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

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

Appealing user

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

two month block at AE.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

Sandstein previously indicated that editing, e.g., Vietnam War was not in violation of the AP2 indef TBAN that he imposed last year. Specifically, he stated that this diff "appears unrelated to US politics," implying that the war as such is not within the scope of AP2. (Were my edits at Icebreaker (Suvorov) also within the scope of AP2, since the USSR was a major U.S. ally during World War II?) Therefore, I have to correct Sandstein's closing remark that "TheTimesAreAChanging does not contest having violated their topic ban and having made personal attacks." I intended to contest those assertions in my statement, commenting that MVBW's diffs—including minor copy edits—were not compelling examples of any TBAN violation but rather a frivolous attempt to remove a user from an unrelated content dispute. (I also directed readers to Paul Siebert's statement explaining that MVBW was, in fact, defending Hitler as a defense against the claim that my observation that MVBW was defending Hitler constituted an actionable WP:PA.) If this edit to Korean War is actionable, unlike the earlier edit to Vietnam War, the distinction seems arbitrary to me and the violation was unintentional. Given that no disruption (including PAs, etc.) was even alleged to have been associated with any of those diffs, blocking me on that basis seems to be punitive rather than preventative, so the block should be reduced.

I never appealed the TBAN, but I have little choice but to request that it be modified or reduced now that Sandstein is promulgating an expanded definition of its scope. You could say that any violation, even inadvertent, resets the clock, but I have made an obvious effort to adhere to the ban and the reaching evident in some of MVBW's diffs itself demonstrates this; certainly, there have been no other AE complaints against me since the TBAN was imposed, nor any edits of mine to any articles clearly labelled as subject to DS. Consider the following: 1.) My first AE TBAN was indefinite (rather than lasting for one, three, or six months, etc.), which is unprecedented in my experience on Wikipedia. Its reimposition has significantly limited my editing for more than a year, but if I have unknowingly made constructive edits to articles that could fall within the ban depending on the interpretation of an administrator, that would be an argument for narrowing it, rather than continuing with an open-ended restriction. 2.) The conduct for which I was previously sanctioned at AE was hardly exceptional; if you review the case, you will see that it concerned edit warring at an AP2 article, but I did not violate 3RR and 1RR/consensus required was not in place. While I regret taking the bait, three administrators—GoldenRing, Awilley, and Timotheus Canens—argued that the indef TBAN that Sandstein imposed was too harsh and/or that the other party in the dispute was guilty of (in the words of Timotheus Canens) "blatant violations of our content policies" by restoring what amounted to WP:HOAX material. In that case as well as the one recently initiated by MVBW, Sandstein took harsh, unilateral action against me without regard for the fact that my edits were directed against WP:HOAX and WP:PROFRINGE content, penalizing me for my inability to weaponize AE as effectively as other editors. The outcome genuinely seems to me to be unjust, and I would be remiss if I did not state my case here, whatever the odds of success.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

This appeal should be declined at least insofar at it is addressed against the enforcement block.

Regarding the topic ban: I leave it to other admins to decide whether the topic ban is still necessary, including as to its scope and length. However:

• The fact that it had to be enforced, and that TheTimesAreAChanging made personal attacks in a discretionary sanctions topic area, indicates to me that it is probably still necessary.
• The fact that it was not appealed during the year that it has been in force is also an indication that it is not prima facie unjust, overlong or unduly restrictive.

I already imposed this ban once with a time limit, and later lifted it based on TheTimesAreAChanging's assurances of good conduct. I then had to reinstate it, this time indefinitely. See WP:AELOG/2017#American politics 2. This makes me less willing to believe any new assurances of good conduct.

Regarding the enforcement block: The block should not be lifted at this time. I'm open to considering lifting it later if I am convinced that it is no longer needed to prevent ban violations and personal attacks. I'm not convinced about this at this time:

• The appeal mistakenly argues that there was no topic ban violation. In my diff quoted by TheTimesAreAChanging, I merely said that a particular edit, about Khmer Rouge atrocities, had nothing to do with US politics. This is true, because that edit did not mention or relate to the United States. But the edits for which I blocked TheTimesAreAChanging did. They were about US interventions in various wars. They therefore concerned US politics, understood to include US foreign policy, as discussed in the AE closure, which is not contested here by TheTimesAreAChanging. My previous statements therefore do not invalidate the block.
• The appeal makes the point that the block was "harsh and unilateral". All blocks are by their nature harsh and unilateral. These characteristics do not invalidate them.
• The length of the block is not contested by TheTimesAreAChanging. I therefore do not address it here.
• The block was not only made in response to topic ban violations, but also to personal attacks by TheTimesAreAChanging, to wit: "known troll", "in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" and "Stop defending Hitler!". TheTimesAreAChanging does not address these statements. This makes it appear likely that such attacks will reoccur if the block is lifted. Instead, TheTimesAreAChanging appears to argue that their position in the underlying content dispute was correct. This is immaterial. Even if it is true, it does not justify personal attacks. Content disagreements can and must at all times be expressed civilly by discussing only the content, rather than the other editor's supposed (nefarious) intent. See WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF. Sandstein 08:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Allegedly TABN violating diffs by TheTimesAreAChanging include - diff in Korean War. While US foreign policy could be construed to be part of US politics - this is stretching it - the edits in question are far from the locus of AP2 (e.g. - spats between Democrats and Republicans) - if any article involving US foreign policy is seen under AP2 - then an AP2 ban is effectively a ban from every geopolitical article post-1932 (as the US is involved in most modern geopolitics - e.g. Brexit or September Knesset election, 2019 could be seen as AP2 due to US involvement, as would just about any military conflict in the period).

The trigger to the original complaint was MVBW removing 70% of Icebreaker (Suvorov) - [1] saying an IP added it (the IP reverted another IP that removed it diff) - content that has been present in the article for over a decade. Icebreaker is a book that transfers responsibility for WWII from Hitler to Stalin. This article in Slavic Review sees this as "overarching conspiracy theories". The book is mainly known for this controversy. The version created by MVBW - permalink is problematic from a NPOV and PROFRINGE standpoint - this version is absent anything critical on this book - presenting it as seemingly mainstream (when it is very much not so). Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia - to be clear - I did not paint Suvorov's book in any which way - I quoted an academic article in Slavic Review which paints this theory in this way. this article in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies also notes the widespread rejection of this thesis. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

Please see the comment dated 14:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC) I made on Icewhiz's inaccurate description of the book "Icebreaker" in the request concerning Paul Siebert above.     ←   ZScarpia   14:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

@Icewhiz. Yes, Suvorov claimed that Stalin tried to use Hitler as a proxy to attack Europe, which would allow the Red Army to “liberate” the Europe from Nazi occupation. This is a provocative idea and something debatable, but not a reason for committing personal attacks. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul (reply to this). It is appropriate to call someone "a Ukrainian nationalist", as one of admins did in the thread below, because he provided a large number of diffs, from which it is obvious for everyone that the user is indeed a Ukrainian nationalist. But it is something completely different to repeat personal accusations on noticeboards and talk pages without any strong evidence. That is what you do.

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

@KillerChihuahua: I asked GorillaWarfare about clarifications of how ARBEE work, and, based on their answer I have to concede that the TTAAC's edit summaries, which might be marginally acceptable at regular WP pages, are not acceptable in the areas covered by AE. However, the misconduct TTAAC was acting against is also punishable. Taking into account that it seems admins cannot take actions until some AE request had been filed, I'll better focus on preparation of that request. With regard to my own statements, they were made in a context of the prospective AE request, and contained a description of actionable misconduct at Sandstein's page, so I think a term "personal attack" is hardly applicable here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)[edit]

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

Result of the appeal by TheTimesAreAChanging[edit]

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

• Good block, which was well substantiated in the original AE report.[2] Per that report, the user violated Eastern Europe sanctions by making personal attacks (accusations of Nazism at that) in the subject area ("deleted again by known WP:EEML troll User:My very best wishes ... in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism" and "Stop defending Hitler!). User also violated an American Politics TBAN by editing Civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes, United States involvement in regime change, Korean War, and Operation Freedom Deal. While AP does not inherently cover the entirety of American history or military history, these articles are obviously all highly controversial and politically charged aspects of US politics and foreign policy. This seems cut and dry, and 2 months might be severe if there was only one violation, but we're looking at repeated violations in multiple DS areas. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If I understand Paul's argument, it's that calling MVBW a Nazi troll is okay in this context, because MVBW is a Nazi troll. Paul, if you continue to argue in support of personal attacks and cast aspersions, you're going to end up blocked as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with Swarm. These were violations and violations made while making personal attacks, to boot, and following a block for disruptive socking. I agree with both the block and the length of it, and would also warn that we're on a pretty swift track to an indef, especially if there's any more socking. Stay well clear from articles that could even be considered to have anything to do with US politics. We have millions of articles totally unrelated to that subject; go work on them instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on support of block, and chastisement of Paul - personal attacks are not excused because they are "accurate". There are other ways of making your point. KillerChihuahua 13:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My very best wishes, apologies. My statement was not meant as a judgment on the accuracy or not of any personal attack; it was to inform Paul that arguing that a personal attack is "accurate" is pointless, because that's not a valid defense. KillerChihuahua 18:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Paul Siebert, you'd find better use of your time trimming your verbose statement in your case, also on this page, rather than pinging me to read you still defending your personal attacks of another editor. You are not impressing me with your desire to be a civil, responsible Wikipedia editor - quite the contrary, I am very concerned about your hostile behavior. Doubling down on your personal attack violations is not helping your position. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KHMELNYTSKYIA (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/Eastern European mailing list :

