Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256

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

Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

block - diff for IBAN violation (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision# Interaction ban)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

- bradv notified by starship.paint

The block was logged as an AE action. This appeal is in accordance with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications.

timeline/facts:

1. 03:23, 1 September 2019 - Piotrus, involved in EEML and present case, posts on my user page saying "I think it might be prudent if you self-reverted"
2. 03:31, 1 September 2019 - 8 minutes later Bradv blocked for IBAN infraction - claiming this 06:20, 31 August 2019 edit was an IBAN violation in relation to this edit - 16:18, 27 June 2018 - a blanket revert/rollback from over a year ago.
3. The offending edit is currently 55 revisions back in the editing history, and is not visible in default history view.
4. The most recent addition of this material is by 14:28, 9 July 2018 Piotrus.
5. The material was also tagged by Francois Robere - 11:50, 19 June 2019. It is sourced to the "official mouthpiece" (per Grabowski, Jan. "Rewriting the History of Polish-Jewish Relations from a Nationalist Perspective: The Recent Publications of the Institute of National Remembrance." Yad Vashem Studies 36 (2008)) of an institution that promotes " historical revisionism" and generally described in scientific literature as a "Ministry of Memory" or an institution involved in "memory games".

I am appealing this sanction on the following grounds:

1. I would've self-reverted (and stated so) if given the chance (more than 8 minutes), as I believe in better safe than sorry and self-revert in any situation with the slightest ambiguity.
2. The arbitration enforcement action, beyond being selective and unfair, is not in accordance with the WP:IBAN policy and its usual interpretation per community norms and past enforcement. Users subject to an IBAN are generally supposed to avoid undoing (or editing) each other edits and/or comment on one another. They are also expected not to follow one another - usually the community has placed this at 30 days. A block for an alleged interaction - some 50 revisions (beyond default article history) and over a year ago - with many intervening edits on the same content flies in the face of standard IBAN provisions.
3. Bradv's enforcement action is tantamount to a site ban (with an exception for creating new articles). which is not the proscribed remedy. Without a reasonable limit of past revisions to inspect (e.g. verifying not interaction/undo of IBAN party, not in past 30 days) - checking an arbitrary (and totally undetermined - so entire article history) - on every single article - is a Sisyphean task for any article with an extensive history.

The block has run its course, so this appeal is probably moot in any event at this point.

In retrospect - this was far from a wise edit given the past dispute on the page (one of dozens), however I do want to say this is not what drew me to the page (which were the actions of an unconnected user on the talk page + tags there). Should I have known better? Probably. I made 2,621 edits in August (1,331 mainspace, 447 talk, and 567 to wiki space (mainly AfDs - which I need to ponder whether they can also be construed to fit within an IBAN) - in all of which there was a chance I could've screwed up). I am happy I fixed a rather major conspiracy theory in Holocaust articles + got a number of Polish articles (Islamophobia related, LGBT rights relates, Jew with a coin) through DYK + created a few additional articles on the Islamophobia/LGBT and related offshoots.

In the foreseeable future I probably intend to curtail my editing to this website, I am tying up loose ends over Warsaw concentration camp (where a conspiracy theory, was present (as fact) in English Wikipedia main space for 15 years - and not just in this obscure article, but also in German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, Extermination camp, and a bunch of other articles - par the course for this topic area, though extreme in scope this time). Thank you for your time spent processing (and commenting on) this appeal. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure this matters, but I would like to clarify that Piotrus' warning to Icewhiz came while I was investigating this and preparing the block notice, and I did not see it until afterward.

The intent of the temporary interaction ban was to stop the disruptive editing and edit warring that was happening between these two editors. There is plenty of evidence that this article is a locus of that dispute in the history, on the talk page, and in the talk page archives. Icewhiz is taking advantage of the IBAN to rehash these disputes at a time when their partner in the dispute cannot respond.

I'm not aware of any sort of time limit on what counts as a "undo" for the purposes of an interaction ban. If there was a conversation that established this at some point in the past I would appreciate it if someone could point me to it. As we can see by the events here, such a time limit, whether adopted by policy or convention, can be easily gamed.

It's also worth pointing out that this block is not designated as a clerk action, even though I likely wouldn't have investigated or acted here if I were not a clerk. This is subject to the usual standard provisions and therefore a review here is appropriate. – bradv🍁 14:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sir Joseph, Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek are not prohibited from editing this article, they are prohibited from undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. This is established in the banning policy. To claim that this is somehow exempt because it was just a "random rollback" by Volunteer Marek doesn't really hold up considering the lengthy talk page discussions that accompanied this dispute. – bradv🍁 16:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• RexxS, I don't agree that Icewhiz didn't get a warning. The IBAN itself was a sharp behavioural warning from Arbcom, and L235 issued a warning with respect to this IBAN less than 2 weeks ago. I'll acknowledge that 72 hours is on the long side for a first block, but disruption of this nature during an active arbitration case is not an ordinary occurrence. – bradv🍁 21:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment until I've noticed that this appeal seems to be framed significantly with regards to my edits (and also a 10 year old arbitration case that some people seem to be dredging up every now and then to poison the well, sigh). (I also wasn't going to present evidence in the ArbCom case until my name was called out in a similar fashion, but clearly, some people don't learn...). Anyway, I'll leave it to others to decide whether the violation indeed occurred and whether the penalty was correctly applied. I will just note that I gave a friendly notice to Icewhiz when this popped up on my watchlist and I recommend that he (and his interaction ban 'partner', User:Volunteer Marek, who likely cannot even comment here) ask for clarification with regards to articles they jointly edited (and often, edit warred on) in the past. The edits on Bielski partisans are only one of several articles that they both disagreed on in the past that Icewhiz has edited since their mutual interaction ban was implemented few days ago (others include: Institute of National Remembrance, Act on the Institute of National Remembrance and Jew with a coin). I do not have time and will to see if he indeed did remove or restore any content that VM had disagreed on in the past, but this being a fourth article in the series I find the implication of the interaction ban restriction on the affected parties not being allowed to "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" problematic, and this needs a clarification ASAP. Namely: 1) can the parties remove or readd content they disagreed on in the 'distant' past, like six month ago, or a year, or two years ago? 2) how big such an edit has to be to trigger a sanction? Word, sentence, paragraph? 3) Does it effectively mean that once one of them makes an edit to an article, they "own" it? I mean, in the case of Bielski partisans, VM and Icewhiz disagreed about numerous issues, big and small. Few days after the iban, Icewhiz revisits this, with edits that VM would almost certainly find problematic. But as the 'first mover, post-iban, he effectively locks VM from this article, doesn't he? Particularly if his edits are extensive. And if his wording is a bit different from edits of the past, who can judge if this is really a revert? Interaction ban is not the same as topic ban, but the practical aspects of this seem rather murky. In other words, we have to consider to what degree one can game the system by exploiting interaction ban to enforce a one-way topic ban on their iban partner? (Note: I am not saying iban was gamed in this particular case, it may be an honest mistake, I leave this for others to judge, but the scope for abuse of the policy as worded currently is imho rather big). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz's I-Ban "partner", Volunteer Marek, reverted content added (or re-added) by Icewhiz last month ( → ), and commented on threads where Icewhiz is heavily involved ( → ). This is much closer than what Icewhiz was blocked for (reverting a year old change with >50 intervening edits), but no one reported him as, just as before, there were intervening edits and no direct interaction. Editors under an I-Ban should not be required to "Wikiblame" their edits to make sure they're in the clear. François Robere (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Too late - it's the Rule of the Bureaucrats. Per Sandstein I-Banned editors should "Wikiblame" every single edit, lest they accidentally override some ancient edit they weren't even aware of. Per Hut 8.5 "edit wars" should now be considered not a speedy and intense affair as in WP:3RR, but a life-long, one-edit-a-year vendetta: I will revert you even if it's the last thing I do!... <cough>. Indeed, they are afraid that one editor would be able to revert any edits made by more than 14 months ago with impunity, to which I say: get a hobby. Seriously. Do you really think people keep a To Do list with 2 year old edits they want to revert? We have things to do. If we wanted to keep fantasy vendettas against people we never met, we would join World of Warcraft, not Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Tony, what interaction exactly was there between the two? "Interaction" by definition is "reciprocal" and "direct"; here there was nothing reciprocal nor direct. It's like a book being left on a library shelf - VM put it there, and 14 months and 55 readers later Icewhiz picked it up. How is that "interaction"? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Riddle me this: the length of an "evidence" page is 157,779 bytes, or roughly 12,000 words, of which perhaps a third concerns Icewhiz - 4,000 words. The case has been open for three months, though it was supposed to be concluded in less than a month and a half. Question: What size of a briefcase should Mr. Whiz buy at the office supplies store to keep track of all the articles he's not supposed to touch? François Robere (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: Wherein you make my point: Wikipedia isn't a career, it's a hobby (and see Mr Ernie's comment above). An editor shouldn't be forced to carry around this things for months at a time because of a dysfunctional ArbCom and overzealous admins. Here you have a pretty clear case of "admins vs. the community", where editors from all shades say "this wrong", and all but two of the admins say the opposite, often with ridiculous justifications (a "slow-moving edit war"?). You folks really ought to listen more. François Robere (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

