Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive250

Icewhiz

No action with respect to Icewhiz (without prejudice against another admin taking action). Nishidani is blocked for a week and banned from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. Sandstein 14:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Icewhiz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

Tendentious editing is defined in WP:TE as a manner of editing that is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. WP:ARBPIA3#Tendentious editing further says that Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles. I believe the evidence below demonstrates that Icewhiz is such an editor engaging in sustained tendentious editing.

Icewhiz routinely removes material on spurious grounds when that material is, in his view, negative towards Israel. He will routinely make opposing arguments based solely on the POV presented. He will oppose reliable sources when it suits him and support unreliable sources when it suits him, sometimes making the exact opposite argument nearly simultaneously depending on the POV of the source.

Rouzan al-Najjar

In this edit (7 June 2018) Icewhiz places in the article material on footage that was doctored by the IDF, footage that was widely denounced as a propaganda ploy
In this edit (8 June 2018) Icewhiz restores that she was "allegedly shot" by the IDF, when the cited source says flat out as shot dead by Israeli troops the previous day along the Israel-Gaza border. ... Razan Najjar, a 21-year-old volunteer paramedic, was shot as she tried to help evacuate wounded near Israel's perimeter fence with Gaza. Yes, that was a revert of an IP editor. However, the material had likewise been added by an IP, with Icewhiz editing directly after and not enforcing the general prohibition there. And even if the revert is excused by the general prohibition, we all take responsibility for our reverts. When Icewhiz restored the edit he took responsibility for its content. That content being quite different from what the cited source said.
In this edit (11 June 2018) Icewhiz removes all of the content critical of the IDF's manipulation, changing misleadingly took a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station out of context to cut a short segment of a prior interview that al-Najjar gave to a Lebanese television station in which she He also removed the rest of the statement, a statement that every reliable source covering the manipulation included as demonstrating that the IDF manipulation was done to mischaracterize her words.

When asked about why he removed what every reliable source had said about the doctoring of the video, he responded That is a factual representation of this 10 second clip.

Restores an op-ed by a political activist (1 January 2019). On the talk page he argues that this should be retained because it was published in an RS. Compare to his removal of an op-ed published in a reliable source which he said was Random opinion of non-politician/expert - UNDUE and on the talk page said of highly fringe political activist, in an op-ed. That is his arguments are diametrically opposed based solely on the POV of the op-ed. Where it supports his POV he argues for inclusion, when it opposes it he argues for exclusion. I dont think there is a better example of tendentious editing than making the opposite argument based solely on POV.

In sum, his efforts at Rouzan al-Najjar consisted of originally pushing propaganda, removing that it was propaganda when covered by numerous reliable sources as such, and pushing in opinion pieces of the sort he rejected when it suited his own POV elsewhere.

Israeli occupation of the West Bank

In this (13 December 2018) and this edit Icewhiz removes a source, and all material cited to it, as "propaganda" and claims the source is misrepresented because we included the wrong publisher. The living person who he says was "propaganda minister", which if I am not mistaken is a pretty blatant BLP violation, is in fact the former Information Minister (in charge of election polls and TV and other media licensing) and Foreign Minister. Note that Google Books includes the wrong publisher, which is Kluwer Law International and not Brill. Instead of correcting the error, the entire source is removed. The book is edited by two academics (Moshe Maoz and Sari Nusseibeh) and published by a respected press, but Icewhiz's BLP violation of an edit summary ignores all of that to excise material he dislikes on the most spurious of grounds.
His other contribution of note (25 January 2019) was to excise about half of the article unilaterally. The removed information was uniformly of material that has garnered criticism of Israel. He completely removed, not condensed or moved to sub-articles or anything else that might be justified by WP:SIZE, reliably sourced material on comparisons to colonialism, on terminology bias, on American media bias, on land seizures, on the history of the settlement enterprise, the entirety of the section on settler violence, most of the material on torture, the impact on children, on fragmentation, the road closure system, censorship, restrictions on Palestinian agriculture, on the use of the territory as a waste zone. What he removed had one common thread. It was reliably sourced material that dealt with topics that have drawn criticism of Israel's methods. No attempt at justifying the removal, not splitting but straight up removal, was ever even attempted besides a vague wave to WP:SIZE. He made no attempt to summarize, no attempt to split. It was purely a tactic to excise material that Icewhiz would rather not be covered on Wikipedia.

Tendentious editing regarding sources

Here (25 July 2018) Icewhiz argues that a "part-time historian" (his words) would be perfectly fine for an attributed statement. Compare that to here (15 June 2018), where an actual historian who has been published by academic presses is rejected as definitely a WP:BIASED source, and would require balancing at the very least. The only consistency in Icewhiz's arguments regarding sources is when they are supportive of his POV he encourages their use, and when they are not he opposes them.
Removes Yael Berda per WP:BLOGS (8 April 2019). Note that this is hosted by Stanford University Press, where the author had just had a book on this topic published which WP:BLOGS says means her self-published work is allowed (established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications). Compare that to this (17 March 2019) where Icewhiz argues for the inclusion of material referenced to IDFBlog.com (now defunct) for attributed quotes. However, a blog entry by an author who is academically published and hosted by Stanford University Press is not usable for an attributed quote because the author is a fairly young scholar. The only consistent part of this argument is how it reflects his POV. A blog by an unnamed person at the IDF that has been cited by no-one and has an h-index of 0 that coincides with his own POV is fine to use. One by a published academic that has has over 100 citations to her work but that opposes his POV is not because her h-index is 5 and she is "fairly young".

Tendentious editing regarding tagging

Again, the only thing consistent about these actions is how they reflect on his POV. When his POV is presented no tag may be included absent a consensus for it (which is honestly kind of silly, if there were already a consensus then the article content would be adjusted), but when his POV is not given what he feels is its appropriate prominence the tag must remain absent a consensus to remove.

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, on 29 March 2019
Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 8 April 2019
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 7 April 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I understand this is a long complaint. I dont know how to demonstrate tendentious editing without exceeding 500 words as the act is defined by a long term pattern and not just one or two diffs. I also understand it deals with content, but I think the evidence demonstrates continued tendentious editing and not merely a content dispute. One cannot make opposing sides of the same argument and pretend that they are two individual content disputes. Either Icewhiz feels that blogs may not be used or that they may. Either Icewhiz feels that opinion pieces may not be used or they may. Either Icewhiz feels tags may not be removed without a consensus or they may. Icewhiz apparently feels all these things, it just depends on what POV is under discussion. That is, to my understanding, textbook tendentious editing.

Sir Joseph, I am not complaining that Icewhiz claimed Finkelstein is biased. I am complaining that he has made polar opposite arguments about sources when it suits his POV. This is not about opposing Finkelstein or supporting Tabenkin. It is about making opposing arguments where the only consistency is the POV being pushed. That behavior is, I think, called tendentious editing here, and it is prohibited on Wikipedia, especially so in a topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. As WP:TE says, a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, so yes these diffs stretch back to show that pattern. nableezy - 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I've dated the diffs, however I dont think their age makes them stale. The very nature of WP:TE is that it requires showing a pattern. A pattern is something that occurs over time. How would one show a pattern over time without showing diffs from the past? nableezy - 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Icewhiz, I called this claim that this established a consensus a lie. Because it says "no consensus". Calling something that says "no consensus" "a consensus for language in this article" can best be described as what exactly? nableezy - 19:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The responses below just provide further evidence for tendentious editing. As Zero wrote below, nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted at face value. I agree, he is a very smart person. He could be a fantastic editor. But he makes bogus arguments on a regular basis. He says Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People. No, lets be clear on this. Ira Stoll is not an "expert in journalism". He was managing editor of a failed newspaper and an author of two books, neither on journalism. And the justification of receiving third party coverage was offered only later. When added, Icewhiz was on record opposing the use of op-eds even when published in reliable sources. But with one that supports his POV, Ira Stoll's column was published by a RS, the end. This is a constant issue when discussing issues with Icewhiz, he makes comments that are expected to be taken at face value and they cannot be because they are so often false. nableezy - 05:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Sandstein may be right and AE is not well suited to such a request. But, Sandstein, it is exactly a person who is not interested in the subject that should be looking at this. Just look at the bullets for tendentious editing regarding sources. Can an editor be acting in good faith when they both support the use of a blog by an unnamed person with an h-index of 0 and then reject the use of a blog by an established expert on the topic because her h-index is 5? Can an editor be acting in good faith when they remove op-eds by non-experts published in reliable sources because they are op-eds by non-experts and then also add op-eds by non-experts and respond that its fine because it was published by a reliable source? Ignore the content entirely. Can an editor in good faith make such opposing arguments? Or is it tendentious editing when their arguments flip depending on POV? nableezy - 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Icewhiz

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

Statement by Icewhiz

Due to the extreme length of the complaint, with diffs ranging back almost a year, I can not respond in 500 words and address each accusation here. I will note that in regards to the trim to Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which I discussed prior, after, and initiated Talk:Israeli occupation of the West Bank#RfC: Article size that resulted in the article being trimmed in the end) - I already responded in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive245#Icewhiz - closed "Not actionable; content dispute". I can explain all my actions, though I will note I am not a robot and that my view of Wikipedia policy has evolved over time (e.g. today I am much less of an inclusionist in relation to a year ago). Admins - please point out which diffs I should respond to, if at all.

I do want to raise the immediate background to this complaint: Israeli permit system in the West Bank. Nableezy moved it from "system" to "regime", after 2.5 days of discussion (Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#name), 02:06, 12 March 2019. After his move was challenged, he 14:56, 19 March 2019 move warred. Not only that - he opened an ANI against Wikieditor19920 who challenged him (closed no action, Oshwah moved the article through a few different titles - until it moved back to system). At ANI - Nableezy repeatedly called me "dishonest" (after I challenged his assertion that "regime" was the stable form of the title) - [1][2]. A subsequent Talk:Israeli permit system in the West Bank#Requested move 19 March 2019 closed with "system" remaining. Nableezy then decided, 21:57, 7 April 2019, to add a direct-quote to the lede from one (of the minority) of sources that uses "regime".

When I challenged this quote by Berda in the lede, that resulted in 2 out 3 sentences in the lede being sourced to Berda (sentence 2 already containing her definition - from a published source) - my edit summary wasn't just "BLOGS", it was "WP:BLOGS. No need for direct quote in lead.". I further expanded my argument on talk - diff - that presenting Berda twice in the lede, was UNDUE, and that there was no need to use unpublished work here (as published work is not lacking - including published work by Berda). I did not challenge Berda as a source overall - I challenged the direct quote, from an academic blog (as opposed to her published work), specifically in the lede.

In last few days (7-8 April), in the permit system talk page Nableezy has called me or my edits/arguments: "dishonest"/"deceitful"[3]. I requested him to strike these statements (as a personal attack) [4], which he refused. He continue to use language such as "lying"[5], "dishonest arguments"[6][7], "being dishonest",[8]. He did not strike "being dishonest" even after admitting "you are right".[9] (this in regards to this source,^[1] which uses "regimen" in a sub-title and in paragraph2 (further down there is a regime) and which we were quoting in the citation as "regimen").

