoric, we listen to evidence. So, sorry, False proofs, I already proved just won't do without providing evidence.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[38]

Discussion concerning Cristina neagu[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 Cristina neagu[edit]

Hello! I am not "nationalistic" user in the terms of battling (patriotic person yes, is this forbidden?), I created 145 new articles on Wikipedia. Thank you, Tgeorgescu, that you are hunting my profile and every words. Then you pretend you are a Christian, because I am really not problematic at all. Burebista, Decebalus and Trajan are part of the Romanian ethnogenesis (Dacian and Romans, Romania comes from "the people of Rome"). See what Britannia says. But I obeyed, it was a talk about a gallery of images. Banned for what, and why so harsh? In 2 and 3 those were my comments indeed but find out we reached the consensus, most likely I agreed with the user's actions and the "spammed" gallery was removed. The user even educated me in Wikipedia rules on nations articles. Regarding 1 I just removed "at par with Cuba and Malaysia", I remember I have seen on some pages the same thing (that comparative notes are not really necessary). I didn't keep going, I had a removal, then a removal with explanation and that's all. The user came back and put it back, ok. I can live with that. Remember, I obeyed every time!!! With everything, I tried to make this work. I am really not problematic at all, just show me from where to read and tell me what I have broken. I have a positive attitude and I will really educate myself more. I accept any decision, just hoping Mr admins will be wise. Tgeorgescu already warned me, but he is a single user, he might have been subjective. Anyway, I still listened to him but maybe I am still wrong in some aspects. If you think I am wrong, dear admins, let me know. Why ban if I was never even warned by an administrator? I just hope women are also welcomed on Wikipedia. In all the 3 cases presented I obeyed the opinions of the users at the end. Battling is a lot said, believe me. We can't have different opinions at all? Did you see wars involving me? Most of the times I didn't have the last word. Ok, I can reproach myself I might have been rude in some comments, and I really do apologise. 145 articles in 1 year and my activity was really light. I try to be human with everybody. Christina (talk) 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some users were blocked for 1 WEEK, FOR WORSE THINGS, examples are at the top. Whilst you are asking for me 6-month block... Thanks a lot! Christina (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! But that was a only a comment on a gallery of images (regarding the images, it was not even written anymore as Romanian king - but Roman soldiers salute Emperor Trajan during the Second Roman–Dacian War (the war marked the downfall of the Dacian Kingdom), I didn't write on the article that and in the end we agreed to keep only some images in order not to spam (I just wanted to keep more photos, including one of Trajan, but we had a consensus not to re-post again the gallery since it's spamming; at the end we kept the Dacian map, the Skull, and the Dacian and Roman Dacia as colony sanctuaries). Yes, TBAN, some other users were blocked for 1 week for worse things. Thank you very much, I consider your comment to be really objective! You see I am as passionate as you on history also. PS. You don't have to agree, but Romania will always consider Trajan as a forefather. We speak Romance language and that's why we pretend we are the descendants of the Roman cohorts, some also mixed with the Dacians (very few). Let's leave this way, Tgeorgescu is trying to twist things up, those were only my personal comments (on the article we did exactly what the other users decided, regarding spamming with the gallery, also previously regarding the content). Christina (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to accuse anybody, but this could be written on my Wikipedia CV. I never had reclamation. This is a like divide et impera following the policy of small steps in order to remove me from the site. First, a warning came from him from nowhere. Then this. Tgeorgescu's opinion about me is probably not good, I am like an obsession. Guess what, he is also a Romanian and we never interacted, that's why I am so emotional! Do you also use another user Tgeorgescu? I love when you report your mates, like I am some bandit of Wikipedia. I only reported once a troll who kept doing that, replacing good info with false info.Christina (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Just that it was off-article, I expressed my opinion but I didn't add it on the article. Just saying... Cristina neaguu (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am really sorry for my reaction and I am apologising again. I worked with Borsoka and Rosenborg fan for many hours on that project, and then the work was removed instead of a talk page message first. Nobody opposed to the spamming (image gallery) after he discussed the matter. You are a very qualified user but you are understimating me as a person and also my work. Btw you are using "much better" words in describing me than I did when I used "trapper". If it would be myself to judge, honestly I would not even judge users like me or you. Because we are a community here, and you can't really say I really break the rules of Wikipedia (I am talking for myself). Forbidding work on a topic, Sandstein? Really? Did you see previously what kind of users we had on those topics? All kind of mockers, I can prove most of them are still active and were never forbidden. Where was you or where were the others to keep the good work of Wikipeda as an encyclopedia and not the mockery site regarding Romania? I have seen for long time administrators banning the Romanians instead of the haters, because they treated the problem superficially. Don't you think I can also request enforcement for some users, but why would I do that since I try to get along with all? And then you call me non-collegial. You draw conclusions from two words. It's easy to talk from the outside. Christina (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC) (Moved here. Don't edit outside of your section again. Sandstein 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: When did you agree? You are not administrator (Mr rnddude is a kind user, a real human being, but I think he is also not), it means you retract your reclamation involving me. And you are pushing it to the limits, I see you are doing everything in order to see me in trouble. One thing I can guarantee, I will check there is no steal of identity in the case of real Mr T. (Tudor) Georgescu of the Netherlands. I will mail him, contact him on Facebook, and I will find out who is the person on Youtube in the video (hoping it's not a big hoax). Because at your profile you pretend some personal things. This can also be against the rules of Wikipedia. Your hatred could be explained, if you have some association with some users on the page of Romania. Because you started hunting me from nowhere, we didn't even edit the same pages. I might be wrong, but what if I am true? Do you think what's strange? You are calling yourself on your page HACKER, threatening with some "hacker manifestos". Great guy, 45 years old and a Christian. Hacker. I ask you kindly to leave me alone, because all the users on Wikipedia could be similar with me if we look up. You just invent accusations without reason. Groundless. I don't care I have a big mouth against injustice, even Sandstein agreed I have a big mouth but I should not be judged here. You pretend you are moral and a man of God! Sure, I can't have an opinion, this is similar to the marxism not to the US/UK societes. They do not put their fist in your mouth. Christina (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Not at all, user Tgeorgescu is hunting me down and is harrassing me. I never had any conflict on Wikipedia (or at least I wasn't reported), I always proposed consensus if somebody wasn't satisfied with my edits and I rarely want to have the last word. Blocking me from an area which I also love, would be an injustice. I am being judged through some comments, not by my actions. In years, all the users had loads of comments like that. Including you maybe. Christina (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: Sure. Regarding 1, the user had the last word, we had no war of reverts. I first edited by removing a very small comparative part (it was so small, for God's sake, I didn't manipulate anything). Then I explained my revert. It was only one revert, then I wrote him on the talk page. Regarding 2. It was independent opinion, on the history of Romania I didn't write that. On photos' description the same. It's like, do what the others agreed and not what you think! 