Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive258

SashiRolls

The previously existing "automatic article ban" sanction on SashiRolls is replaced by the following: SashiRolls is subject to a standard interaction ban with regards to Tryptofish. At this time, such sanction will remain one-way per the previous AE appeal. Anyone believing Tryptofish should be again subject to a reciprocal restriction should file a separate request. SashiRolls is topic banned from the subject of genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, broadly construed. SashiRolls is cautioned that more than one administrator below has considered an indefinite block, and that further disruption stands a strong chance of leading to this result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning SashiRolls User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced AE article ban at glyphosate and original AE case for reference Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.[1] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 06:39, October 27, 2019 Violates WP:ABAN at glyphosate and other articles where Tryptofish has edited first.[2][3] Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any June 4, 2019 Blocked for personal attacks in another topic after leaving GMO topic. Aug 10, 2019 Blocked for edit warring and harassment again. June 2017 1-year indefinite block. Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding. Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party. Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on May 20, 2019 by El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.[4] Additional comments by editor filing complaint SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the last AE had tamped down. I won't belabor the previous AE that established extremely disruptive demeanor by SashiRolls in this subject, but short of a full-topic ban, their battleground and hounding behavior led to them being article-banned from all articles in the subject Tryptofish had edited first (Jill Stein being the only current major GMO/pesticide-related article the ban doesn't apply to my recollection). That's also part of a now one-way interaction ban with Tryptofish.[5] There's a long record of disruption, harassment, etc. looking at their block log and other AE-based sanctions. Glyphosate was the center of SashiRolls' trouble May, so there's no realistic way to claim this was a "I forgot" moment, and El C gave them guidance in my sanction link on avoiding an article like this. This is also fairly moot considering the article ban, but a lesser but still disruptive trend is their gaming of 1RR in the subject. The diff above shows their mentality of trying to violate WP:ONUS policy to avoid gaining consensus for disputed material and reinsert it instead when you read their edit summary. Arbs at the original GMO case were clear reinsertions like SashiRolls performed are gaming 1RR.[6]. Edit warring is part of SashiRolls' previous sanctions too. I'd normally just undo a single ban violation like this and move on, but given the last AE and the aspersions, harassment, etc. that went on then, I definitely don't want have to be interacting with Sashi again in this subject, so I'm just asking the sanction not be ignored like this. El_C, Awilley, and TonyBallioni are familiar with the behavior problems through previous enforcement actions, and there were plenty of WP:ROPE (or lack thereof) comments last time this came up in the GMO/pesticide topic. Especially given El C's post-ban warning about battleground behavior in this subject for comments like "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on"[7], this is an editor who should be staying far away from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) To address SashiRolls' comment below on "false claims", just read their Jill Stein AE case filed under both GMO and politics DS for behavior at Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC) With El C's proposal for glyphosate, broadly construed, that would at least cover all the areas I linked above in the interaction analyzer where there were more topic-based issues than just interactions w/Tryptofish including Roundup (herbicide), Seralini affair (centered around a glyphosate experiment), and sections of articles relating to glyphosate at say Monsanto legal cases. We have an identical ban on the books for David Tornheim as an example even though we should be past this point in terms of WP:ROPE and previous sanctions, but it's something as long as there's stiff warning about testing boundaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Recent calls to sanction Tryptofish are in WP:ASPERSIONS territory and continuing the same behavior Sashirolls was stirring up before resulting in / in violation of their interaction ban regardless of the WP:ABAN portion. That trend of Sashi striking out a battleground behavior against editors in the subject followed by WP:POT/gish gallop (also contributing to length issues here) calling for those editors to be sanctioned was supposed to stop with the current one-way sanction by El C at the last AE even if it should be reformulated into a normal one-way i-ban and topic ban. The original 2-way interaction ban between Sashi and Tryptofish was explicitly considered no-fault on Tryp's part, and the appeal had consensus there was no wrongdoing on their part when changed to one-way.[8] We've had multiple direct violations of Sashi's interaction ban easily crossing WP:BANEX into just hounding Tryptofish at this AE instead now trying to directly muddy the water by calling that Trypto's parole.[9], not to mention being blocked here and still continuing their battleground behavior. It shouldn't be any surprise those of us on the receiving end of Sashirolls injecting this into the subject, regardless of specific editor, are getting frustrated the longer they are allowed to do that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Responses to admins El C, I understand the trickiness of the sanction if this had been a periphery article where one would have to search the history as you say, and would be open to leeway in such a case. However, this is the exact article/topic where the previous disputes with Tryptofish happened in May. In terms of "obviousness" for the sanction, this one would be the highest-ranked. A full topic-ban considering the behavior not only directed at Tryptofish would simplify things though. The current article ban wording technically should keep Sashi out of the main controversial areas anyways, but outside of glyphosate and the main GMO articles, that might be hard for Sashi, admins, etc. to track. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC) To be clear DGG, we already established Sashirolls had battleground/advocacy problems in glyphosate-related subjects outside the Tryptofish interaction per the last AE, El C's additional warnings, and Sashirolls' responses here. We're needing some sort of topic restriction as El C said they should have done on second thought of similar coverage to prevent disruption if the current article ban language isn't used anymore (e.g., at a minimum, glyphosate broadly construed) . Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Response to Vanamonde93 *Vanamonde93, I'd normally bring this to a talk page since I'm at the word limit, but this does need to be addressed since you accused me at this AE. I am going to have to ask that you strike the claim I "continue to misrepresent" the Jill Stein AE as those comments were not helpful at the last AE, and you were already made aware you were misunderstanding that AE by the very person who filed it when you made those claims about me. You at least shouldn't be doubling down on that, which has only continued to misrepresent me and inflame the situation further based on Sashirolls' comments here. I was explicit that AE was opened under both politics and GMO DS due in major part to their behavior at Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides before and also at this very AE. Of course I'm going to point out there have been previous sanctions/topic bans related to GMO/pesticide topics. In admin discussion, Laserbrain was clear how exactly the behavior partitioned out under GMO or politics DS shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from [Sashirolls'] poor behavior, as was NuclearWarfare. We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under, but the fact is behavior issues occurred and sanctions were considered with respect to both. As I said before, your comments to me are going in the weeds well past WP:NOTBUREAU territory, so please reflect on the previous guidance you were given about that case and what I've actually said so we don't sidetrack this AE. I can collapse this comment later if need be, but I did need to point this out since it was directed at me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Admins, just a note that this recent comment is a violation of SashiRoll's interaction ban with Tryptofish where they specifically point out a conversation on my usertalk with Tryptofish (though I have no problems with others reading it in context of previously planned content work and dealing with edit warring problems). If you read my comments there, the topic was getting close to a point we mainly had just content disputes and fewer behavior-related problems needing the DS before Sashi's involvement now or back in May. Many of their other comments here are not exceptions under WP:BANEX either. Seraphimblade is on point with describing them as disruptive at this AE with continued pot-stirring comments like that and following editors against the ban. This has been open for ~9 days now, and well above word limits because of that despite me leaving most of Sashirolls unsupported claims unaddressed with myself at ~1k words prior due to these admin comments and Sashi at >2k words. I won't harp on taking things slowly, but problems are piling up related to that. Their continued comments are convincing me my previous support for just a broad glyphosate ban was too lenient and unlikely to prevent disruption as Laser brain brings up, especially as Sashi was blocked once already for behavior at this AE. A full topic ban would at least stop the problem in this DS area and prevent at least a subset of editors from having to deal with their behavior like myself who would rather not be needing to request DS at all by taking limited time away from editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Seraphimblade, just for procedural clarification based on your comments[10][11], but I believe that's saying anyone could implement a wider topic ban without lifting the old sanction if that's the procedural concern? I wonder if bringing up specific language in the admin section would help bring things to a close? Tryptofish already provided standard template language here for clarifying the interaction ban and a standard topic ban for this DS area. That said, that topic ban alone on top of El C's old sanction should functionally do the same for simplicity's sake unless I'm missing a detail. If considering options is why action hasn't been taken, the above could be proposed below as something concrete to consider acting on unless admins suggest better concrete options. Maybe that would help to get things moving forward. I'm on extremely limited time this week, but if there's anything I can clarify as the filer on topic scope if need be, I'll try to do so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Seraphim, that should work, especially considering El C was clear they wanted an article restriction with the topic ban due to the behavior back in May (e.g., you could ignore all the problems that came up at this AE and it would still be a valid sanction change). Though just being clear that when you say GMO, you mean the general DS language provided for topic scope including pesticides etc. Some admins have forgotten in the past that the GMO case included pesticides, etc. and there has been confusion with topic bans when someone logged the official sanction as just GMOs while intending to cover the whole topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [12] Discussion concerning SashiRolls Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by SashiRolls All Hallow's Eve collapse I have made a grand total of one (1) edit to glyphosate or any other article related to Monsanto since being given a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. I did not get involved with Tryptofish in any way and did nothing which could remotely be considered wrong. I reverted an edit once and only once for which there was no established consensus. This is quite clearly bullying by a page controller.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Also please note that I have never been banned on the basis of GMO for anything. This was explained to KoF by @Vanamonde93: the last time KoF brought me to AE in order to remove an inconveniently conscientious editor from the subject area: Kingofaces43, why are you claiming that SashiRolls has been sanctioned under the GMO DS before, when that's patently untrue? (source)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Here they are again, continuing to make the false claim, hoping everyone will have forgotten. The result of the AE case was a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. Again, I did not interact with this person. I reverted removal of information reliably sourced to the New York Times once. This should boomerang. I recommend an AE-ban for KoF as a result of their repeating accusations that have been previously identified at AE as being "patently untrue" in an effort to smear my reputation. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC) I have removed the edit (§) now that I have been (for the first time) informed that someone thinks I do not have the right to make it. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except those who read the sources) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Also, with regard to this baiting behaviour at RfA 1 (ignored, then repeated: 2). I believe the 2-way IBAN should be reinstated as per Tryptofish's own statement: Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Up until now, I have not commented on this baiting behaviour (making false claims to which I am prevented from responding), but I assume since the 2-way IBAN is being used against me here I have the right to speak about it. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Will just add Tryptofish's first baiting comment, appropriately enough at Wikipedia Talk:Harassment (10 June 2019: less than 5 days after getting wiki-friends to help him wriggle out of his well-deserved "no fault" IBAN). The claims are, obviously, false. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC) I also am, of course, aware that El C described the 2-way IBAN as being assorted with multiple ABANs, however did not log it as such (since this would have been a draconian sanction unwarranted for no wrong-doing, which I could have successfully appealed were it on the books). What we have on the books is a 2-way ban that Tryptofish couldn't accept and so had to wriggle out of. Above are two clear examples of Tryptofish referring to me obliquely. By his own admission below, absolutely none of my subsequent edits prior to the opening of this case have referred to him (even obliquely), including the reversion of KoF's removal of the person identified by the NYT as having requested ghost-writing help from Monsanto for his Forbes article. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Someone should really sanction Kingofaces43 for contempt of AE. Fact check use of the word battleground in the original case: Kingo: 8,admins:0 use of the word advocacy in the original case: Sashi: 1 (speaking of KoF), everyone else: 0. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC) @El C:: No that is obviously not OK. You have yet to study the very clear evidence, despite the fact that you edit en.wp 13/24 hours a day https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-timecard/en.wikipedia.org/El%20C (mostly in vandalism removal). Please provide evidence of any disruption. Topic banning me for removing obvious whitewashing is just going to confirm the general opinion that en.wp admins are not to be trusted. You seemed not to like me pointing out the clear ownership behavior on the talk page... (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Glyphosate). One wonders why. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Like I said El C, demonstrate that this double jeopardy is warranted, despite the fact that Trypto has been shown to have been spreading false rumors about me just above just as I have shown that KoF is making stuff up above. You need to recognize where the real problems are, which requires study, not video-game style vandalism reversion. You need to study the texts. Please indicate which texts you have read. Have you read the NYT article in question, for example? Do you think @Sj: was wrong to follow up my edit as he did given there was no consensus for KoF's edit? I happened to see the page on my watchlist, saw how silly the whitewashing was, saw there was no discussion on the TP associated with KoF's "authoritative" removal and acted. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC) El C: I simply want you to encourage you to reflect. RfPP is a page where you count the number of IPs who have vandalized and decide whether page protection is necessary. That's a good thing to do. I know I've appreciated seeing various pages I am one of the principal authors of protected. The 3RR noticeboard is in general a question of counting the number of reverts to see if it goes beyond 3. Writing an encyclopedia also requires in-depth study of sources. That's what I do. That's also what you should be doing here, rather than "policing tone" of someone reacting to the two complainant's blatant misrepresentations. As shown above, there is an example of one just three sentences lower ("I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls"). TF has referred to me disingenuously on more than one occasion on very public pages (RfA, WT:HA) and should stop doing so. Look at those diffs, please, and tell me explicitly that you think they are OK, please. Please also confirm that KoF's repeating "battleground" 8 times in his initial complaint was OK too (cf. Psychological projection).(their 1RR complaint was rejected by everyone who looked into it, even TF). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I have, of course, not said that Trypto "baited me into making an edit on glyphosate". As one who has been harassed (by Cirt, by Trypto who has shown up to every significant noticeboard discussion I've been involved in, including, of course, this one), I have WT:HA on my watchlist and participate there in an effort to improve the toxic en.wp environment. I also have every right to participate in RfA without having aspersions cast on my actions. NB: in neither case did I dignify their pot-stirring with a response (nor did anyone else). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC) El C. Please refrain from calling adding another smoking gun diff "refactoring".🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I don't understand what you want El C, but I would appreciate that you stop calling me "the user" (as you do below) and saying weird stuff about refactoring code. The former was one of CIRT/Sagecandor's depersonalization tactics. I am a person and the above is not code. I have the right to defend myself... and since you have provided the "smoking gun" proof that I added a diff showing Trypto insisted on getting an answer from an RfA candidate about something concerning me that the RfA candidate could no longer see (not yet being an admin), we should be good. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Fact checking KoF who said "We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under", I discover that in fact it was only KoF who said this (talking about events from over 3 years ago, for which time was served for any "wrong-doing"). Again, this should be closed with a ban from AE for Kingofaces43 (contempt of AE) and the reinstatement of the 2-way ban with Tryptofish, and the reassertion of what is logged (a 2-way IBAN only) without going back and changing what is logged. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC) El C has provided a link below (§) which is unrelated to this case (to a comment made on my TP by a user entirely uninvolved in this discussion). In fact, El C probably wants other admins to see that another person KoF prosecuted commented on my page just after El C cherry-picked a line from a paragraph I wrote (without providing the context). El Cshould have provided the link to the context (Talk:RFA, where Trypto had been trying to encourage admins at RfA to get involved (cf. WP:CANVAS) in the case KoF had just filed and on which Trypto had commented just two hours earlier). Here is the full statement in context. I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling, or why they chose to link to a 3rd party commenting about Tulsi Gabbard on my page. (Incidentally, I just helped en.wp by providing strong evidence of an LTA sockpuppet acting on that page who has now been blocked (months after being temporarily blocked for harassing me with their first edit to en.wp)) The nonsense about GMO & Jill Stein is just that. Trypto later boasted about coming to Jill Stein to hound another user I have followed the edits of editors who were parties to the GMO ArbCom case [...] and I observed that one such editor made an edit to this page that violated the DS, so I came here and corrected it. source (in fact he didn't "correct" anything in mainspace, Victoria Grayson did... but that's not overly important). Read Nuclear Warfare's comments and tell me where he talks about GMO. He doesn't. at all. He and only he decided the 6-month topic ban. The question was about sourcing of a sentence about 3rd parties, and about my inexperienced efforts shortly after I first became active on en.wp 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I would suggest KoF start a clean request which recognizes there is no TBAN or ABAN logged anywhere. Too many words have been spilled into this page and several others because of this request. In any case, I will not be participating further for at the very minimum 3 days. I have 40 or 50 pages to translate this weekend. Sorry. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Final Statement So a few people had comments this weekend. I'll take a break to reply. One of the commenters I am only allowed to respond to here because of the fact that KoF filed this case, (erroneously) alleging a violation of an IBAN, because I reverted his deletion of another person (SJ)'s edit. That commenter (Mr. Trypto) has recently written over 9.3K in this thread and 8.4K in another discussion thread about things concerning me. Despite my conciliatory efforts to get him out of my hair (I offered to delete the evidence page, for example, and hatted any reference to him on this page), they didn't take the hint and continued adding more and more comments to this noticeboard thread, and spreading disinformation about me at deletion review: e.g. "SashiRolls is also banned from GMOs" (source). Let's read his words again: "I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction [2-way IBAN], it will be reinstated." --Tryptofish: 20:35, 5 June 2019. Again, after bringing an initial case against me at AE in 2016, he has followed me to AE at least 4 times: twice for Cirt (Christmas 2016, May 2017), and twice in 2019 for Kingofaces43. He was particularly involved in lobbying against the CIRT unblock in 2018 ("strongest possible oppose") at AN, and followed me to AN/I with scary fish pictures. Since his part of the IBAN was lifted, he has opened discussions about my actions at RfA, alleged that "someone" hounded them at WT:HA, and said demonstrably false stuff at deletion review in addition to lobbying for sanctions here. Perhaps Trypto himself, in the interest of fairness and the sheer volume of evidence, will voluntarily submit to the reinstatement of the 2-way IBAN given his difficulty staying away from me / not talking about me. Nope, Tryptofish has indicated he won't take responsibility for his actions. (actions = fishing for sanctions at noticeboards, speaking of which, I forgot to mention their comments on Kolya's unanimously rejected ArbCom case.) Meanwhile, Laser brain is miffed. Laser brain has done 1/6 of the work I have in mainspace this year. I have never seen him on a single page I've contributed to, suggesting he might not be an expert on my skills or lack thereof. Tony Ballioni says he has nothing to say about this case, but has taken the opportunity to make a speech about making sanctions clear. What could be clearer than a 2-way interaction ban? Certainly not a 1-way IBAN which sanctions the victim of a demonstrable pattern of noticeboard fishing. Regarding glyphosate I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last three months. My prediction is that it will be hard to find, because it doesn't exist. Many of my additions this year have remained (or were moved to another related mainspace page by an admin). It's difficult to see what the complaint is. Here it appears to be that I reverted Kingofaces43 once and reverted my reversion as soon as it was suggested I should, which I would submit is not nearly enough to topic ban someone. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC) I appreciate the link added to a previous case I was uninvolved in. This helps to explain why Laser brain & Seraphimblade showed up here (they were involved in that case). Also I think folks should be aware of this free-ranging battleground strategy discussion between KoF & Trypto on 31 October 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I do not believe anyone spoke of removing the IBAN. I certainly didn't. This thread demonstrates very clearly that a 2-way IBAN is the only way to get Trypto to stop lobbying for sanctions even when no evidence of disruption in the glyphosate topic area has been produced. It's funny how some are then trying to conflate glyphosate + surfactants with GMO. I was just reading a blogpost about the state of the GMO "battleground" back in 2013 (after reading the Kingofaces43 v. D. Tornheim case Trypto linked to). All I can say is that I'm glad I've never edited in the GMO area. (Upon further analysis, I see that the Séralini affair was added to the GMO topic area five days after my last edit to that article.) The connection between a pesticide and a genetically modified organism is pretty slim, I would have thought, but reading Gen. Fish's battleplan (above), I see that blurring the boundaries is part of the gameplan. It appears that if you once add RS like Le Monde or the NYT to the "glyphosate" or "Séralini affair" entries you can now be banned from writing about thousands of entries on food, agriculture, and weed/bugkillers, broadly construed? Na, surely people have more sense than to magnify 0 violations in a topic area into a ban from a wider one... Speaking of good sense, maybe someone will come along and observe that trypto quite clearly has violated the terms of his parole in this very thread (as well as in several other highly visibile venues: RfA, WT:HA, DRV). !vote 2-way IBAN and everyone wins. Maybe even topic-ban KoF & Trypto from GMO for their over-investment in the topic area and watch the sky not fall. It only requires a little courage. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Diffs: DS/GMO talk page notices were added to glyphosate on 21 May 2019 & to Séralini Affair on 21 May 2019 (at my request, since it was being claimed I should have known that these pages were part of the GMO topic area, yet there was nothing on the talk page or the mainspace page showing that...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Of course, Trypto doesn't want anyone to realize that it is very problematic not to be telling encyclopedia readers about the special regime of sanctions cooked up. I believe that it was decided that standard procedure for pages related to a topic was to put a talk page notice on those pages. Neither glyphosate nor Séralini affair had such a notice. Regardless, I violated no special GMO rules on the page, either in May or since. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Yes! Trypto has provided a diff! Now, how can this diff from 10 May 2019 be construed to violate DS? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Fact: the reverted edit was moved to Monsanto legal cases here (by an admin) without there being any disruption after discussion on the talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Disclosure: During this long period of being roped up here, my arms have grown tired. As a result, I have asked Darwinbish if they would like to come gnaw on anyone's ankles. (§: I'll stay here in the stocks, y'all can get a head start for the hills, if you want.) Case Summary: 20:34 26 Oct SJ added referenced information about an op-ed written for Forbes by Henry I. Miller with the help of Monsanto. 