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

1. [3] POV edits on Roman Shukhevych, January 2019
2. [4] [5] [6] [7] and further reverts documented at the page history, in total 15 reverts within a month, against two different users: Edit warring on Dmitry Bortniansky, all reverted, one message on the talk page
3. [8], [9], [10] Examples of edit-warring at Vladimir Borovikovsky, edit-warring against two users, 10 reverts in total, no attempts to discuss at the talk page
4. [11] [12] Move-warring at Alexander Dukhnovych, against two users, no discussion at the talk page
5. [13], [14], [15] examples of edit-warring at Ivan Kozhedub, 13 reverts in two weeks, only showed up at the talk page when I said I will be submitting this enforcement request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [16] Block for 24h for edit-warring on Vladimir Borovikovsky (non-AE block)

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

DS alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KHMELNYTSKYIA is a Ukrainian nationalistic POV pusher. This is ok, we have a large number of nationalistic editors of all sorts. The problem is that their main conflict resolution method is edit-warring. I noticed them sometime last year; in January, after they made unhelpful edits on Roman Shukhevych, I gave them a DS alert. Most of their edits, in any articles, were reverted. In the Summer, they went through a number of articles of people who were born in the Russian Empire but in the areas which are now Ukraine, and added in the lede that they are "Ukrainian" (example: [17], the guy was born in the Russian empire, they instead write "Ukrainian-born"). I reverted all of these edits, referring to WP:MOS. They went to my talk page, I provided an explanation [18], referring again to WP:MOS, they were clearly unhappy but did not start edit-warring against me. Now, a couple of days ago, they edit-warred at Vladimir Borovikovsky against yet another user, but on exactly the same point, Ukrainian vs Russian. I gave them a 24h block. Now what did they do when the block expired? They went to Alexander Dukhnovych to start move-warring and to Ivan Kozhedub to continue edit-warring interrupted by my block. Their editing history mostly consists of reverts. I can block again, but I think it would be much easier for all of us to topic-ban them from everything related to Ukraine broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA[edit]

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

Statement by KHMELNYTSKYIA[edit]

Statement by Thomas.W[edit]

I feel there's a need to point out the level of nationalistic POV involved, because, as can be seen here, KHMELNYTSKYIA not only changes the nationality of historic people from Russian (as well as other nationalities/ethnicities) to Ukrainian, but also, through POV pipes like "... painter of [[Ukraine|Ukrainian]] origin", linking to the article about the modern day country of Ukraine, claims they were citizens of a country that didn't even exist until hundreds of years later. They also make undiscussed moves of articles, or in the case of moving Adam Kisiel to the modern Ukrainian language form of the name, Adam Kysil, moving an article in spite of there being a move discussion on the talkpage opposing the move, and the text of the article saying he self-identified as a Pole (and the area where he lived was also Polish at that time). That is applying nationality retroactively, seeing everyone who was born, or lived, in areas that now belong to the Ukraine as having been Ukrainians in spite of living long before the name Ukraine applied to any political entity (the first official use of "Ukraine" was AFAIK in 1918...). Adam Kisiel even lived before the Ukrainian language and concepts of a Ukrainian ethnicity existed (they instead spoke the Ruthenian language and saw themselves as Ruthenians). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KHMELNYTSKYIA is unfortunately not the only one who makes nationalistic POV edits on virtually all articles that are related to Ukraine, however tangential that connection is, because it has been a major problem for many years now, ranging from endless requested moves of Kiev to the name preferred in the Ukraine, Kyiv (see Talk:Kiev/naming), to repeated claims that Vladimir the Great (a name that is being constantly changed to Volodymyr the Great...) was "king of Ukraine", with a link to the modern-day country, in spite of Vladimir living a thousand years before Ukraine existed. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

I was having the same problems with this user too and gave her this advice. She seems to have ignored it. By saying that, I would object to severe actions against this user. Two factors should be taken into consideration:

• Recent political situation in Ukraine led to a rise of a wave of nationalism of a worst kind, and the overall informational background there is totally different than in the outside world. It seems she thinks her country is surrounded by enemies, which falsify Ukrainian history. By permanently banning/topic banning her, we just confirm this belief.
• This user seems to rely too much on domestic literature, which is currently of a terrible quality. Partially, the reason is that good literature is not available in Ukraine. I think this user needs mentoring, not a permanent ban, although some reasonably short break would not harm.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua:, let's approach to it as to a technical problem. The ban is not a punishment. It is a chance to reconsider one's behaviour. In connection to that, may I at least ask you to exclude a discussion of Ukraine related topics on my talk page from the topic ban's scope? I believe by allowing KHMELNITSKAYA to do so we would help her to look at the subject at different angle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KillerChihuahua:, that would be even better. Although, maybe, article talk pages should be excluded, for article talks include a consensus building process, and I am not sure she is ready for that. Let's allow her to address to any user on their talk pages, and open article talk pages in 6 months.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Comment by My very best wishes[edit]

The history of Ivan Kozhedub does show obvious edit warring. But it takes two to tango. Her "opponent", User:Ушкуйник does the same and has been alerted of discretionary sanctions in this area [19]. At the very least, his behavior should be considered in this request. Speaking about their disagreement, it appears that KHMELNYTSKYIA removes source that is indeed a disputable primary source and was not properly referenced (no title, no pages, etc.) [20]. I did not check anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning KHMELNYTSKYIA[edit]

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

• I'm leaning towards a one year topic ban, but am open to other options. I look forward to hearing from other admins on this. KillerChihuahua 13:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're to limit the ban so KHMELNYTSKYIA may discuss and learn, as opposed to edit elsewhere and learn, then all talk pages would be appropriate, IMO. Not just one. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with an indef topic ban. It should be made clear that this applies to both article and talk pages - no mentoring or discussion regarding Ukraine. Review filing allowed after 6 months but not before. KillerChihuahua 12:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit-warring is extensive and KHMELNYTSKYIA appears undeterred by a 24-hour block. For those reasons I can't see the value in a time-limited topic ban – it's wasteful of editors' time to impose a TB that can be waited out and followed by a return to previous behaviour. If KHMELNYTSKYIA can learn to edit collaboratively and demonstrate that, then I can see the point of removing a topic ban. That leads me to conclude that there should be an indefinite topic ban, reviewable after six months. I suggest that any topic ban should be from articles and article talk pages related to Ukraine, leaving user talk available for mentorship. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Paul Siebert: The primary purpose of a topic ban is to protect the encyclopedia; the opportunity to rehabilitate an offender is a secondary consideration. Naturally, I agree with you that keeping KHMELNYTSKYIA away from Ukraine-related article talk pages is preferable. --RexxS (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with RexxS and endorse an indef TBAN. Accepting a voluntary mentorship would be a great additional component of that, and would be a great path to have the ban lifted in the future. However, speaking from experience, there's no guarantee that mentorship as a gentler alternative will not be a complete waste of time, and our priority is preventing disruption to the project, not behavioral therapy. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a regular TBAN is in order on all pages related to Ukraine. Any mentoring or remedial efforts should happen in a completely different topic area, and when they can demonstrate an ability to edit collaboratively they can apply to return to this one. – bradv🍁 01:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the above, and they've edited in the last few days and not responded here. I'm closing this with a TBAN. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Roscelese[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Roscelese (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/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :

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

Roscelese has three restrictions, including being "required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." The difs below show instances where she did not. It's true that she did give explanations in her edit summaries. However, in a previous AE case she made a similar argument. The argument was not persuasive as the restrction clearly states explanations must be made on the talk page.

1. 23:03, September 6, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
2. 20:44, September 28, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
3. 11:55, September 24, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk
4. 11:54, September 24, 2019 Deleted text with no explanation on talk

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Roscelese blocked for one week per AE report. 4 April 2019
2. Roscelese blocked for two weeks per AE report. 26 April 2019
3. Roscelese blocked for four weeks per AE report. 10 June 2019

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I used WP:REVERT as a basis for my report. I could not find a limit there on how soon the reverting edit had to be made. All it says is that a revert "reverses a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits." In other actions that have resulted in a block, the offending reverts were not immediate but went back several weeks. I believe her edits here are similar. If I am wrong in this, I would appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

It is true that I do occasionally check Roscelese's activity, as she checks mine. I don't consider that hounding in either direction. If I am wrong about that, I sincerely apologize. More to the point, as we have no ongoing disputes, I can assure you that this was in no way an attempt to silence her.@Binksternet: I think you may be a bit confused. In our last dispute, and in several others, it was Roscelese, not me, who was attempting to portray the Church in a more conservative light. We often disagree, but I think the articles we both work on are in reasonably good shape now, partly as a result of this give and take. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Here

Discussion concerning Roscelese[edit]

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

Statement by Roscelese[edit]

• Slugger clearly needs to be reminded that my restriction prohibits reverting, not any editing. I obviously concur that his repeated frivolous reports to AE constitute harassment by this point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query: will this remedy be entered as part of the arb case?

@GoldenRing: other users have been one-way ibanned for harassing me before and it's easy enough to confirm that I didn't abuse the situation! After Badmintonhist was ibanned (and eventually indeffed for continued violations of the ban) I believe my only attempts to engage him were, well, filing SPIs for his socks that continued stalking me.

@Awilley: This is not the first or, I think, even the second time that Slugger, who is not in any way a new user, has has to be chided for jumping the gun about things that are not violations.

@Pudeo: this is not the first report from Slugger that's being dismissed as not a violation, and it's happened more recently than the diff you provided...?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Thank you, Aquillion! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet[edit]

Looks like hounding to me, with Slugger O'Toole trying once again to silence Roscelese who represents a voice in opposition to Slugger's political advocacy. In real life, Slugger is a pro-life activist, a member of the Knights of Columbus, and connected to the Catholic University of America (CUA). Starting out with the name Briancua, Slugger has been trying for four years to shut down Roscelese who continues to write about Catholicism and homosexuality in a way that upsets Slugger's plan to show the most conservative aspect of the Catholic Church. I would suggest an interaction ban placed on Slugger. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

This is a poor filing, as those indeed are not reverts (except one), and even if they were, it would be too much of a "gotcha" to gather them from completely unrelated articles without edit conflicts. There are no personal parole officers, though this also means editors with restrictions will get away with some instances. Although Binksternet's comment above was not outing, do we really assess the real life memberships of editors at AE? Seems like that is very close to what is described in the second bullet point of What is considered to be a personal attack?