What SoWhy says. Pathetic to be mild and I hope we don't have another Sandstein in the making. ∯WBG^converse 15:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Now TonyBallioni considers that editors shall wiki-blame every edit, if they are in an IBan. As usual, people who contribute shit-nothing to main-space over months, indulging in a trigger-happy bout of farcical officialese to throw off prolific content-creators. ∯WBG^converse 12:57, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Even if Icewhiz deserves a block, being the first time, it should have been a 24 hour block, not a 72 and I would like clarification from @Bradv: why a first time offender got a 72 hour block which is not the norm. 2. I do find it troubling that Bradv just swooped it and blocked, especially in this area, especially when Icewhiz was asked to revert and Icewhiz is known for reverting when asked, as is the custom. 3. I do want to point out, that the only other time Bradv, to the best of my recollection, made an AE action, is when he brought me to AE for something that was already resolved and it ended up causing much drama. (as someone pointed out at his RFA) This should be promptly overturned, you can't expect someone to go through a year of history to check to see if they are clear to edit, especially if they were going to revert anyway and Bradv should be warned to not be so triggerhappy, we know where that leads to. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• More importantly, according to @Bradv: and @Sandstein: interpretation, Icewhiz and VM are now prohibited from EVER editing this article. Look at the history and diffs, Icewhiz interacted with Piotrus - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bielski_partisans&diff=849513039&oldid=849363724 and Francois Robere - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bielski_partisans&diff=902519813&oldid=902514158. None of the material, in the article that Icewhiz edited, was added by VM. VM performed a random rollback - in between other editor - and followed by reverts by other editors. But according to Bradv, since VM and Icewhize both edited this page at one point in time, they are now both forbidden from editing the page if they at one point in time reverted the page. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me, but that is what it seems like. How much of an edit is considered enough for someone to be locked out? I know we have exceptions for vandalism, but clearly you can't expect someone to go back years. This is ludicrous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bradv:, so will you be then blocking VM, as per @François Robere:'s section's evidence of IBAN violations? Seems to me pretty clear cut and more egregious than a year old reversion. Seems to be a pretty big double standard. @Hut 8.5: look at that section where you see a clear edit by Icewhiz and then VM reverts, why hasn't Bradv blocked? In your opinion, that should also be actionable, yet only Icewhiz is blocked and only for a one year revert. Seems odd to me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hut 8.5:Sorry, but I think that's an excuse. Nobody brought Icewhiz to AE, Bradv blocked him on his own, just like Bradv brought me to AE, the only other time I've seen him doing an AE action. That's why I mentioned it. And that's the point, we don't need to bring it to AE to resolve, we could bring it to the talk page if it's an issue and ask to revert and not make it into an issue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Bradv: Yes, time limits for undoing each others' edits under IBANs have been discussed before. A couple I found:
  • In 2018, a thread was closed with consensus for 30 days.
  • In 2015 BMK sagely wrote:

    I had always understood it to refer to reverting edits made after the institution of the IBan. If not, then on any article whatsoever, each party would have to research to find out if the other party had ever edited there, then read all of the edits they made to see what material changed, then find out if any intervening changes to the material were made by any other editors, and only then, once all those hurdles had been cleared, could the first party alter the material. I think that's extremely unreasonable, and much too broad a reading of the intent of the IBan.

• I wonder: is the gap here–14 months and 55 edits–unprecedented for an IBAN violation?
• The links FR provides above show that VM did the same thing by "undoing" Icewhiz's edits at Racism in Poland (in that case, changing the order of sections from "Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans, Ethnic Poles" to "Ethnic Poles, Jews, Roma, Sub-Saharan Africans"), yet VM isn't warned or blocked for it, even though the gap there was only a month.
• Similarly, Icewhiz was warned for commenting in the same thread that VM had previously commented in, but as FR's links show, VM did the same thing, but didn't get warned.
• I'm not saying VM should be warned or blocked. But this appeal should be granted and the block overturned because to do otherwise would, as BMK lucidly explained four years ago, lead to an unreasonable result and an effective TBAN for both editors. A year and 55 edits is too long ago to reasonably be called an "undo" or "revert".
• Responding to Hut 8.5's point: Icewhiz did say in his statement he would have self-reverted had he been given the chance (which he is known for doing), which I see as an "oops". But look at the Editor Interaction Analyzer between IW and VM , there is so much mainspace overlap, and so many disputes on almost all of those articles, that to say "don't edit anything you've had a dispute about before" is basically saying "don't edit any article you've ever edited before" – a functional TBAN from every area you've ever edited before is like a site ban. There's got to be a time limit put on it.
• If 14 months and 55 edits is deemed "in bounds", I think both editors should at least receive a warning or be otherwise informed of that before anyone is blocked for it. – Levivich 17:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's my refutation of the suggestion that Icewhiz was trying to game the system: Icewhiz was blocked for this edit, removing content. It had been most recently added, not by VM, but by Piotr. Before Piotr added it, it had been removed, not by Icewhiz, but by another editor ("Editor X"). The content was originally added, not by VM, but by yet another editor ("Editor Y"). Piotr's addition happened a year ago. Icewhiz had a whole year to take Piotr's addition out. It makes no sense to think that Icewhiz intentionally waited until he was under an IBAN with VM to take out that content. First of all, he knows that Piotr could have reverted–so it doesn't matter that VM was under an IBAN (this is what kills the entire "but they could game with first mover advantage" theory – no, they couldn't, because there are other editors, not subject to an IBAN, who would make such an attempt ineffective). Secondly, never has Icewhiz's editing been under more scrutiny than it is now (as proven by bradv independently monitoring his editing and blocking him). This is the worst possible time for Icewhiz or VM to misstep (as proven by the fact that we're even here right now having this conversation).

Icewhiz's edit was a revert of Piotr, not of VM. The IBAN says they can't undo–that means a direct undo–it doesn't say they can't edit any article that the other editor has edited, or add/remove any content that the other editor has ever added/removed. Yes, there was a dispute between Icewhiz and VM at that article, but it wasn't a dispute just between them, it was between two groups of editors. And Icewhiz may be in a dispute with other editors over the content now (like Piotr or Editor Y), but that doesn't make it a "continuation of a dispute with VM", but rather "a dispute in which VM was involved along with many others".

@L235: You've made my point exactly: in the 2018 AN thread, the IBAN was amended to put in the 30-day no-editing-each-others-articles restriction, because a regular IBAN doesn't cover that (just as this IBAN doesn't cover it). There was plenty of discussion in that thread about what a reasonable time period would be. 30 days is reasonable; a year is not. It's not binding precedent, but it's precedent.

@Hut 8.5: do you really think that me filing an AE against VM would be a better outcome than, say, what Rexx is suggesting below? Better for me, better for VM, better for admin, better for the community as a whole? De-escalation, right? Even if you don't agree with me about the interpretation of the IBAN, there is still that irrefutable point that there was no reason for a block, because a warning about not editing each other's articles even it's been a year and 50+ intervening edits, would have had the same effect. (Note the warning he received was for posting in a talk page thread, whereas the block was for something quite different–and the one year/50+ edits-interim thing is unusual enough that it should have been explained clearly in a warning before anyone was blocked).

Requesting more words for this post–I'm not planning to post further, I know you're sick of hearing from me :-). Thanks. – Levivich 01:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is really frustrating to see such one-sided dispute resolution. There's been clear (on further examination I find those diffs to be as hard to follow as the ones Icewhiz was blocked over) evidence presented that VM has also violated the IBAN, removing content added more recently than Icewhiz did. Editing Wikipedia is a hobby, not a chore, and it is an unreasonable burden to go back and check further than a couple months in the history. Icewhiz and VM are both experienced, productive editors, and the first step with such people really needs to be discussion. They are both quite reasonable and shouldn't be treated like vandals. Bradv really erred with this block, Icewhiz's first, when discussion would have lead to a much more calming resolution without any of this disruption. User:Bradv, please go ahead and do the right thing here, unblock Icewhiz, and apologize for your hasty actions. We don't need more trigger happy cops eager to flex their status. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• I directly copied this appeal from User talk:Icewhiz#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Icewhiz as they are blocked. Per User talk:Icewhiz#Please copy my AE appeal, they wanted it to happen. starship.paint (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• I admit I'm confused. Official policy is that blocks should not be punitive. It also says: "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved." Thus I fail to see how blocking someone for something they did over a year ago, whether they were right to make that edit or not, is justifiable under the blocking policy. Same goes for the banning policy which also contains no exception to the blocking policy when enforcing IBANs. Regards SoWhy 08:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @SoWhy: The diff listed in the block notice is this edit (August 31, 2019). Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @L235: Thanks! I had only seen the other date and missed that one. I stand corrected but not less confused. Maybe you or someone else can also explain to me how it qualifies as an "interaction" if a year and 50+ edits passed between addition and revert. I am not unsympathetic to Icewhiz's allegation that an IBAN doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) should be forced to check more than 50 diffs over a year to see whether some content might have been added by the IBAN partner. Piotrus raises a good point that this is easily open to gaming the system and also not really covered by the WP:IBAN wording that they serve to stop disruption, often caused by edit-warring or hounding, not to effectively bar one of the editors from ever editing a certain article again. Regards SoWhy 09:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Also, Icewhiz is correct to point out that the edit that they violated the IBAN with was itself only a revert to an earlier version, although I don't see a specific exemption in WP:IBAN for edits that are not-vandalism related reverts. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would decline the appeal. The enforcement action was appropriate. By removing content added by the other editor, for any reason and under any circumstances, Icewhiz violated WP:IBAN, which prohibits, among other things, "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". Whether Icewhiz was aware that Piotrus added the material is not relevant according to the policy. The 72 h block is very short, so quibbling about the length is pointless, because this discussion will almost certainly not resolve before its expiration. Sandstein 16:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• These edits are not the sort of thing that should be permitted by the interaction ban. This content was the subject of an extensive dispute between Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek at the time, e.g. after VM added the material IceWhiz removed it days later. It isn't fair to allow Icewhiz to reopen this old dispute between the two because VM cannot respond without blatantly breaching the interaction ban. Complying with an interaction ban may well involve avoiding articles where you've had extensive disputes with the other editor in the past, equating that to a site ban is hyperbole. I could understand an appeal along the lines of "oops, I forgot about that", but that doesn't seem to be what Icewhiz is going for and given the extent of the dispute between them on this article it does strain credibility a bit. 72 hours does seem on the long side for a first offence though. Hut 8.5 17:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: there's nothing stopping you (or anybody else) filing an arbitration enforcement request against Volunteer Marek. Tu quoque isn't much of an argument though.