In ~~less than~~ a span of 3 weeks - Nableezy has filed once in AN/I and once over here in AE against two different users on this article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

@Vanamonde93: - in regards to the first 4 bullets, note that the article was created on 3 June 2018 on a 1 June event. The article was heavily edited in those days, with various new news items added (a general NOTNEWS/RAPID issue). In regards to the 7 June 2018 - when I added this, it was not widely denounced - I summarized the sources I cited. Criticism developed later. In regards to 8 June 2018 - this was a revert per the General Prohobition of an IP (who removed a whole paragraph + allegedly). At the point this was made (7 days from the shooting, no definitive investigation) - while it was highly likely the shots came from the IDF, and some sources said this as fact - others did not. At that point in time, per BLPCRIME and erring in the side of caution, avoiding a definitive stmt in Wikivoice is inline with what we do with other crime/military articles. In regards to 11 June 2018 - contrary to Nableezy's assertion I left criticism in the very next sentence - "The Israeli military was widely criticized for its efforts in manipulating the video, with commentators drawing parallels to past instances of the IDF manipulating or otherwise faking evidence in the past.". There was also an issue in that some of the content was sourced to an article title (often edited for sensationalism) and not to its body. I thought that presenting what the IDF presented (in one sentence), followed by a sentence of how this was criticized would separate the exhbit by the IDF and criticism of the exhibit. Regarding 1 Jan 2019 - Stoll's criticism of the NYT piece (which we cover in depth - 4 paragraphs in a level2 header) was covered in a secondary manner by JTA. Nableezy agreed on the TP to use of Stoll via JTA - 8 Jan 2019. Nableezy contrasts an expert in journalism commenting on the NYT imvestigation in Rouzan al-Najjar with a pianist/conductor/activist commenting on Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People - for the basic law we have no shortage of critical (even very critical) opinions by experts in law - which we should favor over a non-expert. Inclusion of opinions can of course be debated - there isn't a hard and fast law for DUE/UNDUE - it is article dependent, and in this case the basic law is very different (a topic very well commented and studied - we have no shortage of sources and opinions). In all cases, I participated in the talk page and attempted to form a consensus. I could have done some things better, but I do want to stress that the article was in breaking-news turf in June 2018 - it started with videos and reports from the Palestinian side, followed by Israeli retorts, and only a few months later (e.g. the NYT choosing this incident for an in-depth reconstructive investigation) we had more definitive sources. I am not sure I would have made the same edits today back then (e.g. by avoiding NOTNEWS).Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I'm not saying I was perfect. I was reverting this IP edit with no edit summary, was acting inline with WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 in regards to an IP edit, and I was probably responding to the removal of the paragraph. In retrospect (having re-read NBCNews/AP again now) I should've added a citation that used other language, or used attribution - I admit to sloppy handling of the NBCNews citation - had this been contested on this basis (on the talk-page or in an edit rationale) - I probably would've discussed and/or rectified the citation issue. In terms of lead balance at that point in time - this Washington Post piece in the article at the time was using - "who witnesses say Israeli soldiers shot dead near the border fence on Friday." - and didn't directly say Israel in its voice. Our policy - WP:NPOV generally and WP:BLPCRIME specifically - has us being cautious with statements in our own voice. And I stress - this is all me thinking back of what I was thinking in June 2018 - based on sources available then.Icewhiz (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - in regards to Nableezy's claim I did not revert per the General Prohibition on - this IP on 7 June - my subsequent edit was my very first edit to this article. I frankly probably did not look at the edit history at all when I made that edit at all. I probably got drawn to the article (4 days after creation) by news or it popping up an alert, and was looking at it for the first time which is not a situation in which I usually look at the editing history too much. After doing my edit - I probably watch-listed it. Icewhiz (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "doctoring" vs. "editing" in June 2018 - I was responding directly to Zero himself who advocated (without citing any source) inclusion of "deliberate doctoring of the video" - 11:50, 12 June 2018. I opposed this - and what Zero fails to mention is that I described it as possibly "Deceptive editing". Unlike Zero - I cited sources for my assertion - namely a dictionary and the New York Times which used "tightly edited".13:06, 12 June 2018 Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to ‎ZScarpia's posting below on the mural and Corbyn - according to an official Labour spokesperson: it "used antisemitic imagery, which has no place in our society, and it is right that it was removed".[10] Coverage in mainstream RSes (as opposed to a Medium blog post and architectsforsocialhousing which were proposed as sources for a BLP, and to which I was responding) has quite often ignored the graffiti artist - e.g. Guardian1, Guardian2 which just name him and mention a Facebook post Corbyn responded to, or The Atlantic which doesn't even name the graffiti artist. Several policies (BLP, NPOV, and yes FRINGE) supports challenging content sourced from the architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk Wordpress blog (on a very well covered BLP, on an issue covered by mainstream RSes).Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani - WP:RSes refer to Uri Avnery (LIT Verlag book, YNET obit, Forward obit), Moked,(IDI, Haaretz), and Ta'ayush (e.g. this Ashgate book, PUP book, Routledge book) as radical left in Israel. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

There is so much to say here, especially considering that many of the diffs are old, and that this is just a wall of text and trying to blast yet another opponent out of the sphere. I will just note one thing, Nableezy complains that Icewhiz says Finkelstein is biased, of course he's biased, indeed, the very first sentence of his article calls him an activist, "Norman Gary Finkelstein (/ˈfɪŋkəlˌsteɪn/; born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author." Any serious editor in the IP area would not use Finkelstein as an unbiased source. If you do take this matter seriously, I urge you to take it with a grain of salt. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Nableezy, regardless, it's irrelevant, those edits were not in mainspace, they were in WP:RS, so I don't get the harm, that is where we do give editor a little leeway to offer why they feel sources are or aren't RS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again on Wikipedia someone is downplaying antisemitism. Shame. Damn shame. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to add regarding ZScarpia's claim about the mural, it is antisemitic, not because it is displaying Jewish bankers, which is not a problem, it is antisemitic because it displaying Jewish bankers as in the opinion of Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt and contemporary local media, the "hook-nosed, repulsive-looking characters at the table" resembled imagery used by the Nazis, not sure why you left that out. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

I would like to issue a solemn appeal to reviewing administrators to study this report in depth and with special attention. Additionally, please allow some time for other editors to share their comments and opinions.GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikieditor19920

Having interacted with both parties, I regard this as a frivolous and vindictive report. Nableezy almost exclusively edits within the ARBPIA area with a distinct edge. If any of Icewhiz's edits, collectively or individually, are considered to show a discernible bias actionable under WP:TE, then an evaluation of Nableezy's contributions by that same standard would have to lead to equivalent or more severe sanctions. Also, the diffs provided could be attributed to errors in judgment or reading sources; in other words, mistakes made in good-faith. Hardly a compelling basis.

I don't want to exceed my limit here, but Zero0000 should have disclosed in his statement below that he consulted with Nableezy about this report prior to its filing. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stefka Bulgaria

I agree that too many diffs going back almost a year isn't helpful. Looking at Icewhiz's more recent edits, he seems to have been actively participating in TP discussions working with other editors in a level-headed manner. If there is a disagreement to the point a RfC/RSN/etc. is needed, then those would be more apt venues to explore. Other than that, I don't see a violation here by Icewhiz. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've known Icewhiz's editing for a while now, and though we have not always seen eye to eye on certain topics, I agree that he's "one of our best editors" here. If there are issues with the reliability of sources being used, RSN would be the appropriate forum. It takes two to tango, and eliminating the opposition via AE does seem vindictive. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Icewhiz is an intelligent and knowledgeable person who could easily be one of our best editors. Alas, he doesn't want to be. His transparent purpose in the I/P area is to defend the good name of Israel by means of endless pov-pushing combined with endless tendentious argument. My honest opinion is that Icewhiz is one of the worst editors to have ever appeared in the I/P area of the project.

I don't blame casual observers like Stefka for not seeing the problem at a glance. It takes longer experience to learn that nothing Icewhiz writes can be accepted without checking, and that "discussion" for him means writing anything, anything, that supports his pov.

Nableezy restricted himself to self-contradictions. I won't. Here Icewhiz argues that an anonymous blacklist is a reliable source, and follows up with "McCarthyite" does not mean inaccurate.. He is way too experienced to actually believe that, but the blacklist fits Icewhiz's personal pov. Here he quotes from a Hebrew court ruling without telling us that the very next sentences give contrary context. (Basically, the ruling said that the charges were very serious but the evidence for them was insufficiently compelling; Icewhiz brought just the first part.) These examples are not aberrations but just Icewhiz being Icewhiz.

Many of Icewhiz's talk page contributions can reasonably be called trolling. Nableezy's first case provides an example. Here he brings a dictionary definition of "doctored" to argue that a video which had purposefully been cut in order to change its meaning had not been doctored, even though the dictionary definition fits perfectly. I do not believe this was an argument in good faith; rather, Icewhiz' pov was in danger and he had to write something. Such lack of integrity is why the project would be better off without him. Zero^talk 03:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Calthinus: "Tendentiously cutting" is a form of doctoring. But that is not the point, since nobody ever tried to put the word "doctored" into the article. Icewhiz didn't want the article to mention the fact that the Israeli army had cut the end off a recording in order to smear (per several reliable sources) a medico they had just killed in cold blood. Since it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis, Icewhiz chose instead to sideline the discussion by bringing a dictionary definition for a word used only on the talk page. Zero^talk 07:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Icewhiz is still at it (above). The real issue was inclusion of the well-sourced fact that the video had been altered to change its impact and thereby smear its subject. Icewhiz didn't like that idea. The precise word to be used for the video manipulation was a side-show that Icewhiz used to deflect attention from the real issue. Even if he had to bring a dictionary definition that proves himself wrong. Zero^talk 14:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I discussed this case with Nableezy before it was opened, though he didn't (I think) follow any of my suggestions. We discussed it quite openly (not a single email) and if there is any rule against that I'd like to hear about it. This problem has been brewing a long time and I've often wished I had the time and stamina to open such a case myself. Zero^talk 15:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Calthinus: It's a pity you entirely missed the point. I'm not going to repeat what I wrote already. This one incident is minor in isolation, but alas it is just one example of very many. Also, please read WP:AGF. It is a right that can be forfeited by misbehavior and this noticeboard is a place where evidence for that can be presented. Zero^talk 00:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC) To editor Calthinus: There was no disagreement over which word to use. That is your basic error in understanding. Zero^talk 00:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) To editor Calthinus: You really don't get it. Icewhiz "disputed" the meaning of a word that nobody tried to use. That's not a disagreement over which word to use. Zero^talk 01:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calthinus