I hope that Roscelese's description of his repeated frivolous reports to AE constitute harassment by this point did not include the three AE reports that actually resulted in blocks for violations. Lastly, @Thryduulf: I've not seen any evidence of Roscelese's engaging in unwarranted behaviour towards Slugger, this edit from the first AE report would be a pretty good example of that. Suppose that there is a reason why Roscelese has a 1RR and personalization restiction in the first place. --Pudeo (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Given that Slugger O'Toole is patiently hounding Roscelese here over things that are not reverts, and given that all three of the previous reports O'Toole references were made by him (which is more than a little excessive), I strongly urge a WP:BOOMERANG restriction barring O'Toole from bringing any more administrative or AE requests against Roscelese in the future, possibly even more broadly against filing WP:AE requests at all. The topic area is highly active, and if Roscelese is actually a problem there should be plenty of other people bringing reports - at this point it is hard to interpret the situation as anything but O'Toole trying to game the system to remove someone they disagree with. I would also suggest reconsidering Roscelese's restrictions - while, yes, some of the other reports were genuine violations, they don't seem to have caused much disruption, and the fact that O'Toole was able to so easily find unrelated minor infractions and get Roscelese repeatedly blocked with them suggests that the restriction may not be reasonable or workable, especially given that at a quick glance nobody else seems to have had any problem with Roscelese's conduct in the four years since the restrictions were placed. The fact that Roscelese had a clean block log for four years and was then blocked three times in rapid succession when O'Toole started targeting them implies, to me, that the problem is with the overly-broad restrictions and not with Roscelese. EDIT: Also, by my reading none of O'Toole's previous reports came with any sort of warning or request to self-revert - I believe that's normal for revert-limit-based restrictions, since it's so easy to violate them by accident. If Roscelese's restrictions aren't relaxed entirely, I would suggest at least a requirement for some sort of warning of that sort - the purpose of the restrictions is to ensure article stability, not to enable games of gotcha like this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Roscelese[edit]

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

• Those look like regular edits that happen to remove content. That is different than a revert. The only one where I could find a corresponding "edit" that had been "reverted" was this which removed a paragraph that had been added 5 months earlier. ~Awilley (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  RE Vanamonde's options, I would support the TBAN on Slugger pursuing arbitration enforcement against Roscelese but oppose an IBAN. I have seen evidence that Slugger is misusing the AE process, but I haven't seen evidence that their interactions at the intersection of Catholicism and Homosexuality have been problematic enough to warrant a messy IBAN. It is also my opinion that it is good for our articles when people with different viewpoints are able to talk to each other. Finally I don't want to punish Slugger too hard for not knowing that we don't enforce every removal of content as a revert. It's a very common misconception, and Help:Reverting is not clear on that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Awilley that the edits in question don't appear to violate the letter—much less the spirit—of Roscelese's editing restrictions. It doesn't appear that Slugger O'Toole has edited the articles in question. In other words, it appears that Slugger O'Toole is combing through Roscelese's contribution history looking for ways to get her in trouble, in this case on pretty flimsy grounds. That's hounding—an inappropriate behavior—and if it continues I would strongly suggest a sanction against Slugger O'Toole. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Something similar took place at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive254#Roscelese in July 2019. We should now consider sanctioning Slugger O'Toole, perhaps with an interaction ban. Sandstein 16:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding that report, Sandstein—I had looked briefly but didn't turn up the link. In light of this continued concern, I agree that some sort of sanction for Slugger O'Toole, aimed at preventing further hounding, would be appropriate. It's one thing if he organically observes a violation from Roscelese on an article they co-edit, but in this case the only plausible explanation is that he's hunting through her contribution history with the express goal of finding grounds to file a report. I will defer to admin consensus as to what form, if any, a sanction should take. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues. The distinction between a revert and a removal can be subtle, but the edits in this case are obviously removals, not reverts; and a smell test suggests this is an attempt to clear the decks of opposition, rather than to address disruption. In order of preference, I would recommend a one-way IBAN (Slugger is banned from interacting with Roscelese), or a TBAN on Slugger from making reports to administrator noticeboards about Roscelese, or a two-way IBAN. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I too agree with everyone above, and my first two preferences align exactly with Vanamonde93's. I don't support a two-way IBAN at this point as I've not seen any evidence of Roscelese's engaging in unwarranted behaviour towards Slugger. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pudeo: Ok, I'll rephrase that to "recent evidence" - February is not recent and if they made that edit today it would be covered by their existing restrictions. Unless there are any objections from other admins I'll go ahead and implement a 1-way iban in a few hours. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: My only qualm - it's not quite an objection - is that, where there is a long history of antagonism between two editors, a one-way IBAN is very easily weaponised, and even more so when that antagonism is focused on a particular topic. I would opt for the no-fault two-way IBAN here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GoldenRing: I can see the logic in that, although if a one-way iban is imposed then it would come with a reminder that if it is weaponised or misused it will be converted to a two-way iban PDQ. The need to do so would not look good if/when Roscelese comes to appeal their restrictions (and conversely it not being weaponised despite it being easy to do so would be a point in their favour). @Pudeo, Vanamonde93, MastCell, and Sandstein: do you have any thoughts? Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC) @Awilley: I missed your name, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the one-way ban is in fact gamed by Roscelese, we can at any time respond with sanctions on Roscelese. But if the concern expressed by GoldenRing is shared by others, a restriction on Slugger O'Toole from making AE requests regarding Roscelese could be an alternative. Sandstein 13:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Sandstein says, I think a sanction on Roscelese for misusing the IBAN would be easy to impose, should the need arise; and it should be fairly easy to see if the need has arisen. Pudeo's diff is concerning, but half a year old at this point. My preferences, therefore, are unchanged, though I think Awilley's point about misunderstanding revert vs removal is a good one, and therefore strengthens the case for a lesser sanction. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I would oppose both the one-way and two-way IBANs. IBANs in my experience are a messy solution that should be reserved for messy problems. This AFAICT is not a messy problem, and it can easily be solved with a lesser sanction. I can tell from their interactions in the past few cases here that Roscelese and Slugger are annoyed by each other, but both of them have kept things pretty civil, and both seem like grown-ups who can manage a little conflict without the "help" of an IBAN. ~Awilley (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly support a TBAN on Slugger from making reports to any administrator noticeboards about Roscelese. Since the intention of the report we have here shines through (=an attempt to remove an opponent), I think a TBAN only from taking Roscelese to AE would leave the door too open for simply moving these attempts to other noticeboards. Bishonen | talk 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• OK, given all the above comments I see a strong consensus for banning Slugger O'Toole from making reports about Roscelese to any administrative noticeboard, including but not limited to AE and ANI and advising both parties that one or two way ibans, and/or blocks, may be imposed if further disruption occurs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

WikipediansSweep (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/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. Oct 2 More ranting about Walter Russell
2. September 25 User page screed on how science isn't actually science
3. October 5 Definitely more pseudoscience

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. September 19 Blocked for ignoring topic ban
2. September 19 AE Topic Ban on PSCI, including Walter Russell

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on September 19 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I had tried to give WikipediansSweep the benefit of the doubt, and it was clear that ජපස (talk · contribs) was trying to be helpful and try to keep WS out of trouble. But clearly WS is only interested in talking about Pseudoscience, and has little interest in actually contributing. Of their 147 edits, only 25 are to mainspace. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[21]

Discussion concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]

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

Statement by WikipediansSweep[edit]

This is sad man... that comments been there forever with people in here who've already seen it. So idk what you're gonna do because I asked a simple question, if anything you're mad at some sort of something. I have no idea I'm not you, but the guise of this format doesn't fool me. Totally a tattletale, as if i ate chocolate after lunch.

Also be good editors and contributors, read the Twilight Club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediansSweep (talk • contribs)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning WikipediansSweep[edit]

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

• This is a clear topic ban violation. I am blocking WikipediansSweep for a week. Given that they do not indicate that they are interested in anything but fringe science, which they are banned from, I anticipate that any next block will have to be of indefinite duration. Sandstein 05:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning François Robere[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Discretionary_sanctions  :

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

1. 17:13, 2 October 2019 WP:Aspersions
2. 08:33, 4 October 2019 - unsubstantiated accusations of several contributors of Holocaust denial. Publication of an "attack article" off-wiki does not mean that personal attacks should continue on-wiki.
3. 13:57, 4 October 2019 - "I'll be happy to give you a whole bunch of diffs to show you how some editors consistently apply antisemitic stereotypes". WP:Aspersions and worse.
4. 15:15, 4 October 2019 - reply to warning
5. 22:19, 4 October 2019 - doubling down

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months 26 August 2019.
• Participated in an arbitration request about the area of conflict in the last twelve months [22].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• My apology if I misunderstood something, but I thought it was obvious which contributors François Robere is talking about in diffs #1 and #3 because he named them in diff #2 and because of the overall context of the conversations and previous history.

@Paul. There is no need to accuse the entire project or anyone specific of antisemitism, racism, or "promoting Żydokomuna" (as FR does). Just bring the diffs and say they were "problematic". If the edit was indeed antisemitic, everyone will see it.

@Levivich. It does not matter how you call the diffs. They can be #1, #2, whatever - if they are as obvious as your example. If however, you must create a wall of text with 20 references to "prove" something terrible about your content "opponent", then do not do it, and do not call him "names".