@Levivich: what you're advocating doesn't have any support in WP:IBAN and, more importantly, doesn't make sense. Icewhiz would be able to revert any edits made by VM more than 14 months ago with impunity and reopen any content disputes which are that old. VM would not be able to make any response to Icewhiz's reverts without being blocked for breach of the interaction ban. Al least not until 14 months passes, at which point VM could revert Icewhiz. All we would have done is create a massive loophole in the interaction ban which allows very slow motion edit wars. Hut 8.5 18:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm happy with reducing the block to time served at this point. Hut 8.5 06:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: It seems to me that you're misconstruing the ANI closure. It imposed both a standard interaction ban (which straight-up prohibits reverts) and a ban from editing any page that the other had edited in the last 30 days. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Tony and would endorse Bradv's decision. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• It seems to me that there is some merit in action being taken because there was a breach of the I-Ban. The problem of the length of time between the edit and the revert has to be seen against Hut 8.5's analysis that implies that no action could lead to a slow edit war, testing the bounds of what admins were prepared to accept. The best solution would always be to warn and ask for a self-revert in the first instance, and I'm disappointed that Icewhiz didn't have time to take that course. I also feel that 72 hours is too long for a first offence, effectively without warning and on a clean block log. I'd strongly recommend reducing the block to time served and drawing a line under the matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Bradv: I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. Of course Icewhiz had been warned about their behaviour, but what I was looking for – given the length of time between VM's edit and IW's revert – was a warning that the particular edit constituted a breach of the I-Ban. That is because of the real possibility that IW was unaware of the previous edit by VM, so far back in the edit history. Assuming good faith, I would always prefer to give the opportunity to self-revert in these sort of circumstances. The purpose of the I-Ban is to prevent further disruption, not to be weaponised for one side to beat the other with. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I endorse RexxS's analysis and would favor reducing the block to time served. Haukur (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Endorse block and length as within admin discretion— standard for an IBAN violation on the first violation is anywhere from 24 to 72 hours, and while this is a bit on the long end, I don’t think it was so outside the norm as to merit “reducing to time served.” The point of an IBAN is that two people don’t interact with one another. Icewhiz had already been warned, and I very strongly disagree that a warning is needed for every time someone violates a sanction: in the cases of IBANs in particular, this would defeat the point as someone can still very much send an “I’m watching you” message even if they revert for every violation. 72 hours isn’t that long, and we shouldn’t be in the business of overturning discretionary actions that aren’t abusive even if we wouldn’t have gone for it ourselves. If we did so, the AE system would become unworkable precisely because it was designed to deal with disruption from long-term contributors where ordinary community sanctions wouldn’t work and individual actions should be taken. Unblocking here would set a bad precedent, and I’m opposed to that. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with TonyBallioni. If Icewhiz honestly didn't realise they were reverting VM then it was extremely careless of them; not only is this a locus of a previous dispute between these editors, it has also been entered into evidence in the current arbitration case between them. This is not requiring editors to wikiblame every edit they make; this is requiring editors to be aware of the evidence in arbitration cases to which they are parties. That is not unreasonable. In short, I would decline this appeal. GoldenRing (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  @François Robere: Are you suggesting that editors shouldn't be familiar with evidence used against them in current arbitration cases? I wish you well in your future career. GoldenRing (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• I'm just wondering if it would be better simply to impose WP:ARBPIA type restrictions/sanctions on articles covering this subject. Otherwise I suspect we are going to end up with a pile of topic bans (more than two), which even given the huge issues on these articles certainly wouldn't be conducive to actually improving them. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: There's a pending arbitration case about these editors and articles, in which a decision should hopefully be coming soon, so you may get some variation on your wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• Accept It seems silly to me to call something a Revert for an i-ban violation that would never be counted as a Revert at AN3 for 1RR or 3RR violations or here for a "Consensus Required" violation. Looking at the actual diffs, Icewiz removed a paragraph that VM added as part of a huge edit over a year ago. And VM wasn't even the last person the add the paragraph, so technically Icewiz would have been reverting Piotrus. We talk about making people use WikiBlame before editing. I just spent 5 minutes trying to find the addition with Wikiblame and failed. Here's a link to my search (just pasted the first sentence of the paragraph) and here's the diff that Wikiblame returned 19:26 9 August 2018 (It's the wrong diff.) The alternate blame tool returned no results. I just tried again with Wikiblame using a different query and it now blames the paragraph on Nihil novi. ~Awilley (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Frood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bill Josephs (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/Palestine-Israel articles#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

1. Special:Diff/913703054 - after making similar edits multiple times, Oshwah imposed a three-month ban on edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is the same thing the ban was placed for.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Notification of DS

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on September 1, 2019 by Oshwah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm inclined to think that he's WP:NOTHERE. His edits seem SPA-like, and keeps continuing despite numerous warnings and editing restrictions. I wasn't sure whether this would be better for AE or ANI, so I apologize if this isn't the best place.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

Before delving into the I/P area in a counterproductive way, this editor tried to add some unacceptable original research to Ernie Kovacs, the biography of a comedian killed in a 1962 car crash. In other words, they have yet to contribute anything of value to this encylopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• The user immediately violated their topic ban with this edit, and also this one on their own page. The second one looks like it's timestamped 26 August, but that is probably merely the result of posting in the middle of, and messing up, another user's post; the real date is the day after Oshwah topic banned them. I have blocked for two weeks. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

  Oh, and does anybody know what kind of instructions I'm supposed to give the user for appealing an arbitration enforcement block? Bishonen | talk 21:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC).

  The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Enforcement "Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, receive a fresh further sanction. The further sanction must be logged on the appropriate page and the standard appeal arrangements apply." the standard appeal arrangements are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions #Appeals and modifications. However, since they are blocked, that limits the possible courses of action: "If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org)." Cheers -- Dino (rawr) 21:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

  I'd better give them the full smörgåsbord. Thank you very much, Tyrannosaurus RexxS. Bishonen | talk 07:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

  Also, please don't close this yet, as other admins may have suggestions for other/additional sanctions. I'm far from sure myself that my block should be the end of it. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

  @Bishonen: TBH I would probably have just indeffed as an ordinary admin action. This editor shows no sign whatsoever of wanting to contribute constructively. They show no sign of trying to follow our rules. I don't see any value in a topic ban or similar sanction, as they've shown quite clearly they just don't care. Either indef them now, or when they come back and resume disruption. GoldenRing (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

  I agree that if they come back at all, an indef is likely to follow very soon. Bishonen | talk 16:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC).

• Totally on-board with the two week block that's been imposed, this is a clear violation. I'm also inclined to agree with the filer that they appear to be a SPA based on their edit history. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Benjamin M.L Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAPDS :

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

1. 21:51 2 September 2019 adding ideology explicitly contradicted by article
2. 10:10 30 August 2019 re-adding "far left" to antifa and misleading edit summary
3. 10:31 28 August 2019 changing fundamental info
4. 21:05 27 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism"
5. 20:53 27 August 2019 re-adding "far left" to antifa
6. 20:42 27 August 2019 adding "far left" to antifa
7. 9:13 26 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism"
8. (3 consecutive edits) 21:49 24 August 2019 "Marxism-Leninism" --> "Marxism" and removing mentions of Lenin
9. (3 consecutive edits) 21:40 24 August 2019 adding "far left" to antifa
10. 22:50 1 July 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
11. 22:49 1 July 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
12. 20:43 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
13. 20:41 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
14. 18:28 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position
15. 18:25 18 May 2019 blanking, POV edit summary, and unsourced change to political ideology/position
16. 18:00 18 May 2019 unsourced change to political ideology/position

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:44, 27 August 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User persistently changes information about political alignments without discussion or sources. This user has been repeatedly warned about this behavior but will not communicate. Of this user's 61 edits, none are on talk pages.

I am bringing this here, instead of ANI, as I don't think the user is NOTHERE, but the user is certainly not being constructive in the area of politics.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

4:29 3 September 2019

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.

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

• Very disruptive, with fake edit summaries and failure to discuss. I would suggest a topic ban from American politics, except that they have also shown some interest in UK, German, and French political articles — see e.g. this edit summary at Liberal Democrats (UK), where a removal of sources is labelled "added sources for membership numbers." Perhaps a longish block would be better, not as a discretionary sanction. Or an indefinite block, to get them to edit at least their own talkpage if they want it lifted. Bishonen | talk 07:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC).
• I could support a standard indefinite block. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I've indeffed. Happy for anyone to unblock if they think this user has understood the problems and is committed to learning how to edit collaboratively. GoldenRing (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Good block, for the record. Their conduct is such that I don't see them being productive in other areas either without first recalibrating their approach to Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support this block, for the record. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MyMoloboaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

, :

Bold text Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

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

1. Revision as of 11:37, 8 September 2019 Icewhiz linking Volunteer Marek name to statement about Holocaust denial Insinuations of Holocaust denial - My opening preamble to ARBCOM, in the context of arbitration, was on the state of content on Wikipedia, in relation to currents outside of Wikipedia on Holocaust distortion/denial. I followed up by specific examples present in Wikipedia mainspace for years. Volunteer Marek appeared some four paragraphs down.
2. Revision as of 14:45, 8 September 2019 adding content stating English-language news media - NE Public Radio or Tablet - seem to disagree with VM's opinion of this scholar.
3. Revision as of 15:26, 8 September 2019 quoting Volunteer Marek and linking to his statement/edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 1 September 2019 Icewhiz received a block on 1st of September due to his violation of IBAN on intereactions with Volunteer Marek

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Icewhiz has been prohibited by ARBCOM from intereacting with Volunteer Marek, despite this, Icewhiz continues adding potentially inflammatory insinuations against VM that go beyond acceptable discussion as per IBAN Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.