3 I was rude but I reached a consensus with the guy, and he educated me a little bit. I apologised and I am really apologising once again. In the end I understood he had good intention. 4 AGAIN, reporting me for the first 3, of course I was emotional. But I didn't swear anyone. DO YOU STILL CONSIDER RETRACTING THE RECLAMATION? YOU SAID IT. Christina (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: At least Sandstein and Mr rnddude didn't find me any guilt. They stand for justice, even Sandstein, although he didn't like my comments! And I apologised before, and now after. If I would have been such a threat, I would have been commented by many administrators and users already in some days already. Generally from what I saw on Wikipedia, some admins are not interested really to be judges. But to eliminate any potential threat even if it isn't. I will never forget what you did against me, and as a pretending Christian. You harmed an innocent woman and a simple user. A contributor to the Wikipedia, nothing more. Shame on those that stand for injustice. Yes, I am also a big patriot and world's civilisation and culture lover, but not that type of crazy nationalist. Christina (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: How can I love you, when you keep going with the manipulation? You wrote sentences acting like an admin which you are obviously not. It didn't even matter that you brought false proofs. I had 0 complaints on Wikipedia, I feel it's a big shame for me even to be discussed here. In any trial, it would be written "unreliable evidence, solution is resolved by rejection (denunciation without reason)." But unfortunately I can't defend myself like that. 2 users (1 admin) said not guilty, and another 1 user (admin) said guilty. Christina (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I don't "fill" anything, I am not vengeful. I am not on Wikipedia to report users, like you. You came from nowhere leaving on my talk page a "warning", when you weren't even admin. Almost 17 years and my Romanians still didn't choose you as administrator. And on your talk page you sent me to the therapy. Yes, you are pretending you are like an admin, but you are not. It's funny the Romanian Wikipedia knows you. You are making many users leave Wikipedia, Sandstein said something about collegiality. Didn't he? Now after that warning, you are reporting me asking a TBAN. That's very harsh, we never edited together, we never met on Wikipedia. Jesus, I told you it's important for me not to be blocked anywhere! The administrators will decide, I will wait for their decision and that's all. But I might leave Wikipedia for good. I am really opressed for absolutely nothing. A warning for my big and bad mouth (not the worst though) can be imposed. But that's all. I NEVER GOT A REPORT. I could have got an official warning from an administrator, not from somebody who wants me burned on a pillar like Joan of Arc. I would really want to ignore you, but unfortunately on Wikipedia it's not possible. Christina (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: You are just using psychological techniques of manipulation. I see you keep going. First, you are presenting false proofs of my behaviour and ask for a harsh 6 months (you ask a lot to be banned well, or to be surely banned in order to destroy my Wikipedia record which was clean). Then you are acting like you are an administrator. Then you take control over all, proposing ban and insisting with banning me. I am telling you to stop replying, then you start increasing the idea that a ban on politics is just nothing, nothing to me. Which is false, really not true! OPPRESSED? Yes, by you, and also harrassed. Not the Romanians, wtf? MYSELF. You already agreed with a formal warning, but just to know I only think I have a bad mouth. And why did you agree first? Just to picture into the good guy, then to return with accusations. ;) TO INCREASE MY GUILT IN THE EYES OF THE ADMINS! I already read about your page and some of your edits, and quite many of them are psychological. A hacker and a manipulator. Well, you are calling yourself a hacker. Christina (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Because you have no word and the reclamation was wrong first of all. Retract the reclamation if you said it, you will have my respect, everything is fine. I am certainly not a crazy nationalist. I might be a quality contributor, you don't have many on those pages. I was already attracted by history, culture and civilisations, but I was editing handball until I saw injustice and mockery. On some pages there is equity, on the others was not. Just mockeries. I made a lot of friends. I am not having war or reverts, I am not battling just discussing. I rarely wanted to have the last word, I asked for more opinions. Christina (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: You don't even read what I am saying. Do you have problems with your eyes? Mockery has nothing to do with you. I said I started being attracted by those pages because I found mockeries. This was outside our subject. False proofs, I already proved, and 2 guys already voted against my TBAN. Of course it's injustice! You really want to see me banned, don't you? It's talking the rage in you. Christina (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: So Galobtter, top of "my case", was blocked for 1 week. For real accusations and a lot worse than I did. What did I do anyway? Admin Sandstein says he can't accuse me of anything than a big mouth. Compared to you, Galobtter is a real contributor to the English Wikipedia and a jurist. You are hunting positions, when we already have volunteers who met eachother in the United States, whilst I am contributing. This is not the Romanian Wikipedia where you look for that admin job for 17 years, and they rejected you because of your attitude towards users who are gone now. I HAVE 145 ARTICLES, YOU ONLY HAVE 8. Basically I am accused by a non-contributor. HOW CAN YOU BE ALWAYS RIGHT IF YOU DON'T WORK? That's not me, of course. I am a contributor so I can make mistakes. But not against Wikipedia policy. Christina (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: Just that you need to bring real proofs. Because it's full of your personal subjectivism. Christina (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: You can easily use any accusation, about 1000, but without bringing solid, non-weak evidences.. I am sure you will be back. You like my user. I can easily do the same against you, but I am not gonna do that. Against you or anyone who is ok. Your outside behaviour is ok, just your reports are not. The admins will have to understand you really want to see me banned as innocent user, you can't stop, there is something burning in you. Christina (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: With all due respect, NATIONALIST AGENDA? I have barely edited on Romania. And in each town I have edited, I just completed the Antiquity or I have added it. This is incredible what's going on and how you treat me superficially. Some user above me really did bad things and was blocked for 1 week, and I can get 3 or 6 month? After all all who proposed this unreal penance? An administrator or a hunting user? If you really want to punish me, without clear evidence (some users and admins found me no guilt, than a big mouth which can be improved since I only have 1 year), punish me 1 week or 2. Do you understand what a harsh and heavy punishment is even 3 months? Put yourself in my place! I also want to mention I had no report before, 0 official complaints. And now I am with the violators and criminals of the Wikipedia? Christina (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Did you even check my edits? On the talk page, I had an opinion, on the page I left exactly like the other history users agreed. I am punished for some personal opinions which were not added by me on the articles. Do you realise how lame is that? On the talk pages, I can have any opinion I want if my actions don't go against the community. Maybe my history education is the problem, but I learned from this and now I check sources like Britannica and not only (Western). For universal writings. Christina (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude[edit]