@Roscelese. I think the comments by FR on various noticeboards and his essay are extremely unhelpful because they only serve to promote conflicts and do not address any problem actually existing in WP. At least, I personally never encountered this problem in WP during years of editing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

Discussion concerning François Robere[edit]

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

Statement by François Robere[edit]

1. No editor was named here.
2. Citing a newly published article at a major newspaper (Haaretz), backed by two major historians (Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss).^[1]
   1. This is not an "off-Wiki attack article", but a piece vetted by some of the most reliable names in the field, and I was quoting it as-is as part of an ongoing discussion at Talk:Jimbo Wales. Other editors have raised it, independently, on at least four other pages.[23][24][25][26]
3. No editor was named here.
4. "Warning" from admin I'm unfamiliar with, alleging I made comments I didn't make (and that I clearly expressed my disagreement with twice [27]). Discussion was promptly closed by an Arb as "off-topic discussion that was deteriorating quickly".[28] I was not personally warned, nor singled out by the Arb.
5. Citing an RS where the editor was explicitly mentioned. I have only mentioned the editor once; this is the same mention as #2.
   1. Editor is under T-ban (history of Poland during World War II) and I-ban (Icewhiz),[29] and the discussion was about Icewhiz and Holocaust revisionism.

The OP is looking to ban me for citing a highly reliable source once; commenting on unnamed, ambiguous "editors" twice; and for being addressed by an editor I don't know for things I didn't say. I trust the admins will dismiss this request with haste. François Robere (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: The vagueness arises because clarity is not allowed - it's not the first choice, nor the ideal one, nor what anyone of us would've liked to write. Remember we had 11 ANI/AE cases, and we tried every single variety possible; for the most time, the only results we got were apathy and warnings. You may disagree with it, but the fact remains that Policy is inexact enough that many admins interpret it in just that manner. Bottom line: even statements like "claim X expresses a traditionally racist stereotype (see diffs)" are hazardous, because the diffs themselves can be construed as PA (as they link to editors), and we inevitably end up with obtuse and ambiguous statements. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roscelese[edit]

Speaking as a user with minimal prior editing history in this area, the problems that Francois is describing represent a serious threat to the integrity of Wikipedia and it would be a shame if describing them were sanctionable behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

@François Robere: raises a very important question in his "Aside" section. Per WP:NPA, "comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons" is considered a personal attack (which is correct: nobody knows who these users are in real life). Instead, we are advised to "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In that respsect, it is really interesting to know what wording should have FR used in that case? Obviously, to use a "trial-and-error" approach (to try some wording and see if admins ban you) is hardly a good idea.

I am interested to know how should FR, as well as any other user, describe real or alleged manifestations of antisemitism? Is "the edit made by X is antisemitic" a comment on a content or on a contributor? Or he should have used some newspeak like "I find the statement Y a manifestation of antisemitism", and then to show a diff without calling a name? Or we are allowed to add: "the statement X was made by a user X"? Is this language ok? If no, then how could we describe and report a cases of antisemitism? If yes, what is wrong with combining these two statements in one: "A statement Y made by a user X is a manifestation of antisemitism"?

I am asking because that seems to be not only FR's and my problem: another good faith user told me he could be in the same situation, because the rules are unclear.

I already asked similar question on the NPA talk page, and the answer was literally "No universal answer exists. In connection to that, I am wondering how can good faith users observe rules that are obviously vague.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC) @Thryduulf: Actually, users resort to vague accusations and similar WP newspeak because a clear and concrete accusations, which use the wording that you described as acceptable, may inflict severe sanctions on those who throws them. If you want fresh examples, I can provide them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

@MVBW: If I said, "Calling a black man a n*****r is problematic," I think others would find that downright insulting. Because it’s not "problematic", it’s racist. Euphemisms aren’t appropriate in such situations, in my opinion; I think it’s better if we call things what they are.

Statement by Thryduulf[edit]

@Paul Siebert and François Robere: The best way to avoid trouble is to avoid trying to find where the line between acceptable and unacceptable is - the line is fuzzy and context dependant. In the example given, "the edit by x seems antisemitic." is borderline, far better to say "the edit by x seems to be promoting antisemitism, because y" or "I think the source user x added with this edit is not suitable, because y". In other words, make sure it's clearly about the content not the editor, and explain clearly what the problem with it is and why. It doesn't matter whether an editor is or is not antisemitic, what matters is that the article is NPOV. The consensus (which I agree with) is that antisemitism is bad, and so our articles should not give the impression otherwise. Vague accusations that some unnamed editors are trying to make the article pro-antisemitism do not help address the issues, they just serve to make the editing environment less collegial which in turn makes it harder to improve the article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning François Robere[edit]

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

• I'm not seeing anything actionable here. In particular, the alleged aspersions were not cast against any identified or identifiable editors. Everybody in the whole Poland/WWII topic area needs to seriously calm down or at some point we'll have to ban a whole lot of people. Sandstein 11:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree w/ Sandstein here, and as one that read that Haaretz article, it may out some past editors' names (I haven't checked to see if they were already outed), but it is far from an attack article but a fair look at a situation on WP related to this area. I do think FR needs to tone down the rhetoric - behavior is in the ballpark to the reasons why an editor like TheRamblingMan came under specific sanctions but not at a point of actionability yet. --Masem (t) 14:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm unconvinced that there is anything sanctionable here, but as Masem says, FR needs to dial it back a lot here; there are only so many times that you can accuse un-named editors of anti-semitism without naming them (diff3), but then name other editors in a separate context (diff2) without eventually doing something that will get you sanctioned. Icewhiz, sadly, went too far with this; it would be unfortunate if it happened again. Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not actionable. If anything the Haaretz article seems to indicate that the wrong editor may have been banned. It's the standard technique of people insulting each other until one of them is goaded to step over a line. Whoever can deal with this sort of Machiavellian operation most cleverly wins. I recognize FR is taking a risk in being forthright in recalling attention to the underlying problem., but we should not be penalizing honesty, althoug it seems that we sometimes have done so. DGG ( talk ) 08:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning ClarinoI[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019):

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

1. 14:01, 24 September 2019‎ Calling a living person a terrorist
2. 20:19, 26 September 2019 Same as above
3. 15:12, 27 September 2019 Same as above
4. 22:53, 28 September 2019 Same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Also see here, as I do not know how the system log works but I cannot see my notification.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 15:51, 27 September 2019 I explained to the editor why their edit was incorrect and suggested they discuss it on the article's talk page. This was ignored and the editor reverted again.

@Pudeo: The sentence being edited already ends with "best known for planting a bomb in the Brighton Grand Hotel targeting Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her Cabinet, which killed five people". I would think most people reading that would form their own opinion of Patrick Magee, without the need to apply a contentious unattributed label to a living person. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: I had no wish for ClarinoI to use my talk page as a soapbox for their views. I had previously directed them to use the article's talk page here. Also in that diff I refuted their point that the term "volunteer" suggests he "were helping set up seats for his local church's fund raising concert". Even after I pointed out the article links to Volunteer (Irish republican) not to Volunteer ClarinoI still claimed it did here, so it is hardly fair to claim I am failing to discuss when ClarinoI does not read the article or my comments properly and makes the same incorrect assertion. I don't care what, if any, sanction is applied, providing it stops the edit warring. FDW777 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

Discussion concerning ClarinoI[edit]

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

Statement by ClarinoI[edit]

Statement by Pudeo[edit]

This person is described as "terrorist", "former terrorist" or having committed a terrorist attack in some sources: [33][34][35] though he himself objects to being labeled as such: [36]. MOS:TERRORIST does not mean the word can't be used to describe a BLP in Wikipedia. For instance, the stable version of Anders Behring Breivik has called him a terrorist since 2011.

So that's not an outrageous BLP violation itself. The problem is that he didn't use sources or communicate when questioned. Maybe he's new. But he needs to do that when doing these kind of contentious edits. --Pudeo (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs[edit]

I personally take a very dim view of those who target and intentionally slaughter innocents for political purposes. By definition, he's a terrorist and one convicted of his crimes. Describing him otherwise is inappropriate and an attempt to push WP:NPOV beyond the lines of credulity. That said, I think an RfC and discussion should resolve this and I'll happily take whatever consensus comes about.

This seems like a relatively new user doing noob things and should be handled accordingly. I endorse a short block for edit warring, but we should work to engage with this editor, not expunge them; I'm not seeing any violation of WP:BLP. This is a SIMPLE content dispute that doesn't need to be here. Buffs (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning ClarinoI[edit]