I believe that Icewhiz has potentially violated this interaction ban, by adding new accussations towards VM and and adding and including his name in statements about Holocaust Denial-VM has previously strongly objected to this, and it is unlikely Icewhiz is unaware of this fact.Per IBAN issued, Icewhiz can only state this directly to the committee.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

My statement was on evidence presented to ARBCOM, and not any comments made by the party to the ban on the PD page. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Interaction ban has an exception for proceedings, and I posted this after this explicit clarification by ARBCOM: "Following a request for clarification, and after consultation with the Committee, we would like to clarify that notwithstanding the IBAN in the preliminary injunction, as long as you stick with the sectioned format and do not ping or respond directly to the other party to the IBAN, you may post responses to the PD directly on the PD talk page." diff - I did not ping, nor respond directly to the IBAN party - but referred to the PD and points already entered into evidence missing from the draft. I did not add any "new accusations" towards a party I am IBANed from.Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This feels like scalp-hunting. Newyorkbrad has the right of it. This is a frivolous waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• I would take no action in light of User talk:Icewhiz#Arbitration proposed decision listed and User talk:Volunteer Marek#Arbitration proposed decision listed. It is not possible for these two editors, who are key parties to the case, to meaningfully discuss the proposed decision without mentioning each other. At this point, evaluation of the comments on the proposed decision talkpage should be left to the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• I concur with Brad. Given this dispensation, I don't see any sanctionable action here. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) This should be closed with no action, per Newyorkbrad. – bradv🍁 17:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Buffs (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Currently, ECP is in effect for the Ibn Saud page as Ymblanter applied in 2016. Prior to this action, there was no significant evidence of disruption nor evidence presented that connected it in any significant manner to the Israeli-Arab conflict discretionary sanctions in place. This has been discussed at WP:AN#Why_is_Ibn_Saud_under_restrictions?? and there seems to be at least a significant concern that this oversteps the bounds of those sanctions and should be reverted. Likewise, I do not see it listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016#Palestine-Israel_articles as required...

...This is a problem for MANY articles and it appears that such discretionary sanctions and ECP are being applied gratuitously/inappropriately (look at WP:AN for examples. I realize this is not exactly the location for such a discussion, but this is one example of many and it should be noted. I think part of this is that "broadly construed" has been taken quite literally by many editors and taken to lengths that are not reasonable (think: the difference between "all doubt" and "all reasonable doubt" in court hearings in the US). Likewise, admins have been sloppy about reporting such actions with no sanctions/steps being taken against "whoops, I forgot it". As such, ArbCom and others lack sufficient oversight on ECP applications and discretionary sanctions. For example, currently on WP:AN, of the articles listed that have had ECP applies, 30% lack any justification whatsoever. Again, this instance is simple one example of a larger problem. The only point I'd like made in the closing of this request is that this issue has been noted. Perhaps such input will be an impetus to more oversight on such actions.

I'd like to add that my concern is not so much with Ymblanter personally. I really don't know about his/her editing habits. But I think that a lack of oversight on this process has allowed it to spiral into what it is today. Ymblanter's actions are a symptom, one I'm not certain is intentional. `

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

notification

See above

@Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5:: Thank you so much for your inputs. May I ask for comment about logging such ECPs? Is that not part of the requirements? While this may not exactly be the forum to use (or maybe it should be?...I don't know). I think a review of the articles under ECP is in order to make sure they've been properly logged. To be blunt, this seems like the proper forum to ask such a question/direct such questions, but I could be wrong. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5: Thank you to both of you. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As I said at AN, the case is similar to the one (AirBNB) which caused the currently pending PIA ArbCom case. For this article, I would be willing to unprotect. It will obviously need to be reprotected if PIA-related disruption starts, or if the outcome of the ArbCom case would require protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We should not be preemptively locking down articles that are not "broadly construed" to be in the conflict area. We should be as unlocked as possible to allow as many people to edit Wikipedia. If disruption occurs, then we have escalation steps that we can take, up to and including locking it down. But to lock it down when nobody ever edited it in the first place just seems so wrong. I think it should be unlocked and the edit notice be removed. If someone does edit in the article in a way that is disruptive to the IP conflict, then we can deal with it then the same way we deal with it now in other articles that are not locked down with ECP protection but where edits are broadly construed to be an IP area edit. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to add a comment on how crazy the whole area is, this is not the proper venue for this anyway, when I asked about it, I was told you needed to file an ARBCOM amendment request, not an AE action, but in any event, I stand by my original comment that the article should be unprotected and all articles should be unprotected until it really and truly needs to be ECP protected. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• The rules governing the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions have become so complicated that I find it helpful to translate the current request into more straightforward terms before addressing it. The editing environment on articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict has become so contentious that, as a major exception to our status as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," editors are not allowed to edit articles on this subject until they have accumulated 500 edits on other subjects over more than 30 days (and thereby attained "extendedconfirmed" status). It is unfortunate that imposing this requirement became necessary, and it should not be expanded beyond that necessity. In this case, editing of the article on Ibn Saud was placed under this restriction because one paragraph of the article relates to Israel/Palestine, but the rest of the article doesn't. Articles that are only tangentially related to Israel/Palestine should not be placed under extendedconfirmed restriction unless there has been an actual problem with the editing of the article. Here, the article history reflects no edit-warring or undue contentiousness on any Israel/Palestine aspect (or any other aspect). The administrator who restricted the article has agreed that the restriction can be lifted, and I !vote to make it so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Buffs: I'll leave it to an admin who is more active than I am in actually enforcing these sanctions to respond to your question. In principle, all sanctions must be logged, but if there are dozens or hundreds of articles being put under ECP (I actually don't know), listing them all might inundate the logs. If you have any concerns and they aren't addressed here, you might raise them in the review case that ArbCom will be opening on the Israel-Palestine topic-area in a couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with what NYB said, the article has only a weak connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there's no track record of disruption on that issue. If that kind of disruption does occur then the article can be reprotected. Hut 8.5 06:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Buffs: I believe that protections done under ARBPIA should in theory be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, but in practice given that there's so many it often doesn't happen. If you want to start a discussion about it then WP:AN or posssibly some ArbCom talk page would be a better venue than here. Hut 8.5 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• I'm no fan of preemptive page protection of any kind, but I can understand the need in certain rare circumstances such as the current Israel–Palestine area. Nevertheless, that need has to be balanced against our fundamental desire to make editing as free has possible. In articles whose connection to I–P is tenuous (as in Ibn Saud), I agree that ECP should not be automatic. Brad has proposed a workable razor: if there is evidence of significant problems in marginally related articles, then ECP can be applied, but it should not be applied in the absence of any problems. I'd certainly support that as general guidance. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• This was already being discussed at AN. Either AE or AN are viable venues for appeal, but AN supersedes this AE. This should be closed without further ado and the discussion continued at AN. FWIW, I agree that the protection is not in line with current practice and have removed it. I would have done so when this was first reported but have been unable to edit due to phab:T232491. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:A/I/PIA#General_Prohibition :

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

1. 09:10, 9 September 2019 the same, undo revert
2. 01:17, 6 September 2019 the same, undo revert
3. 17:14, 5 September 2019 with edit line "formatting shift" s/he moves Hebrew text before Arabic on the Solomon's Pools article (located on the West Bank)

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.
• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21:57, 5 September 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Gbabuch has less than 100 edits, and by the "General Prohibition" he should not be editing this controversial area. They were made explicitly aware of this on 21:57, 5 September 2019, asked to revert, but only removes the request. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Note: the user "devalues" the Arabic script on a West Bank article (by placing it after Hebrew): that is not only a "reverted because they lack EC user rights": I would have reverted anyone who did that. (Yeah, picky, I know: this is the IP area..) Huldra (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not very happy about all articles coming under ECP. I find IPs and newbies having edited these articles virtually every time I log on, most of the time they do perfectly good ce. Like this IP today at Susya. I would off course never revert such an IP, just because they technically do not fulfil the EPC demands.

And of course Gbabuch can remove my edits from their talk page, but when they do so (and do not revert, as I asked them to do), I think it is fair to assume that they have no intention of reverting their article edit.

The reason I reported Gbabuch was not only because they violated 30/500, but because of the POV edit (putting Hebrew first), combined with less than honest edit line (Their edit line was "My formatting for aesthetic purposes"), when there clearly was more that just "aesthetic purposes". (Unless they define Hebrew first as being more "aesthetic"...lol), Huldra (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

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.

Removing a notice on your talk page should not be considered a detrimental or dismissive act. No one is required to keep such notices on their talk page. As a community, we need to abide by our own rules instead of casting aspersions on actions that are permitted under our own rules (see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings). "But he just removed it as soon as I posted it." So what? That he saw it is the important thing. It isn't your place to log wrongs on their user talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: um...yes? ECP for Solomon's Pools has not been logged... Buffs (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• If this article is subject to the extendedconfirmed restriction, can't this implemented simply by an admin's EC-protecting the page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• If the user is simply being reverted because they lack EC user rights, per se., then that is something myself and several other admins just recently declined at RfPP. But if prioritizing the Hebrew text over the Arabic is a point of contention, then yes, ECP would be the next logical step. El_C 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Huldra: Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. El_C 00:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that some of what I'm referring in my first comment (and many more issues) is likely to be addressed at the soon-to-be-convened WP:ARBPIA4. El_C 18:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Gbabuch moved the order of languages in Solomon's Pools to place Hebrew before Arabic on 5 September. Soon after, they were notified of the discretionary sanctions which apply to the Arab–Israeli conflict and their edit was reverted by Huldra. The next day they reverted to their preferred version and were reverted by Huldra once more. Yesterday, they reverted again and were later reverted by SharabSalam. It's pretty clear to me that edit-warring in that manner is sanctionable in any article, and doubly so in any article under discretionary sanctions. If the I–P sanctions are to remain useful in tamping down misbehaviour in that area, we should not be backing away from imposing sanctions in the face of a clear breach. I suggest that Gbabuch should be subject to a topic ban from all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, reviewable after six months. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• AFAICT, ECP has effectively solved this problem. Is there anything else to do here? GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lsparrish (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 :

Requesting a topic ban from fringe science topics.