If I had to sum up a number of things I despise about wiki, this would be a poster case ... alas this hairball could never be condensed to fit on a poster, not least because half of the crap involved is essentially fluff that is likely totally inscrutable to anyone not balls deep in Israel-Palestine wiki bloodletting. Alas, if they were, they couldn't possibly be impartial. Here's one of many points that I think illustrate the issue here - the statement by Zero above. It takes totally out of context an argument about semantics (in this case, the word "doctored" -- indeed something can be "tendentiously cut" and not be doctored -- as the NYTimes perhaps more correctly put it [[11]]) and tries to turn it into some case of "trolling". But most people in good faith would see a simple disagreement... unless they already hated one side's guts. Zero admits Icewhiz "could easily be one of our best editors" -- well the one thing I agree on is that his life on wiki might be more enjoyable if he didn't feel he had to constantly deal with ARBPIA matters, but that is his choice. As much as I hate to say it, what Zero sees as Icewhiz being some sort of manipulative, tendentious editor who the project would be better without (even though he "could be" one of the best if he "wanted to" -- very odd thing to say if you're also saying we should get rid of him), I think most observers would simply see a guy who is trying to stand up for what he believes in, and simply has a disagreement with someone who doesn't seem to be properly differentiating misalignment of opinions with lack of good faith.--Calthinus (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 Is it a form of doctoring? Possibly depending on your definition, but doctoring is vague as it can also mean that other stuff was added. Hence tendentiously cut is a better and clearer description. You don't seem to get this, which is bizarre. Actually this statement by you -- "Since it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis, Icewhiz chose instead to sideline the discussion by bringing a dictionary definition for a word used only on the talk page" -- is frankly chilling in how frigid the lack of AGF is. I disagree with you about semantics too and I have no interest in that article -- am I unable to have an opinion about how readers will interpret a word unless I am hell-bent on "censorship"? Really, I think an admin like yourself (no less an admin of 14 years ) should be setting a much better behavioral example here than "if they disagree with me on how readers understand a word, it's actually about censorship" ...--Calthinus (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples in the media for usage of "doctored video" -- as we can see one is changed in speed [[12]], or changes in coloring etc [[13]] -- indeed the term is used in reference to deepfakes -- something that is far, far different than merely cutting a video. There is a clear difference in meaning as doctored is quite vague, whereas tendentiously cut is not. Well perhaps Icewhiz didn't have my exact take on it here, but the fact is that the point you were arguing was not obvious at all, and it is entirely unfair to assume any argument he makes that you disagree with is based on some ulterior motive to "censor" info.--Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 nope it's you who is missing the point. The guy can disagree with which word should be used, and not be using this as some sort of devious disguise allegedly because, and I quote "it is impossible to argue for such censorship on a policy basis". What the actual definition of the word is, who is right, who is most logical, is immaterial, what matters is that there is room for good faith debate, and in this case there was even if you can't see it. --Calthinus (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 Perhaps you had a memory lapse and forgot to check you own diff right now, where Icewhiz clearly does dispute the accuracy of the term "doctored" : ["Presenting a short clip of a longer video (something that is done routinely by any media outlet) is not doctoring, but editing.' Such editing may be done with an intention to deceive, but it is not doctoring. Deceptive editing - omission - is distinctly different from doctoring which requires modifications to the video. The vast majority of media outlets are using "edited" to describe this clip, a very small minority is using the technically inaccurate "doctored".]. Please strike your latest response. --Calthinus (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero: ...okay, but this changes nothing? The argument here is not about the specifics about what happened. It's about your claim of talk page "trolling". And nothing you are saying is resuscitating this. He is allowed to have a viewpoint on the use of the word. You're allowed to feel "trolled" or whatever; what is not allowed is to level claims with zero evidence except non-AGF about his motives for saying whatever he feels on the matter on the talkpage. ZScarpia you're also missing the point entirely. It's not about who is "right" -- instead, it's about whether there is room for AGF debate on the matter.--Calthinus (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I respectfully request the 500 word limit be enforced, as well as some reasonable measure of staleness (June 2018? Seriously?). Excessively long submissions prevent other editors (including admin) from participating, are unfair to the editor being reported, and to every other editor who has ever worked hard to reduce their AE posting down to 500 words. These standards should be applied equally to all editors. Thank you. Leviv ich 14:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal at AE for an editor to help another editor gather diffs in preparation of an AE report, and then comment on the report without disclosing that they helped prepare it? Leviv ich 15:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TracyMcClark

@Calthinus: No reader would ever see this specific word since this is not about adding the word "doctored" to the article but about some editor using it on the talk page. Not a single editor suggested to add the word to the article. You got fooled by Icewhiz as intended and since it's not your first response here it's clear that you got fooled (at least) twice by the Icewhiz.--TMCk (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia

This Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) article states that the IDF video of Rouzan al-Najjar was edited in such a way as to deceive. That is, it 'was' doctored.

One of the more over the top bits Icewhiz point-of-view pushing I've come across concerns the 'Freedom of Humanity' mural which featured in the current Labour Party Antisemitism controversy in the UK. It was alleged that the mural depicted antisemitic stereotypes and was therefore antisemitic. The artist defended it, giving the explanation that the figuress portrayed, rather than stereotypes, had been real-life bankers, most of whom were non-Jewish. In Icewhiz's opinion, stated on a variety of occasions, the artist's views are fringe and of no consequence. See the comment made here at 11:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC) for one example.

← ZScarpia 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calthinus, 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC): "I think most observers would simply see a guy who is trying to stand up for what he believes in ...". Of course, the problem comes when an editor is so wedded to what he believes in that he fails to appreciate that it may only be a viewpoint. And sympathy would normally be conditioned on what beliefs were being stood up for. Didn't David Duke contribute here for a while? ← ZScarpia 00:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Joseph: please read what I wrote. It was alleged that the mural depicted "antisemitic stereotypes". The defence was that it depicted real people, most of whom were non-Jewish. ← ZScarpia 06:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

The endless conflict in this area is all between those who read sources and the article circumstances precisely, and those who refuse to grasp the clear-cut distinctions made, and engage in spinning. Just one egregious example from this thread alone:

Zero writes:The deliberate doctoring of the video by Israel is an important part of the story and must be presented in detail.

Icewhiz replies:Zero himself (who) advocated (without citing any source) inclusion of "deliberate doctoring of the video"

That the video in question was deliberately 'doctored'/'tampered with' to skew the facts is attested in numerous sources, and it matters not a jot which synonymous word you use. Zero did not advocate the use of the word 'doctored' without a source, (though it would have been easy to justify per the Jewish Weekly The Forward's source). He argued that the incident of tampering (which the article accepts, and which he happened to call doctoring) be thoroughly covered. In such persistent habits of distortion by shifting the goalposts to create a strawman argument and thread about what other editors write, turning observations into advocacy, lies the gravamen of the claim of tendentious editing.

No one should deny the right of people with an extreme nationalist perspective the right to edit wikipedia, though their place here is best secured by meticulous adherence to policy, rather than throwing sand in the eyes of other editors about what constitutes policy, from edit to edit. That Icewhiz has extremist views is shown by his remark here, in which he identified mainstream pacific centrist scholars of world distinction as on the fringes of the Israeli radical left. Avishai Margalit, David Dean Shulman, Baruch Kimmerling, Zeev Sternhell, Yehuda Elkana and their likes are, for Icecwhiz, not centre-left, not left-wing, not radical left, but dangerously beyond even extremist leftism, something like little red book waving deviationists from the official line. I have no problem with extremists, as long as they stick to the rules, rather than game them. Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are dodging the points, which are very important, Icewhiz. Leave aside the gross mischaracterization of what Zero argued. You also wrote:-

the article reflects only voices on the fringes of the Israeli radical left

I was asking you why you dismissed Avishai Margalit, David Dean Shulman, Baruch Kimmerling, Zeev Sternhell and Yehuda Elkana as fringe lunatics of the raving radical left.

For you explicitly branded them as ‘voices on the fringes of the Israeli radical left’, when, as any click on their wikibios and curricula will show, they are centrist Israeli pro-Zionist scholars and moderates. Your answer consisted in googling ‘"uri avnery" radical left ‘, for a person whom I did not mention above, for evidence he, of the 12 figures, mostly scholars, on that page fitted your caricature. Even that evidence is flawed, for you didn’t read beyond the words you sought to ‘prove’ at least one was a ‘radical leftist’ (and not ‘on the fringe of radical leftism, nota bene). The article does use that term on p.202, but adds, damagingly for its put-down of Avnery, (‘whose visions of a Middle east peace were unrealistic p.205) the following, which shows how meaningless such characterizations are-

What seems to us today a mainstream approach, officially accepted by prominent right-wing politicians such as Benjamin Netanyahu, seemed a position of the radical left alone not so long ago.’ p.207

Avnery's putative 'radical leftist' view in 1982 is now official mainstream policy in the 'mainstream Israel rightwing circles', a dead give-away for showing how silly this kind of political labeling and skewering is.

Your remark underlined that, in your POV , mainstream scholars and thinkers in Israel who are critical of the occupation are representative of ‘fringes of the Israeli radical left’. This means that anyone with a liberal concern for human rights is a fanatic. That betrays an extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent in the ranks.

It is your position which is extremist. That is acceptable here. Editing tendentiously to press home that POV with a total disregard for coherent policy application is not. You have failed twice to answer directly a simple observation, and Vanamonde's queries have not been addressed cogently. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Icewhiz

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

The first diff is from June 2018. I stopped reading there. Please date all diffs as per the template so we can see what's stale and what's not. Sandstein 18:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this request is unsuited to AE. If an issue can't be summarized in 500 words, that's an indication that it's more suited to a full case request, not a quick response by an individual admin. And as to the subject matter, AE is fine for dealing with obvious cases of tendentious editing, such as throwing ethnic slurs around. But here, making a determination of tendentious editing would likely require a hour or more of detailed study of numerous complicated content issues and the underlying sources, while distinguishing genuine conduct problems from good-faith content disputes, which is very difficult in this kind of case. Speaking only for myself, particularly as somebody uninterested in this topic area, this is not something I see myself doing in my spare time. This does not preclude others who think that this can be resolved more straightforwardly from taking whatever action they consider appropriate. Sandstein 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ARBCOM would look kindly on a request at this stage. More generally, new editors keep cropping up in troublesome areas; if we kicked any difficult case to ARBCOM, they would be snowed under very quickly. I haven't looked through all of the diffs here, just the first four bullet points. They are somewhat concerning. While they are quite old, nothing formally prevents us from applying discretionary sanctions for old behavior. The question really is what Icewhiz has to say about those diffs now. Icewhiz, I for one would like to hear a response to Nableezy's first four bullet points. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a specific point in your reply I'm none too happy about, Icewhiz. The general prohibition is all very well, but enforcing it to revert the removal of POV language is questionable. I'm not suggesting sanctions in that respect; it's a mistake several people have made, including myself. But it is a mistake. If you think the IP's edits were correct on the substance, the thing to do is to revert it and then perform the same edit yourself (this is also broadly true for dealing with the edits of socks that have made constructive edits). If you still think the IP's edits were wrong, we have a problem. I don't particularly care how that shooting was described, so long as the description was in line with RS. If you want to change it, you need sources supporting the change. Reverting in text that is not explicitly supported by the sources is a problem, especially in a topic such as this; and this is a problem with that edit of yours that you are not acknowledging in its entirety. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because no admin action with respect to Icewhiz appears to be forthcoming, and we are having angry and pointless content disputes above, I am closing this thread. I am also blocking Nishidani for a week and banning them from creating or making comments in WP:AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested. This is because, despite being warned, they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others by characterizing Icewhiz's conduct with such terms as "extremist ethnonational intolerance of dissent", and "extremist views", without appropriate evidence. That somebody agrees or disagrees with, praises or dismisses certain thinkers (with whom neither I nor probably most people except devotees of this conflict are familiar) isn't appropriate evidence because it's a matter of opinion about opinions. Sandstein 14:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra

Not actionable (content dispute). Sandstein 07:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Huldra

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Huldra (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: I am asking that Huldra be reminded to maintain Wikipedia's policy as outlined in the section "Remedy" made here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Editors_reminded, namely: "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve the dispute between the Israeli and Palestinian people or any other real-world ethnic conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated."