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

• This is actionable. A discussion could well be had about whether this man should be described as a terrorist: He set a bomb that killed five people, and that article, Brighton hotel bombing, is part of the category Category:Terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom in 1984. But this label would need reliable sources. And so far, all ClarinoI has been doing is to edit-war about this. I think an indef WP:NOTHERE normal admin block is indicated. Sandstein 09:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think an indef would be harsh here. Inserting the word "terrorist" into a paragraph which otherwise describes him as a member of a terrorist organisation, responsible for a terrorist attack and gives him the nickname "Brighton bomber" is hardly on the long end of BLP violations. FDW777's response to ClarinoI's attempt to discuss it smacks rather of WP:CRYBLP. ClarinoI does need to respond here and indicate that they are aware of the need to source information and to refrain from edit-warring, though. GoldenRing (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I, also, am more on the GoldenRing than the Sandstein end of the proposed resolution. Let's see if the user responds. El_C 15:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See this story. This is not Wikipedia's problem to fix. Whether to call him a terrorist in Wiki-voice or not is a question for the Talk page, it is not a violation of any policy. Guy (help!) 20:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to disagree with Guy. Whether to call a BLP subject a terrorist in Wikipedia's voice is not a legitimate content dispute. Per the MOS, invoking the label at all requires widespread usage to describe the person in sources, and only then can it be used with in-text attribution. But this is not even that situation. This is not a user here to improve an article with sourced content. This is pure and straightforward POV-pushing to make an article make a negative claim about a subject without a source. They edit warred over it and ignored warnings. Preventing this sort of SPA POV-pushing is exactly why we have these sanctions. I'm all for avoiding biting and AGF, but if there is a refusal to be accountable here and try to learn going forward (or continued disruption), a straight Troubles TBAN would make sense. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. Per MOS:TERRORIST "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinions and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." ~Awilley (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Especially when we are talking about the Troubles, and this person being associated with the IRA, replacing the accurate (if not questionable term) Volunteer (Irish republican) with "terrorist", without adding attribution, is definitely wrong. We can let readers make their own determination if IRA members should be called terrorists, but WP should be avoiding that direct association in wikivoice like the plague, and this is definitely an actionable report within the Troubles confines. --Masem (t) 00:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Whatever the merits of this case, the user has made seven edits in total and none since Sunday. I suspect we have seen the last of them. GoldenRing (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems like a relatively new user that lacks an understanding of our policies. A pointer to them, along with a short block for edit-warring—as a regular admin action, not an AE action—would be appropriate under normal circumstances. However, I would close this matter as stale since, as GR points out, the editor has made seven edits altogether and none in the last five days or so. Neutrality^talk 01:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Greyshark09[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 21:11, 3 October 2019 removes connection between Ma'abarot and One Million Plan
2. 21:17, 3 October 2019 Proposes deletion of One Million Plan. I will not comment on the merits of this here. Discussion began just half an hour later. Rather than responding to the subsequent discussion, the editor went on a campaign (see below).
3. 06:25, 4 October 2019 tags image connecting Ma'abarot and One Million Plan as dubious, and opens a talk discussion. Canvasses another editor with whom he was previously aligned Note, the editor pinged me too, knowing I was already actively involved in the discussion
4. 06:02, 6 October 2019 deletes the same image, after it was deleted and replaced by two other editors (including the canvassed editor), without having addressed any of the talk comments
5. 06:11, 6 October 2019 deletes sourced content related to the same image on another article

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

• User_talk:Greyshark09/Archive_5#Discretionary_sanctions_notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• @Sandstein: the last two edits (06:02 and 06:11) were disruptive in nature. Two discussions were ongoing on the topic, there was clear opposition to their position, but rather than discussing and trying to build consensus they decided to edit war their position into these articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [37]

Discussion concerning Greyshark09[edit]

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

Statement by Greyshark09[edit]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy[edit]

Regarding Onceinawhile's first diff, please note there was a discussion on the talk page [38] the last time he tried to add the One Million Plan to the template almost 4 years ago, where no editor supported its inclusion and two objected. Adding it again without discussion is a violation of ARBPIA, while removing it is restoring a stable consensus version. This is a slow edit war on Onceinawhile's part. Obvious ARBPIA violation is obvious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 3rd diff, I am the main author of the article, not "another editor with whom [Greyshark] was aligned". I had to completely rewrite the article after Onceinawhile created a blatantly NPOV violating article and then submitted it to DYK. Compare his version here to the stable version at One Million Plan.

The other diffs provided don't show any ARBPIA violations either, and this filing is a very obvious attempt to get rid of an opponent. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Greyshark09[edit]

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

• Unless another administrator disagrees I will close this as not actionable as reported. The report needs to explain why any of the reported conduct violates any applicable conduct policy or guideline. It does not. Sandstein 16:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So closed. The complainant now alleges edit-warring, but does not provide evidence, in the form of dated diffs of all relevant edits, to establish that edit-warring took place. Sandstein 15:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

3 month topic ban from the Eastern Front [39]; see also my informal appeal and a subsequent exchange.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[40]

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

• In his response, Sandstein correctly writes "you must not speculate about the motives of others". Unfortunatelly, Sandstein's interpretation of my diff#1 and diff#2 as "comparing editors to Nazis" would be hardly possible without assuming that when I wrote "defend Hitler" I wanted to "call these other editors defenders of Nazism". Actually, he cannot know what I really wanted to say, he cannot claim that by writing "X", I meant "Y", and he must not speculate about my motives, per his own rule.
• As I already explained (see the first part of "Full evidences" section) I didn't use the word "Nazi" in a context of the user MVBW, and there was a very serious reason for that. There is a big difference between advocacy of the views of, for example, David Irving, a legally confirmed Holocaust denier,^[1] and pushing just the Suvorov's theory. I am always trying to be accurate in my statements, I described MVBW's actions using the words found in reliable sources, I know that the words "Nazi defender" (or derivatives thereof) are NOT used by scholars to describe Suvorov, and that is why I never applied those words to the actions of MVBW, who is advocating Suvorov's views.
• The conflict that has lead to this AE report started around the book Icebreaker by Suvorov. It's major idea is that Stalin was more responsible for WWII outbreak than Hitler, and that Hitler's Barbarossa plan was just an act of self-defense.^[2][3] Suvorov defends Hitler's decision to attack the USSR, but he does NOT defend Nazism and its crimes, and, accordingly, he is NOT considered a Nazi defender by scholarly community. That is corroborated by the fact that his theory was seriously discussed in respected, mainstream Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung^[4], and supported by some democratic and liberal Russian journalists, such as Julia Latynina and Mikhail Veller[41][42]; R.C.Raack, a reputable American historian, sees Suvorov's ideas as deserving thoughtful analysis.^[5]Obviously, all of that would be impossible, had Suvorov been an Irving style Nazi defender.

Importantly, both Suvorov's supporters and his critics agree that his books make Hitler look better;^[2] many critics say Suvorov's books defend Hitler and his strategic decisions to attack the USSR.^[6][7] Other reviews on Icebreaker available at Jstor.org either say pretty much the same, or do not contradict to that conclusion. However, AE is not an appropriate place for presenting a comprehensive list of reviews on that book.

• I believe it is obvious that when a user A is pushing the book X in Wikipedia, then the epithets that are applicable to X are equally applicable to the actions of A. If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler,^[7] the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A. I don't see any flaw in this logic, but I DO see a serious logical flaw in Sandstein's conclusion that by writing "X's edits defend Hitler" I meant "A user X is a Nazi supporter".

To summarize:

1. It does not follow from presented evidences that I ever called a user MVBW "Nazi defender".
2. The fact that Suvorov's books revive a bizarre politics of defending Hitler^[7] is an undeniable fact, although it is well known that this author is NOT a Nazi defender.
3. MVBW is aggressively pushing Suvorov's views (see a third part of the "Full evidences" section).
4. Therefore, it would be correct to apply the same words (bizarre politics of defending Hitler) to MVBW's actions. That was exactly what I did in my diffs #1&2.

Q.E.D.

Based on all said above, and taking into account the context, it is obvious that in my diffs #1&2 I actually say that the user MVBW is pushing a fringe theory that defends Hitler, concretely, his decision to attack the USSR. That claim is much less outstanding than the claim that was ascribed to me by Sandstein, it does not need outstanding evidences, and the evidences presented by me here fully support this claim. With regard to formal aspects of these two statements, it seems Sandstein has no objections to that, so I am not discussing this issue here.

In connection to that, independently on a result of that appeal, it would be fair if Sandstein modified his statements where he incorrectly accused me of calling some users "defenders of Nazism".

Appendix. I asked two closely related questions at different fora [43], [44], and the answers were: [45], [46].

@El C: Yes, that does not necessarily suggests POV pushing. However, when an experienced user vandalized the article one time, then does that again, than is doing several partial reverts: this and this this, this, and that in just a couple of days (a clear sluggish edit was), that tells something about the user. Taking into account that the same user has been engaged in a sluggish edit war on the same subject in a sister article: [47], [48], [49],[50], [51], [52], that suggests something about a user. Note, he is persistently removing good English sources and adding some garbage sources. Note, my participation in that edit war was minimal.

@Levivich: It seems you misunderstand something: what happened was a total removal of ALL criticism of the theory that defends Hitler (see my responce to @El C:). By that, a user gave absolutely undue weight to some fringe view. If that is not POV pushing, than what is? If an editor is edit-warring and vandalising the article to advance some POV, they do feel strongly. Regarding a misconception, I repeatedly asked about a wording that could be appropriate in this situation, the answers are shown in the "Appendix" section. My conclusion from these answers is that my wording is ok if it is supported by evidences. My evidences seem adequate, what is the problem? My question is not rhetorical, I sincerely want to master this Wikipedia newspeak.

@Nug: First, discussions of that type are explicitly allowed during appeals. Second, if you remember, I refused to present any evidences against you during EEML arbitration, although, retrospectively, I understand that I could. Don't you feel that it would be noble to abstain from supporting your friend today? @GoldenRing:, @El C:, @Sandstein: As far as I understand, you see a problem primarily with wording. In connection to that, can anybody give me a direct answer to one concrete question:

If I see a disruptive behaviour of a user X, who vandalized the page, removes a well sourced criticism, edit-warring, and, according to reliable sources, this type activity is defending Hitler, what wording can be used to report this user? Note, my post at Sandstein's page was not a part of a normal discussion, it was tantamount to report? What is the problem with a statement "User's X edits defend Hitler"? Does it imply anything about motives?

A second question. Do I understand correct that by banning me from reporting that user you demonstrate me that you see more problem with formal wording than to a potential disruption case? Is it a consolidated position of admins?

I believe if your goal is really to decrease the number of violations, you should explain me that, because I really don't want to use a trial-and-error approach to understand admins' position.

@GoldenRing:, @El C:, @Sandstein:, @Nick-D: I am pointing your attention at the fact that this diff contains a directly false statement: that user never "restored" that sourced content. The references and the criticism that were previously removed by that user were restored by a user who edited this article just before MVBW. A simple browsing of the article's history easily demonstrates that. Making false statements that conceal incorrect actions is a serious violation. As far as I know, that is a second deceptive claim made by MVBW.