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

Lsparrish is basically a WP:SPA advancing the fringe field of cryonics, an area which is a long-term focus of civil POV pushing by advocates of the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).

1. 31 August 2019 Mainspace ediot tagging Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as {{npov}} in WP:1AM dispute, reverted by Daviid Gerard
2. 8 September 2019 Mainspace edit adding freeze/thaw of a nemetode - irrelevant to crynocis as sold to humans, reverted by me
3. 10 September 2019 Series of edits advancing pro-cryionics POV, reverted by David Gerard
4. 10 September 2019 Mainspace edit tagging Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as {{npov}} in WP:1AM dispute, reverted by Roxy the dog

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

• {{Ds/aware}} 1 September 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALsparrish&type=revision&diff=913434333&oldid=904427350 by Alexbrn

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See . Edits to:

• Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Neuropreservation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Information-theoretic death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a neologism used by cryonics proponents for brain death
• Suspended animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 21st Century Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), cryonics firm

These support fringe views pretty much consistently. Lsparrish has occasionally tried to make these articles less like sci-fi and mroe like an encyclopaedia (e.g. ) but the overall weight of contributions is consistently to advance a field that is, bluntly, a scam.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Hello everyone. It is good to see more eyes on these edits, as well as constructive comments from uninvolved editors.

I fully acknowledge that cryonics is unproven and does not enjoy general acceptance. However, I feel I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so.

As you can probably tell, I'm still getting the hang of editing Wikipedia, and some of the rules as to what is considered edit-warring are still a bit opaque to me. I've been mostly puzzled by the very rapid (and often accompanied by snarky and/or accusatory comments) reverts to my recent changes on the article, which were (I thought) not particularly POV pushing, rather the opposite. I hoped that a few reverts here and there of these seemingly hostile reverts would draw additional scrutiny from uninvolved editors. Edit warring, according to my previous understanding of the concept, involves attempts to wear out the opposition with repetitive reverts, something I've never purposely done and have no intention to do under any circumstance.

Regarding my comments on Talk being basically POV pushing, it may be that I've been a bit more verbose or stubborn than was merited. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between pushing back on extreme POV (which seems to be that anything speculative must therefore be fraud) and the demands of brevity / Wikipedia's scope. Cryonics has been marketed as speculative from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that further sources will be found noting that this is actually okay, regardless of whether I'm involved in the article's future development.

That being said, I'd be grateful for another chance to get this right, and welcome any feedback on how to do a better job and be a better editor. Lsparrish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Lsparrish has an extensive history of attempting to edit-war WP:PROFRINGE edits into the article, and long-winded and tendentious justification of his edit-warring on the talk page - look at the history and talk for many examples. He has been warned several times, both on his own talk page and the article talk page, that discretionary sanctions exist in the area, and is quite aware. It would be good if this stopped, but he's been promoting cryonics online for at least the last nine years, and there's no visible reason to say he'll stop even if he were to claim he would - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts from an uninvolved editor:

1. Regardless of anything else, there no consensus on the talk page for the NPOV tag or for Lsparrish's changes. It seems like a classic WP:1AM situation at Talk:Cryonics.
2. Regardless of anything else, including 3RR, there is clear edit warring shown on the article's history, right up to today.
3. Edits like this and this (both from today), and this (a month ago) shows, to me, repeated attempts to insert a specific pro-cryonics POV.
4. Random House is not really the best publisher for scientific or academic information, IMO.
5. Cryonics#Reception has a lot of sources establishing cryonics as fringe.
6. In addition, I did a quick search, and was able to come up with many examples (not all of this is in the publisher's voice, some are quotes from scientists):
   • This list from NIH says it all to me: "Through the centuries, a variety of anti-aging approaches have recurred. Among them have been alchemy, the use of precious metals ... grafts (or injected extracts) from the testicles, ovaries, or glands of various animal species; ... consumption of elixirs, ointments, drugs, hormones, dietary supplements, and specific foods; cryonics; and rejuvenation from devices and exposure to various substances such as mineral and thermal springs"
   • NYTimes "other fringe fields like cryonics"
   • Chicago Tribune "generally viewed as a fringe pseudoscience"
   • WaPo "science fiction at its worst"
   • LATimes "After 23 years on the fringe, however, cryonics is clearly evolving from cult phenomenon into California’s latest--and perhaps most troubled--growth industry"
   • Skeptics Magazine "the stuff of science fiction and pseudoscientific web sites"
   • This Oxford book by the publisher of Skeptics magazine lists Cryonics between acupuncture and Omega Point.

• I was going to say, "but it's a new editor with 170 edits, let's give them a warning". However, looking at their talk page, I can see that over the last three months, they've been given three warnings from three different editors (none of which are the filer). Unfortunately, these warnings have not effected any change in behavior.
• There may be a conversation to be had about how to portray cryonics, but it's not by edit warring or taking a 1AM position. There needs to be compromises; sources put forward; text proposed; !votes made, and–regardless of anything else–consensus needs to be followed, and sticks should remain on the ground. – Levivich 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I was going to add my two cents in here and had a list of things I'd found...

Suffice to say "what Levivich said" is sufficient/spot on. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This is essentially a content dispute. The editor under scrutiny has been warned against pushing fringe POV, and s/he welcomes a civil debate on the wording of the article. No sanction necessary. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Lsparrish says I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so, and he has indeed argued for it, while edit-warring {{npov}} into the article, but this misses the crucial point that after a long period of arguing this view, he is failing to accept the consensus that his changes are excessively WP:PROFRINGE. Content disputes are easy to deal with. Editors who refuse to take "no" for an answer, are what sanctions are for. This is one of those cases. This is not a report asking admins to weigh up whether cryonics is quackery, and if so, whether this should be stated in Wiki voice. It's about an editor with an admitted fringe POV edit-warring on an article under discretionary sanctions, after being warned. We block or TBAN people for disrupting articles under sanction in WP:1AM disputes even if they are right. Guy (help!) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• • • • I did not mean to imply anything else.
      • No, that's exactly what you did, when took pieces of the article by Pein and stitched them together so it said the opposite of what the full quotation said. I mean, you had to actively work to get around the "entirely undue aura of respectability" in the middle of the sentence.
      • An article in The Baffler is not an excellent source.

Yet it was good enough to use as a rebuttal when it suited your purposes. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion below gives the false impression that the sentence "It is a pseudoscience, and its practice is quackery" is the lead sentence of the article. It is not. The lede sentence is a technical description. It is followed by the very reasonable observation that mainstream science regards cryonics with skepticism. Only then does the above sentence appear.