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

clear violation of remedy The impetus behind Huldra's removal of a directional bearing in relation to a historical site is that it is "an illegal settlement." Clearly, what motivates her edits (or expunging thereof) is an anti-Israel POV, or else a furtherance of outside conflicts (which is prohibited). In such cases Huldra should rather have maintained a neutral point of view, that is, to mention, if need be, the opposite pretensions while remaining neutral.

another clear violation of remedy. Here, Huldra purports that Israeli settlements are NOT towns!

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Huldra has been duly warned in the past about her edits in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area, as one can see here, on 13 November 2018. Still, this alert did not seem to matter to her when she outright declared that directional bearings where an "Israeli settlement" is concerned should not be considered a legitimate guide for directions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has long been my view that editors of articles that touch upon the Arab-Israeli conflict should always maintain a neutral stance, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies outlined here. We ought not to aggravate the situation by inserting our own bias and prejudices.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

My notification to Huldra was done here.

Discussion concerning Huldra

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

Statement by Huldra

Statement by DGG

I was asked to comment. for the second item mentioned, the actual comment in the talk was " 'Israeli settlements' are not 'Israeli towns'. " Israeli settlements may be towns in the generic sense, but there is no general world consensus that they are in the State of Israel, as distinct from Israeli occupied territory. However, the mere locational marker to the place of that name is not a jurisdictional statement , and it does not make sense to remove it. I think both parties show some degree of a disputatious attitude. But this was provoked by Huld's removal of the link, and I hope a warning will be sufficient. I'm not responding as an administrator, but just as someone asked to comment. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

Statement by Nableezy

David seems to be returning to exactly the behavior that saw him banned. This comment is eerily similar to what was brought up here. A personal opinion on the worth of the views of the international community as opposed to the inalienable rights of the sons of Abraham is not a discussion to be had on a talk page. And on the content, Huldra is quite simply right. Solomon's Pools are in fact not directly east of Beitar Illit. It is about 8 km east, separated by Nahalin and Husan. This unsourced tidbit is both irrelevant to an ancient site and wrong. DGG, if anybody should be warned it is Davidbena for returning to his unsourced and longwinded soapboxing that is a. extremely POV and b. wrong as a matter of basic fact. nableezy - 05:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Huldra

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

I am closing this as not actionable because this is a content dispute, which AE does not resolve. Davidbena, please use the WP:DR process to resolve content disputes. AE is only for nontrivial cases of misconduct, and disagreeing about how an article should read is very rarely such a case. Sandstein 07:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena

Not actionable. Sandstein 09:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Davidbena

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Davidbena (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:A/I/PIA#General_1RR_restriction :

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

21:16, 17 April 2019 Davidbena revert my edit from 19:12, 17 April 2019

16:26, 17 April 2019 Davidbena revert my edit from 20:52, 13 April 2019

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Davidbena successfully appealed their own sanctions relating to the I/P area on 23 February, 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As I understand 1RR: Davidbena has broken the rule. He was asked (on his talk page) to revert, but would not do so), Huldra (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat; he was first told he had broken the 1RR on his user page, but refused to revert. Secondly, he has only reverted half, a reference to an Israeli settlement is still in place in the lead, Huldra (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Davidbena

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

Statement by Davidbena

I reverted Huldra's edit, yes. I was unaware at the time that 24 hours had not yet passed. I self-reverted.

Statement by Icewhiz

David self-reverted, and by dint of ARCA's recent motion, this is not actually a violation in any event as the article doesn't have 1RR edit notice on it. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction (and motion) which requires an "ARBPIA 1RR editnotice" on pages for 1RR to be in place. Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Davidbena

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

I'll be closing this later today as no action, because Icewhiz appears to be correct that 1RR now requires an edit notice. GoldenRing, as a clerk, could you look into updating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#General 1RR restriction accordingly? Sandstein 07:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for the prod. GoldenRing (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by David Tornheim

David Tornheim's topic ban from topic of genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed is reduced to be a topic-ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. David Tornheim is further warned that any disruption in the GMO topic area after this appeal will likely result in additional sanctions, including but not limited to the restoration of the original topic ban as a new sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user: David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of GMOs imposed here at WP:AE on July 2016. Also the appeal of that decision in July 2016 at WP:ARCA before the original case had closed. ([14], [15])

Administrator imposing the sanction: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Notified 09:40, 11 April 2019

Statement by David Tornheim

I am appealing my topic ban from GMO’s imposed in July 2016—almost three years ago. Of course, I have not made any edits in the area since then.

I was blocked a few days after the topic ban for this post on Jimbo’s page which links to GMO talk page comments. That is the only time I have ever been blocked.

The only other action by an admin against me in the nearly three years since I have been topic banned is this warning in an area unrelated to GMOs.

If my topic ban is lifted, I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources.

I think my edit history speaks for itself that I have been a net positive for Wikipedia.

Recent and long-term interests:

Removing vandalism (using Huggle)
Articles for Deletion (WP:AfD)
Helping new editors who have fallen astray of the rules and are on the road to being blocked or banned--especially those who make the same mistakes I made when I was new
History -- I recently created an article on Richard Clough Anderson Sr. and fixed all the confusion between him and his son Richard Clough Anderson Jr.
Historic architecture
Geology
Politics

If this topic ban is lifted, I will be a productive and collegial editor in this topic area.

I have learned my lesson. Three years has been enough time for me to reflect on how to improve my editing behavior and mature as an editor. At the time I was topic banned, I was still a relative newbie with probably less than half of the edits I have now. I have since learned how to address conflict by working collaboratively. I recently spent a day at a Wiki-conference and met many real life editors, and this also helped me better understand Wikipedians, their interests, their personalities, and their priorities—something that is hard to really understand from simply editing on-line.

Thanks for your consideration. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to be perceived as combative, because my focus is being collaborative and collegial even when disagreeing with other editors.

@Seraphimblade:

Regarding "I ___________, and in the future I'll __________."

I will focus on content, not editors.

Posting the things I did at Jimbo’s page was a pretty bad idea. I am appalled and ashamed by the post I got blocked for on Jimbo’s page after the topic ban. I have no idea why I was naive enough to think that would not have consequences.

Without hesitation, I can categorically promise that I will not talk about GMOs on Jimbo’s page. Although I had thought of Jimbo’s page as a public forum, I do not intend to advertise any more RfCs on his page or mention other editors’ behavior. Again, I will focus on content, not editors. I rarely post at Jimbo's page and that is unlikely to change.

As I mentioned here and here, I will not advertise an RfC by paraphrasing it, I will use the exact words of the RfC.

By the end of March 2015, he was participating relatively routinely at ANI.…especially given that, by the time the topic ban was implemented, multiple warnings had already been given.

I think this illustrates that I was a newbie who did not fully understand the rules and Wikipedia norms, which was exactly why I got those warnings and the topic ban. I tell newbies not to participate at AN/I, unless accused. At that time, I posted way too often at AN/I, which was a mistake that has taken time to learn from. Now I rarely post there: It is better to work collaboratively and collegially.

This warning cited to justify the topic ban was because I was a newbie and did not understand WP:BLUDGEON. For a long time, I thought it was perfectly okay to disagree with numerous editors at an action. After reading WP:BLUDGEON, I know now that’s not acceptable, and I do not do that now. I have learned the value of brevity.

Those warnings were a learning process for me. Because I have learned from them, I have not been blocked since, and have only had the one recent warning.

Is there anything else you feel I did wrong that I have not owned up to for which you seek further assurances?

--David Tornheim (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Past editing:

Regarding updating the science: This is the kind of edit where I added an updated scientific review article. It is still in the article. How is such an update "disruptive"?

Meanwhile, issues concerning obsolete studies in a similar article that are non-WP:MEDRS, non-WP:MEDDATE compliant have languished for 7 months ([16],[17]). Glyphosate-based herbicides repeatedly references this obsolete 16 year-old report (and this 22 year-old report) which has been superseded by this 2011 report commissioned for the same agency. There are not enough editors left in GMOs to make the correction. Are GMOs and pesticides somehow exempt from our sourcing rules? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Awilley, GoldenRing, and Vanamonde93 for their comments and would accept all of the proposed conditions of probation.

The answer to Awilley’s question is an unqualified YES. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Have you looked at the two Glyphosate-based herbicides diffs I provided above? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone: Given the concerns expressed here, the worldwide attention glyphosate has been receiving, and what I have learned and reflected on in the almost 3 years of the topic ban, you can rest assured I will be editing with extreme care. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

A couple of things concern me about this request. The first is a lack of specifics. Learned lessons about what? Won't do what again? If this appeal is intended to be based upon understanding what went wrong and undertaking not to have it happen again, I would want to see specifics as to "I ___________, and in the future I'll (not do that and/or __________ instead)."

The second is the recent (~5 months ago) warning for canvassing on Jimbo's talk page. That's very reminiscent of the behavior that led to the topic ban to begin with; indeed, inappropriate use of that page was brought up at the AE request that led to the topic ban. Also, I quite honestly find the characterization of these incidents as "relative newbie" mistakes to be rather misleading. David Tornheim's first edits were in 2008, and while there were several long (sometimes years long) breaks in between editing periods then, his first editing as a routine practice began on 10 February 2015, in the GMO topic area. By the end of March 2015, he was participating relatively routinely at ANI. So to claim that he was a clueless newbie in July of 2016 is, I think, rather difficult to swallow (especially given that, by the time the topic ban was implemented, multiple warnings had already been given; this was not a bolt from the blue). I also find the point by Kingofaces43 to be well in order. This wasn't a case of an editor one time losing their cool and engaging in an edit war or throwing around aspersions, it was a long period of disruption despite repeated warnings to stop. If it weren't for the recent canvassing incident, I might be inclined to say the ban can be easily reinstated, but given that I really question what those lessons learned were and would be inclined to decline the request. I wouldn't necessarily feel that way indefinitely, and it's certainly not to say that the contributions in other areas aren't appreciated as they certainly are, but I'm not convinced that rejoining the GMO area is the right way to go at this point in time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43

As the one who filed the initial AE, I do have some significant concerns here. The main ones being why David would want to edit in this topic again at this time and if they're truly addressing the core behavior that caused the problem here.