00:46 27 Oct KoF removed "ghostwriting" language used in the NYT article, the name of the person involved and the date of the Forbes article. 12:39 27 Oct I reversed KoF's removal of information, not finding an active discussion about it on the TP 12 hours later. 17:26 27 Oct KoF filed an 8.6K complaint at AE 18:59 27 Oct I reversed my 12:39 27 Oct edit at the first opportunity to do so. 13:38 10 Nov: 15 days later, after the typing of >100K, the AE case concerning this single edit has not been decided. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Tryptofish I'm going to try to make this simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Facepalm . I guess I'm glad that I was not logged in when the edit to glyphosate happened. But, good grief! First of all, I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls, even after the IBAN was revised to 1-way, and I am aware of this AE only because I was pinged. But I've got to wonder: why didn't SashiRolls just say here something like "woops, that was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again"? (He did self-revert in response to this complaint.) This is the first time that SashiRolls has violated the "letter of the law" of El C's IBAN, but it is unambiguously a violation. I will note however, that SashiRolls has also shown up, after the IBAN was in place, at WT:HA, where I have long been a very active contributor. Here's a permalink to the current version of that talk page: [13]. If you just do a very fast skim of it, you will see me showing up in nearly every thread. But when you get down pretty low on that talk page, when you come to WT:HA#Abuse of Administrative Boards, there he is. I stayed out of the thread that he started, and the next one, until what I describe next happened (even though this happened after the IBAN had been changed to 1-way). In a later thread, I was discussing some things with TonyBallioni: [14], [15], and then SashiRolls replied directly into that part of the discussion: [16], taking up the thread of "opposition research" from Tony's reply to me. I found that a bit uncomfortable. I did not make an issue of it, because it did not, strictly speaking, violate the "letter" of the IBAN. He wasn't replying directly to me, and a case can certainly be made that he could have had a legitimate interest in the harassment policy, and El C's IBAN was written only in terms of mainspace, for the entirely valid reason of not applying to noticeboards, and this was policy space. It sure looks to me like testing boundaries. But, as already noted above, it is simply preposterous to argue that it was not obvious that glyphosate was part of the IBAN. The original conflict that led to the IBAN took place at that very page (along with the related Séralini affair). And SashiRolls has actually said that he knew that glyphosate was included in the ban: [17]. And, for a topic area that ArbCom placed under 1RR, the tone of the edit was clearly battleground-y. It's a violation of the existing 1-way ban, no matter what modifications anyone might consider for the future. For the future, changing it to a GMO topic ban, in part, might be helpful, as might, in addition, making the 1-way IBAN a traditional 1-way IBAN. But whatever you do, please do not eliminate the 1-way IBAN with me. I don't need any more of this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC) @Admins: I think that a TBAN just to glyphosate would be a mistake; it should instead be a TBAN over the entire GMO DS topic area. For example, the run-in with me very much also involved Séralini affair. Also, it would make little sense to topic ban from glyphosate but not from Roundup (herbicide). (The DS topic areas of previous AE complaints are irrelevant here.) And I do think there needs to be a TBAN in addition to the IBAN, because otherwise I have no doubt that I will find myself with Tryptofish-only and SashiRolls-only talk page sections going on simultaneously at multiple GMO page talk pages (and I think everyone agrees that asking SashiRolls to look at long-term page edit histories is suboptimal, so it needs to be topic-based). My experience so far has been that the GMO area is the only topic where I've had problems that would not be easily covered by the IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I have absolutely not baited SashiRolls into making the edit at glyphosate, which is what this AE is about. I haven't baited him anywhere else either, but if he feels mistreated he can open a separate complaint about it. (Otherwise, it's just deflection.) And a great way not to be troubled about anything that I post would be to stop following me around and reading what I say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Following up on some recent comments: @El C: About your burnout-related comments, that's the way (but as a non-admin) that I've been feeling for a long time about my own interactions here. 'Nuff said. About the TBAN scope, though, whether "light" or not, I really would strongly encourage you to simply follow the scope of the GMO DS (which include carefully crafted wording about "agricultural chemicals"). That definition of scope was worked out with much effort over a monster of an ArbCom case and a subsequent amendment, and has been working very well. There is no need to try to reinvent something new. @Vanamonde and KofA: I personally like both of you very much, and I hope we can all lighten up a bit about the topic area for Jill Stein. As I understand it, the earlier sanctions were logged under AP2 and not GMO, but arose from the GMO section of the page (a BLP of an AP politician). The complaint we are dealing with here, however, is focused on one edit at the glyphosate page, but with too much noise in the background. The nature of this complaint leaves everyone including me feeling irritable, but I think both of you are acting in good faith. Peace. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I want to briefly address Levivich's comment. At least some of it might be true, if what we were talking about were a standard IBAN. But it wasn't. One thing that I think everyone, including El C, agrees about is that the sanction that El C imposed (I'm talking about the original version of the IBAN, not the brief indef) was a Rube Goldberg improvisation that should be cleaned up here. Let's be very clear what was, and what was not, in effect at the time that this AE was opened: Here is El C's original statement of the sanction: [18]. Quote: either of you are subject to an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first. That was not subject to any exception based on the momentary context. Subsequently, the sanction was lifted for me, making it a 1-way sanction applying to SashiRolls. Thus: SashiRolls is prohibited, full stop, from editing any page that I edited first. And SashiRolls knew that glyphosate was such a page, because he said so himself: [19]. And Levivich knew it too, because he too said so himself: [20]. And both of them ought to remember it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC) The tl;dr: SashiRolls was banned from editing glyphosate, and he knew it: [21]. But he chose to thumb his nose at that sanction: [22]. That's it. It's just that simple. All the rest is noise, or intentional misdirection. What remains to be done now is to fashion a resolution that keeps things peaceful between him and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC) During the brief indef block, SashiRolls posted at Wikipediocracy that he thinks that I am trying to get some negative information about Monsanto deleted from the glyphosate page. At the time he posted that, here is the single edit that I had made, to the talk page: [23]. Judge for yourself. So what we need is: (1) a standard 1-way IBAN with me, and (2) a standard TBAN from GMOs, with the scope defined in the standard way devised by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC) +1 to what Tony Ballioni said. It's above my pay grade what you all should do more broadly, but whatever you decide, I want this user to be kept away from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Admins should consider self-awareness and willingness to accept responsibility. (And noting: [24].) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Since Jusdafax wants to enable Levivich who wants to enable SashiRolls, I think admins should be reminded of this: [25]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC) This request has been open since October 27, and is starting to look like a festering wound. I'm tired of logging in every day to see whether anyone has made a decision. So I'm going to try to make this real simple. As for the existing sanctions against SashiRolls that affect me, I request that you make two (2) changes: Change the existing 1-way sanction that is about SashiRolls interacting with me to a standard 1-way IBAN. Change the existing ABANs that apply to SashiRolls to a standard TBAN from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. And that's it. I'm pretty sure that all of the admins who have commented so far (other than Sandstein's stated intention to close this) have already indicated support for these two adjustments. As for any additional block or other sanction, I don't care. I'm not looking for punishment. Just a better way to stop the disruption as it affects me. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Swarm, DGG, Vanamonde93, Laser brain, TonyBallioni, and Seraphimblade: This discussion has been open too long. Please simply enact what I describe just above. It will be easy to do. And if you cannot do that, please explain to me why you cannot do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Some recent comments about the threatened close, but now no longer what should be the focus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I am very worried that admins have not responded. It seems to me that almost all who have commented have said that they recognize that there is a significant long-term problem here, and that even the conduct during this very AE discussion was poor. El C has given a go-ahead for anyone else to act. I really think I see a clear consensus to act, but indecision as to exactly how to do it. I think it would be a travesty if this were closed with no action taken due to indecision. I request that Sandstein please be a little flexible about not closing this report too soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Also, Sandstein has said below: There seems to be agreement that the current sanction does not work and should not be enforced. In the event that anyone closes this request with no action taken, I think that there absolutely needs to be an accompanying clarification. Does the result mean that all sanctions on SashiRolls are now lifted, and SashiRolls is free to act as he wishes, or does it mean that the existing sanctions, unmodified, remain in effect, and can be enforced? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks for that reply, Seraphimblade. That is also my understanding of how things work. But I was really quite shaken by the things that Sandstein seemed to be saying, and I also did not want to see a close that would later get wikilawyered. (In fairness though, I do agree with Sandstein that this request has stayed open too long.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Recent replies to other editors, not particularly essential unless you want to see what my rebuttals were. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @Levivich:I know you asked Seraphimblade, not me, but all you really need to see is what SashiRolls has said right here on AE, including today. And if you have to ask why that indicates disruption, well, you'll never know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC) @Levivich: That's not what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) And as we add Mr. Ernie to the group of enablers, I don't recollect such a "thank", but I suppose it might be possible. Here is the only edit Mr. Ernie made at SashiRolls' talk page in June: [26]. Judge for yourself: it was a rather negative comment about me, and I was under absolutely no restriction at the time. There is no parity between that, and what SashiRolls has said right here at AE while under restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Here's the relevant diff of SashiRolls being aware of GMO DS: March 30, 2019. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC) And if the issue is awareness of which pages were about GMOs broadly construed, here's May 10, 2019; look for "agriculture, pesticides, GMOs". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I want to thank Seraphimblade, and I hope that this will be the resolution. I find it interesting that another editor mentions an appeal to ArbCom. I decided yesterday that, had no one decided to close this complaint by today, I would request an Arbitration case, so I'm quite prepared for such a case. Do keep me informed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nblund Just going to butt in here: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I'm definitely involved with regard to SashiRolls. I think this interaction, my previous experience at ANI, and the even older AE discussions linked above point to a consistent pattern of asserting incredible levels of bad-faith on other editors in topic areas involving left-wing anti-establishment politics, while simultaneously demanding the assumption of good faith for his own actions. Most discussions I have with SashiRolls contain multiple variations on the theme in the final sentence of his comment to EL_C here: an over-the-top, evidence-free, non-specific allegation of malicious intent that is guaranteed to derail the discussion if anyone bothers to address it. By the same token: I suspect that everyone pretty much recognizes that SashiRolls' off-handed accusation that Tryptofish has "harassed him" (here) is absurd, and yet — because it has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute — it sort of just slides by without a remark from anyone. It looks to me like that problem has been ongoing for years, it hasn't improved despite multiple sanctions, and, yes, I suspect it has gone unaddressed partly because the admins most familiar with the behavior end up feeling burned out and/or emotionally involved after being on the receiving end of it. I understand it would probably be draconian to suddenly turn this AE request in to a referendum on SashiRolls' long-term behavior, but I just want to note that what is on display here is more-or-less the norm, and I really doubt a topic ban will address the root problem. Nblund talk 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Statement by Levivich I appreciate El C erring on the side of unblocking. This report should be closed as no violation. It is based on one diff: this one, which was restoring sourced content that KofA removed here. This is not an edit war, this is one revert. It's not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp, because it's a revert of KofA, not Tryp. It's not a violation of a TBAN because there is no TBAN. It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded. So, there's no violation here. It reads to me that when Sashi reverted KofA, KofA's response to that was to take Sashi to AE, and allege it was a violation of a TBAN that he had already had explained to him did not exist. This is the weaponization of AE, and it should be discouraged. Sashi hasn't edited that article or talk page since May, and one revert gets him reported at AE? I find it outrageous. Finally I note that on Sep 27, both Sashi and Tryp (along with other editors) were pinged to a thread (about a content dispute involving KofA, incidentally). Tryp posted in that thread; Sashi did not. That's evidence of Sashi complying with the IBAN even though Sashi doesn't agree with it. Reverting KofA's edit was not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp. Unless there is evidence of Sashi violating the IBAN since it was imposed, this report should be closed as no violation. Also, before we institute a TBAN from a topic area, we should probably have some diffs of disruptive editing in that topic area from, say, within the last 30 days. – Levivich 03:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC) @Tryp: perhaps you missed the part where I wrote "It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded." Not sure where you got the idea I didn't remember the ABAN. What I find simple is this: Sashi hasn't violated the 1-way IBAN since it was instituted. Ergo, there is no further sanction that is needed to keep things "peaceful" between you two, because things are already peaceful. Unless you have some diffs of recent disruption to share? – Levivich 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: What diffs are there showing disruption since the one-way IBAN was instituted? @Tryptofish: A diff from May? Seriously? You're wasting people's time. The one-way IBAN is obviously working fine. Sashi hasn't interacted with you since then and isn't even appealing it or anything. If you want Sashi to leave you alone, as you say, and they have been leaving you alone for six months, why do you keep posting here? – Levivich 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: You cannot institute a TBAN against an editor with zero diffs of disruption. You can't TBAN someone today for something they did six months ago, if they haven't continued doing it since. To do so would be a blatant abuse of our policies, which says sanctions are preventative, and not punitive. I understand that the rules are that any admin can unilaterally institute a sanction, but if an admin abuses their admin powers and blatantly violates our policy by instituting an entirely punitive sanction on the basis of zero evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last six months, I will take it to Arbcom and ask them to remove the admin's bit. – Levivich 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Jusdafax I agree fully with the statement by Levivich above. I urge that it be read, and if need be, reread, line by line. For personal reasons, I make this statement extremely reluctantly, but feel strongly that it needs to be made, especially in agreement with the reference to the “weaponization of AE.” My thanks to Levivich, and I strongly agree that this report should be closed as no violation. Jusdafax (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: I agree with the objections to your proposal by Levivich and Mr. Ernie. I also suggest a review of this link provided by SashiRolls regarding the strategy discussion (Sashi’s term), which I feel should be taken into account. Since there are a couple statements now mentioning ArbCom, it appears that regardless of the outcome here, that the matter is far from being concluded. So it goes. Jusdafax (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Mr Ernie Impose a standard 2 way IBAN between Sashi and Tryptofish. Contrary to Trypt's earlier statement, they have obliquely referred to Sashi several times since the 1 way was imposed, have popped up for comments everywhere Sashi has been discussed, and what I can only assume was sarcastically using the "thanks" feature for an edit I made on Sashi's page supporting the 2 way back in June. This is the easiest solution here, so please impose it and close this. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Odd that I am now considered by Tryptofish to be an "enabler" of SashiRolls for showing up to speak some common sense. FWIW you can check my thanks log here to see Trypt's thanks. And yes it was for the diff they linked. For someone who has "entirely stayed clear" of Sashi they have an awful lot to say here, and at all the previous noticeboard discussions. Simply reinstate the 2 way mutual IBAN, call it no fault, and let's all move on. There's been no disruption to article space. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Seraphimblade I object to your proposal. There is no shown disruption in this report to that topic area. Typically such bans are preventative, which would require showing problematic edits in that topic area. This is purely a minor foul against a difficult to understand custom sanction. A mutual no fault IBAN between Sashi and Trypt solves any problems. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by JzG Any TBAN on GMOs must include Monsanto and glyphosate, as they are the bêtes noires of anti-GMO activists. This should be made more clear. An IBAN can't really be an automatic ABAN, that would be far too prone to accidental error (and indeed deliberate gaming). Guy (help!) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Result concerning SashiRolls This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This auto-ABAN concept would be unusual, and it's not mentioned as part of the sanction in the AE close or in the ACDSLOG, where it's noted simply to be an IBAN. IBAN itself has no such provision, and it in fact explicitly allows editing the same article without direct contact (in fact, the community recently overwhelmingly overturned an AE block in this situation). It's unclear to me whether this was just an erroneous statement by El_C, or if it was specifically intended to be an expanded IBAN with an automatic ABAN from any article edited first by the other user. This needs clarification first. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC) @Laser brain: Just as a procedural note, we cannot actually indef block under Arbitration enforcement; blocks are limited to a one year maximum. You may discretionarily block as you see fit. This seems to be trending towards a revision of the existing sanction, simply due to the fact that the existing one is impractical. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) It's a violation. But in retrospect, I'm not sure my unique sanction framework was the most well-formed idea — expecting them to search every article to see if the other party has edited it is a bit much. Unless they knew in advance that the other party has edited there, then it's just a straight interaction ban violation, which is (?) or should be in place, and consensus is for one-way. Anyway, now that I think about it, I should have probably just done a straight GMO topic ban alongside a one-way interaction ban, which we can still do. Sorry for the lapse. El_C 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC) @Kingofaces43: Still, due to my lapse, I get the sense that this will be more a discussion about implementing these new restrictions on the user than one involving the enforcement of existing ones. El_C 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC) Unless there are objections from other uninvolved admins, I intend to reformulate the sanction to cover an interaction ban with Tryptofish (one-way) and a topic ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. El_C 19:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) @SashiRolls: Your objection is noted. As is the aggressive, battleground tone. A pivotal reason why you should stay away from Tryptofish and the articles they edit. El_C 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC) @SashiRolls: Your battleground tone is noted, again. Anyway, I want you to not edit articles where Tryptofish frequents. If there is no consensus among uninvolved admin to restrict you toward that end, also topically, that's fine with me. I'm not sure why I would need to study the nuances of the latest content dispute to adopt that approach. El_C 21:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Also, in regards to video game approach that SashiRolls attributes to me, I note that, currently, I have closed 8 out of 17 reports listed at AN3 and been equally active in RfPP. Just two example. What's most visible is not necessarily an indication of focus or time commitment. So that, coming from someone who argues for the need of further study, is especially ironic. El_C 21:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Once again, a superficial overview, not only of what I do on Wikipedia, overall, but also the often much more nuanced role that involves AN3 and RfPP. And those were just two examples. To say that I don't study sources as a Wikipedia editor is plain false. Diverting this request, which is about you, to focus on me, is a rhetorical device whose usefulness is in question. El_C 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC) @SashiRolls: please refrain from refactoring your past comments. El_C 23:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC) @SashiRolls: this isn't a negotiation. You are not permitted to refactor comments that others may have already responded to. Full stop. El_C 23:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I have reached out to Awilley to get their input about SashiRolls' conduct in these very proceedings. We have a user here, SashiRolls, who has been indefinitely blocked so many times for battleground behaviour and personal comments (which this time I was the recipient of) — always with another final warning. I'm not sure why this continues to be tolerated. There is a dissonance here that mystifies me. El_C 17:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I'm getting the sense there is severe admin burnout associated with anything having to do with SashiRolls, which leads to the continuation of egregious behaviour, seemingly indefinitely. As far I'm concerned, a GMO (or GMO-light) topic ban follows from SashiRolls stating, for example, that they may compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on. [27] That my somewhat misguided ABAN sanction failed to fulfill this intended topic restriction is not a reason such a ban from this topic area should be withheld. Vanamonde, in light of this, does your objection to a topic ban still stand? El_C 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling — @SashiRolls: this innuendo reflect poorly on you. I am obliged to attribute the quote, not provide what you deem as "context." Context which I am entitled to contend is immaterial, anyway. El_C 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Just noting that I have indefinitely blocked SashiRolls for linking externally to a deleted page that was twice deleted as an attack page. But due to the DRV being mixed about its status as an attack page, I've unblocked SashiRolls — so this request, which I have suspended, can now resume. El_C 23:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Sandstein, my consent is given to you (or any other admin) to apply any sanctions you see fit. The one-way interaction ban already has the needed consensus, per Tryptofish's AE appeal. The question as to whether a topic ban (and its scope) should also be applied is one which I'm going to leave for someone else to decide. El_C 21:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I agree that "an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first." is an unreasonably restrictive sanction. It is not necessary to prevent disruption, and it prevents full consideration of a very wide number of articles. A standard i-ban is sufficient, and, given the above stateent by El C, ithe wording should be changed. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I can see why this needs to be a standard one-way IBAN, together with a warning that skirting the edge of the ban would be grounds for heavier sanctions. I don't see grounds for a TBAN yet; SashiRolls's behavior is poor, but I see no evidence that it's worse in a given area, only that it's worse when related to Tryptofish. Kingofaces43, I pointed out to you in a previous AE discussion that SashiRolls' TBAN from Jill Stein was under AP2 discretionary sanctions, not GMO discretionary sanctions. You've repeated that erroneous statement here. The enforcement log is here. That's borne out by the administrator comments at the relevant AE discussion. It might seem like a minor point, but it is very relevant to establishing the locus of bad behavior; and if you continue to misrepresent it, it reflects poorly on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Playing holier-than-thou isn't doing you any favors, Kingofaces43. I'm not going to excuse SashiRolls's behavior because of your choice of words, but his behavior doesn't excuse your throwing the kitchen sink at him, either. He was sanctioned for his behavior on the article on Jill Stein, including, but not limited to, material related to GMOs. And that's what you should have said. What you typed in your initial request is a misrepresentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) @El C: No, I'm not going to stand in the way of a TBAN. SashiRolls's attitude here is terrible. I just don't want egregious bad behavior on one person's part to make us blind to everything else that goes on. Tryptofish, you know I've a lot of respect for you, and I'll go on record saying that your conduct in this area is something that other users should seek to emulate; but I think you have, on occasion, been blinded in this manner; and I have neither the time nor the patience to go into this further at this time, so let's just deal with SR and move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC) I am miffed that anyone is even discussing all these elaborate mechanisms to enable this editor to continue to take up community time. I supported his unblocking a year ago (after previously advocating for an extended block owing to poor behavior) saying "I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia." I still think this is remotely true, but my impression was that unblock was a "you're on thin ice" action and he's been blocked, what, three times since then? For poor behavior? Enough is enough, this should be an indef block. I object to the continued formulation of esoteric sanctions to attempt to deal with this editor. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC) No comments one way or another on this specific case, but I read Laser brain's comments and felt the need to comment more generally: there has been a trend of late to try to craft specialty sanctions to contain disruption in known areas while allowing freedom in every area other than the super niche rules. That is both next to impossible to enforce and also spreads disruption elsewhere because super-niche sanctions are prone to being gamed and people causing disruption in similar ways that do not fall technically foul of the sanction, but if a more standardized remedy had been applied, would obviously been a violation. All this to say, if sanctions are merited, I strongly oppose some special sanction. Make it standard. If that's an indef regular admin block, cool. If it's an AE block for however log, sure. If it's a TBAN, no problem, just make it a regular TBAN instead of a unique article one with special carve outs. In short, we should stop insisting on giving disruptive individuals every opportunity to prove they aren't going to change. If they've already shown it, then deal with it in a respectful ordinary fashion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC) I agree with TonyBallioni here. If someone is editing disruptively in a DS area, they need to be removed from this area. In this case, I think it is quite clear that SashiRolls' conduct has been disruptive (including even at this request), and I think they should be removed from that area, with a firm understanding that if the disruption moves elsewhere or there's any testing of the topic ban conditions, the next step is likely an indef. Most people manage to edit, even frequently, without causing too much trouble, so there's only so many chances for change we should give those who persistently are causing trouble. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Sandstein, as El C has now explicitly stated he has given his consent to changes if needed, I would object to such a closure and think we should consider more options. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Right, but then I suggest you go ahead and apply whatever sanction you deem appropriate now. There's been enough considering. The parties before us expect a decision, one way or another. AE actions are unilateral and do not need discussion or consensus. AE threads should not stay open for more than a few days. Sandstein 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Given that the discussion has broadly agreed that, at the very least, the current sanction regime is not working and is difficult both to obey and to enforce, I would propose that we replace the "auto-ABAN" sanction with a standard interaction ban on SashiRolls with respect to interacting with Tryptofish (there does not, at this point, seem to be much reason to believe that a reciprocal ban on Tryptofish with respect to SashiRolls is also needed, so such sanction would remain one-way), and a topic ban from the GMO topic area. Unless someone shortly objects, I'll go forward with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC) There seems to be agreement that the current sanction does not work and should not be enforced. But El_C has not replaced it with another sanction, and I see no admin consensus here to do so without their consent. Unless somebody actually does something soon instead of just talking, I intend to close this without action. Sandstein 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Since there is still no admin ready to impose a sanction on SashiRolls, I am implementing what consensus there is: lifting the ban on editing articles first edited by Tryptofish. The corresponding ban applying to Tryptofish has already been lifted by the prior AE decision that made the interaction ban apply only to SashiRolls. All admins remain free to impose whatever additional sanctions they deem appropriate on SashiRolls. Sandstein 19:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Withholding closure per Seraphimblade's objection above. Sandstein 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Tryptofish, no, that means nothing of the sort. The only way an existing restriction can be lifted is either if the admin who imposed it specifically says it is lifted, or if there is a formal consensus at an appeal to AN/AE/ARCA to lift it. None of those things have happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gas Van and sourcing requirements

With the article having been split, the sourcing requirement no longer applies to the new article where the dispute in question resides. In regards to the general question as to whether the sourcing requirement is dispute-specific, the consensus appears to lean towards the negative — that is, once a restriction affects an article, any dispute therein falls under its restrictions, including disputes which in-and-of-themselves are out of scope. El_C 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement Assayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Page for which administrative measures are requested Gas van Sanction or remedy to be enforced Impose source and revert restrictions in line with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Diffs of edits that necessitate these sanctions or remedy and additional comments by editor filing request The article on the gas van is used to propose the narrative that these were actually a Soviet invention.[28] After a prolonged discussion in June 2018 consensus was reached to focus upon the German use of gas vans in the Holocaust and briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union only in a section in the main body of the article.[29] After a controversial IP edit[30] on 28 September 2019, which lead to a page protection for edit warring[31] User My very best wishes started to basically restore the earlier version[32], [33]. These edits were immediately challenged by me[34] I got reverted within minutes[35], on another occasion even while I was still working on the article, using an “in use”-template.[36] Without going into details of the revision history, it is fair to say that there is no consensus to restore or expand the extensive section on “Soviet gas vans”. Input was sought from uninvolved users to no avail.[37], [38], [39], [40]. Such input[41], [42] got reverted anyway.[43] During the RSN discussion on a local Crimean nespaper it was raised, that this topic area was under strict sourcing restrictions, In fact, the article Gas van is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. For example, Gas vans were used at Chełmno extermination camp. Since it has been maintained that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were first used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets, the "Soviet gas vans" were effectively integrated into the narrative of the Holocaust. Otherwise it would make no sense to prominently insist that “the gas vans were used by the Soviet NKVD in 1930s".[44] It is worth noting that Holocaust deniers highlight this alleged “prehistory” of the gas vans. Therefore, strict sourcing restrictions are all the more important. Despite input from uninvolved users that the Crimean newspaper article looked “totally unreliable”, “irrelevant”, and “absurd”, there is not much hope that this input will be reckoned with.[45]. See also [46] for a violation of 3RR. @EdJohnston: had been asked to impose sourcing restrictions, but effectively declined[47].--Assayer (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Additional comments by editor filing request I will not reargue the whole matter here. Suffice it to say that both My very best wishes and Pudeo rather argue ad hominem than on content. Strange to read that trying to build consensus through discussion and by soliciting outside opinions is somehow branded “epic struggle”. To claim that this is merely about a few RS they do not like is plainly a misrepresentation of the discussion. Even worse, Pudeo insinuates denial while they could have known the content I proposed for inclusion.[48], and takes citations out of context, e.g. that I responded to My very best wishes linking to texts by known Holocaust deniers. I do maintain, however, that my request is not about content, i.e. who invented or used gas vans, but if a certain part of the article is exempted from sourcing restrictions or not. El_C has captured that point very well. Once that issue is resolved, enforcement requests focused on editors’ conduct may follow. Maybe ARCA is the place to go. Maybe I withdraw this request and file a request against individual editors. But the issue will still have to be resolved.--Assayer (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Comment by Paul Siebert Actually, a behaviour of one party of that dispute has been brilliantly described as scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. By applying source restrictions, we will deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing, because good quality sources say virtually nothing about the "Soviet gas van" topic. Currently, the Soviet gas van section is based on a heavy use of the following sources: Primary: Григоренко П.Г. В подполье можно встретить только крыс… (Petro Grigorenko, "In the underground one can meet only rats") — Нью-Йорк, Издательство «Детинец», 1981, page 403 (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage). Александр ЛИПКОВ, "Я к вам травою прорасту…", Alexander Lipkov, Kontinent, N 123, 2005 (collection of memoirs). Шрейдер М.П. (Shreider M.P) НКВД изнутри: Записки чекиста. (NKVD from within. Notes by Chekist ), Moscow: Возвращение, 1995. (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage) Russian tabloid/newspaper: Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012. An op-ed article in a local Ukrainian newspaper, authored by some local self appointed historian with unknown credentials. During the [RSN discussion], not a single user except the one who added that source supported the idea that that source is reliable. Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) This article cites no historical documents, so its fact checking and accuracy cannot be established. Most likely, it just reproduces the facts from this publications: On the way to the place of their execution, the convicts were poisoned with gas (Russian), by Yevgeniy Zhirnov, Kommersant (This source is cited in the article too, thereby a false impression is created that two journalists made independent research of that subject). Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297 - a very questionable book authored by Archipelago author. It was widely criticized for antisemitism. In this book, Solzhenitstyn says Jews must repent for invention of gas vans. In addition, the article is using several English sources, each of which cites the same tabloid article published in 1990. They are telling essentially the same story, but the material is presented in such a way that a reader gets an impression that various aspects of Soviet gas van usage were independently discovered by several authors. Source restrictions will allow us to purge the article from all questionable primary and questionable sources, and the long, exhausting and senseless dispute will die.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC) I double checked, the admin that applied this restriction cited WP:ARBEE, not Antisemitism in Poland case, so I have no idea why the same cannot be done in this case too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @El C: I myself was thinking about ARCA. Actually, usage of poor sources is a root of many conflicts covered by ARBEE, so I have no idea why the sourcing expectation clause cannot be expanded onto the whole area. In my opinion, that may be a universal solution, which is not directed against some concrete source and some concrete POV. If no action will be taken regarding this request, I am going to prepare a broader ARCA request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @Swarm: Don't you find it illogical that admins easily fully protect the article (as if a full protection can help to resolve a dispute that has already lasted more than a month on a talk page and several noticeboards), but do not want to protect the article from garbage or primary sources, which are being heavily used in the article? By taking the action proposed by Assayer, admins would not take side in a content dispute. As Guy noted elsewhere, admins are janitors, their role is to provide a comfortable environment for good faith users. We, good faith users, are calling: the article is overflooded by questionable sources, please, help us to create a good environment for our work, don't allow good sources to be diluted by a WP:SYNTH, primary and questionable secondary sources! Instead, you prefer to abstain. Do you really think one month of a dispute, when one party was repeating the same arguments and ignoring a community input was not enough to resolve that "content dispute"? All needed words have already been said, all arguments, which are quite sufficient to convince any good faith user have already been presented. Do you sincerely believe one more month will lead to a progress? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your approach is superficial, and that leads to an escalation of a conflict, not to its resolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC) @Swarm: there were three separate RSN threads (conclusions of all of them I support), and one NPOV thread. Have you read all of them? Have you read the whole talk page discussion (including the 2018 discussion on the same subject? Anyway, if all admins will confirm that this article is already under the said source restriction, that is the very outcome that I wanted. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by El_C I have added a sourcing requirements notice to the article talk page (which I have suspended while this is being discussed), but now I'm not so sure about that decision, because the dispute is about the Soviet Union in the 1930s rather than what the article is chiefly about (Nazi Germany in the 1940s). See my talk page for more context. El_C 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @Sandstein: I think you're missing the point. The question is whether these sourcing requirements should apply to the article when the specific dispute (but not the article) is out of their scope. Perhaps, though, this is a question better suited to ARCA. What do you think? El_C 16:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Thanks, Sandstein. I'll still leave the article talk page notice suspended, for now. Depending if other admins also agree with your position, or if there is an ARCA filed. But I appreciate the clarification. El_C 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Please note that once this request is closed, I am likely to un-suspend the sourcing requirements notice — unless there is an ARCA filed, in which case I will hold off. (Unless, of course, if there is also further input concerning the notice itself here.) So please let me know about intentions to file an ARCA immediately after, that way an un-suspension/re-suspension could be avoided. El_C 19:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by My very best wishes Why did Assayer and Paul file this WP:AE request? Because Paul wants to do this (his edits immediately after the editing restriction imposed bt El_C). In this edit Paul just removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to Lydia Golovkova who is a primary curator of records of people executed by NKVD at the Butovo firing range, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which are RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell the same as scholarly sources (some of which noted by Pudeo below), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story. To sanction someone, an administrator must first place a notice on the page (per the rules), exactly as El_C did. Yes, it might be reasonable to put such notice and specify that it is about edits on Polish history or about Nazi Germany section. But there were no any disputes about this section. However, placing such notice for the whole page would mean excluding the content and sources completely unrelated to Poland and WWII. Was that intention by Arbcom? I do not think so. Placing such notice would mean overstepping the boundaries defined by Arbcom. If that happens, then a request for clarification or amendment to Arbcom might be needed. less important comments The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This WP:AE request by Assayer is apparently a follow-up of this discussion started by Paul on talk page of EdJohnston. As a note of order, I did revert recently several edits by this indeffed user on the page (there was no violation of 3RR rule by me, contrary to the claim by Assayer). Paul happened to disagree with his block [49]. This is actually an epic struggle by Paul and Assayer to remove a few RS they do not like from this page. I have never seen anything like that before. For example, Here Paul and Assayer argue to use a blog post by unknown person [50] (this blog post [51]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko - (discussion on article talk page) Here Paul and Assayer dispute another RS (discussion on talk) Here they want to exclude an article by Russian historian [52] - yet another noticeboard post [53] - one more noticeboard post by Paul [54] - one more noticeboard post by Paul And now this WP:AE request. This is very strange because the content dispute concerns only a couple of paragraphs on one page, Gas van. I do not think whole article Gas van is covered by the sourcing restriction for the Polish history. According to Arbcom decision, it cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.. It uses language like "articles on the topic", not "broadly related to". This is not an article "on the topic of Polish history" although a part of one section about Nazi Germany is indeed related to the Polish history. What is happening here, in my opinion? Assayer and Paul are trying to misuse the decision by Arbcom about limiting sources on Polish/WWII subjects in order to remove the content on the Soviet NKVD crimes in 1930s which is completely unrelated to the Polish/WWII subjects My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC) @Nug. What a Solomon judgement, very literally! Now this entire disagreement is moot. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Pudeo Assayer writes in this very statement: briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union. It has already been showed on the talkpage that besides Russian sources, Western scholars state Soviet gas vans as a fact. Besides the works of others like Catherine Merridale, Robert Gellately, Timothy J. Colton's 1998 Harvard University Press book states: Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo. So Assayer, perhaps you should already accept this as a fact and stop bludgeoning denial on the talk page where you already have made 76 edits? Assayer's lamest insinuations are rather disruptive as well: 13 June 2018: I got the impression that generally the interest primarily stems from the importance of the German gas vans and the perceived irony that the Soviets might have come up with a gas van first. In fact, Holocaust deniers relish this. 22 October 2019: I know that Grigorenko has been cited by Holocaust deniers. You are really not sure if this needs to be reflected on the page? So you suggest to use works by Holocaust deniers? Paul Siebert has made these insinuations as well: [55]: Don't we find it worrying that the article reproduces the narrative of the book published by the known Holocaust denier's publisher house? Petro Grigorenko or the Soviet gas vans have nothing to do with the Holocaust, but some fringe Holocaust deniers have cited them, so they must be bad. Wonder if quoting the Harvard University Press book makes you a Holocaust denial narrative pusher? Great way to poison the well. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. --Pudeo (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations: "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. ... Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action. " If "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" is interpreted to mean any article which mentions Polish history of that period at all and the whole content of those articles was included, that would mean, for instance, that editors writing about animal euthanisation or executions in the United States or Korea in the gas chamber article would need to use exceptionally high quality sources or risk being sanctioned.     ←   ZScarpia   18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Question by Nug Paul Siebert stated above[56] that the article should be subjected to WP:ARBEE. If the article Gas van, including the Soviet section, is also subjected in its entirety to the Polish history during World War II (1933-45) restrictions as well, does that mean that Paul is in fact violating his topic ban and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive257#Paul_Siebert ought to be re-opened? --Nug (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC) To end this seemingly intractable content dispute, I have been WP:BOLD and split the article into Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van, turning Gas van into a disambig page. Hope that helps. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by K.e.coffman @Sandstein: Do I understand you correctly that the sourcing restriction already applies and that El_C's note on the talk page to this effect [57] should be restored? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Result concerning Gas Van and sourcing requirements I would take no action. As submitted, this is a content dispute. Who invented and used gas vans is a content issue. AE does not resolve content disputes. If specific editors consistently and seriously disregard sourcing requirements, make an enforcement request focused on their conduct. Sandstein 09:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @El C: In my view, the "Antisemitism in Poland" article sourcing expectations already apply to Gas van. That is because the remedy states that it covers "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland". The article Gas van contains material about this topic, insofar as it addresses the use of gas vans in Poland. Accordingly, the sourcing restrictions apply to the entire article, including as regards the use of gas vans outside of Poland. These restrictions can be enforced against individual editors via AE requests. No further admin action is needed in this regard as well. Sandstein 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC) To various queries: This is my interpretation, other admins may disagree. If you want authoritative advice, ask at WP:ARCA. From my reading of the (as usual) vaguely worded remedy, any article that contains substantial text about Polish WWII history is an article "on" Polish WWII history, and the remedy then applies to the entire article, not only to the Polish WWII history content. Does this make sense? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but we apply remedies as they are written. Sandstein 20:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Pudeo, your last comment is looking for a WP:BOOMERANG. This does not fit into the AE remit, so no action at this time seems correct. Guy (help!) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Agree with no action. This is a content dispute. Handle it like a content dispute. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC) I think it's fairly uncontentious that Sandstein is correct in that Arbcom's blanket implementation of this sanction covers this article. It seems fairly obvious that this article is within the scope and that it applies to the article as a whole. However, reading the recent RSN thread, many users view this as legitimate content dispute as opposed to your claim of a behavioral problem regarding unreliable sourcing, and coming directly here after that looking for a "purge" is not a particularly good look. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Article semiprotected two weeks to prevent further disruptive editing/edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A User who is submitting this request for enforcement Pinchme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it This is for a number of related IPs, which all appear to have been used to edit List of concentration and internment camps in the past week by the same individual. 1 November 2019 This first edit was reinstatement of challenged material to List of concentration and internment camps. It was also from the edit that began to show that this editor has a changing IP address, which initially made it hard for me to know if they were in fact the same editor. 1 November 2019 This edit reinstated the challenged section heading change, in addition to beginning their NPOV insistence. It also violated the 1RR sanction. 1 November 2019 Here once again they reinstated the challenged section heading and violated 1RR, despite having been warned of the discretionary sanctions for the article on one of the IPs' talk pages (see below). Their accompanying talk page note is where this again-different IP seemed to show they were the same editor. 2 November 2019 Another edit reinstating the challenged section heading. 9 November 2019 It was at this point this editor began reinstating the NPOV tag to the section in question, despite multiple editors disagreeing with their assessment, on the talk page. 10 November 2019 This was one more edit violating 1RR and challenged material sanctions for reinstating the NPOV tag. It was also the IP that they received the discretionary sanctions notice on. (see below) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any This group of IPs doesn't appear to have had any prior blocks. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) They were made aware of the sanctions on at least two of the IP Talk pages: 1 November 2019 2 November 2019 Additionally, another user posted a note about the discretionary sanctions on the talk page: 2 November 2019 Additional comments by editor filing complaint This editor has been quite disruptive. Their proposed edits run counter to the recent RfC about this specific content. They have posted on the article's talk page, but do not seem interested in engaging with a productive discussion, such as ignoring requests for sources, disputing the accuracy of the RfC's conclusion, and denying that content experts are not experts. This is not merely a content dispute however, because as you can see the editor in question is repeatedly breaking the discretionary sanctions in their pursuit of changes that go against the community's decisions. I know requests for enforcement for older edits are usually dismissed here as stale, but I included all of them from 1 November to today to highlight the pattern, which was initially hard to make a case for with the shifting IP addresses. The list of IPs used for specific edits made to the article itself are 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:AB, 107.77.214.158, 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46, and 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A. In addition, on the talk page they have also used 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:45, 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E, 166.216.158.172, and 76.103.195.119. If this is the wrong venue to try and address this issue, please don't hesitate to let me know where I should instead take this. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Just in case, I notified the four IPs: [58] [59] [60] [61] Discussion concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A Statement by (username) Result concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I've semiprotected the article for two weeks due to disruptive editing and edit warring from multiple IPs, who may or may not be the same individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes

Request withdrawn by filer. El_C 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning My very best wishes User who is submitting this request for enforcement Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Date: 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Ignoring the RSN discussion consensus. Date: 14:33, 7 November 2019 Re-adding the source (Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union) that was recognised as unacceptable during the talk page discussion mentioned in the Diff #1 (see "Additional comments" section for more details). Date: 19:40, 28 October 2019 Accusation of bad faith. Cherry-picking. 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) Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on on 05:09, 7 November 2019. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Diffs #1&2. In my opinion, this is a clear example of WP:STONEWALL: repeatedly pushing a source with which the consensus of the community is clear: "unacceptable". Below I summarize the RSN discussion (the discussion MVBW refers to in the Diff #1) and present viewpoints of ALL participants (I did my best to transmit them accurately; I omit only the posts where no clear opinion was expressed): [62] I started a discussion of the source. [63]: MVBW claims the source is ok. [64]: Slatersteven says they don't know if the source is mainstream, but agree that it is op-ed, and should be used with attribution. [65]: Fiamh is hesitant on this source and agrees that it is reliable only as a primary source about author's opinion. [66]: Darouet says the source is totally unreliable, and that pushing this source feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. [67]: François Robere says the source is unacceptable per sourcing restrictions. [68]: User:Assayer objects too, but he is an involved user, like I and MVBW. [69] Pavlor argues that such sources should not be used, and his argument is essentially what our policy says: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. [70]: TFD also disagrees with usage of that source (I personally find some of their arguments unconvinsing, but my opinion is not relevant here). In summary: not a single user, except MVBW, expressed a clear support of the source, and many of them were clearly against its usage. Two other users concluded that source is op-ed, actually, a primary source that describes the opinion of the author, and, therefore, should be used with attribution only. Nevertheless, MVBW claims he does not see any WP:RS-based reasons not to use this source (Diff #1), and he re-added it into the article (Diff #2) without attribution. Regarding the diff #3, MVBW claims that I misled others by misinterpreting newspaper's disclaimer. To support this claim, he selectively quoted the disclaimer, and he omitted the key sentence. The extended quote (the sentence omitted by MVBW is in bold) says: "The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials." Obviously, in that context "the authors" means Sokolov, so my statement was correct. I refuse to believe MVBW does not understand that (he cites this sentence in his another post), so it is hard to imagine that this mistake was a good faith mistake, not a WP:GASLIGHT. @Sandstein: Well the AE format a catch-22: to prove persistent and outrageous ignoring of consensus, one has to present a long list of user's actions, but AE word and diff limit does not allow that: in reality we have a long and barren discussion on the talk page where that user is repeating the same arguments again and again, and that behaviour clearly fits DE criteria. However, due to AE format limitations, I presented just one short case that is possible to describe briefly. If a longer list of evidences is needed, it is more suitable for arbitration, which I will do if this case is declined. Regarding the topic ban, your wording was quite clear any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE. As previous AE cases demonstrated, that topic is devoted to the events that happened before WWII, and is not related to the conflict around Hitler-Stalin conflict. I am also reminding other admins that I am not interacting with MVBW (no comments on him, no responses, etc), and Nug is perfectly aware of that, so his request for an interaction ban is insincere. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified References Discussion concerning My very best wishes Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by My very best wishes This is a retaliatory filing by Paul and a violation of his topic ban issued by Sandstein [71], which explicitly prohibits filing such AE request. Just a few days ago, Sandstein reconfirmed that such ban is still in force [72]. In the process Paul falsely accused me of vandalism and of edits "aimed to whitewash Hitler" [73]. This is not the first such violation on WP:AE by Paul. For example, he recently came to WP:AE specifically to accuse me, without any actual evidence, of "scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel", asking admins to "deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing" and mentioning very same RSNB discussion as in this complaint: [74]. That should stop. The RSNB request [75] was started by Paul. I do not think there is any policy (WP:RS)-based reason to exclude the source in question. I can explain more with diffs about diffs 1-3 by Paul if any admin suggests it. Speaking about diff#3, here is what I said on RSNB: [76]. As a note of order, I never submitted a single question or request about gas vans on any noticeborad. Paul and Assayer did it on at least four different noticeboards (or more). For example, here Paul and Assayer argue to use a blog post by unknown person [77] (this blog post [78]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko. There were other threads [79],[80], [81],[82]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Speaking about topic ban violation, if this is not WWII-related, how did it happen that Paul mentioned Hitler twice in his inquiry to Sandstein [83] ? My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by Nug Paul misleadingly characterised the publication as a local Ukrainian newspaper on RSN[84], it is in fact a Russian language newspaper based in Sevastopol, Crimea. Russian wiki does have an article on this newspaper in question, the Crimean Echo [85], and google translate indicates that the editor-in-chief is considered an “honoured journalist” and the newspaper has won numerous awards including one “For professional excellence”. One of the features of the newspaper is that it brings in “historians and publicists from all over the CIS talk about important events”. Evidently Soviet gas vans is one of those topics covered by such a CIS historian. Nothing to indicate it is some kind of unreliable fringe publication. MVBW did point to the ru-wiki article[86], but it seemed to have been overlooked in the noticeboard discussion. Note that Paul Seibert is under topic ban for calling MVBW a “Hitler defender”[87]. Clearly he has an ongoing personal issue with MVBW, as this latest request indicates, so perhaps Paul should be subject to a one way interaction ban with MVBW. --Nug (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC) This AE filing is tedious, and Paul also implicitly attacked MVBW as a “civil POV pusher” without evidence in discussing this case on El_C's talk page[88]. MVBW is clearly not, having reminded that I need to follow RS policy[89] This filing itself is a violation of the AE sanction upon Paul Siebert. In closing the AE report (which included evidence of Paul’s behaviour on the Gas van article), Sandstein banned Paul from editing WW2 in Easern Europe topics "and also any continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request". Paul’s squabble has long ago become tedious, we have seen it in the way Paul has continually squabbled over a number of sources provided by MVBW on RSN[90], most being deemed RS in the end. And the recent filing WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements where Paul sought a mechanism to sanction MVBW. This harrassment of MVBW has gone on for a long while now, I had hoped splitting the article would help in taking the heat out, but evidently not. —Nug (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning My very best wishes This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I would decline this request. Like many similar previous ones, it reflects a content dispute (whether a particular source should be used or not). AE does not resolve content disputes. "Ignoring consensus" is not a conduct problem that warrants sanctions, except in extreme cases, which this evidence does not establish. I am minded to ban or block the next user who drags gas van-related content disputes to AE. I will not even read any replies that pertain to the content dispute, sources, etc. so you can all save yourselves the effort. Sandstein 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) As to whether this request is a violation of my topic ban of Paul Siebert, it looks quite possible to me at first glance, but I'll let other admins handle this if necessary. Sandstein 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Dispute detailed in the request does not encompass WWII, so again, this isn't a topic ban violation on the part of the filer. But I would also decline this request as being outside of AE scope. I made it rather clear with my last AE close that with the contested article having been split into Soviet gas van and Nazi gas van, the former is no longer subject to the aforementioned restrictions, so there is basically nothing for AE to do here. El_C 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:GMORFC

Consensus exists for the request. Anyone can implement it on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning WP:GMORFC User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms Additional comments by editor filing request Don't worry, this will be very easy. Atypical, but very easy. At WP:GMORFC, administrators enacted Discretionary Sanctions that require that any revisions to the text that was selected by the community be, first, approved at another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee. I am here at AE to request approval for such a revision. The proposed revisions are entirely minor. They consist only of: Correction of WP:Linter errors. Correction of some page numbers in the cited references. That's all. The reason for correcting those page numbers is that, at the time of the RfC, a few of the sources were published only online, in advance of hardcopy publication, and the page numbers subsequently changed for the paper versions. These issues came to light when some bots, and some editors making gnomish revisions, discovered them. The discussion leading to me making this request is at User talk:Tryptofish#WP:GMORFC. The proposed revision is here: [91], and a combined diff of all of the changes is here: [92]. You can see the "before" here: [93], and the "after" here: [94]. I do understand that making this request for such minor changes is somewhat over-the-top. My reasoning, however, is that I don't want to open up a precedent for some future editor making substantive changes saying something like "but you let them change it without getting permission." So I'm doing this "by the book". Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Discussion concerning GMORFC Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Kingofaces43 As Tryptofish linked, I set up the changes in my sandbox, though unfortunately the large amount of text/refs makes showing the specific changes in the diff interface difficult in one edit. In short, you can look at individual step-wise edits at User:Kingofaces43/sandbox2's history between the original RfC text on the first Sept 8 edit to the final edit on Sept 13 to confirm these are all either linter error fixes or url/page updates. No change to the visible text itself, and I ran the newly proposed text through an on-wiki Linter error checker, which came up clean. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning GMORFC This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Support As far as I can tell it's just general housekeeping with no change in meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC) On review, everything looks reasonable and in order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Agreed, this seems fairly straightforward and benign. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Sure, closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169

No diffs or other information. Will inform the filer. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Harshil169 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Harshil169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Date Explanation Date Explanation Date Explanation Date Explanation Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Date Explanation Date Explanation If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date. Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Harshil169 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Harshil169 Statement by (username) Result concerning Harshil169 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

MyMoloboaccount

MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. Sandstein 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request concerning MyMoloboaccount User who is submitting this request for enforcement François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 03:31, 17 November 2019 The restored sources are: a) course notes from UT Austin ("Cienciala notes 2006"); b) an unknown website ("pw25"); c) a popular newspaper ("Rzecz"). 18:21, 17 November 2019 Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source) 18:53, 17 November 2019 Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions. 23:05, 17 November 2019 In the source: "several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters"; in the text: "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army". If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Took part in the relevant ArbCom case and PD discussion.[95] Referred to the decision in an edit summary.[96] Additional comments by editor filing complaint Note that the sourcing restrictions expanded upon by ArbCom apply to source representation as well as to source choice. Molobo's editing practices have been discussed extensively,[97] before he decided to take a "long Wikibreak".[98][99][100] He is well aware of the issues with his editing. DS do not require TP discussion. That said, discussion did take place.[101] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [102] Discussion concerning MyMoloboaccount Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by MyMoloboaccount I note that François Robere didn't even attempt to discuss with me at all his opposition to the edits or possible improvements. This seems a bit battleground behavior in my view. Rzeczpospolita is a mainstream reliable publication, neverthless I didn't contest FR second removal.I still believe the infromation it supports isn't controversial and it can be used as source-but I will not reintroduce it if this isn't supported. Anna_M._Cienciala is a high quality source: was a Polish-American historian and author. She specialized in modern Polish and Russian history. Graduating with a history doctorate in 1962, she taught at two Canadian universities for a few years before joining the history faculty at the University of Kansas in 1965. She retired in 2002. sentence ""several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters" and "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army" mean the same basically and further text states that Home Army was praised in these witness reports ie ""the Home Army is openly praised in the testimony of Salomon Liberman". I find hard to see anything controversial here-again FR didn't even discuss anything, and I would be open to any discussion how to praise it differently-however, again it is bit difficult to see controversy here. Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions. Wrong. The article is about Radzilow, and Radzilow is the exception mentioned by author. I don't believe it is necessary to mention that in other locations it was different, but this could be added. Again no discussion was made to phrase it differently and edit war took place. FR didn't engage in any discussion on talk page. Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source)That's wrong-Zimmerman mentions at least two examples of protecting communities by AK-Hanaczow and Lviv where numerous Jews were saved by Wladyslawa Choms who was an AK officer in charge of the operation. And that is just at brief glance. Ongoing harassment This unfortunately follows a strain of personal attacks and wikistalking FR has been engaging in for a while now: When I mentioned that I have nothing against mentioning that Nazis targetted Jews as victims of genocide, FR responded "that's a lie" despite me actually entering following sentence in the article with Jews targeted for immediate extermination [103] In response FR stated you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".' [104] When I quoted Nuremberg Trials that state Nazis committed genocide against Poles as well FR responded [105] This is all damaging to Wikipedia, and the nice façade you're putting up for our fellow editors [106] I'm sorry, but this is just a load of dishonesty and ignorance. Molobo brings a legal definition; I say we can't use it (it'll be OR) [107] It's lies, obfuscation, and inability to admit a mistake Going even as far as carrying out accusations of "WP:TROLLING" which is a very serious personal attack That's WP:TROLLING right there(FR was unaware that Prussia also refers to a region that belonged to Poland in 18th century and when I mentioned this stated And then he preaches, in a most condescending manner, something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland) After that he started contacting admins asking for sanctions about me but was rebuked several times [108] rebuked [109] asked to use proper venue [110] Long story short:I mentioned Poles were victims of Nazi genocide, quoted reliable scholars and Nuremberg Trials. FR went ballistic after this and started using personal attacks, gunning for sanctions and wikistalking me-this has been ongoing since August--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Response to My very best wishes I note source restrictions do not mention history notes published on University pages. Anna Cienciala was a professor and her history lectures are published on website of University of Kansas; this seems a reliable source and high quality ones.Again-there is no mention about history lectures not being allowed;this should be clarified.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Comments by My very best wishes Yes, this looks to me like a violation. Diff #1. This seems to be a self-published source by Anna M. Cienciala. Is not it? There is no doubts that MyMoloboaccount knew about this editing restriction. However, was not it necessary to place a notice on the page per Arbcom instructions to sanction someone? My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning MyMoloboaccount This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. The request is actionable in part. MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. (A) Only the first diff is actionable. As to the remaining diffs, it is neither explained nor apparent how they might violate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. I therefore disregard them. (B) As to the second diff, it is also actionable only in part. (B.1) Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy. (B.2) The use of the lecture notes by Anna M. Cienciala violates the remedy. These notes are neither a "peer-reviewed scholarly journal", an "academically focused book by reputable publishers" or an "article published by reputable institutions". The reputation of the author is irrelevant. What matters is that this is not one of the types of publications allowed by the remedy. (B.3) The same applies even more clearly to the use of the source http://www.dws.xip.pl/PW/bron/pw25.html (the "pw25" reference). This site looks like some kind of military blog, it is not in English and the link does not even work. This is the worst kind of sourcing imaginable. As to the sanction to be imposed, MyMoloboaccount does not seem to have been sanctioned previously. The remedy states that "Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." This means we cannot impose a topic ban for the first violation. But the decision also provides: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month." This means that a block is the only allowed, and therefore mandatory, enforcement action. For violating the ArbCom decison, MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. Sandstein 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Actually #3 is also actionable: it is a serious misrepresentation of a source in a contentious area. That's edging towards final warning territory IMO. FR is correct ion characterising this edit as removing the vital context that this is a minority view, albeit a significant minority (as the source says, "Several opinions comprise an exception"). I'm as fed up with these guys scrapping as anyone else is, but that is not kosher. Guy (help!) 00:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1

Wrong forum — this is not a discretionary sanction. Please submit a report at AN/I. El_C 03:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Kazemita1 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 30 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "Removing undue content. There is enough explanation about MEK related matter just prior to this", but this is false; the information he removed has not been discussed anywhere else in the article. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "See talk page about the reasons why it is undue" and in the talk page discussion, says You added this piece which is not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article., but this is false; the information he removed describes the group behind an attempted attack on the MEK on European soil. 1 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says “There is no need to combine the two sentences. It is already long enough.”, but does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says "per Admin's comment (copyvio)", but he does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources. 3 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1 removes reliable sources from the article, but doesn't give a reason why. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 5 May 2019 Kazemita1 warned for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. 14 May 2019 Kazemita1 blocked for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. 3 July 2019 Kazemita1 final warning for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article. 16 September 2019 Kazemita1 restricted from making any edits to the People's Mujahedin of Iran for 2 weeks for edit warring. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months Additional comments by editor filing complaint Kazemita1 has edited the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (and a couple related pages) exclusively since April this year, a page that forms part of the Post 1978 Iranian politics General Sanctions. Kazemita1 has a history of edit warring on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, and was previously warned, blocked, and sanctioned for edit warring there. The Diffs of edits provided show that despite past sanctions, he is still engaging in edit warring. Kazemita1 uses the article’s revert restrictions to add and remove contested content while failing to provide relevant explanations for his edits. He has been successful at imposing his edits this way, even though his reasons are often misleading or irrelevant. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Pinging @Kazemita1: Notifying that there is an AE report concerning your edits. Discussion concerning Kazemita1 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Kazemita1 Statement by (username) Result concerning Kazemita1 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Actionjackson09

No action taken on initial report. Filer was given a non-AE block for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Actionjackson09 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Harshil169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Actionjackson09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBIPA : Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Don't worry, this is clear cut process and shows user has too much positive views about Indian religion i.e. Swaminarayan. Actionjackson09 is removing criticism of Swaminarayan, the sect BAPS and related articles without trying to reach on consensus and doing disruptive editing. This is sign of BATTLE GROUND behaviour. User has removed sourced content several times and continuously contributing in related articles without any type of helpful or tractable behavior. This is their one of the first edit in which they removed criticism and paradox of person who is believed to be religious head by Swaminarayan sect. They just gave summary that removed paradox section. In this edit, user has removed the sourced criticism from Swami Dayananda Saraswati on Swaminarayan calling it fringe and undue. They referred the talk page discussion but it was related to article Criticism of Swaminarayan sect and came on this page after merge. This edit is reversal of criticism by Morari Bapu to Swaminarayan, supreme figure in this sect, they refered talk page discussion but third opinion was that content should be placed. See this discussion. (The content was removed from Criticism of Swaminarayan Sect because it was not quaifying criticism but this user is saying that if this was removed from that article, so, it shouldn't be here.) In most of the discussions, they directly come and say that there is consensus to do so without pinging the person who added it. Check this aggressive revert in which they refer to consensus that content should be removed but the consensus was completely opposite and users who objected never came back to sell their arguments after issue was solved. They said they can't understand the language and thus, it should be removed. Again, in this edit, user has removed the Mahatma Gandhi's criticism on Swaminarayan by saying that removing poorly sourced section while it was clearly sourced. Point to be noted is praise has not been removed, only criticism. In this edit, user removed the explanation from other temples which was written in WP:DUE way to encounter claims. This directly implied that Akshardham Delhi (this sect's temple) is largest temple without explaining sides and claims of other temples. -- Harshil want to talk? 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Date Explanation Date Explanation If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17 November 2019 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Their most of the edits are related to sect, their temples, their religious heads and their Gods. It clearly shows user has COI with BAPS organisation and their temples. They never engaged in meaningful discussion and removing negative information and adding superfluous claims about the sect. User is intractable for meaningful discussions and removing content without consensus by citing consensus, when we reinstate content then they label us as disruptive editing but not following BRD cycle. User is definitely WP:NOTHERE to built encyclopedia but to promote one religious ideology. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [111] Discussion concerning Actionjackson09 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 Actionjackson09 Statement by (username) Result concerning Actionjackson09 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. It looks like they were only given a notice after these edits occurred, and several of the diffs linked are a year or more old. There's nothing actionable here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC) The first, fifth and sixth diffs are all well over a year old. Meanwhile, for the second diff, there was a discussion on the talk page, and the filer of this report has today re-inserted the section [112] despite the fact that there is clear consensus not to include it. For the third and fourth diffs, there was a small consensus (3v2) to do so. The filer has reverted this removal by two different editors three times in the last two days, including once after posting here. I would suggest that the subject of this report is perhaps not the major issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Meanwhile, they've since reported the editor to SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Actionjackson09, which was rejected (although a checkuser was performed on two of the other accounts, which came back negative). Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)