There is value -- even in a neutral encyclopedia -- in saying things directly and without caveats. Cryonics is indeed a pseudoscience, and its practice is indeed quackery. Saying anything less definitive would be deceptive and a disservice to our readers. I suggest that those below arguing that the sentence above is "unencyclopedic" or that there is some amount of doubt about the nature of cryonics would be better advised to do some research about it rather than to shoot from the hip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• This certainly does look like POV pushing. There is also a pattern of edit warring. Lsparrish has tagged the article for POV issues five times in the last two weeks and is now edit warring to reinstate one of the edits JzG linked to above . I would support a sanction here. Hut 8.5 21:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• This is an absolutely clear breach of the standards of behaviour required for any articles under discretionary sanctions. Lsparrish was made aware of these, but continued, nonetheless. I believe a topic ban from all pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science would be appropriate. I suggest that an indefinite term, reviewable after six months, would provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides in other areas of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Lsparrish is unfailingly polite, as the complaint here acknowledges. He even seems downright pleasant on the talk pages. He refers to articles published in seemingly reputable scientific journals and book series. I'm a bit confused and maybe there's some context I'm missing – am I a total fruitcake for thinking many of his points are reasonable? Haukur (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It's classic WP:CPUSH coupled with edit-warring to insert that POV. The whole reason we had an ArbCom case and discretionary sanctions was because of editing such as this. It's possible to cherry-pick studies to make all sorts of crackpot theories look respectable, when the mainstream opinion regards the issue as so fringe/pseudoscientific that any serious scientist who advocates those theories would indeed be considered a "fruitcake". The only people who take seriously the conjecture that frozen corpses might one day be reanimated are those desperate not to die and those who stand to make a lot of money out of that desperation. We have discretionary sanctions in this area for a reason, and this is a compelling instance of it. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • There's plenty of pseudoscience out there and we should certainly be on our guard against it. Look at the sources in Homeopathy, where we have multiple scientific articles to back up the assertion that it is indeed pseudoscience. The sources backing up the sentence in Cryonics that I quoted seem much less impressive, as Lsparrish has correctly pointed out. Cryonics is widely viewed with skepticism, it's unproven, it's speculative, it's not mainstream, it may never work. All this can be adequately backed up and should be asserted in the lead – and it was in the lead in what appears to me to have been a fairer (if imperfect) summary of what reliable sources say. The categorical sentence asserting without any qualifications that cryonics is quackery and pseudoscience is new as of last month. It's not an NPOV reflection of the sources and it's explicitly contradicted even by one of its own citations. Lsparrish has a perfectly reasonable case here in regarding the current text as biased. Haukur (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Cryonics is categorically quackery by any definition of the word, and the reputable sources say just that, contrary to your assertion otherwise. WP:ASF requires us to assert statements without qualification when they are made by reliable sources and not contradicted by other equally reliable sources. That is the case here. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• One thing Lsparrish objects to is this very categorical sentence currently in the lead: "It is a pseudoscience, and its practice is quackery." His concerns seem reasonable since the sentence is not even a fair summary of the very sources that are cited in support of it. The first one I checked, Schechter 2009, has a pretty balanced discussion, including this: "Many scientists deride it as a form of high-tech quackery. ... Other equally prominent scientists, however, are not so quick to dismiss it" As far as I can see, Lsparrish is making reasonable efforts at attaining NPOV text based on reliable sources. I object to any one-sided sanctioning of him. Haukur (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Another citation for the pseudoscience-and-quackery sentence is to an article in The Baffler which describes itself as "America’s leading voice of interesting and unexpected left-wing political criticism, cultural analysis, short stories, poems and art." A weird place to look in for an authoritative source on something like this, but let's see what we have. The author is Corey Pein, a journalist best known for his book on the "Savage Heart of Silicon Valley". And, yes, this article too is a denunciation of those evil capitalists in Silicon Valley. Pein sure isn't impressed with cryonics, that much is right. But even this source does not back up a picture of universal condemnation. On the contrary, the article positions itself as fighting against a rising tide of respectability for cryonics. It mentions a cryonics company enjoying "a reputational boost in recent years" and apparently "the reputation of cryonics" itself has been "rescued" and it has gained an "aura of respectability as the thought leaders of Silicon Valley have trained their enterprising, disruptive vision on the conquest of disease and death." The article mentions favorable coverage of cryonics in multiple mainstream sources. And it mentions, disapprovingly, that there are "university-affiliated researchers" doing cryonics stuff. This is a source meant to back up cryonics being uncontroversially quackery and pseudoscience and it very much fails at doing that. That's two sources I've looked into and both paint a very different picture than the sentence they are being cited for. Haukur (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, Haukurth but this is plain nonsense. Nobody can read and take away the same impression that you portray. The entire article is a condemnation of cryonics as money-grubbing quackery. The actual quote is "In recent years, cryonics has regained an entirely undue aura of respectability as the thought leaders of Silicon Valley have trained their enterprising, disruptive vision on the conquest of disease and death." and by missing out the "entirely undue" qualifier, you create a spin that does not exist in the article. The sources are clear; cryonics is quackery; and Lsparrish is clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I totally agree that the article by Pein is a strident denunciation of cryonics. I did not mean to imply anything else. But it's also a source saying cryonics has been growing in respectability, which is relevant information for how we should portray it. The word 'quackery' is very strong and we would need many excellent sources to be able to assert it. An article in The Baffler is not an excellent source. The Society for Cryobiology Position Statement from November 2018 might be the most authoritative and up-to-date mainstream source and it uses the wording "speculation or hope, not science". Haukur (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Since I have never worked in this field I needed to begin with reading articles and sources and getting up to speed. I call them as I see them and I don't apologize for that. But I have to admit that I have got a bit sidetracked here – AE is a place to discuss user conduct and not to get into the weeds of article wording. And it is true that Lsparrish has engaged in some edit warring and if someone wants to give him, say, a 24 hour block for that, then I don't strongly object. But it still seems to me that he has been bringing valuable sources, discussion and balance to the cryonics pages and I think we would be undermining ourselves if he were topic-banned. Haukur (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would take no action. The discussion between Haukurth and others indicates that this is a content dispute about how to describe cryonics. AE doesn't resolve content disputes. Sandstein 16:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not a content dispute, because there is no dispute about how to describe cryonics. It is pseudoscientific quackery and all the respectable sources say so. This is solely a behavioural issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• I would oppose a sanction for now. Writing "It is pseudoscience, and its practice is quackery." in the 1st paragraph of Cryonics is sloppy, not very encyclopedic, and it deserves criticism, not for being inaccurate, but for not having the dispassionate tone we look for in encyclopedia articles. More importantly, Lsparrish seems like they're capable of learning to put the encyclopedia above their personal beliefs. ~Awilley (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• I share the concerns raised by several other administrators. Even if it is true that cryonics is "quackery", I certainly think the concern over using that actual term in an encyclopedia article is a legitimate one to raise (and I'm as anti-woo as they make 'em). If the fact is that it's woo, the article certainly should demonstrate that, but we don't need to hit people over the head with it like that. The article on Adolf Hitler does not lead in with "Adolf Hitler was a murderous, genocidal monster", not because he wasn't, but because that's not the tone we use for articles. So, I believe this is a legitimate content dispute, and I would therefore not support sanctions. (However, I would caution LSparrish to be careful nonetheless—if it gets to the point that you're trying to edit articles to present woo as something legitimate, or even "maybe" legitimate, then I'll sanction without a second's hesitation.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• Given that the discussion seems to have ended, I would seem to think that there is not at this time a consensus that sanctions are needed, though perhaps a caution to Lsparrish regarding edit warring and general conduct on DS-covered articles may be in order. However, since there were several who disagreed, I'd like to ask if there are any objections to that before moving forward with that as the result. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with a logged caution. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
• I don't object to a caution. Maybe you could throw in some advice for him. Haukur (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Seraphim and Awilley above. Certain editors get very carried away when writing about these topics and forget to write informatively in neutral and dispassionate language. I miss the days when WP:MORALIZE was part of NPOV. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

WarKosign (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lo meiin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 (as well as WP:1RR and WP:CIV)

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

1. September 18 A revert in the I/P area, which they are not supposed to be editing at all
2. September 18 Second revert within minutes

1. September 11 Personal attack
2. September 17 battleground mentality

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None, a new user

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

Lo meiin is a new user who immediately took interest in the I/P area. They opened multiple garbled RFCs (1, 2, 3), two of them on the same article at the same time. Responded in uncivil manner to an opinion they didn't like and repeatedly made significant POV changes against consensus.

Regarding the connection to WP:ARBIPWP:ARBPIA - at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Asia the user made many edits, most of them adjusting the table entry on State of Palestine according to their POV: . I agree that most of the article is not relevant to WP:ARBIPWP:ARBPIA, but entry on SoP is, even without "broadly construed". This came after their edit request was rejected and an RFC State of Palestine didn't seem to go the way they wanted. “WarKosign” 19:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding that an article containing (among many other things) descriptions of Israel and State of Palestine and their partial recognition *is* related to the conflict. Perhaps my interpretation is broad, but this is what WP:ARBPIA tells us to do: "The area of conflict in this case shall be considered to be the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted". “WarKosign” 20:26, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

If you still disagree with my interpretation - sorry about wasting your time. I would appreciate a clarification. However, before you dismiss the case I would ask you to clarify to Lo meiin that DS topics are not a good starting place for a new editor, and that they should be civil and avoid edit wars. I'm afraid that otherwise the user will soon repeat the same pattern on an article that is directly relevant to A-I conflict without any need for broad interpretation. “WarKosign” 20:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

First of all I’d like to begin by refuting the allegations made against me. I started out filing an admin notice on auh20s talk page as I saw he is engaged in editing conflict with some editors not as a personal attack but as an appropriate means of dispute resolution. I’ve also requested countless RFCs, 3O before editing, and I even recognized where I went wrong apologized and learned from the experience in order to grow as an new editor. In addition, even after I apologized, I was labelled profanely as a “punk”, despite condemning previous personal attacks on auh20 republican by other editors. Why I combined both generally and substantially recognized states in Asia together is to avoid contention over the issue and satisfy all parties to the dispute. In addition, I attempted to present the facts in an NPOV manner by plainly and objectively stating the facts and by making no significant changes to Taiwan and Palestine’s labelling. Despite my personal reservations on the issue and me being mainland Chinese, I conceded to labelling Taiwan as a “country” for the sake of Wikipedia. Auh20 and his ally warkosign (who happens to be Israeli, making him POV on the issue) are once again hungry for conflict by reverting these edits, possibly due to their bias towards Israel over Palestine. I would also like to mention that auh20 has made several reverts to already established articles that group un member and observer states together to impose his view without previous consent. I suggest combining the two categories together to end this ceaseless feud and to turn to a new chapter on Wikipedia; and if this request is granted, I will vow never to edit any Arab- Israeli related articles until I am a confirmed user.

Lo meiin (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

There was supposed to be some sort of clarification on broadly vs reasonably construed and what is subject to the edit-restriction. AFAIK, currently only articles that are themselves as a whole related to the conflict are covered, and edits elsewhere, such at Airbnb, and consequently List of sovereign states, are not. nableezy - 20:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

ARBPIA 30/500 is clear and the amendment request referenced here is also clear. The article itself should not be under ECP but the editor should be blocked for violating ARBPIA 30/500 and for being disruptive. He was warned several times that he can't make edits in this subject area and that talk page edits are generally allowed if they're not being disruptive (I am not sure if RFC's are allowed). We had a similar case over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive256#Bill_Josephs just a few days ago where a new user was behaving similarly and was blocked. This seems to me a clear case and not sure we need a drawn out AE action and most certainly don't need any more articles protected. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On your part, you are in no position to tell me what to do in this matter when you yourself are a POV editor and advocate for the state of Israel

Lo meiin (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• In my defense, I reverted that article several times in order to try to return to the status quo ante (this after a week of imploring Lo meiin to seek consensus in the Talk page); other editors similarly reverted Lo meein during the past two weeks after his relentless, POV edits.