If you read through the AE and evidence throughout it, their behavior had been stirring up other editors for quite some time, leading to multiple editors being sanctioned for partaking in WP:ASPERSIONS. That is a principle I outlined more in the AE that we had to pass specific to GMO/pesticide topics.[18] David's topic-ban largely finally settled down the topic for years, so there should be a very high bar for saying that preventative measure isn't needed anymore. We've been having troubles with other editors at recent AEs with similar issues, so there is a high risk of the topic being disrupted even more if that behavior starts again in even the slightest. Their last warning on canvassing, reminiscent of their previous behavior seen in the GMO/pesticide topic, was also about five months ago, not three years as David put it.

The other area is that David frequently tried to insert WP:FRINGE material claiming there wasn't a scientific consensus on GMO safety, etc. claiming RS's said so. [19] Normally, topic-bans in fringe areas are there to prevent the rest of the community's time from being sucked up, and as admins mentioned at the AE (especially MastCell), our time had already been significantly taken up with David's actions that were more expansive than the acute issues at that AE.

For both of those things, I don't see anything specific in their response clearly showing the battleground behavior with related aspersions or the fringe advocacy would really stop. It's saying they did ok in other areas, but there's obviously a catch-22 in that you can't know how an editor off their ban will behave until they are back in the topic. That should also be weighed with how serious the behavior was towards disrupting the topic as a whole and how easily the topic can be disrupted again. While there is technically room to appeal, that is significantly narrowed when it looks to admins like David is better off sticking to their new topics. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More red flags are popping up with David's recent comments showing they want to jump directly into these types of edits. Glyphosate/Roundup is currently one of the most controversial areas of the subject, and a concern that they want to immediately go back to that. Especially with the recent warning about canvassing, I'm still not seeing anything indicating they'd not go back to behavior like these.[20][21][22] 0RR would help a little, but the main problem was their talk page behavior and use of content as Awilley was cautious about. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, GoldenRing, and TonyBallioni: on the on-the-fence comments, how do you weigh that with MastCell's two admin comments at the AE, namely on “kindness” towards the community? At the least, glyphosate-related topics should be avoided. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aircorn

I watch, or try to watch, every GMO related page (I don't include pesticides as GMO) and can not recall any edits in this area from David since his topic ban. I actually didn't mind David too much when he was editing outside the GMO safety kerfuffle as I found them reasonably easy to work with, especially giving our conflicting views. In fact I kinda liked that he didn't just entrench himself in the GMOs are safe/dangerous debate like so many others. I even thought we may have worked well together on Genetic engineering in fictionGenetic engineering in fiction at one point. It has been a pretty stable area recently (outside of Roundup which I don't personally consider part of the GMO suite) and we have finally got some decent articles up. It would be a shame to go back to the old ways of having to argue every point incessantly and they unfortunately carry a bit of baggage from before in this regard. However, we have the safety stuff bound by possibly the highest form of consensus here so there is little harm of that blowing up again.

I am not a fan of forcing editors to grovel on past mistakes, but I would like to know more specifics on what they actually want to edit within these articles. I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources is the only real indication and while that sounds good it can be problematic. Recent science are not always the best sources to use, especially if they are primary studies and contradict other more established ones. In many ways this was one of the catalysts of the safety drama and something David, although he was not alone in this, had problems with.

Three years is a long time in Wikipedia. If they have been editing productively in other areas then I personally would not be against giving them a second chance. AIRcorn (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I alluded to above round-up, and by extension glyphosate (much of the drama was over whether the articles should be split), is currently the most unstable area covered under the topic ban. I would not recommend it as a place for a recently topic banned editor to resume editing.

@Vanamonde93: We already have 1RR on all GMO topics through discretionary sanctions so this would not be anything more than other editors in the area have to deal with (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms#1RR imposed). AIRcorn (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hijiri88

I don't see any good reason to remove this ban. David violated it almost immediately violated it while essentially denying he was subject to it, was blocked, then left the project for a while. He came back and started taking a "let the world burn" attitude to administrative procedures, apparently as "revenge" for his own TBAN, and even started hounding the users he blamed for his TBAN, like Jytdog, and even random bystanders, like MPants. If it weren't for his perhaps sometimes good content edits, I'd be actively pushing for his restriction to be extended to a siteban, since I honestly can't figure out how such an uncollaborative editor has managed to survive here as long as he has. We certainly shouldn't be rewarding his behaviour by lifting what restrictions he already has. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the repeated blatant canvassing and IDHT regarding the same, and harassment of those who called him out about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: The question should really be whether it stopped disruption on the part of David Tornheim and caused him to reflect on his behaviour; I'm seeing little by way of self-reflection or apology in the above for any of David's misbehaviour since his ban, and so he really shouldn't be rewarded for this behaviour by having his one editing restriction repealed. He also hasn't explained his skirting the bounds of the ban last summer, including his repeated hounding of the editors he blames for his ban right down to their being indef-blocked for completely unrelated reasons (note that he kept beating that dead horse until one minute before the editor was blocked). The fact that he was only directly blocked once is not evidence that he's been respecting the spirit of his ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I agree with Aircorn - 3 yrs...seriously. Did it truly stop disruption? No, it did not. It's a controversial topic. I say give him a chance. What harm is there in giving someone a chance? What happened to AGF? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

Despite having been on opposing "sides" of the original GMO dispute, I like David personally, and I remember not too long ago complimenting him on some excellent advice he gave to a newbie editor about how to avoid conflicts. So I fully agree with him that he has a good track record of making helpful contributions. But that doesn't mean that he needs to have the restriction lifted, or that the GMO topic area would benefit if it were. David says as of now that these two discussions show that "[t]here are not enough editors left in GMOs to make the correction." That assertion worries me. Those two discussions were initiated by another editor who was subsequently AE topic-banned from GMOs, and the talk page discussions that followed indicated that the content issues are not quite as simple as David's comments here seem to indicate. Just a few weeks ago, there was a small flare-up of the GMO disputes that, thankfully, quieted down pretty quickly, and the last thing that we need is to reignite that again. I said myself barely two weeks ago that I was looking to update the sourcing on glyphosate and that I intend to make revisions that would correct some POV issues that remain from the old sourcing: [23], [24]. For personal reasons, I've temporarily decreased the amount of my editing over these past two weeks, so I haven't yet made those revisions, but that hardly amounts to an urgent problem that requires more editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the admins considering various alternatives, and I have a question @David that may perhaps help assess whether or not it is worth it to lift the restriction. David: In my comment just above, I took issue with your characterization of these two discussions. What is your response to what I said? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: In light of your question to Vanamonde and his reply to you, perhaps you might want to respond to my question to you, just above. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins: The way I see it, there is some risk in narrowing or lifting the topic ban, and it's a question of how much risk you are comfortable with; on the other hand, the point about this potentially becoming unliftable is a good one. As I think of the topic area over the past few months, it's true that there has been very little drama outside of glyphosate. However, it's worth considering that the majority of GMO pages mention glyphosate at some point. If you want to narrow the tban to glyphosate, and accompany it with an explicit warning about ROPE, I'd be OK with giving that a try. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Admins: Since I re-asked the question above, David has made a lot of edits, so he has been logged in. Clearly, he is under no obligation to reply to me, and on the face of it there is nothing wrong with that. But thinking about it a little beyond face value, and in the context of the exchange with Vanamonde about the same links, it sounds to me like a desire to jump back in to the most controversial subtopic, and not wanting to admit it here. I think that there may be cause for concern about lifting or narrowing the ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since David has now said this: [25], I'm pondering the worldwide attention glyphosate has been receiving. It sounds to me like he does not want a narrower ban that prevents him from writing about glyphosate, and it sounds like he is specifically interested in getting back into the most contentious editing area within the GMO topic. I think that this may be a good reason not to lift the existing ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by David Tornheim