Procedural comments: 1) Cristina neagu, comments are to be posted in independent sections. That is, don't post in another person's section. If you need to notify them, use the messaging system (WP:PINGs). 2) Tgeorgescu is pushing for a six month TBAN, not a six month block. A TBAN will prevent you from editing in a specific area of Wikipedia, but will not exempt you from contributing elsewhere.

Comments on proposed TBAN: That said, a six month TBAN is an extremely harsh first step. For one, the issue presented is entirely localized to Romania. I can see no fathomable reason to extend a TBAN to cover all of Eastern Europe which spans from Poland/Croatia/Greece? to Estonia/Russia. Far too broad in scope. But, at this time, I don't really see a need to prohibit Cristina neagu from contributing to Romania topics either. The diffs presented are problematic (I loathe that word), and if persistent might be cause to TBAN. Right now, however, a warning to refrain from posting remarks about users ethnicities, or using ethnicity to further an argument, and to be more civil should suffice. Every editor, who is editing in good faith, has as much a right to edit/discuss any article on Romanian history as you.

Short comment on content: Our kings? Romanians did not exist back then - You can practically ignore the ethnogenesis issue here. Trajan, emperor of Rome born in Spain, could under no conceivable definition be claimed to be a Romanian king. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Cristina neagu[edit]

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

• Well, most of these edits don't indicate much more than some serious competence issues (in terms of the English language and perhaps otherwise) on the part of Cristina neagu, but the "you know nothing about Romania since you are a Canadian trapper" comment is quite a bit more concerning. Cristina neagu doesn't come across to me as the type of knowledgeable, competent and collegial person we want to be editing sensitive and complicated topics. Thoughts by other admins? Sandstein 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Close with a six-month topic ban. Sandstein 12:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Cristina neagu's comments above are the type of nationalist editing philosophy that the sanctions are intended to deter. I support the topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Topic ban for Cristina neagu on all topics related to Romania broadly construed looks like a good starting point here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My thoughts generally align with Sandstein's above. While there is an evident nationalist agenda going on here, it is relatively difficult to pick out from general English-language competence problems. I agree with Mr rnddude that a six month ban from everything Eastern European would be excessive; a ban from Romanian topics I think would be appropriate but don't have a strong feeling on three months v six months. GoldenRing (talk) 09:32, 18 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 Springee[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dlthewave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

RAF910 (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/Gun_control#Discretionary_sanctions

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

Note: This pattern of POV-pushing involves three editors. I hope that submitting them together is not problematic.

These diffs and quotes are merely examples; the entire discussion should be read for context.

1. 30 November 2018 Springee posts at WikiProject Firearms expressing concern that the "Criminal use" list at Glock is "out of control". RAF910 and Trekphiler chime in with POV-pushing comments: "...there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid there is very little we do about it at this time. Just "VOTE and HOPE" that enough editors realize where this is going and are willing to do something to stop it." "If it didn't lead to a change in the law, what impact did it have on Glock? Show that., & maybe it merits inclusion". These complaints are not a substantial consensus-building discussion and none of the arguments are based in policy, however it is cited later as prior consensus. My suggestion to discuss at Talk:Glock was ignored.
2. 30 November 2018 Trekphiler blanks the entire Criminal Use section with the summary "which of these led to changes in law enough to impact Glock sales? none." This is not consistent with any current guideline and seems to be based on a deprecated WP:FIREARMS criminal use recommendation.
3. 30 November 2018 After I reinstated the section, Trekphiler removes it again with a personal attack in the edit summary: "don't need to show impact? it smells like gun-confiscator propaganda otherwise
4. 11 February 2019 Springee opens a discussion: "The list of crimes was deleted last November. A discussion with respect to the list was had here [[1]]. Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. The concern and consensus was this had become an indiscriminate list of crimes with no indication that those crimes were associated with Glock in general. It is not clear that external RSs about the Glock company commonly include long lists of crimes. This isn't to say that a crime section can't be supported via RSs but we should base our inclusion and the associations of any particular crime with external sources about Glock that make that association." This raises several concerns: By linking the editors, Springee is effectively canvassing a group of editors who expressed support for his position; the previous, unsubstantial discussion is now referred to as "consensus"; and Springee is setting a high bar for inclusion, requiring that all sources in the criminal use section be about Glock specifically, an expectation which is not applied to any other section of the article. When challenged, Springee seems to apply a double standard to justify removing criminal use content while retaining information about police and military users: "The list is out of control because it is long, has no content other than "Crime X included a Glock" and is indiscriminate because no justification for inclusion was offered or suggested." (even though the Users section consists almost entirely of "Agency X uses Glocks" entries); " it is common in firearms articles to discuss police and military users" (while requiring that criminal use section be justified for inclusion in this specific article.)
5. 12 February 2019 Trekphiler makes an uncivil accusation: ”This list is nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns. “
6. 17 February 2019 After reliable sources including the Washington Post are provided to support the Criminal Use section, Springee makes dubious claims that they are ”basicallly content free” and insists that more sources be found. This is accompanied by unproductive, rambling walls of text about everything from police departments using Glocks to something about F-150s.
7. 17 February 2019 RAF910 canvasses Drmies, an editor who previously supported removal, and misleadingly assesses consensus by counting votes.
8. 17 February 2019 RAF910 makes a false accusation of forum shopping (I did not start any of the discussions) and assesses prior consensus by counting votes.

Taken together in the context of the overall discussion, these comments represent a pattern of obstruction to the consensus-building process by refusing to work toward a compromise, refusing to accept that consensus may change and setting ever-higher bars for inclusion of criminal use content. The initial discussion on the Wikiproject Firearms page and selective notification of editors raise canvassing concerns as well.

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)

• [39] Springee alerted
• [40] Trekphiler alerted
• [41] RAF910 alerted

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• It should be self-evident that I did not come here to resolve the content dispute. I came here to address problematic behavior surrounding the dispute which has been impeding the consensus-building process. I find it particularly odd that Cullen328's statement consists entirely of their opinion on the dispute and implies that these editors being "right" somehow nullifies the civility issue. The comments presented here, by myself and others, would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia and certainly should not be tolerated in a Discretionary Sanctions topic area.

RAF910 has pointed out some of my writing on the topic and I too would encourage folks to read User:Dlthewave/Signpost_Opinion_Firearms. It is understandable that this may be viewed as polemical, however I feel that it is important to highlight the long-term pattern and I've been careful not to name individual editors. I view this episode as a continuation of the pattern described there. My goal is not to add criminal use to every firearm article or block everyone who disagrees with me. I just want to discuss it in a civil, open manner without being accused of bias.

I find it interesting that Wikiproject Firearms members have repeatedly stated that criminal use is outside the scope of the project (most recently in November 2018) yet the project pages are still being used to provide recommendations on criminal use content and begrudgingly notify fellow editors of "out of control" lists. The lack of interest in developing best practices for criminal use content is one reason that I started the Gun Politics Task Force, an idea first proposed in 2015 by project members who did not want to get involved with political topics. It seems that their idea of "not getting involved" has evolved to mean excluding this content from articles within the scope of the project.