The provisions of my topic ban do not allow me to report this user, everywhere except in this thread. I think it is in interests of a community if the provisions of my topic ban will be amended to allow me to report that user, and provide a full description of his violation, which is serious.

@Seraphimblade: It seems you are missing the point. My objection is focused mostly on the equation of "Acting as a Hitler defending" and "Being a Nazi defender", which, as I demonstrated, is totally wrong. The former statement (in a context of the current topic) means being a defender of a theory that, according to reliable sources, defends one concrete strategic decision of Hitler, and I do not think this accusation is not nearly as serious as an accusation of being a Nazi defender. In addition, recent and previous actions of that user seem to add more weight to that my conclusion. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ @Thryduulf:, @Seraphimblade:, @GoldenRing:, @El C: & a closing admin; Concluding remarks Thank you everybody for comments. I think the consensus is clearly to decline the appeal, so it would be correct if some admin closed this case.

I want to make some general statement, where I want to present my general vision of the problem.

When reporting some civil POV pusher, we always have a dilemma: if the report contains just a very neutral and abstract description of user's actions, majority of admins may consider it just a content dispute. If a description of user's actions is too focused on the user's malicious intents, such a report may be considered a personal attack (as this case demonstrated). In connection to that, I think we need some specific rules that define which language is acceptable for reporting civil POV pushers, and, simultaneously, give enough freedom to the user who reports that type misbehaviour. So far, I failed to figure out what these rules are, although from your comment I conclude some wording is a priori not acceptable, whereas some other wording is not. Before that case, I believed that any wording that discusses user's actions "the actions of a user X is YYY" (where "YYY" can be any statement) is a priori ok, whereas any wording that discusses user's personality like "a user X IS YYY" is not. Now I see that it seems wrong.

I am ready to play according any rules, provided that these rules are clear and universally accepted. So far, I failed to find a clear description of those rules. I am not going to use a trial-and-error approach to figure out what is acceptable and whet is not, and it seems the only solution is to address to ArbCom for general explanations, which I am going to do in close future.

Thank you everybody, please, don't waste your time, and close the case.

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I recommend that this appeal is declined for the reasons given by Nug and El_C.

As to Levivich's suggestion that a warning would have been appropriate, I think that this appeal indicates that a warning would not have been heeded. The ban was not twice the length of the previous 24h block because the sanctions are not for the same kind of misconduct, and because blocks and topic bans are not equivalent. A block is much more restrictive than a narrow topic ban. Sandstein 06:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Here is link to WP:AE case under discussion.

Paul completely misrepresents my editing and motivations. @Paul, once again, I did not act "as a Hitler defender" and a "troll", contrary to your claim [53]. I also did not "push a fringe theory that defends Hitler", as you continue claiming here, just as before [54].

@Nick_D. I did not remove sourced criticism from the page (please see my diffs 1.1-1.5 in the original WP:AE case [55]), and the criticism is currently included on the page Icebreaker (Suvorov). If you or anyone else thinks this is not enough, you are very welcome to edit this page and improve it.

@Nick_D. I temporarily removed this content from the page to discuss it on talk and re-include the reliably sourced part of the content with modifications later, after verification. That follows from my editing summary, explanations on the article talk page [56] and actual editing, i.e. restoring version with criticisms, see also my diffs 1.1-1.5 in the original WP:AE case [57]. I never said it was entirely unsourced.

@Nick-D. Do you think my comment on your talk page [58] was problematic? Well, I just wanted to ask if you read the book by Suvorov, because it helps to read the book if you edit a page about the book, it helps to know a theory if you edit a page about theory, etc. It does not matter if an author was right or wrong. If you want to make a good page about the Bible, you should read the Bible, along with literature about the Bible.

Statement by Nug[edit]

Paul doesn’t seem to be exhibiting any understanding why he was topic banned in the first place. He says above: ”If reliable sources state that the book X revives a bizarre politics of defending Hitler, the same is applicable to the contributions made by a user A.”. No, it is not okay to conflate a viewpoint or political beliefs held by an author of a source and project it as the POV of an editor using that source in contributing to an article . That would have a chilling effect upon achieving NPOV. The place to assess a source would be WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN. This appears to be a relitigation of the original topic ban, the outcome of which expressly prohibits “continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request” —Nug (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

@Paul: I would go even further than El_C's formulation and say that an editor can feel very strongly that a particular source should be included, and still not be pushing the POV of that source. For example, Adolf Hitler would not be a complete article without some quotes from Mein Kampf, and so Mein Kampf is a source for the article Adolf Hitler. You'll see "Hitler, A." in the references. I am strongly in favor of including that source in that article; it doesn't mean that I am promoting or pushing Hitler's POV, or that I'm a Hitler fan or Hitler defender.

@Sandstein and other admin: That said, if you look at the original AE report, Sandstein noted that Paul had one prior sanction, a 24hr 1RR block from nine year ago, and so a relatively-brief sanction was merited. I don't think a three months' topic ban from the topic area is relatively brief, or warranted. What happened to the sanction being twice the length of the previous sanction? The previous sanction was a 24hr block 9 years ago for 1RR; there were no previous PA sanctions.

Also, why was a warning skipped? A warning that explained what I explained in my first paragraph above probably would have educated Paul about this point, so he could conform his behavior accordingly. Instead, by just issuing a sanction without an explanation/warning, we get an appeal that misses the point, as this one did. I think Paul needs to be educated about the misconception he has, and the sanction length should be reduced, in light of the fact it's his first PA sanction ever, and the PA consisted of saying that someone else's PA was correct (which is slightly better than making a new PA of your own, I guess). – Levivich 01:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Paul Siebert[edit]

• As a general comment, I looked into experts' views on Suvorov and his book Icebreaker as part of drafting the para on this at Operation Barbarossa#Soviet preparations (please see the last para). This material was discussed on the talk page of that article before being added and has now survived with no significant changes for several years. Icebreaker is generally considered unreliable by experts in this field, two of whom have gone to the trouble of writing entire books to rebut it. As such, the Icebreaker (Suvorov) article should go into greater detail on the reactions to the book by experts than it currently does. In particular, it should be made clear to readers that Suvorov's argument has little support among historians and the book is generally not considered reliable. The material being added by the IP was a mix of bad and OK content though, and it's sensible to have removed it pending proper review of sources given that this is a somewhat complex topic with a surprisingly large literature covering it. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this post, User:My very best wishes posted this on my talk page arguing that Suvorov should be taken seriously. Given that Suvorov is very much a fringe source, I find it concerning that My very best wishes is removing criticism of the book from the article. I suspect that Paul has grounds for being concerned and frustratated here. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also concerning that My very best wishes is now claiming that they did not remove sourced criticism from the page as they did exactly that, twice [59] [60]. There are some OK grounds to have removed this material given that the presence of uncited POV claims in what the editor added makes the whole package suspect, but it is dishonest to state that it was entirely unsourced. I can't say that I remember having encountered this editor before, but this kind of deception is as awful as it is stupid. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Paul Siebert[edit]

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

• I agree with Nug. An editor could contribute content that's derived from a source without necessarily being engaged in promoting the views that the source represents. El_C 01:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I more or less agree with Paul on the content here; removing all criticism of a book that absolves Hitler of responsibility for WWII is not acceptable (note that I haven't looked into whether that is what MVBW was doing and it is not necessary to find out for the purposes of this analysis). But even if that was exactly what MVBW was doing, it is not appropriate to dismiss another editor's views by accusing them of defending Hitler. The way to resolve such disputes is by collegial discussion and getting more editors involved to form consensus on the subject. I don't care if reliable sources accuse the book of defending Hitler; imputing that same motive to other editors is not appropriate. This is clear BATTLEGROUND behaviour and, in my view, the sanction was warranted. I would decline the appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• There is not any interpretation needed here; the very diffs cited in the appeal states that ...MVBW was definitely acting as Hitler's defender, and ...aimed to whitewash Hitler.... Ironically, these represent the very types of speculations on another editor's motive that Paul Siebert objects to in his appeal statement. Of course, one might disagree with edits another editor makes, but the old saw to focus on content, not the contributor is especially critical in sensitive areas subject to discretionary sanctions. That didn't happen here, the sanction was appropriately levied for personalizing the argument rather than simply focusing on content, and I would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade and so will decline this appeal if no other admin objects. @Nick-D: et al, it is irrelevant to this appeal what MVBW's actions were, and/or whether they were correct or otherwise (and I make no judgement on that) - the only thing relevant is whether is Paul Siebert's behaviour and whether the sanction for it was correctly applied. If you wish to discuss MVBW's actions, then you need to do so in an appropriate forum (which might or might not be an AE report about them). Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Piznajko[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Piznajko (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

(see my comments below)

1. 4 August 2018 Talk page notice: "Due recent negativity pushed on me by pro-Russian editors, I'd like to keep this talk page to official messages only; to make myself more clear: unless you're a WP admin or bureaucrat, who came to my TP to leave an official WP message, your contribution to this talk page is not welcome (and will be removed)"
2. August 2019: Walls of text 1, walls of text 2, walls of text 3, unclosed a closing, unclosed again, all on Talk:Kiev/naming (after which I gave then a DS alert).
3. September 2019 New walls of text, and more, and more, and more, and again and completely irrelevant rant with personal comments still on Talk:Kiev/naming, and now here on Talk:Ukraine, literally the same, again pinging Roman Spinner, and again and now claiming Roman Spinner is the only authority for which eventually I gave them a block
4. 5 October 2019 Walls of text at Talk:Ukrainian literature, not really addressing the point of discussion
5. 5 October 2019, walls of text at Talk:Ukraine again
6. tendentious editing 17 October 2019