Result of the appeal by David Tornheim

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

Decline appeal per Seraphimblade. There's a fine line between "The sanction is working at preventing disruption" and "The sanction no longer serves a purpose because disruption is unlikely to occur again." Right now, I think we're at "the sanction is working at preventing disruption", and I don't see a reason to make lift it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing and Vanamonde93: I'd personally prefer lifting it entirely over some specialized sanction (per my view that specialized sanctions don't work). I'm also generally not a fan of the ArbCom probationary lifting things. No one ever invokes them because they know that it would be a royal pain to enforce, even if the user is being disruptive. If people feel this is a ROPE situation, just remove it completely: they're already under an automatic 1 year probation via the discretionary sanctions awareness criteria (which is basically what probation was.)
I too am on the fence, but I tend to side on the "don't fix what's working" end of the spectrum. If people are on the fence here, we should be discussing either lifting it completely (the ROPE approach) or keeping it in place and telling him to come back in a few more months once some of the concerns above are more clearly addressed. Some random made up sanction to ease our minds but that in all reality will never be enforced isn't fair to David if it isn't needed, and if it is needed, isn't fair to the other participants in the GMO topic area because they'll basically have an unblockable on their hands, because more often than not, probations make it more difficult to sanction an editor rather than easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there’s consensus for another sanction, I won’t stand in the way of it. Though, I’m generally very skeptical of ROPE, but I’d personally prefer that to a middle ground in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: this thread is so tangled (my fault!), but yes, I'd support that reduction in TBAN scope. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence. On the face it seems like a reasonable appeal and I would lean towards granting it per WP:ROPE. On the other hand though I'm unfamiliar with this particular topic area I understand the concerns about borderline Battleground behavior, fringe, and POV pushing. It's easy to say "I will help keep the area up to date with the most recent science using the best reliable sources" but it is also not difficult to POV push by cherry picking from high quality sources. So I guess my question for David is, are you willing to compartmentalize whatever your own personal views might be, and to do your best to actually write from the POV of the best reliable sources? (See Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent for an idea of what I'm talking about.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So with David's response above I would be ok with lifting the topic ban per WP:ROPE. Also since my previous comment here I have looked into some of the other diffs related to the apparent "score settling" in Dec 2018 against User:Jytdog. Yuck. I really don't like that and it almost pushes me back over the fence, but I suppose the appeal addresses that as well with a clear commitment to focus on content and not contributors. So I guess put me down as a support, with the understanding that the ROPE will be very short and that if DT doesn't live up to their promises I'll be getting in line to reinstate the topic ban. As for whether to narrow or completely remove the topic ban...I'm fine with whatever the other admins decide, but consider that 1. if we don't trust them to be able to control themselves on glyphosphate articles why trust them with the rest of the GMO topic area, and 2. if glyphosphate is that problematic it might be the most efficient test of DT's commitment to reform. ~Awilley (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley sums up my thoughts perfectly. Is there perhaps a less restrictive sanction we could try, that would auto-expire in six months? Some sort of probation? 0RR on GMO pages for six months? Something? GoldenRing (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I take your point about probation and ROPE. My concern with dismissing this appeal is that I struggle to see another road for DT to have it overturned. Given that most here are fence-sitting, it seems likely that others would feel similarly and so I doubt that AN or ARCA would overturn a consensus to decline here. And if he goes off and edits perfectly for another six months and the appeals again here, will anything really have changed? I would rather lift the sanction on the basis of ROPE than land an editor with an essentially-unliftable sanction. Maybe I'm over-reading the situation, though. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read this appeal a while ago, and didn't comment because I couldn't make up my mind. I would certainly be happier with probation than with lifting this completely. I'm also reluctant to entirely dismiss a reasonable appeal that has no red flags. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni: I would prefer to lift this than leave it untouched. This is partly per WP:ROPE, as it's been three years, and also because I think some genuine introspection has gone into this appeal; far more than many we see here. I can see your point about probation, but that's not the only intermediate sanction we could consider; 1RR on GMO-related topics would not be unenforceable, I think (0RR is probably too much). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Striking per Aircorn, thanks for pointing that out. I am not convinced that there is no risk to lifting this, but given that we're all on the fence, that it's been three years, and that the appeal touches all of the necessary points (if not quite at the depth I would like), I'd rather err on the side of lifting this, because it's quite certain their edits will be receiving a lot of scrutiny. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43: Mastcell's comments are not relevant. Mastcell was stating that they felt a topic-ban to be necessary at that time; that necessity isn't in question here. This isn't an appeal on the merits, this is an "I have learned what the problem was and will do better" appeal. As such I (and the other admins, presumably) are all already assuming that the original topic-ban was justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni and GoldenRing: How would you feel about narrowing this to a glyphosate-specific topic-ban? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: I have read those links. I am concerned about those discussions for a variety of reasons, but that concern is quite irrelevant to this appeal. If we were to accept this appeal, it would be because we are (mostly) convinced that you will avoid your previous mistakes with respect to sourcing and editorial conduct. The urgency of the issues you hope to address are not germane; indeed, wanting to dive into the most contentious of current debates is a reason not to grant this appeal. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni, Awilley, and GoldenRing: This has been open a while, and discussion has died down. I will close this in favor of a narrowed topic ban, from glyphosate, broadly construed, unless I hear anything to the contrary from any of you. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections, but if someone else objects to it given the discussion that has occurred after I last commented, I also wouldn't mind not lowering it. Call my support here "Weak support" for the narrowed ban, if that makes any sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, so long as it is very clear that tolerance for further disruption will be minimal to non-existent. GoldenRing (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GoldenRing, Vanamonde92, and Awilley: I've gone ahead and closed it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)}}[reply]

BullRangifer

Awilley has applied some specific sanctions to both editors involved. Additionally, everyone involved (and specifically Rusf10 and BullRangifer) is reminded that wikipedia is not a battleground, nor a forum for discussing politics, but a place where we summarise the world's knowledge as we find it in reliable sources. GoldenRing (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning BullRangifer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BullRangifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

4/12/19 Asserts with no evidence that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress lied to congress to "please his boss". WP:BLPTALK
4/12/19 Makes the same claim about Barr again and suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree. Also, says Barr "just riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda." WP:BLPTALK
4/12/19 Tells an established editor that he should be topic-banned and is pushing fringe beliefs. WP:PERSONALATTACK
4/12/19 Suggests that regular editors are pushing conspiracy theories, need topic bans, and are incompetent without providing evidence. WP:PERSONALATTACK
4/12/19 WP:HOUNDs an other editor, demanding that respond to him immediately and again suggests Barr is a conspiracy theorist.
3/27/19 Calls Barr's ""impartiality" is a farce" and that "his impartiality is not evident or to be expected." WP:BLPTALK

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

7/20/18 Received a warning for personal attacks on another Donald Trump related page.
3/13/19 Received yet another warning for personal attacks on a Donald Trump related page.

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

Received DS alert 1/24/19 [26]
The above warnings have occurred in the past 12 months.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BullRangifer routinely labels editors he disagrees with (particularly any that speak favorably about Donald Trump) as fringe and conspiracy theorists and tells them they need to be topic-banned. This type of behavior is extremely disruptive and he has been warned repeatedly. Furthermore, he has also suggested (without evidence) that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress about spying that may have occurred during the 2016 elections just to please his boss (Donald Trump)and to "riled up Trump's base, the ones who believe this and other conspiracy theories, and who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda." Besides a BLP violation, this is the type of blog-style rhetoric that we do not need here. Given his WP:POLEMIC essay [27], WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and disregard of previous warnings (see above), I strongly recommend that some type of action is taken this time (not just another warnings).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein:- I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my original filing. The suggestion that Bill Barr's statement to congress "I believe spying did occur" was made only to please his boss is an obvious WP:BLPTALK violation. Lying to congress is a crime and to suggest that Bill Barr did this without any proof should not be tolerated. Telling other editors that they are "pushing fringe beliefs" and should be topic-banned amounts to WP:PERSONALATTACKs. I also added an additional diff.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion:The evidence you presented against me is absurd. By your own admission, these are at most minor violations. And I would say most of them, don't even rise to that level. Do you honestly think there is something wrong with using the phrase "muddying the waters" or telling someone they are making a strawman's argument is a problem? These are just alternate ways of telling someone they are bringing something irrelevant into the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phmoreno:You are correct, BullRangifer's behavior is unacceptable and so is Volunteer Marek's. I purposely ignored his Wikipedia:Wikilawyering below, knowing that it contained many misrepresentations (which you did a good job of pointing out). I didn't even bother to look into his allegation against you, which he did not support with diffs. He accused me of not providing any evidence, yet I did. @Volunteer Marek: where is your evidence against Phmoreno? Provide diffs, otherwise your statement below constitutes a personal attack and WP:ASPERSIONS--Rusf10 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: first of all, I am NOT your buddy. Second, with the exception of the first diff, you just provided them now and there are still other claims you made that you still ahve not provided diffs for, so do not accuse me of lying and then think that everyone else here is too stupid to realize. Now that you actually provided diffs: 1. [28] there is no consensus on using the Epoch Times as a relaible source as per WP:RSP2. [29] misrepresentation, the editor did not call Phmoreno fringe, but was asking for sources to avoid the appearance of WP:FRINGE 3. [30] quoting Devin Nunes, am I missing something here?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein, Awilley, Timotheus Canens, and Masem: Because "Boomerangs" are now being called for, I felt the need to fully defend myself against USER:Aquillion's allegations since he omitted context when presenting diffs against me. With the exception of the muddying the water comment, which has been blown out of proportion, my comments were in response to other inappropriate statements including those made by BullRangifer. Since it is too long for me to post here, I created a new page to respond fully: User:Rusf10/Response to Allegations--Rusf10 (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Discussion concerning BullRangifer

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

Statement by BullRangifer

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This is some gross misrepresentations by Rusf10. Let's see

"Asserts with no evidence that Attorney General Bill Barr lied to congress " - FALSE, what BR said is that Barr's words were "uncertain, off-hand, without evidence, spoken to please his boss, and he's pulled back on what he said", all of which can and is supported by sources on the related article's talk page.
" suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree" FALSE, there's not a damn thing in that diff that mentions blocking or banning anyone. And regarding BR's comment about those "who now come here to misuse Wikipedia to push their political agenda.", what's wrong with it? The title of the freakin' discussion thread this is referring to is "Meatpuppetry at Spygate from r/The_Donald" (with plenty of evidence provided by User:Starship.paint to show that there is indeed a coordinated effort going on to disrupt Wikipedia in order to push a political agenda)
Tells an established editor that he should be topic-banned and is pushing fringe beliefs." Uhh, because it's true? User:Phmoreno has tried for awhile now to insert unreliable fringe and conspiracy sources into these Wikipedia articles. Like something called theconservativetreehouse [32] or a conspiracy book by some guy from Alex Jones's Infowars show [33] [34] (I apologize ahead of time for those links) [35] [36]. [37]. Here is Phmoreno referring to reliable, mainstream sources as " fake news propaganda" and asserting that we need to "tell what really happened" (i.e. push a nutty conspiracy theory on our readers) Here is another editor observing that Phmoreno is trying to push WP:FRINGE beliefs [38] (User:Darknipples at bottom of section) Here is Phmoreno claiming that there has been a "failed coup d'etat" against Trump [39]. I mean, if that isn't fringe wacky shit, I don't know what is. In this section when asked to provide sources for his fringe assertions, Phmoreno first replies "I don't have time", then provides this garbage. Just looks through that websites front page and tell me that someone who takes this shit seriously has any business editing articles on American politics. Etc. There's more examples of this WP:NOTHERE kind of behavior from Phmoreno that can be easily provided (let me know)
Ditto
Yeah... pointing out that we follow policies on Wikipedia is NOT WP:HOUNDING. But you know what might be? Filing bad faithed dishonest WP:AE requests.

Rusf10 makes the accusation that "BullRangifer routinely labels editors he disagrees with (particularly any that speak favorably about Donald Trump) as fringe and conspiracy theorists". No. BR does point it out when some editors try to use conspiracy theorists or fringe sources on Wikipedia. But that's the fault of the people who try to pull this stuff, not BRs. He does NOT "label editors he disagrees with" in GENERAL in such terms, neither routinely or otherwise. Rusf10 has not provided ANY evidence to support that false accusations so this constitutes a personal attack and WP:ASPERSIONS

This is WP:BOOMERANG worthy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phmoreno - the diff you link to is a different diff that Rusf10 linked to that I was discussing. So your "Actually" is kind of... false.

It is also utterly dishonest of you to claim that I said John Solomon is "garbage". I called THIS SOURCE YOU TRIED TO USE "garbage". Because it is. As is obvious with even a cursory glance at the article in question or the main website of whatever that is [40]. Please retract your false statement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And dude, your whole "I will do a presentation" thing sounds like a freakin' super creepy threat. That alone should get you sanctioned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Rusf10, buddy. If you actually read my comment you'll note that it is chuck full of "evidence". There's a diff or link for everything. So stop pretending otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, people can read you know. You say "he did not support with diffs". Here is a diff I provided. Here is a diff I provided. Here is a link I provided to a relevant discussion ([41]). Here is a a link I provided to a relevant discussion ([42]). EVERYTHING I said was diff'd and supported. So stop lying. People can read.