As for the editor's passive-aggressive insult to WarKosign, that was after he "learned" how to be civil. Not long ago, he accused me in an administrative noticeboard of "hav depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people" (and I asked him to apologize for his calumny for weeks before he finally did so) and asked in a Talk page "And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?", so his insults have become more nuanced and refined as time goes on. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• In reaction to Lo meiin's statement (see above), while I don't think that this is the correct forum to discuss the proper presentation of sovereign states in Wikipedia (the proper forum being the Talk pages of such articles), and thus will forgo doing so, I will respond to Lo meein's claim that I insulted him when I referred to him (in my own Talk page, in response to another editor urging me to press a harassment claim against Lo meein due to his persistent insults) as a "punk." As I responded to Lo meein when he chided me for the appellation in my Talk page:

I referred to you as a "punk" right after I was made aware that your latest cowardly insult to me was to add the following comment to a Talk page in which you already had insulted me: "And AuH20, food for thought, do you hate Palestinians and Taiwanese people yourself?" So I was being polite when I referred to you as a "punk" instead of using more appropriate words to describe you.

This also was after Lo meein insultingly had claimed that I "have depicted Palestinians are a mindless, anti Semitic, radical and insolent people," so, under the circumstances, my referring to him as a "punk" showed remarkable self-restraint on my part. Oh, and Lo meein did not apologize for his insults until afterwards, so, contrary to what Lo meein claims, I did not call him a "punk" after he already had apologized. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• I guess I'm struggling to figure out a connection to WP:ARBIP — that article is not under (any) discretionary sanctions El_C 19:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oh, WP:ARBPIA. Okay. But that article is still not under (any) discretionary sanctions. El_C 19:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Um. The edit is certainly related to Palestine, but the article isn't, and therefore isn't under discretionary sanctions. Therefore it isn't extended-protected (and never has been), so WarKosign is incorrect with this edit-summary. I do note that another editor, User:AuH2ORepublican has reverted seven times on that article in the last two days, including a 3RR violation, so perhaps a 1RR restriction (on the article) might be useful. (Incidentally, "you clearly have no political knowledge and probably failed your geography class ... Thank you and no offense intended" is superb, perhaps more users should follow this method if they have to be incivil). Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
• Closed as not actionable. The article is not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The personal attack was prior to the DS notification. But we do have indications of battleground conduct, so I'm warning Lo meein to behave. If not, bans or blocks are likely. Sandstein 07:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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. Edit warring
2. Edit warring
3. Edit warring
4. Edit warring and editing while logged out
5. Very uncivil comment/borderline PA made at me while I was trying to calmly ask Bradv for advice
6. Barely sensical ramblings on WP:FTN
7. Claiming Einstein was a fringe scientist
8. Rather long rant that boils down to 1. strong bias for article in question 2. Pseudoscience ramblings 3. WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

Alerted to DS in PSCI by Bradv on September 7

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally got pulled into this debate (on whether Walter Russell was a genius and discovered Plutonium before Niels Bohr, among other issues) as a result of a WP:3O request. I tried to be very calm, civil, and helpful, and took WikipediansSweeps less than civil behavior and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in stride. But after more than a week, its become clear that WikipediansSweep is a WP:SPA who strongly wants Walter Russell to be portrayed in their chosen POV. For additional evidence of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND, see Talk:Walter_Russell#Third_opinion, and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walter_Russell. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong in this request, I have never filed a claim at AE before, and the process is a bit confusing. I tried to be very patient with WikipediansSweep, and I'm dissapointed it had to come to this. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Concerning the above comments in regards to changing or reverting edits that do not match the criteria prescribed recently does not seem to be ingeniune as i am actually finding sources which support the conclusions and statements i have undone edits on. One example is the Modern Leonardo claim about Walter Russell which I supported in the talk portion of the article. There have also been sweeping edits in regards to multiple paragraph deletions and other credibly sourced portions upon which i am now paying for subscriptions to support and to find. The fact this man was an architect, painter, sculptor, speaker, musician, ice skater, and inventor are all supported in my sources recently mentioned. I do not have a battle ground mentality but request sensible edits that do not step over the bounds to match someones point of view rather than find the material questionable without research. I do find a lot of edits sensible and have not touched those, but major edits in regards to things as simple as personal history to well documented sources and saying "read the rules" as its justification whenever it fails to even meet that criteria is a bit absurd. I admit to somewhat of senseless ramblings but let us be humble and admit our shortcomings and imperfections. I also do believe Einstein was somewhat fringe in the years he published his famous papers which were originally scorned and then brought up many worlds theory and how it was initially scorned, both were seemingly fringe at the time, the mentioned how planck stated that science progresses one funeral at a time. But there are some ramblings in there i do admit. But i am simply trying to publish the truth out into the world and am conforming to every standard i see that requires more due dilligence. For example there was major edits done in regards to this man bein a master musician, artist, sculptor, architect, and how was able to successfully defend his points in the new york times against outspoken scientist, where i have them, albeit clumsily in an failed embedded format, sourced. This man was also personal friends of thomas edison, mark twain, and theodore roosevelt, and many more outstanding people in our society. I also am using a mobile device for most of this if not nearly all so forgive my lagish response and failure to be more formal in multiple places such as this. I also am noting how many warnings i received and honestly have only gotten one on this end. Also my friend above, whom i thought i was in good standing with now due to my lengthy sourcing last night, originally deemed this man a kook, quack, and in my opinion shot from the hip and demanded major editing was required on this article due to simply being ill informed. Also it seems as if i am the one doing the most work on the page as i am the one find sources, and asking for validation on edits rather than "fringe stuff removed" sweeping edits that include many things not considered fringe. It was a mans unique universal perspective or philosophy if nothing more being removed as fringe to where it begets the concern on how philosophy itself doesn't classify into the same spectrum. All of which i have asked for clarity on in the talk page with some but not adequate response. So apologies as i am in an attempt to actually uncover the truth in a format befitting to all readers, not defend my point of view strictly in regards to this individual. But obviously one of the best painters, sculptors, architects, and considered by a considerable few a polymath does not seem to be quackery by any stretch of the imagination. There are articles of him giving edison medals of honor from his society and it seems almost foolish to see a man never deemed a quack in his time of prominence to be in our times deemed such by people whom lack the full information on him. I am doing my best with the little i have and do not adopt battle ground mentality but a sturdy one finding only support for my claims. I apologize if this is over my word count. (Added 10 minutes after original comment: as i said i have only received one warning on this end and admit to somewhat senseless ramblings, i am using a mobile device mostly due to situational standards, i do apologize for the lagginess and informality of much of my input, i also apologize for seemingly brutish behavior which is not intended as such, i am only trying to find the actual material accepted by standards laid out here and question the exact reasons behind some things not being seen as reasonable sources, and i have a very limited pallet, and somehow even with 10 other editors, i can, on my phone, validate many claims with dozenz of sources previously deemed kookie by other editors, that should be stating something, i hope to be in good standing and will continue to find other sources, something i was in the process of until i saw this) WikipediansSweep (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional: look i will take this as a formal warning because i am new to editing on wiki and for the most part am swamped in response complexities i find it hard to retort. I will cool it on my end and keep the discussion strictly professional and if there are further warnings you can ban me.

For now I'm the only one adding source information previously deemed unfindable and thrown to the way side with lack of scrutiny. It honestly seems as if no one is reading those either and it seems the edits go far beyond the bounds of normal desire to present the facts and instead with a scorn for something that goes against the mainstream. Almost as if the vigor against faith healing is applied to this. That is my two cents though, I would honestly love to hear advice and feedback as it seems many eyes will view this and would be beneficial.

WikipediansSweep (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• The request seems to have merit (pending a response by WikipediansSweep). I think a topic ban from fringe science, including Walter Russell, is in order. Sandstein 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• The rambling response by WikipediansSweep confirms my view. Sandstein 08:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a pretty clear indefinite topic ban from fringe science topics, broadly construed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• This sort of issue is why the discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience article exist - endorse the indefinite topic ban, broadly construed - David Gerard (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
• Holy Crap Batman. Yes, a topic-ban is called for. It should be indefinite, and lifted only if they demonstrate the ability to be a net positive elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TheTimesAreAChanging (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 :

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) :

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

1. (edit summary) 05:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack (“known troll”, “in an effort to bolster WP:FRINGE nonsense defending Nazism” and more)
2. (edit summary) 18:14, 19 September 2019, a personal attack again ("Stop defending Hitler!"), even after receiving a notification/reminder about discretionary sanctions in the Eastern Europe subject area
3. , , , ,, - All these edits seem to be in a violation of his topic ban of American politics . The topic ban concerns “all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States”. Does not it cover the foreign politics and wars by the United States?

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. , 7 February 2018 - topic ban on editing in the area of US politics imposed by Sandstein

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

• The contributor was previously sanctioned at WP:AE and frequently contributed with comments, complaints and appeals on WP:AE
• - a notification for EE area, 16:49, 19 September 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I thought TTAAC would apologize and start discussion of a disagreement after his edit (diff #1). However, instead of doing just that, he responded with another offense (diff#2).

Note that in the both diffs, #1 and #2, TTAAC restored the following text: "Suvorov is often accused (or praised by historical revisionists) of shifting the blame of World War II on Stalin...... In his later books, Suvorov insists that Stalin was a true evil genius (although unlucky), while describing Hitler as evil but grossly incompetent." This is an obvious WP:OR content which was unsourced for a long time, possibly also a WP:BLP problem. Also note that TTAAC never edited this page before. He just followed my edit to blindly revert and make an offensive edit summary.

More comments here. But no, I really do not have any content dispute with TTAAC on this page. He just followed my edit, reverted twice with offensive summaries, and refused to talk on the article talk page.

Speaking about this my edit, yes, I removed the phrase in WP voice: Proponents of this absurd justification can still be found today, a few even among historians and retired generals. Said who? This is not clear. An "absurd justification" of what? This is not clear.

Speaking about the "preemptive strike" by Hitler, here is what the author of this book claims: . But even if it was indeed a "preemptive strike" by Hitler, how this can be seen a justification of anything Hitler did?

Responses.