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 March 2018 Warning for edit warring on Talk:Kiev
2. 31 March 2018 Warning for edit warring on Antisemitism in Ukraine
3. 4 May 2018 24h block for edit warring on Antisemitism in the Russian Empire
4. 5 May 2018 Warning for personal attacks
5. 20 February 2019 Warning for edit-warring on 4A Games (Ukrainian company - Ymblanter)
6. 2 October 2019 48h block for disruptive editing on Talk:Ukraine (unblock request posted, not acted on within 48h [61])

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

2018, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Apparently, Piznajko had a troubled history before I noticed them in August 2019, and has been warned multiple times and blocked for edit-warring in articles related to Ukrainian topics. I noticed them first at Talk:Kiev/naming. This page was created to reduce disruption at Talk:Kiev, where Ukrainian users constantly demanded to move the article to Kyiv. In August, Piznajko started to post walls of text there, celebrating that style guides of certain media switched to Kyiv, constantly pinging Roman Spinner, the only other editor who advocates this name, and would not stop even after having repeatedly told by multiple editors that the only factor which matters is how the city is actually called by the native speakers of English. At one instance, they edit-warred for closing the thread and stopped only when I explicitly told them I would block for the next revert. Still, they soon posted more walls of text, and went to other pages (pinging again Roman Spinner hoping to get support). After they claimed that Roman Spinner is the only user who understands the matter and went far into WP:IDHT territory, I blocked them. They of course disagreed and posted an unblock request that they did not do anything wrong. A couple of days ago, they started editing articles, and the editing of Ukrainian literature (where at the talk page they previously also posted walls of text not really addressing the point) is clearly disruptive. For example (diff above), at some point they had a list of countries in the lede which said Ukraine was ruled by, one of them was Lithuania with a link to the modern state. When I replaced Lithuania with the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (since of course modern Lithuania never "ruled" Ukraine) they replaced all other countries (for example, Romania to the Kingdom of Romania) leaving Russia intact (apparently implying modern Russia "ruled" Ukraine?). Given that on their talk page they state "Due recent negativity pushed on me by pro-Russian editors, I'd like to keep this talk page to official messages only; to make myself more clear: unless you're a WP admin or bureaucrat, who came to my TP to leave an official WP message, your contribution to this talk page is not welcome (and will be removed)", my conclusion is that Piznajko is just not capable of constructively contributing to any topics related to Ukraine. This disruption continues already at least for one and a half year.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

Discussion concerning Piznajko[edit]

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

Statement by Piznajko[edit]

Statement by Thomas.W[edit]

Unfortunately Piznajko isn't the only Ukrainian editor who simply cannot edit any article even tangentially connected to Ukraine in a neutral way, but they have lately been one of the most active ones, absolutely refusing to accept that the Ukrainian government can't decide what "common use" in the English language should be, as can be seen in Ymblanter's diffs above of walls of text posted by Piznajko on Talk:Kiev/naming and Talk:Ukraine, and also making POV edits like this one on Ukrainian literature, as part of a series of edits mentioned by Ymblanter above. An edit that removed Poland from the list of countries that have ruled parts of the modern country of Ukraine (the edit replaced "Romania" with "Kingdom of Romania" and "Ottoman Turkey" with "Ottoman Empire", changes I have no objections to, but removed "Poland" entirely instead of replacing it with the Second Polish Republic, as would have been historically correct), with an edit summary saying that they "aren't aware of Ukraine ever being ruled by modern Poland ...", which is an astounding claim since there is no way a Ukrainian editor who is educated enough to be able to edit the English language Wikipedia cannot know that much/most of modern-day Western Ukraine, including the large city of Lwów/Lviv, was part of Poland until being occupied by the Soviet Union and transferred to the Ukrainian S.S.R. during World War II, resulting in a "population exchange" where the majority of the Poles living there (who made up 57% of the population before WW II, but only 0.7% in 2001) were forced out, and replaced by Ukrainians and Russians from elsewhere. A removal of Poland that IMHO can be seen only as a deliberate attempt to falsify history, considering that they, since they correctly changed "Romania" to "Kingdom of Romania" in the edit, obviously knew that parts of Romanian Bessarabia were also transferred to the Ukrainian S.S.R. during WW II, after being occupied by the Soviet Union (while the rest of Bessarabia became Moldova). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I think that editing by Piznajko was definitely problematic. I saw him to be engaged in sustained edit warring against consensus on pages like Antisemitism in the Russian Empire, i.e. [63],[64],[65],[66],[67],[68] and on a couple of others (for example, [69],[70],[71],[72],[73]), although it was a year ago. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Piznajko[edit]

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

• The purpose of discretionary sanctions is to provide an environment where editors can improve articles collaboratively and productively. Editors who insult others, disrupt collaborative processes, or continuously reject consensus ought to be removed from the topic area or from the project. It would be appropriate to hear from Piznajko before proposing a solution, but I would expect their response to address the manner in which they intend to improve our coverage of Ukraine-related topics. – bradv🍁 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Since it has been over 48 hours and we haven't heard from Piznajko, I'm in favour of moving forward with a topic ban from Ukraine, broadly construed. – bradv🍁 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm posting in this section because, while I created the subpage Talk:Kiev/naming and posted a note at its top, that was in 2007, and I've had nothing to do with the issue since then, nor did I even then express an opinion on the naming issue. Like Bradv, I will also wait for Piznajko to respond — not indefinitely, though. Meanwhile, Ymblanter, I've removed the examples of evidence that the user is aware of DS that the template offered — you haven't added diffs to them, and I think you may have left them in by mistake. They're not needed, anyway. Please just restore (with diffs and names) if I'm mistaken about your intention. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Unless Piznajko comes up with a truly astounding response here in the next day or so at most then I think the minimum we should be doing here is issuing a topic ban from Ukraine, broadly interpreted. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree that, unless we very shortly hear something absolutely astonishing from Piznajko, a topic ban from Ukraine would be warranted. I'm having a difficult time seeing any explanation they could offer that would excuse this type of behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I the only person wondering why a topic ban is being discussed, rather than the glaringly obvious long-term block just being imposed? However, granted that a topic ban is what is being discussed, my opinion is that such a ban is clearly more than justified. Experience suggests that he or she is extremely unlikely to give any reasonable explanation, or to demonstrate any understanding of the issues, or to change their ways in future, so just putting a halt to their editing on the topic is the only way forward. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Piotrus[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JolantaAJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Piotrus (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 - " 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. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance."

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

1. [74]: using newspaper.[75]
2. [76]: using local newspaper [77] and radio [78].
3. [79]: using press release from prosecutor in revisionist organization. [80]
4. [81]: using prosecutor report from revisionist organization. [82]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Not sure. From what I read in paper, it is probable.

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

Not DS, but is aware, warned others: [83], [84]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am involved in Holocaust education and was disturbed by recent Wikipedia news. The other sources in Katowice massacre aren't better, the article is a one sided martyrdom account that our current government is advancing [85]. None of the sources meets the "peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions" criteria.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[86]

Discussion concerning Piotrus[edit]

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

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Piotrus[edit]

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

• No action. The first and second diffs describes Gazeta Wyborcza as a "local newspaper", which is akin to describing the Washington Post or the Times of London as a local newspaper. The third and fourth diffs pass off the Polish government's Institute_of_National_Remembrance as a "revisionist organisation", this is at best a stretch. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider these two sources as "articles published by reputable institutions", and so I see no breach of the restriction here. And a big welcome to JolantaAJ, making their second edit to the English Wikipedia. Fish+Karate 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest speedy closing with no action, the filer is clearly a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning LD1998[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

David O. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

LD1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2

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

1. 10/26/19 Initial reversion of a user's edits
2. 10/26/19 Reversion that broke 1RR

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

• User alerted here: User_talk:LD1998#Discretionary_Sanctions_Notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user reverted 1RR. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[87]

Discussion concerning LD1998[edit]

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

Statement by LD1998[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning LD1998[edit]

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

• Decline. You cannot fulfill the awareness criteria by providing it after the fact! Also, you should really use the alert template available here instead of plain text. El_C 02:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Paul Siebert[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pudeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Paul Siebert (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#Final decision :

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

1. 03:57, 29 September 2019 continued participation in a discussion about Nazi/Communist-related personal attacks at WT:NPA (the AE thread dealt with aspersions like "Hitler's defenders")
2. 05:36, 23 October 2019 started a RS/N thread about the Holocaust and Holocaust denial (Eastern Front WWII-related)
3. 00:51, 22 October 2019 commentary on a RS/N thread about Soviet gas vans and Holocaust denialism
4. 16 October - 25 October 2019 dozens of comments at Talk:Gas van (Eastern Front WWII-related and continuation of dispute with My very best wishes)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21:50, 28 September 2019 Paul Siebert topic banned "from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE."

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 21:50, 28 September 2019 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Three users, including me, raised concerns that the commentary about Holocaust denialism and Soviet gas vans may be a topic ban violation on Paul's talkpage. The gas vans were used to some extent by the Soviets in 1937 before the war, and they were used by Nazi Germany in the Eastern Front after 1941. Paul himself responded that the Nazi usage has "always been beyond the scope of my interest". He also stated that the Holocaust in general is not a part of the Eastern Front.

While you could interpret this that maybe the Holocaust isn't that related to the Eastern Front or that he solely focused on the pre-WWII Soviet gas vans, the behauvior seems to be a continuation of the dispute while claiming to be just barely skirting the topic area. The topic ban scope in fact clarified that "atrocities" are covered.