And I did NOT accuse you of "not providing evidence". Buddy. I accused you of providing FALSE evidence. As in claiming a diff says one thing, when it actually says another. For example - again - you claim that in this diff BR accuses Burr of "lying". He does not. He says something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that after I pointed out that Phmoreno was making false claims about what I said he changed his wording to make it look like I was the one misrepresenting him. Not struck it. Changed it straight up. He's been around for a very long time, so he knows that that kind of thing is sketchy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

The groundless nature of Rusf10's request is detailed above, but I'll point out that Rusf10 himself has unclean hands in this topic area, perhaps to the point of WP:BOOMERANG. A few combative diffs from the past month:

Accuses someone of muddying the waters, twice, for raising concerns over meatpuppetry. 4/11/2019 4/11/2019 (Note that the page now has 300/50 protection due to obvious meatpuppetry that was, in fact, occurring during that discussion; see discussion here.)
Calls someone's summary of a source a strawman's argument. 3/25/2019.
And the crusade against Fox News continues... 3/24/2019
Again, you are so blinded by your own bias, you have no idea what you are talking about. 3/23/2019.
On BullRangifer's talk page: I would be very careful with trying to promote conspiracy theories about why Roger Ailes created Fox News or what his intentions were. That's a BLP violation and consider yourself warned. 3/22/2019, in relation to [43]. First, Ailes died nearly two years ago (putting him at the very limit of what BLP might be considered to apply to, even in far more extreme cases than this). Second, this aspect of his biography is well-established and extensively discussed in reliable sources; while it may not have universal support, it's not something that could be a WP:BLP violation. Threatening someone with BLP over it almost two years after Ailes' death is therefore an unambiguous abuse of process. He coupled this with a BLP sanctions warning; while such notices don't imply wrongdoing, it is hard to accept that Rusf10 thought that an editor as experienced as BullRangifer was unfamiliar with BLP or its sanctions - in other words, he was abusing process and notices to try and intimidate an editor.
Please don't patronize me. 3/18/2019
Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected. 3/18/2019
If you're going to call me out, at least do so by name. 3/18/2019 Note that the editor was not, as far as I can tell, calling him out in any way.

Individually some of these are minor, but this is over the course of less than a month (and he wasn't hugely prolific in that time period); together they show an WP:UNCIVIL, combative style, a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area, a refusal to WP:AGF, and a desire to abuse process in an effort to intimidate or remove editors he disagrees with - especially BullRangifer in particular. --Aquillion (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Phmoreno

I agree with what Rusf10 presented.

In my upcoming lecture on propaganda and ideological subversion I will show the audience a screen projection of a Wikipedia Talk page on one of these anti-Trump articles and give examples of the standard tactics these propagandists use: attack the sources as being unreliable or not permitted when primary (both usually not supported by Wikipedia policy), slant the narrative by prohibiting anything that contradicts the left wing talking points and finally attacking editors who try to write something truthful. I will also show how contrary narratives are labeled as "conspiracy theories" or "fringe" or "far-right fringe", phrases which BullRanger uses with great frequency. (BullRanger will be one of the editors I will highlight.) After I gather feedback I will turn my presentation into an article and have it posted on a website that gets several million daily views.

In response to VolunteerMarek:

2. Marek takes issue with Rusf10: "suggest that block/bans are necessary for those who disagree" FALSE. Actually, the diff 4/12/19 states :* You're still calling RS "fake news"? That should earn you a topic ban for working against our RS policy. That repeated claim is evidence you are NOTHERE to follow our policies, but to push your fringe beliefs based on unreliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC) I was calling the article "fake news", not the sources (although there is a recent article listing 32 false claims by MS media on Trump topics); however, BullRanger needs to read the reliable sources policy. Notice BullRanger: attacks the sources, mis-states WP:RS, threatens me with a topic ban, labels my views "fringe beliefs".[reply]

3.1 Attacks my sources. Also fails to mention numerous times that I have cited The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal andThe Hill(John Solomon).

3.2 VolunteerMarek bends the truth about my statement by saying " Phmoreno first replies "I don't have time", then provides this garbage". I did post a reference and here is what I actually said:

I do not have time to post them all.^[1]

3.3(~~Calls John Solomon article "garbage"~~. The article is about something Solomon wrote. Solomon is considered to be the leading reporter on this story.

In summary, editors like BullRanger have destroyed the credibility of Wikipedia Trump related articles. This has been pointed out numerous times on the Talk pages. The only good thing I can say is that this is such bad propaganda that it is recognized as such by any half informed or sensible reader.Phmoreno (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ "FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet". Foxnews.com. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2019-04-12.

Statement by Geogene

Phmoreno just made a threat [44] that should result in an immediate indefinite block, under the same principle as WP:NLT (chilling speech). Geogene (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

Masem, would you please move your comments out of the 'Results concerning...' section per the italicized instructions. You are involved in the recent disputes on the article.- Mr X 🖋 12:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, you are involved. In fact, you initiated a content dispute over the title of the page, giving your (incorrect, evidence-free) opinion that "This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction."[45] It doesn't matter how you arrived at the page, or that you "made no other discussion regarding content" (you have frequently weighed in on content disputes related to Donald Trump). You initiated a content dispute and now you are attempting to adjudicate a conduct dispute about participants in the content dispute. You can't do that. Is it going to be necessary to request clarification from Arbcom on this? By the way, this is not first time that I have protested about you violating WP:INVOLVED and ignoring the instructions on this page: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators..- Mr X 🖋 14:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, try harder. I have shown seven diffs of his direct involvement with the content. The evidence is crystal clear, but we can let Arbcom explain to the community why admins are allowed to flaunt policy and Arbcom procedures when it suits their content preferences.- Mr X 🖋 19:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Masem

(The following content was moved out of the uninvolved admin section. I still strongly disagree that in this specific content dispute I am involved for discussing the question of the article title, but rather not divert the discussion from the matter raised at AE --Masem (t) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]

- Agree that there's no action either way, outside that all users are showing BATTLEGROUND behavior in regards to sourcing. We're not going to use sources that clearly fail RS, but at the same time, there is room to discuss the nature of how the RSes are reporting on the matter with regards to WP:YESPOV. Sticking to either of these points is inflaming the other view. Neither side is showing any compromise. Recommend TROUTs around, but caution that another flairup would likely require action across the board. (Comment: I have participated in a discussion related to the title of the Spygate page but make no claims or comments about this specific content dispute, so consider myself uninvolved to that point.) --Masem (t) 22:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - To response to Mr. X above, I reiterate the point here: I do not consider myself involved in this specific content dispute: the only contribution on the page I did was when I saw the page title (as "Spygate (Donald Trump conspiracy theory)" appear at the edit warring noticeboard, and expressed concern that the page needed to be renamed to something shorter to meet naming policy and avoid the potential BLP. I'm also writing this response before I go to responde to a ping that named me regarding a name change on that page. I have made no other discussion regarding content and certainly not around the specific disputed area here. --Masem (t) 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I think only diff #3 by BullRangifer [46] maybe a little problematic, simply as criticizing another contributor on article talk page. However, that contributor was recently indefinitely blocked [47]. All other comments by BullRangifer were either about content or comments on the WP:ANI which serves to discuss the behavior by other contributors. Therefore, I do not think any sanctions against BullRangifer would be appropriate here (agree with Sandstein). On the other hand, this is clearly a battleground request (the 3rd one) by the filer. Therefore, some sanctions against Rusf10 could be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would really recommend closing this case as "no action", especially taking into account that some of the admins are active in the area of US politics, which is good, but might create an impression of bias. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

This whole AP2 fiasco has gotten way out of hand. The bias is obvious. It's sad to see our admins being pressured into making decisions they don't want to make but are forced to in order to keep the peace. It's no longer about maintaining NPOV for the sake of the project - it's a war between the left and the right unlike anything I've ever seen before in my lifetime, and I've been around a long time. Masem has been one of the most neutral and above-board admins I've seen since I became a WP editor, and he has not always decided in my favor. I've always believed that Sandstein was one of the few pragmatists we have left, and I've followed his decisions; all were based on what he believed was fair and reasonable. I like BullRangifer as a person and considered him a wikifriend but he has gone overboard and needs to be reeled-in. It's not just him - this obsession or hatred for Trump is tearing us apart, and it has to stop. Volunteer Marek is unrelenting, yet rarely are we seeing any decisive actions taken against them - the few times I've seen were shortlived. Glaring evidence has been presented but I already know what's going to happen - some of it already has, and it's sad because it hurts the project in the long term. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Can I just point out a minor elephant in the room to slightly echo Atsme's statement? In many (most?) of these AP2 and other AE filings, you will see one constant. That constant is Volunteer Marek. I try to stay away from this area for that reason. As Atsme pointed out, VM is unrelenting, evidence has been presented, yet for some reason VM usually gets away scott free. We all know there are editors that have said they stay away from this area. We should not let it continue. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thucydides411

I want to preface this by saying that I'm not calling for a block against BullRangifer. However, BullRangifer has a persistent habit of using talk pages as fora for long political statements, and they should be directed to stop doing so. When editors voice their political views so stridently on talk pages for political topics, it not only distracts from the work of editing, but gives the very strong impression that politics is driving content (rather than the usual Wikipedia policies).

I was moved to come here by the following recent comment by BullRangifer on the talk page for Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump):

Spygate does not refer to all alleged spying on the Trump campaign, and not all alleged spying on the campaign refers to Spygate. There was surveillance of specific individuals as part of the investigation into Russian interference, and that ended up including the whole campaign, including Trump. He is the chief suspect, the spider in the center of the web, whose spiders do nothing without his orders, or at least his approval. This was still not a politically motivated investigation, but was part of the investigation into Russian interference. Trump and his campaign members were obviously deeply involved with Russians and Trump clearly benefited from the interference. This included many secret meetings (with Trump literally trumping Don Jr and Kushner to issue a false press report about the Trump Tower meeting), and then lying repeatedly about all of it. All of this created justified suspicions that they were party to the interference and made all the investigations completely justified and legitimate. Never before has an administration and president acted in this manner. -[48]

That sort of comment is really unacceptable, and it fits in with the pattern laid out by the diffs Rusf10 laid out in the initial complaint. I really defy any of the admins commenting below to tell me that calling Trump "the spider in the center of the web, whose spiders do nothing without his orders" is acceptable on a talk page. Please direct BullRangifer to stop using the talk pages as a political forum. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley, Bishonen, Sandstein, Doug Weller, and GoldenRing: Do you have any comment on the statement by BullRangifer that I quoted above? Is it appropriate to call Trump "the spider in the center of the web," and his associates "spiders [who] do nothing without his orders"? If that sort of talk is tolerated on Wikipedia talk pages, then I suggest that WP:BLPTALK needs significant revision. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JFG

The preventive sanctions placed by Awilley on both involved editors should address the behavioural issues, and they seem proportionate to me. Their actions will be under scrutiny for a year. No need to add any "punishment" sanctions on either side. — JFG ^talk 00:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MONGO

Can we close this yet...seems keeping it open is not really helpful. The sanctions are in place so both parties know what's expected and what will happen if they don't abide by Awilley's sanctions.--MONGO (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BullRangifer