The fact that RAF10 has made only two brief comments actually highlights part of the problem: They have made no attempt to actually discuss the content in question. –dlthewave ☎ 15:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• GoldenRing I attempted to explain the purpose of my Signpost opinion submission above and Whitewashing of firearms articles was an essential supplement to that piece. I feel that it is important for editors to be aware of the long-standing pattern that has been taking place, including in cases like this where the issue is a continuation of something that has been going on for over a decade. I was careful not to include usernames. Is this a sufficient explanation or should we continue this in an appeal discussion? –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [42] Springee
• [43] Trekphiler
• [44] RAF910

Discussion concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910[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 Springee[edit]

I don't understand why we are even here. This is a content dispute. The claim of improper notification Dlthewave made was wrong as APPNOTE specifically says notifying previously involved editors is not canvasing. However, when a few months after participating in said discussion Dlthewave reverts a consensus edit that is a problem. Rather than disputing the consensus Dlthewave ignored it. Since Dlthewave is concerned about improper notification I would point out that the project the editor started has a goal to add content such as mass shootings into firearms article when possible [[45]]. The ~10 project editors have been nearly unanimous in their opinions on such material. Why wouldn't any notice to such a sympathetic project be automatically seen as improper notification? Dlthewave isn't a "bad guy" or anything and, even though I think this ARE is way off base, I think in general they are acting in good faith. However, this is a very inappropriate use of ARE to try to address a content dispute. Finally, I would suggest that Dlthewave's own POV is very strong in this area. Consider that in their Signpost submission, towards the end of their article, they implied that editors such as myself were keeping criminal content out of an article against a general RfC discussion ("To date, the article does not make any mention of criminal use") but neglected to mention to readers that this was due to a new, local RfC that said consensus to not include. If there is PUSH I would say it is in both directions but also, even in Dlthewave's case, all within Wiki policies and guidelines. Springee (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac's comments

LP's history of INCIVILITY towards me should be kept in mind when reading this. The editor was blocked (later lifted with a warning) for their attacks against me. Block log [[46]], related talk page discussions [[47]], [[48]]. Unsubstantiated accusations of COI are certainly not assuming good faith when I have already stated I have no COI in this area. Never have, unlikely I ever will. Also, I'm not an NRA member, never have been. Springee (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:, do not come to my talk page to accuse me of lying here. [[49]] If you feel something I said here was a lie then show your cards. I am tired of your accusations. Springee (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your follow up comment does not show where I "lied". Here is the block warning [[50]] in question. Springee (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional follow up comments

MastCell (talk · contribs), I'm not clear if you are suggesting I've engaged in battle ground behavior. I wouldn't think so. I've tried to engage editors like Dlthewave and K.e.coffman on their talk pages specifically to avoid civility issues. As K.e.coffman said, I have been civil. I do suspect I'm long winded and willing to post my concerns. I can see how that can be seen as stonewalling. You suggested I moved a goal post with respect to the Glock crime inclusion. I don't believe I have. I suggested that the sort of articles that could establish WEIGHT would be articles "about Glock" that talk about mass shootings. Never did I claim that simply finding any example should be sufficient. To K.e.coffman's credit they found two articles along those lines. Not to dive too deeply into the content dispute but the articles are of limited quality and don't draw any causal links. Basically I don't think they provide encyclopedic content. I said as much. I did not remove the new material from the article. I don't see how a civil disagreement on the talk page is stonewalling nor do I see how this isn't part of the process.

(new edit) @MastCell:, I don't think I have ever claimed this is a gun control issue nor accused others of promoting gun control. I have supported inclusion of criminal material in firearms articles (Mini-14, AR-15 style rifle). I can also point to examples where I was part of the consensus that opposed it (S&W M&P15, M1911). In the case of Glock, yes, I felt the WP and VICE articles don't do a good job of establishing weight for inclusion. However, after a sock added a new source I have stated I favor inclusion (but not as currently written).[[51]] I think it's unfair to classify my objections based on weight as some sort of anti-gun control mindset in my edits. Springee (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), I appreciate that you acknowledge the civility. I don't agree with much of what you have said here but I also view you as civil. So first, how do you think my question at WP:Firearms [[52]] would be canvasing? I made no edits to the article but I did raise a question. I suppose you could argue that the sort of editors who watch that talk page are likely to be sympathetic. However, wouldn't that same concern apply to anything posted to WP:Gun Politics, the project Dlthewave started? The few participants listed have been strident in trying to add crime material to many firearms pages. Look at the list of Collaborations and Related discussions. Every case is a discussion regarding the inclusion of crime content in a gun article. How is that different?

Anyway, based on the WP:Guns discussion the long list of crimes was removed from the article. Even now it appears that editors agree that the long, indiscriminate list should not be in the article. Pinging the involved editors when the topic came up again in February was APPNOTE (see Mr rnddude's statement below).

Yes, I did feel the proposal you highlighted at the S&W M&P15 page was forum shopping because less than two years earlier we had a RfC with significant participation looking at the exact same content.[[53]]. I think my view that nothing had changed was vindicated by the result of the recent RfC that reached the same conclusion as the previous one. How should editors feel when people simply ignore previous RfCs?

You said that based on previous AEs I should know about problematic behaviors. I agree. This is one of the reasons why I work very hard to remain civil, even in the face of attacks such as those LP has leveled against me here thus I'm not sure why you would highlight "Personalizing disputes" or "canvasing" given, as others have noted, we are dealing with APPNOTE. I do have a long term concern that is shared with other editors who have worked in the area of firearms. It does seem that some editors really push on the crime aspects by trying to put lists of crimes into every article. I have weight concerns with that which I've expressed with others and even asked Dlthewave to help with [[54]]. What I've seen is many of those editors got frustrated and found that either they did take things too far and violated CIVIL or they gave up and left that article space. So while I think it is incivil to suggest an objective to chase away editors who don't agree with a POV, I can understand why others feel that way.

Additional edit: @K.e.coffman:, I'm sorry that your reply was to back away from an acknowledgement of civil but didn't include answers to any of my questions/concerns Springee (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But I do have a solution: I think one of the best things we could do for this problem, ie should crimes be added to many of these articles, is to visit the question of WEIGHT. I've discussed this a number of times and will throw it out here just in case. Does weight have reciprocity? That is, if A is significant to B, does that mean B is significant to A? In the case of some gun crimes people have argued, "the crime was significant and articles about the crime mention the gun thus the gun article must mention the crime". Other times we have decided that even if the crime was significant and a tool of the crime was significant, that doesn't mean the crime appears on the tool's article. For example, after a RfC it was clearly decided that it was UNDUE to include the DC sniper attacks in the Chevrolet Caprice article. Perhaps if we could answer this question we would cut down the back and forth.