The topic ban also specifically prohibited the "continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum". My very best wishes (talk · contribs) is heavily involved in the disputes at Talk:Gas van, so it is rather poor judgment for Paul Siebert to make 30 edits there after his ban. --Pudeo (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]

Discussion concerning Paul Siebert[edit]

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

Statement by Paul Siebert[edit]

It think Pudeo explained my point of view correctly. He also correctly concluded that if a topic A is a subtopic of the topic B, a discussion of the topic B does not automatically means a discussion of a topic A. Yes, Eastern Front atrocities were a part of the Holocaust, however, "atrocities" in general were not. I see no examples of mention of any specific events or facts that have a relation to EF atrocities in my posts, and I would say, even anybody else did not mention EF atrocities during in that RSN thread. Moreover, the thread is not about WWII events at all: it is about a source that criticizes modern Holocaust deniers for making references to the 1937 story in attempt to whitewash Nazism.

Regarding this question, can anybody explain me what prevents me from making good faith efforts to understand our policy?

Regarding my alleged conflict with some user, there cannot be any conflict for a purely technical reason: any conflict implies some interaction. Meanwhile, since 2018, for some reasons that I am not going to explain here, I am not interacting with this user, I do not comment on his posts, he is not welcome at my talk page, and I never post at his talk page. The only exception was that AE story that lead to my topic ban. That my single action was not wise, and I am not going to act in the same way in future. The only conflict that will take place in future is my prospective report of his disruptive behaviour. Until then, I am going to ignore him in the same way as I was doing in the past. Yes, I, as well as several other users am a party of a dispute about the 1937 events in the USSR, and MVBW is an opposite party thereof; this dispute has no relation to EF, and I even never directly responded to MVBW during that dispute. In my opinion, Pudeo is wasting our time.

In connection to that, taking into account that any AE actions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive, I am contemplating filing another appeal, because my previous and current actions provide no ground for a conclusion that that topic ban is needed to prevent any current or prospective disruption. In contrast, a current topic ban is purely punitive, and, if its goal is supposed to be an improvement of Wikipedia, it does not serve this goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Siebert (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate: usage of Nazi gas vans in Eastern front is just one subtopic of the Holocaust. Editing a larger topic does not automatically implies editing each subtopic. A request to remove article's protection and apply source restrictions was dictated by the desire to stop an edit war (I was not a party thereof, btw) about the 1937 events, and, therefore, was not related to EF.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

To be clear my warning was not because I felt he had breached his topic ban (as El_C says its borderline and very much tacking). Rather it was a case of he was sailing a bit close to the wind, and it would not take much to definitely face him into it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I thought that anything related to the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi at the Soviet territory (where the gas vans were used by Nazi), is indeed covered by the topic ban for Paul, because the topic ban specifically mentioned word "atrocities". In this regard, I thought he is making a topic ban violation here [89], i.e. by requesting editing restrictions for the whole page Gas van which does include the usage of gas vans by Nazi.

In addition he started here [90] a thread that explicitly involves the subject of Nazi gas vans (i.e the book by Alvarez), just as on RSNB [91], where he wants to use this blog post by unknown person [92], which is about the gas vans by Nazi (It starts from, "In their crusade against anything Nazi gas chamber-related, deniers use the hyper-skeptical approach:", etc.)

However, given the clarification by Sandstein below, it appears he did not mean such subject to be covered. That's fine.

In addition, Paul is very welcome to talk with me directly on any pages; there is no any interaction ban. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Paul Siebert[edit]

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

• Borderline. A broader question has to do with how procedurally-exact AE is actually meant to be. Should we apply the spirit of the rule for some cases and its letter at others? Also, I caution the reported user from filing another appeal so soon after the last one was declined. El_C 16:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would take no action, but I agree it is borderline. The diffs 1 to 3 contain nothing that is related to the Nazi-Soviet conflict. The general use of gas vans by the Nazis and Soviets to murder a variety of people appears unrelated to the war between them, except insofar as gas vans were used against the other's population or prisoners of war, but nothing of the sort is mentioned in the evidence submitted here. Diff 4 is not a diff, and has to be disregarded. I advise Paul Siebert to disengage from the Nazi, Soviet and Holocaust topic area altogether, though, or else he will very likely violate the topic ban at some point. Sandstein 18:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Paul's defense seems to check out. I don't see any TBAN vios, and the topic of gas vans is not inherently within the scope of the subject of the Eastern Front. There's obviously some overlap, and I guess that's what people mean by "borderline", but, looking at the diffs, it seems like Paul has avoided "grey areas". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The first two edits are not violations, as they just discuss the Nazis in general, not the Eastern Front in specific. The third comment does mention "Soviet gas vans", but again I can't see a violation. The fourth I didn't look at; I'm not reading an entire talk page to divine what particular things the complainant thinks may have been violations. If you think certain comments violated the restriction, provide diffs of those particular comments, not a handwave at the page they once appeared on. Since the topic ban is from the subject of the Eastern Front, simply mentioning the Nazis or Soviets is not in and of itself prohibited. What is prohibited is editing related to the conflict between those two, and I do not see any of the cited edits to have violated that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#User conduct and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Decorum  :

Original venue - BLP Talk:Greta Thunberg

Lead up - The lead up involved some discussion of RSs for the part of Greta Thunberg's message that touches on biodiversity loss. We had RSs before us and were working on the best way to include them. Into that discussion, with no RSs at all, John starts talking about Indigenous peoples. Talk pages are not for general WP:FORUM discussions and we generally try to avoid comments like "There must be sources". I tried getting John to come back with sources. Maybe subtle hinting is lost on John, I don't know. Anyway, before long

• 01:12, 1 November 2019 John fires off a personal attack saying

"this back and forth with [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] is a prime example of why. I'd rather have a root canal with no [[Novocain]] than respond to such pontifications. Accordingly, I'll jump out of [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy's]] sandbox to avoid further sanctions and/or postings on my talk page which I delete post-haste."

• 07:58, November 1, 2019 I removed the most offensive part of John's slam with edit summary "RPA"

• 19:09, November 1, 2019‎ John restored it

• 19:22, November 1, 2019 John focused the attack

"this back and forth with NewsAndEventsGuy is a prime example of why I'd rather have a root canal with no Novocain."

• 19:48, 1 November 2019 At John's talk I asked him to self revert. I closed with an attempt at self-deprecating humor.

• 20:42, November 1, 2019 John doubles-down with another personal attack

"Your declaratory statement of deeming my statement—preferring a root cannel without Nonvaccine over interacting with you—as a personal attack on you does not make it so and is beyond my control, and frankly shows a fragile thin-skin state of being. It seems that you are becoming obsessed with me..."

That last part is really strange, since I've never dealt with John before seeing him at this BLP page and to best of my knowledge we haven't engaged in any back and forth before this incident.

• 21:10, November 1, 2019 John replaces his talk page with... something. I'm not sure how to describe it.

• 21:00, November 1, 2019 John (strangely) copy pastes a bunch of this discussion to my own talk page (which i reverted per WP:MULTI

DISCUSSION

In the grand scheme of things, this is a little thing. But disruption is best nipped when it is a little thing, so I decided to take time to file. Both WP:ARBCC#Principles and WP:BLP#Principles reiterate the policy on WP:No personal attacks. John's initial attack on me could be attributed to not knowing or having an off day. But his insistence on first restoring it, and then telling me and my thin skin to bugger off is not how we build trusting collaborative community.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

John was notified 21:59, November 1, 2019

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of ARB/DS in effect

• DS Alerts for climate chnage and BLP given 00:41, November 1, 2019

• 00:45, November 1, 2019 John deleted them

Updated... (thanks @Ymblanter:... sorry I forgot them earlier NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Swarm: My response at this particular page was influenced by my knowledge of the protection log and long history of problematic commentary. Mostly I would have asked for sources simply and directly, yet the opening post was based on observations of where people stand. Sure sounded like WP:Original research and not long ago the OR subject under discussion (by others) was this minor aged woman's looks. So just wanted to say location history plays a large part of my choice of approach there. I may have misjudged in this case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit]

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

Statement by Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit]

Please have me thrown off of Wikipedia, I shall not fight it. I was simply passing time and trying to assist, to which--NewsAndEventsGuy--is oppose. I'll happily accept banishment from your sandbox if that is the decree. Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy:Johnrichardhall (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit]

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

• So far, I do not see any evidence that the user has been made aware of discretionary sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The thread itself started out fairly innocuous. John suggested that the subject's emphasis of indigenous peoples is important to the article. NAEG asked what the significance was and and what the sources say, which is perfectly reasonable. John appeared agitated by this inquiry, perhaps misreading the tone, saying, sarcastically, that no one cares and it's meaningless. NAEG responded amicably, saying that the relevant RS should be examined. John says okay, he'll look into it if he can find the time. All good, until NAEG responds, telling John to not start threads without having RS at the ready first. That's where everything seems to go downhill and the series of diffs above occur. John's mannerisms are perhaps a little eccentric, but it's quite clear that John was simply talking about improving the article in good faith and NAEG upset him by essentially calling his thread worthless. There's nothing wrong with suggesting adding content without having sources on-hand, obviously, and, as can be seen in the thread, it clearly wasn't going "nowhere", with another user already agreeing with John's suggestion. Were John's words technically a personal attack by way of invoking negative personal commentary? I guess you can say that. Did it really warrant unilateral deletion, demands that he remove it, AE sanctions? No, it is minor, but that's not why this shouldn't be actioned. It shouldn't be actioned because it's not indicitave of a behavioral problem, but was directly provoked by an unnecessarily rude and condescending comment. When a user says they'd rather have a root canal rather than respond to your "pontificating", it's probably best to examine whether you're being a little bit out of line before attempting to railroad them for personal attacks. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not take any action on this request. Certainly the "root canal" comment probably wasn't the best response, but it was also in response to a fair degree of provocation. "Can you source that claim?" is of course a reasonable request, but it still can be made a great deal more civilly than it was, and I think it was NAEG's snark that caused things to degenerate in tone. That needs to be toned way down going forward, especially in sensitive areas. This type of request is a good way to see a boomerang fly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is not actionable. Case closed. Sandstein 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]