@TTAAC. I think you are a good content contributor, and I tried to support you several times on WP:AE, last time here. But that incident was over the top. Speaking about my diffs #3, I think we just need a certainty here. If those were not topic ban violations, everyone needs to know.

@Drmies. I agree. Bringing back very old stories and grudges (by TTAAC and others) may qualify as WP:BATTLE.

@Icewhiz. Yes, there are many historians, including Suvorov, who place a part of the responsibility on Stalin, together with Hitler. This is because of the "secret protocols" with Hitler, Gestapo–NKVD conferences, the occupation of Poland, German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), etc. There is nothing fringe here. More disputable is the Soviet offensive plans controversy. But I do not see how this can justify the incivility and non-cooperative behavior by TTAAC.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• . My very best wishes (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

This is obviously a frivolous request for the reasons laid out by Paul Siebert below, and in far greater detail than the request deserves. My very best wishes's diffs simply do not support his claims. In fact, the bad faith displayed by MVBW in reinstating the apparently pro-Nazi IP's deletions is obvious from Icebreaker (Suvorov)'s revision history, where MVBW is edit warring with several users over long-standing content dating back as far as a decade ago, while pretending that it was recently added by an IP (as if that would be sufficient explanation for his edit). Note that MVBW also removed sources only to cite the lack of sources as justification for further deletions, omitting the consensus of academic historians in favor of the following profoundly misleading "summary": "Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike." (Hitler may have claimed this, but RS do not take official statements by Hitler at face value.) This case should be dismissed and MVBW should be discouraged from gaming the system to "win" content disputes.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

US ban should be discussed elsewhere.

• This edit summary is actually correct: the IP restored the text removed by another IP. This second IP (97.115.131.125) made the edit demonstrating its pro-Nazi position. By removing the content that was previously removed by an obvious pro-Nazi IP, MVBW implicitly supported it. Therefore, a deeper analysis is needed to figure out if TheTimesAreAChanging's edit summary was a personal attack, or it was just an adequate description of what happened.
• In addition, MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit. Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.
• By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation. That is exacerbated by the fact that he was de facto acting as a proxy of an antisemitic IP.
• Importantly, recent events demonstrate that this and similar MVBW's actions are not just good faith errors, and their roots go back to the infamous EEML case. Upon having read TTAAC's edit summary (TTAAC mentioned the EEML case), I decided to refresh my mind about this case, and looked through my talk page archive. I found this: look at the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list section. During this discussion that took place in 2009, User:Viriditas was trying to convince me to read EEML emails, because the EEML members were contemplating something against me. I recall, in 2009, I refused to read EEML's emails, but after I have realised that Biophys may be dangerous not only for me, but for other users too, I decided to take a brief look at those emails, which are currently easy to find. What I found shocked me and dispelled my remaining beliefs in Biophys/MVBW's good faith.

Despite MVBW's dishonest behaviour (I know exceptional claims require exceptional evidences, and I am goint to present them), I was taking no actions against him, because I believed that that was only my problem. Now I started to realise that his activity is harmful for Wikipedia in general, and I would like to present evidences against him. In connection to that, it would be correct to suspend this case, and to wait for arbitrators' opinion on the evidences I am going to present. If the conclusion will be that I am right, then the TTAAC's edit summary was just a statement of fact, although redundantly emotional one. If the decision will be in MVBW's favour, than TTAAC's words are a personal attack. Since I was not going to report Biophys/MVBW before that case, I need some time to collect the evidences. Should I present them here, or they should be a separate case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies, I mean recent evidences, but those old emails appeared to be instrumental for understanding some recent events. And, please, keep in mind that in 2009 I abstained from presenting any evidences against EEML members (although now I realize I probably should have done that), and I am currently maintaining good relationships with some of them. With regard to OUTING, I named noone, except one person who repeatedly attempted to OUT me (and, as I now realize, those plans go back to 2009). --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies, I am going to present the evidences that MVBW is currently posting a direct lie aimed to discredit other users, and my analysis of old emails demonstrates this is not a good faith error, but a continuation of an old strategy privately discussed by EEML members 10 years ago. Other ex-EEML members abandoned this tactics many years ago, and currently they are good and productive editors. Biophys is an exception, and that is why discussion of his old name is quite relevant here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Just one thing: will this EEML shit ever cease? And why on earth does TheTimesEtc. think this is somehow appropriate to bring up in an edit summary? I have been rev/deleting EEML references and old user names since they really constitute OUTING--and here we go again. But really, in the end: this is all water under the bridge, and should be disregarded/not mentioned/removed. Editors should be judged NOT on what happened a decade ago which somehow might be construed to be relevant today. Sheesh. Paul Siebert, I don't know what "evidences" you are trying to present, but I sure hope they are younger than my children. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Paul Siebert, I can't keep anything in mind cause those 2009 proceedings aren't in my mind to begin with. The OUTING relates to your naming of old accounts; there is no good reason to do that. We don't need to go back to 2009 and before (since I'm sure there's even older evidence in that case) to establish some pattern that you claim is causing disruption a decade later. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

MVBW Said I should read the book Icebreaker

   (Why Stalin did it? Read the Icebreaker (Suvorov).)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_Union&diff=916481834&oldid=916481666

But then right after MVBW Deleted all the Sourced Information that were put by Paul Siebert with the False edit summary??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013Jack90s15 (talk) 01:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: that is Clearly Pov pushing they falsified what I put Rolf-Dieter Müller did not say (that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike)

What I put for my edit

(Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr. states Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike. Proponents of this absurd justification can still be found today, a few even among historians and retired generals)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=916489392&oldid=916486083 its on page x

What MVBW changed it to

"Rolf-Dieter Müller a former professor of military history at Humboldt University who served as the scientific director at the Center for Military History and Social Sciences of the Bundeswehr states that Hitler claimed that he had been forced to counter Soviet expansionism with a preemptive strike."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_(Suvorov)&diff=next&oldid=916600593

MVBW actions here on content (Icebreaker by Suvorov) described in academic literature as "overarching conspiracy theories" (source: Slavic Review) merits very close scrutiny from a WP:PROFRINGE perspective.Icewhiz (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding - Icebreaker transfers responsibility for World War II from Hitler to Stalin.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

• The request has merit.
  As regards the topic ban violation claims, the diffs at issue all relate to U.S. interventions abroad, i.e., U.S. foreign policy. A discussion could be had about whether this relates to the "politics" of the United States. I believe it does, because foreign policy is inseparable from domestic politics. Our article Foreign policy of the United States is labeled as being "part of a series on the politics of the United States", and Category:United States foreign policy is a sub-sub-category of Category:Politics of the United States. TheTimesAreAChanging therefore violated their politics topic ban by making edits about US foreign policy.
  As to the personal attacks, they are also actionable as violations of WP:NPA.
  The comments by TheTimesAreAChanging and others about the underlying content disputes are entirely irrelevant in this forum.
  TheTimesAreAChanging does not address either the topic ban violations or the personal attacks in their response, which consists only of complaints against others. It can therefore be disregarded (cf. WP:NOTTHEM). We can therefore proceed from the assumption that TheTimesAreAChanging does not contest having violated their topic ban and having made personal attacks.
  As per my usual practice, I am doubling the duration of the most recent block (of one month, for socking), and am imposing a two-month block. Sandstein 15:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

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

• Can everyone please cut it down to 500 words in your statements? Some of you have twice that amount of text and I've noticed that the longer the complaint (or response), the fewer admins who participate in these sort of proceedings. Trim to just the basics of your arguments, please. Here is a Word Count Tool Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Hours later and still no other admins have commented. Get the message, everyone? Brevity is your friend. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• @My very best wishes: As far as I can make out, Icewhiz's characterisation of this is broadly correct. This IP edit removed a large amount of material that had been in the article for a long time. This IP edit restored that material. This edit of your then removed that content with the edit summary, "rv edit by an IP 174.61.151.138. If a regular contributor wants to check these sources and properly re-write, that's fine." Is that a reasonable summary of the sequence of events leading up to this? If so, your edit summary looks rather as though you just didn't bother to check the page history. GoldenRing (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
• concur with Liz, please edit your statements to be concise and clear, thank you so much. KillerChihuahua 13:46, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
• Given Paul's repeated doubling down and endorsements of personal attacks in the below section, I'm inclined to endorse either a block or TBAN here. Paul makes it clear that he feels that aggressive, incendiary conduct, rising to the level of calling other editors Nazis, is acceptable, as long as he feels such characterizations are accurate. This approach is fundamentally incompatible with editing in a contentious DS area. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
• OK, we need to come to a conclusion here. I find that the request is actionable in part.
  The comments by Paul Siebert in diffs 1 and 2 are personal attacks insofar as they impute that the other user is a defender of Nazism etc. Paul Siebert's argument that these comments were "description of actionable misconduct made in an appropriate form, place and context" is not persuasive. Personal attacks are prohibited in all fora, including and especially AE. Of course, if we were dealing with a user throwing Nazi slogans around, denying the Holocaust, etc., then it would be proper and factual to call them out for it and to block them for not being here to build a neutral encyclopedia. But here, the basis for Paul Siebert's allegation is a content dispute about how to use or describe a particular source. In good faith content disputes, it is prohibited to speculate about users' supposed nefarious motivations. Instead, editors must discuss only the content, not each other. See WP:NPA.
  As to the remainder of the complaint, I do not consider it actionable. It is stale and/or reflects content disputes rather than conduct problems.
  Paul Siebert has only one prior sanction, a 1RR block from 2010. As such, a relatively brief sanction is appropriate. Accordingly, I am topic-banning Paul Siebert from everything related to the Eastern Front (World War II) (i.e. the Germany vs. USSR aspect of WWII) for three months. This includes the reasons for the war, atrocities, etc., and also any continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request. Sandstein 19:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)