Statement by Cullen328[edit]

I am neither pro-gun nor anti-gun and feel that I am neutral because I have been criticized roughly equally by people on both sides of that debate. But if someone added content to an article about a kitchen knife manufacturer reporting that some criminal stabbed someone with a knife made by that company, I would object. Undue weight. It would be inappropriate, in my view, if someone added content to an article about a company that rents trucks stating that company inadvertently rented a truck to someone who carried out a truck bombing. It would be inappropriate to add content to articles about Home Depot or Lowe's or any other home improvement company reporting that somebody bought supplies there that were used to build a terrorist bomb. All bets are off, of course, if such a company was proved negligent in a court of law. Last time I checked, sales and ownership of firearms remains legal in the United States for the vast majority of adult citizens. And the overwhelming majority of legally owned firearms have never been used in a crime or any act of violence. Personally, I favor universal background checks and other reasonable restrictions on gun ownership so the so-called "pro-gun" editors might be wary of me. But really. If reliable sources report that celebrity X died of alcoholism, and their favorite beverage was Cutty Sark should we add that to Cutty Sark (whisky)? I do not think so. Undue weight and soapboxing. This should be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAF910[edit]

Please read User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions "Opinion: Firearms". Where Dlthewave portrayed himself as the epic hero fighting the forces of darkness. Basically, this is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Advocacy. Also, see User talk:Felsic2/Gun use "Requested move 19 May 2018" where on 4 June 2018 there was a consensus NOT to move this page to Wikipedia:GUNUSE or Wikipedia:GUNCRIME. However, 18 January 2019‎, Dlthewave ignored said consensus and created (backdoor) redirects to said page anyway. This is also clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Also, he is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. And, as you can see he is adept at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Dlthewave's edit history speaks for itself. I believe it's his ultimate goal to get as many "pro-gun' editors as possible blocked or topic-banned, so they cannot interfere with his crusade.--RAF910 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, Thank you for reminding me. On 11 April 2018,‎ Dlthewave started the Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics page with the expressed purpose of adding "criminal use" sections to firearm articles. Again, showing that he is a self declared Political Advocate. --RAF910 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, is wrong. I have made no effort to "to move the goalposts" or " responded with a litany of excuses that seem fundamentally like stonewalling." If you read the Talk:Glock page, the only editor moving the goal post is Dlthewave. I have only made two edits to this page, and only one edit in this regard..."OPPOSE the addition of a criminal use section in any form, for reason already stated.--RAF910 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)". The other edit was..."Starting a new discussion on the same issue, is just another attempt at forum shopping. The above discussion is 2 for and 4 against inclusion of a criminal use section.--RAF910 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)" after Dlthewave restored the "Criminal use" section against the aforementioned 2 to 4 consensus.....Also, how anyone could say that I'm trying to shut down the discussion at the Talk:Glock page with these two edits is patently ridiculous. The only editor trying to shut down discussions here is Dlthewave who is constantly accusing his fellow editors of acting in bad faith and violating Wiki policies. see User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles, User:Dlthewave/Signpost Opinion Firearms and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions --RAF910 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave latest comment confirms that he knows that I have not engaged in any disruptive behavior. He's just upset that I have only made "two brief comments" and that I'm not willing to get involved in long drawn out discussions. He also acknowledges that it's understandable that his edits may be viewed as polemical, but he feels it is important to highlight what he believe to be long-term patterns. I don't know, or care why Dlthewave is here...I want no part of it.--RAF910 (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr rnddude[edit]

Springee opens a discussion ... This raises several concerns: By linking the editors, Springee is effectively canvassing a group of editors who expressed support for his position. Really? Involved editors were myself, Dlthewave, RAF910 and Trekphiler. <- The OP is the second name on the list of those notified, and only four people commented here. So everyone that was there was notified. So there's a falsehood.

Sigh. I couldn't read past there, although I see Drmies is also named. Fascinating that a pro-gun editor should canvass a gun-control advocate. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing - this? it was closed as decide on a case-by-case basis if I recall correctly. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Legacypac[edit]

I follow the NRA article where Springee can be counted on to push a "nothing negative about the NRA or guns" agenda. He denies any COI but from what I've seen the NRA should be sending him thank-you cards and maybe an honorarium for his dedicated efforts. Such volunteer dedication is truly rare. I'm not familiar with the other editors named here. Legacypac (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springee decided to dig up how they managed to turn a comment about their whitewashing of the NRA article into a short, inappropriate and quickly lifted block against me. [55]. I'd forgotten they did that. Just shows how relentless their POV pushing and wikilawyering is against anyone that tries to hold a NPOV line. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Trekphiler[edit]

Personal attack? Seriously? At what point did I even mention my alleged target's username? (Hell, I don't even know it. Or care.) POV-pushing? That has to be the thinnest excuse for a POV push I've ever seen. I do believe the Glock page's "criminal use" section should be remvoed, because all it does is catalog crimes with no particular cultural or historical significance & no impact on any laws, nor on Glock's policies or sales. As such, IMO, including it is POV against firearms. My views on the subject are strongly held, & may be strongly stated. I will offer no apologies for that. So, I would suggest this is an effort to silence criticism or an opposing point of view rather than persuade or achieve consensus. (That "consensus" may amount to nothing beyond a narrow majority vote is a policy matter better dealt with elsewhere.) Since I expect to be held to a different standard from anybody else, as always, I will expect a topic ban, if not an outright indefinite site ban, any second now. So be it. Good riddance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman[edit]

I've participated in these debates and I would like to highlight a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour, the voicing of conspiracy theories, and general failure to assume good faith on article Talk pages & via edit summaries. For example, Trekpiler persists with his theme of a "[gun] confiscator lobby" which the editors who do not agree with him apparently belong to:

WP:GUNS Talk page, February 2018: permalink

• Every time there's a mass shooting, the gun confiscators come out & blame the weapon for the crime.
• And there are evidently some confiscators involved, too, or we wouldn't have somebody trying to put the event on the S&W [Smith & Wesson] page in the first place

Smith & Wesson Talk page permalink

• March 2018: Naah... The confiscators will still rather take guns away from law-abiding people.
• April 2018: As for the proposition the page is written as a promo or fansite page, that is simply preposterous, and smells of another effort by the confiscator lobby.

Glock, Nov 2018, via edit summary:

• don't need to show impact? it smells like gun-confiscator propaganda otherwise

RAF910 expresses similar sentiments, with accusations of "crusades", "missions", etc.

• Colt AR-15 Talk page, April 2018: Now we have editors who have decided that it is their mission to add criminal use section to every firearms article that they can get away with. And, even if they lose today, they will be back tomorrow with another rfc, and then another and another until they win.
• Compare with RAF910's comment in this report: "I believe it's his [OP's] ultimate goal to get as many "pro-gun' editors as possible blocked or topic-banned, so they cannot interfere with his crusade."

Springee is at least civil, but he misunderstands canvassing. This was a clear case at WP:GUNS: Crime list at Glock. He then uses that discussion to claim prior consensus on the Glock Talk page, as detailed in OP's report. Springee (along with RAF910) has also accused others of forum shopping on article Talk pages. See for example, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Talk page, October 2018 [56], four instances of "forum shopping" from Springee and one from RAF910. I discussed with Springee here.

Springee participated in prior AE requests in the topic area, so he should have known about the problematic behaviours highlighted there, such as "personalizing disputes" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Thewolfchild), and "Canvassing amongst project members or by using project pages will be heavily frowned upon" (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive228#Thewolfchild). --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I should qualify my statement about civility as being too generous. Using article Talk pages to accuse others of "forum shopping" is not civil. It's WP:ASPERSIONS. If one has an issue with another editor's behaviour, then article Talk pages are not an appropriate venue. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: re: double standard on sourcing, I do believe that Springee fundamentally misunderstands NPOV and does have a double standard. For example, he argued on the NRA talk page:

• "If the source doesn't provide the full [NRA] response then we certainly can. (...) Yes, it's even better if the NRA has a statement that is a direct response to our news article...." & "I think in most cases we can find articles that say the NRA disagreed but often they don't provide the full statement. If that statement is available we should provide it."

Source: NRA Talk page (a protracted discussion). I was reminded of this 2018 thread because of Springee arguing, a year later, that The Truth About Guns is a suitable sources in the article on The Truth About Guns: WP:ABOUTSELF and qualifications. I don't think that any lessons have been learned. ----K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies[edit]

On the actual matter, well, some of the pro-gun editors have a tendency to be somewhat inflexible, and play it too personal: Trekphiler's comment, cited above, on the "effort to dirty Glock" is an example thereof; I believe this is the kind of thing that led us to the Arb case on gun control in the first place. Another thing that was so important in that case was the...let's charitably call it "quibbling" over what are reliable sources; we see some of that here. And the more you look at that comment, the more reason there is to think that they are simply too hotly involved, throwing shade on good-faith editors. Now, RAF's note on my talk page--yeah I supported removing that section earlier, and it's true that I'm a Nerfgun-toting admin, so I suppose a kind of selective canvassing is possible, but for such a judgment one would need some more evidence than just this one. Finally I'll break a lance for Springee, an editor with whom I frequently disagree (because foolishly they disagree with me), but I believe them to be working out of good faith and with a strong enough knowledge of what we're doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just noticed the comment by RAF cited below by MastCell: oh dear. RAF, that is totally uncool, and the time may come that you will regret having made that comment. Personally, I hope you regret it already, and will retract. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• One more thing, after Springee dropped me a note. The complaint mentions a double standard applied to sources, and Springee seems to see that point at least for this article. I think this thread is probably enough to ensure that they will take care not to argue that way again, and I do not see the need for any sanctions against them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

Why are these editors being bundled like this? The general behauvior of RAF910 and Springee for instance is very clearly different. Are you expecting some kind of a collective sanction?

The content issue needs to be settled for once and for all somehow. It is ridiculous to keep fighting over the criminal use section in different articles. (My opinion is that criminal use should be mentioned when there is a lot of coverage commenting exactly that, like with bump-stocks and AR-15 style rifles, but random lists of crimes in most articles is completely useless WP:TRIVIA.) In the case of Glock, the list of crimes is undue, and Dlthewave's viewpoint was in the minority and perhaps that is why he is resorting to this board.

Dlthewave's first point about canvassing the Firearms project is rather absurd when you consider that he himself has started an alternative task force called Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Gun politics. If you go look at the project's talk page, you will find Dlthewave informing the project about the criminal use RfCs and discussions. How is this any different?

I also think that the userpages (User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles and User:Dlthewave/Hall of Fame) are a violation of WP:POLEMIC and illustrate an uncollaborative attitude, certainly more than anything Springee has done, in any case.

MastCell's comment about the three editors having a "deep-seated partisanship" (and apparently Dlthewave not?) is strikingly biased, and given MastCell's history at AE requests that relate to gun politics and general politics, I have raised the issue directly on his talk page.[57] --Pudeo (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Truthbill[edit]

If there were was so much concern with NPOV they would not object to experts on criminal use such as highly respected criminologist Dr. Blair and Dr. Fox and there studies. But they have because they and there studies contradict there sources of uniformed journalist sensationalism(shown to be belatedly false). And this is what all this boils down to. They wish to have there views presented and when a majority object to this they slowly pester and pester other editors until they then can go run and tell in there attempt to manipulate the system. Editor Dlthewave has even petitioned to remove the two policies that allow a editor to ask others to not post on there talk page.

For any admin to not acknowledge these tactics or there stated intentions for what they clearly are, and then try to condemn editors who get flustered and make some minor infraction that is used to then try and remove this opposition presents the appearance of impropriety, no matter how they choose to frame it.Truthbill (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910[edit]

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

• I am still looking at the dispute. But in the meantime, I would like User:Dlthewave please to explain how User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles is not one big violation of WP:POLEMIC that ought to be deleted. GoldenRing (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, want there a big RfC on "criminal use" sections of gun articles recently? Possibly specific to the AR-15. Can someone remind me where it was? GoldenRing (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Mr rnddude: The very one, thank you. GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• On the dispute itself, I'd value insights from other admins, but initially I'm not seeing any need for enforcement action here. The community have decided that inclusion of such material is to be decided on a case-by-case basis and so there is nothing wrong with the existence of the discussion per se. And at this stage I'm not seeing such tendentious behaviour in that discussion that enforcement is warranted. GoldenRing (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Since I have received no answer from Dlthewave, I have deleted User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing_of_firearms_articles as an arbitration enforcement action for being a violation of POLEMIC.
• @MastCell: I certainly have no objection to the warning you suggest. GoldenRing (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dlthewave: I'm sorry, that doesn't change my mind. Linking to a big list of diffs / discussions and then protesting that you didn't actually write anyone else's username doesn't make this not a POLEMIC violation. "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is prohibited. GoldenRing (talk)

• As a matter of first impression, this looks primarily like a content dispute to me, and we don't resolve these via AE. I advise all editors to keep calm and avoid ad hominems, but the conduct reported here doesn't rise to the level of requiring sanctions, in my view. Sandstein 09:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) (Disclaimer: I vaguely remember once taking part in an RfC or other discussion about this kind of topic, but I don't remember what my point of view then was, or whether I participated as editor or closing admin. Sandstein 16:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
• The current consensus is that criminal use of firearms may be covered in articles about those firearms on a case-by-case basis, so it's correct to call the underlying question a content dispute. However, there appear to me to be significant user-conduct issues in how that content dispute is being approached, and those issues are appropriate for discussion, and possible action, here. Specifically:
  • Dlthewave does present pretty compelling evidence of a battleground mentality on the part of RAF910 ("there are too many anti-gun editors who are pushing a political agenda, and doing everything in their power to gang-up on and ban pro-gun editors. So, despite our best efforts, I'm afraid their is very little we do about it at this time") and Trekphiler (who removed a reasonable edit with an edit summary reading "...smells like gun-confiscator propaganda...", and dismissed apparent good-faith discussion thus: "... nothing but an effort to dirty Glock firearms, & by extension, all firearms. I don't see a "criminal use" section for the 1934 Ford or the Chevrolet Impala. Why not? Because there's a hate-on for guns").
  • In this discussion, Springee and RAF910 seem to move the goalposts. They previously, and properly, insisted on evidence of coverage by independent reliable sources to justify coverage of criminal use. However, when presented with such sources, they responded with a litany of excuses that seem fundamentally like stonewalling.
• I don't think that all of Dlthewave's concerns are substantiated, but a significant subset seem to be based on valid behavioral issues. The RfC made it clear that discussions of coverage of criminal use are legitimate and need to be undertaken in good faith on a case-by-case basis, but the presented diffs show Springee, Trekphiler, and RAF910 trying to shut down such discussions as categorically inappropriate (in violation of the RfC), and attacking Dlthewave in terms that betray their own deep-seated partisanship, when Dlthewave is in fact engaged in appropriate editing and discussion.

  If I'm the only one who sees behavioral (rather than just content) issues here, then I won't push the matter, but I do think there is enough evidence here to justify at least a warning to Springee, RAF910, and Trekphiler to respect our processes and to tone down the battleground mentality. If there are previous warnings/sanctions, then a topic ban might be warranted. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for highlighting the most problematic aspects. I agree with this analysis. Sandstein 23:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This really isn't an AE issue, it's more of an ANI issue. While the Arb ruling on gun control is "broadly construed", I think this is about guns, not control. That doesn't stop any admin from taking an ordinary admin action (based in part on the consensus of the aforementioned RFC), but I don't see how discretionary sanctions could be used here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a gun-control issue because these editors insist on making it one. The evidence shows repetitive accusations that various editors are part of a "confiscator lobby", and that the content disputes in question are motivated by the desire to control and confiscate privately owned firearms. I don't see how one can read the evidence and conclude that this request is unrelated to gun control. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with MastCell. It does also appear that Trekphiler's interactions with other editors are more aggressive than the other two. I too would suggest a final warning on such behaviour with further issues leading to a topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, BlackKite/MastCell, but let's not forget it needs to be a logged final warning. Bishonen | talk 21:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yes, it does. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading through this thread again, it becomes clear that there is no case for sanctions, but a case for formally warning all parties against misusing Wikipedia as a forum for polemic statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. With respect to Springee, Trekphiler and RAF910, the basis for doing so are the reported diffs, and with respect to Dlthewave, the basis for doing so is the now-deleted page User:Dlthewave/Whitewashing of firearms articles. Should such problems reoccur, the editors may be made subject to blocks, topic bans or other discretionary sanctions. I'm closing this thread accordingly. Sandstein 07:49, 23 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 Sir Joseph[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sir Joseph (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. 01:19, 20 February 2019 - title of the section was reverted to version existing before on 19 February
2. 04:18, 20 February 2019

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Edit-notice informing of 1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A 1 revert rule was instituted for Ilhan Omar on February 18. An edit-notice was created informing editors of that fact. Sir Joseph has previously been reverting over this same section header (eg [ here). After making two reverts, the editor was asked to self-revert. The user declined and has been editing since. A clear 1RR violation with a refusal to correct it.

Uh, Sir Joseph, SoWhy said AE was the proper venue, and I disagree that the first revert is not a revert. Also, nobody mentioned ARBPIA here until you did. (since removed) nableezy - 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted to a version from one day prior. You restored a prior version of the article. That is by definition a revert. And you were offered the opportunity to self-revert. You refused. nableezy - 17:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Sir Joseph declined to self-revert prior to being reported to AN3. nableezy - 22:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yall Sir Joseph is still insisting he did not revert twice. He seems to be under the impression that if he does not hit undo then it is not a revert. Our policy however makes that a non-argument. I dont really care if he is blocked or not, but it needs to be made clear to him what is a revert. If it takes a block then do that. But after this thread, in which he takes "not clearly a revert" to mean "not a revert" (even though I disagree on the clarity) and continues to argue over it, I for one am unconvinced that this will not happen again or that he understands that he did in fact violate the 1RR. He was given the opportunity to self-revert. He refused. And now he is indeed wikilawyering, poorly, over what a revert is. nableezy - 17:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Informed

Discussion concerning Sir Joseph[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 Sir Joseph[edit]

This seems to be a bad faith request. As I stated on my talk page, there was no first revert, I made mention to go to Wikipedia:Reverting#What_is_a_reversion? where I changed the wording, which is the normal change not a reversion. MVBW then reported me to EW, and Icewhiz and SoWhy said the same thing. Admin, @SoWhy: explained this diff is not a reversion, and Icewhiz further clarified that the first diff Nableezy is pointing to is from weeks ago and can't be used as the first point of reference. diff I urge you all to look at the timeline of the diffs and not just Nableezy's request, we don't look at the baseline from weeks ago, this article is under 1RR. 1RR means you can't revert more than once in 24 hours. I did not revert more than once in 24 hours. I have also been participating in the discussion at the talk page and this is just playing the numbers game to get their side, which seems odd and disheartening to drag the IP conflict into a US Congresswoman's antisemitic tweets. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SoWhy also said, "Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW." so there is no first revert. Your whole evidence is that I have more than one revert within 24 hours, but I haven't. You can't put up an edit from three days ago and say you must use that edit and not revert. There is no restriction on this page about that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[[58]] Where are my two reverts within 24 hours? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad:, that was in the diff I posted above, [[59]], "Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW" that the first edit is not a revert for EW is clear it's not a revert for here either. My first edit was not a revert and it's clear that it's unclear what is and what is not a revert. Further, I don't understand why BlackKite would point out my blocs from two year's ago, other than to muddy the water. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing:That's not the point. SoWhy and DennisBrown are also of the opinion that my edit are not clearly a revert. Are we to go through an article's edit years or weeks or days to see if a word was there before? That is not what a revert is. That the article may have had this heading two days prior is irrelevant, it wasn't like that at the point I made the edit. That wasn't a revert, it was a general edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: No, that's not how it works. We don't retroactively change edits or intents based on other user's comments on those edits. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• VM has now stated I routinely violate 1RR and game the system. I want admin action at this violation of casting aspersion. It has been shown that his diffs that he provided are nothing more than rubbish. Why can he get away with one of the pillars of civility? Saying that 1RR does not apply to a page that 1RR doesn't apply to is not gaming the system, it's basic Wiki policy. And he saying I routinely violate 1RR is a violation of casting aspersions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @GoldenRing: When someone points out to me that I inadvertently violated 1RR, I do self-revert, if you go through my talk page archives you will see that. That you are listening to VM's 4 diffs is a shame, especially considering his 4 diffs don't show that. I urge you to go though my archive and you will see that when I am asked to self-revert I do so. In this case, I didn't because I did not revert. I edited and as you can see, even the admins are not clear that it is a revert. So there is no need for a block and doing so would be punitive and foolhardy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I have no judgement if any sanctions are required. My only point is that everyone must respect the rules. This is the case when the user made an obvious violation and refused to admit it. Therefore, I reported it to WP:3RRNB, in a hope that admins will explain to Sir Joseph that he made the violation. My very best wishes (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who edits in ARBPIA and American Politics must understand what revert is. One must also be very careful, be able to listen what others have to say, and react accordingly. Based on their responses, Sir Joseph still does not understand what revert is, he is not willing to listen an advice from others, and only blames others (even on ANI) of his own problems. All of that are very clear indications that Sir Joseph can not edit in such topic areas. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

@Newyorkbrad: - see diff at AEW. The first diff was an edit, not an undo, which passed through a state created by a different editor. The second diff is clearly a revert. The article is heavily edited (and just recently placed under 1rr) - to understand that the fist edit is a revert requires examining the edits of others in the page. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek[edit]

Let's cut the bullshit. Dude has been on Wikipedia almost as long as I have. He's been to WP:3RR and WP:AE countless times. Hell, it looks like he jumped right into the middle of an edit war. His edit summary begins with the words "again, her comments are..." (my emphasis). By using the word "again" he is clearly indicating that he is reverting/referring to an earlier version.

He knew, and he knows, it was a revert. That's sort of a point of jumping in to edit war.

Can we please stop pretending that this isn't just bad-faithed attempt at Wikilawyering? Which actually accerbates the offense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, go to Sir Joseph's talk page and type "1RR" into the Archive box. It's immediately obvious that this isn't his first tango. Sir Joseph routinely violates WP:1RR on controversial articles under that restriction, then tries to WP:GAME the rules by claiming it's not actually a revert or whatever other "exception" he can invent for himself [60] [61] [62] [63] (just a few). This is a pattern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Sir Joseph[edit]

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

• Maybe Doug Weller can opine here, since he is the one that put 1RR in effect. As this just got switched over, and the first edit is questionable as a revert, I wouldn't be inclined to take action other than a give a general warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dennis Brown: could you clarify why you think the first diff is questionable? GoldenRing (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm frankly amazed that anyone could claim the first diff isn't a revert. The "allegations of semitism" header existed previously, was removed on 18 February with this edit, was then restored on 19 February here, and was then changed here. It's existed twice in the very recent history, so it's an obvious revert - and the second diff is definitely a revert. So that is clearly two reverts in 24 hours. If anyone thinks I'm analysing this wrongly, please let me know, but IMHO this is a clear violation. I note that the user has four previous AE blocks, although none are particularly recent. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Kite. The heading appears to have been moving in and out quite a bit and the 1RR notice is quite clear. Clear violation. --regentspark (comment) 21:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The first edit may or may not have been intended as a revert, but it becomes one when it is pointed out that the text was present previously. Once that has been pointed out, the intent of the original edit no longer matters, and not self reverting is a violation of 1RR. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sir Joseph: Please provide a link to where SoWhy opined that the first cited edit was not a revert. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Icewhiz and Sir Joseph for pointing me to the link. If Sir Joseph declined to self-revert based on an admin's opinion that the first edit was not a revert, then it would be difficult to justify any sanction here (beyond possibly a warning) even if we disagree with that admin's conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I would agree with, except that the user refused to relf-revert after it was pointed out well before SoWhy's comment. Black Kite (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While there is something of a grey area around what is a revert, I'm pretty sure this isn't that grey area. Restoring a title that was in the article two days ago is clearly a revert; that it is a revert if multiple editors' edits does not make it any better. I appreciate Brad's point immediately above, but according to the diffs above, the refusal to self-revert was more than 12 hours before SoWhy gave his opinion. GoldenRing (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure whether I'm considered involved or not for closing the ANEW thread, so disregard this if you think me involved. But since my comment was mentioned multiple times, I want to point out that "not clearly" is not the same as "clearly not". The first edit by Sir Joseph that is under scrutiny changed a section heading but there is no clear indication that they did so to restore this revision. They might just have come up with the same title coincidentally since the chosen wording is indeed used by sources without knowing about the first such change; Wikieditor1920 also changed the title multiple times afterwards before this change to the title. As such, I was and am willing - barring evidence to the contrary - to assume that Sir Joseph did not intentionally restore a previous version with their first edit. I'd recommend a warning be issued to be more careful and self-revert when challenged because even if the editor in question was not intending to edit-war over the title, the end result is the same and the purpose of 1RR restrictions is to avoid drama and force discussion instead. Regards SoWhy 08:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Sir Joseph should have known better, he has enough experience. I'd call it a revert. However, I'm willing to go along with a warning this time. No excuses if this happens again and probably a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that they should have known better and I agree with what you said regarding the warning. Regards SoWhy 11:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No real comment on the AE enforcement, I don't think there's enough here to justify a block, but to note that Sir Joseph has gone to AN/I and requested a one-way interaction ban be imposed on Volunteer Marek for casting aspersions (note that if he'd also used the term hounding we would have had an ANI complaint bingo). I think that is not a helpful thing to do. Fish+Karate 10:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My view is that decisions about the enforcement of page-level sanctions should be made by the admin imposing the sanction, in this case Doug Weller. Sandstein 11:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[re|Sandstein)) you've said that before. What policy backs this? If that's actually the case and not your opinion, I shall have to go through the logs and remove all my sanctions because I just don't have the time nor am I paying attention enough. Perhaps I should start with this one. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's my personal opinion that admins should only impose sanctions that they are willing to enforce themselves, in order to make sure that they only impose sanctions where it is really needed. Indiscriminate sanctioning can otherwise cause a lot of drama and administrative overhead for other users and admins. Sandstein 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that imposes an unfair burden on Admins as well as a bit of a slur - I don't do indiscriminate sanctioning and I think few do. Coffee may have gone overboard, but he wasn't typical. Doug Weller talk 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to close this with the following text:

There is consensus among the uninvolved administrators commenting here that this is a 1RR violation and that Sir Joseph ought to have known that and self-reverted when it was pointed out to him. Sir Joseph is warned to be cautious about reverting, especially in controversial areas, and that the next similar incident will be met with sanctions.

But the more of it I typed, the more it stuck in my craw. There is no acknowledgement from Sir Joseph that there was anything wrong with his edits, he is sticking to his wide-eyed surprise that anyone could possibly see a problem and has started picking the specks out of other editors' eyes. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Volunteer Marek. The history he points to may be old, but that's sort of the point: Sir Joseph has been around long enough that he should know what a revert is. So I will not close this with a warning. If anyone else wants to, feel free; if no-one else takes action or talks me out of it in the next 18 hours, I think a block is in order. GoldenRing (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requirement anywhere that the to be sanctioned user has to be repentant? Regards SoWhy 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is an expectation that people who have done something wrong understand that they have done something wrong and demonstrate a change in their behaviour accordingly; unrepentance suggests it'll just happen again. Fish+Karate 15:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: No, there isn't, but I'm not prepared to take Sir Joseph's contention that they didn't know this was not a violation at face value; as I said above, he's been around long enough to know what a revert is and it was helpfully pointed out to him. On that basis, a block is in order. I could see my way to a warning if his attitude here was, "Ooops, sorry, I was wrong and I'll be more careful," but it just isn't. As Fish and Karate says, inaction here will only lead to the same problems. GoldenRing (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: I'm not saying I agree with VM about the diffs he presents, but that I agree that you are trying to wikilawyer what is a straightforward 1RR violation and that you've been here long enough to know better. SoWhy has clarified above that he doesn't think there is no violation here, but that he though you might believe there is no violation. GoldenRing (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 1RR was just imposed, and the revert was from an older version which does blur it a bit only because 1RR was literally just put in place. It wasn't an active editing war going, so yes, I'm inclined to just warn and move on. Added to NYB's revelations, this seems the most prudent thing still. Blocking or sanctioning isn't going to change anything, so it would seem punative, or "just because we can", and I can't go for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• GoldenRing, I'd support such a block for the reasons you give. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]