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 because the request does not explain how these edits violate any applicable conduct policy - except for one allegation of "hounding", but a single edit cannot constitute evidence of this. Sandstein 21:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (my response moved to above section --Masem (t) 20:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  - I would still take no action. It is true that editorializing and politicking on a talk page is inappropriate. Talk pages exist to discuss source-based changes to articles, not to speculate about the motives, etc., of political actors (WP:NOTFORUM). But that does not rise to the level of requiring sanctions, unless it happens to such a degree that it disrupts useful discussion. This has not been alleged here. I also do not think that criticizing a prominent national politician (who, as a public figure, must expect all sorts of criticism) on a talk page violates BLPTALK to a degree requiring sanctions, even though, as mentioned, it is inappropriate. Likewise, I agree that editors must not attack one another. But they may tell others that their conduct is at odds with Wikipedia's values, as BullRangifer did when the now-blocked Phmoreno made blanket dismissals of reliable sources as "fake news propaganda". To the extent that BullRangifer may have been too confrontative, I think that they did not do so to a degree that warrants sanctions. Sandstein 13:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I indefinitely blocked User:Phmoreno per User:Geogene. Phmoreno knows about NLT blocks and the chilling effect they have and his edit above and in his sandbox[49] have the same effect and are unacceptable. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to see this report as a continuation of [50] and [51]. This is the third time in a year that Rusf10 has filed AE requests against Bullrangifer, and each time Bullrangifer gets criticized for making overly personal comments and Rusf10 gets criticized for filing contentious reports against ideological opponents. Since both sides have been warned multiple times about this (See here for Rusf10 being warned explicitly about WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and assuming bad faith) I have on my own initiative placed some limited discretionary sanctions on each editor, tailored to specific problems I see in their behavior. (Auto-boomerang for Rusf10 and No personal comments on article talk pages for Bullrangifer) I would also not oppose a boomerang here against Rusf10.
Responding to MrX above, I don't see that as evidence of Masem's involvement, and I don't think that Masem has taken an unreasonable position here. ~Awilley (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach, broadly speaking; both editors should disengage from this confrontation. I myself would not have used this kind of sanction which needs continued enforcement and supervision; but that's your decision. Unless other admins intend to take action, I think this can be closed now. Sandstein 20:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to keep an eye on things. Also to be fair to Bullrangifer, asking BR to disengage from "this confrontation" implies that they were engaging in a confrontation with Rusf10, which I can't see was the case. BR's comments, at least the ones linked here, seem to have been mostly directed at User:Phmoreno and meatpuppets from r/The_Donald, not at Rusf10; and BR hasn't made any comments here at all. You can't get much more disengaged than that. ~Awilley (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thucydides411: Yes, that's clearly unhelpful, inflammatory, and inappropriate, and striking the "spider" part was the right thing to do (though it would have been better not to write it in the first place). ~Awilley (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see anything actionable in this request, and would not be opposed to a boomerang. T. Canens (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aquillion has listed some ten or twelve diffs divided into eight bullet points, purporting to show that Rusf10 has unclean hands in the topic area. I tend to agree. Some of Aquillion's diffs are minor, but as Aquillion points out they're over the course of less than a month, and during a period when Rusf wasn't especially active. I think that's interesting, and shows that Rusf's discourse is more or less dominated by aggressive posts, or, as Aquillion puts it, "shows an WP:UNCIVIL, combative style, a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area, [and] a refusal to WP:AGF". (I'm not sure about those diffs showing "abuse of process", though certainly this very enforcement request against BullRangifer, together with the two previous ones, suggests an effort to intimidate or remove BullRangifer in particular.) Looking through Aquillion's bullet list, it seems to me that this diff in bullet 2, directed at Volunteer Marek, is quite reasonable. The rest of Aquillion's diffs, which include stuff like "Again, you are so blinded by your own bias, you have no idea what you are talking about", "Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected" and "I would be very careful with trying to promote conspiracy theories about why Roger Ailes created Fox News or what his intentions were. That's a BLP violation and consider yourself warned" (I'm quoting the whole of Rusf's post on BullRangifer's talkpage, and italicizing the actual threats in it), are pretty awful IMO. Yes, I've read Rusf's special page supplying context for Aquillion's bullet points, but I don't see that it makes any difference at all. Also, reading Rusf's comments on that page, I was struck by Rusf's choice of sources to prove his points, such as here: New York Post (marked as "opinion", yet), The Hill (also marked as "opinion").

I also see (predictably unsuccessful) attempts by Rusf to badger Awilley about the special sanction Awilley has given them per above. It's unsurprising that people are upset when they're sanctioned, but this is just pure wikilawyering: "As per WP:ADMINACCT, I also would like to know specifically which of Aquillions you believe violated a policy and specifically which policy was violated". Now that I too have mentioned Aquillion, I'd better tell Rusf preemptively that Wikipedia doesn't have policies about every possible detail whereby talkpages and discussions can be blighted and made uncomfortable for other people. There is such a thing as a cumulative effect.

A couple of uninvolved admins — @Awilley and Timotheus Canens: — have mentioned the possibility of a boomerang. I'm for it, myself. Not sure what form it should take, though. A topic ban from AE? A logged warning? Anybody? Bishonen | talk 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The auto-boomerang Awilley has applied seems sufficient to me. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post here yesterday afternoon but ran out of time. I think the auto-boomerang sanction addressed the problem of filing frivolous reports against perceived opponents, but the more I look at this the more I think Bishonen has a point that there's more to it than that. One needn't look further than Rusf10's talk page where they are hosting a trash-talking party with a (previously banned?) editor, and where I have now become "Slick Willey" and part of some shady liberal cabal. Some general grouching after a sanction is to be expected, and if it were just me being criticized I'd ignore it. But this is 10 days after the fact and I'm not the only one being dragged through the mud. I don't think there's consensus for an outright boomerang sanction here, but I would support closing with a warning along the lines of "Rusf10 is reminded that Wikipedia is not a battleground." ~Awilley (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC) A.K.A. "Slick Willey"[reply]

Philip Cross

No action taken. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Philip_Cross : Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

diff Blocked for violation

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

Named in an arbitration remedy.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A non-autoconfirmed user, User:Guantolaka, has posted an edit request at WT:AE due to the restriction on non-AC accounts making reports here. Ordinarily I would dismiss a request which is an editor's first edit but the editor claims to have been directed to do so by the committee. I have contacted the arbitration committee by email and verified that there is a plausible reason for a newly registered account to be making such a request (though the reason is not public) and that they did indeed direct the editor there.

Over the past few days, Philip Cross has been making a number of edits to Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange. Guantolaka contends that this falls under the topic of British politics from which Philip Cross is banned and so these are violations. I left a note on Philip Cross's talk page advising him to be careful around the edges of his ban, but this does not seems to have led to any change.

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other whether these are violations of the ban and would like other uninvolved admins to weigh in please.

Follow-up: @NorthBySouthBaranof: I share your concerns entirely. Indeed I came very close to simply blocking the account as NOTHERE and only the claim to have previously sought advice from the committee stopped me. Nonetheless, we are here to enforce the decisions of the committee and so if they want to allow a particular user an exception to their own rules then I think we need to hear it. I don't think this should be seen as setting a general precedent that non-AC users can post requests at WT:AE; only that the committee has overriding jurisdiction over this page and can authorise it in particular cases if they so choose. The committee have assured me privately that there is a plausible reason for the user to be interested in Philip Cross that doesn't involve previous Wikipedia activity. I'm still not sure that doesn't add up to NOTHERE, but it's enough that I'm happy to give them a chance to prove otherwise.

On the substance, I largely agree with Masem that Assange is a political figure largely unrelated to UK politics who happens to be in trouble in the UK criminal justice system; that doesn't make the page about British politics. The only thing that gives me pause is Pawnkingthree's point that the decision over extradition is eventually one made by a politician, but even then it's not necessarily made by a politician; a judge might still rule out extradition and we're a long way from that point, and it could be argued that the home sec here acts in a quasi-judicial capacity, not a political one. It's certainly not a question that parliament could settle (doing so would pretty much amount to an act of attainder, which, while still theoretically possible, hasn't been used in at least 190 years and would probably be a breach of article 6 of the EU convention on human rights). GoldenRing (talk) 08:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I emailed the clerks-l list (probably the wrong forum but did so from habit) and got a response from Joe Roe. I believe that, for privacy reasons, you're unlikely to get a fuller response than I have outlined here, but you can only ask. GoldenRing (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guantolaka: Let me try to explain this to you. When I see a brand-new account making an AE request as their first edit, I immediately wonder what exactly you're trying to achieve with it. Are you here to further some off-wiki dispute with PC? Are you pushing some angle on Wikileaks / Assange? Are you yourself trying to obliquely influence the content of some article? Basically, why do you care if Philip Cross has violated his topic ban? I just can't think of an innocent reason for you to take an interest. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege extended to people so that they can help to improve it; if that's not why you're here then we're not really interested in your contributions and the normal response is to block your account. Likewise, arbitration is not a venue for obtaining justice per se but for resolving disputes between editors and facilitating the smooth running of the community so that the primary activity of improving the encyclopaedia can carry on. It's not obvious to me that there needs to be a way for those outside the community to influence the internal processes of the community. There is no dispute between editors to resolve here because you are not one.

I realise some of that comes across as a bit hostile to you but I'm trying to explain why we are reluctant to entertain this request at all. I think that if there were specific concerns with PC's edits, that would be a somewhat different matter, especially if you were (or were connected to) the subject of the edits. But when you just turn up pointing out (what you perceive to be) topic ban violations, it leaves me very much wondering what your motives are. GoldenRing (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guantolaka: As I said, I was trying to explain how this looks from my perspective. To answer your question, I care about your motives because I care about the smooth running of the project, and one way of looking at your actions here is to see someone stirring up trouble where otherwise there would be no trouble. I'm not yet sure that this is an accurate view of things, but your response doesn't do a lot to persuade me otherwise. GoldenRing (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NSH001: Politicians comment on all sorts of things. There has been extensive commentary on Honda's decision to close down a factory; that doesn't make the factory an inherently political topic. The decision to close down coal mining in the UK was a political one; that doesn't make Coal mining in the United Kingdom an inherently political topic. Railways in the United Kingdom were government owned and run for decades; that doesn't make British Rail an inherently political topic. Jacob Rees-Mogg has argued publicly that Somerset should be in a different time-zone, fifteen minutes behind the rest of the country; that doesn't make Time zone (or Somerset) a political topic. Nor does commentary from politicians make Assange's indictment and arrest an inherently political topic. GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(responding here for clarity) This is an example of the straw man fallacy. See my section below. --NSH001 (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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

Statement by Philip Cross

Statement by Guantolaka

Thank you for filing the request, GoldenRing. I fail to understand comments that say this page does not "relate to British politics". Here are some quotes taken from the page:

'...the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, ... and British Prime Minister Theresa May, who commented that "no one is above the law," are in support of the arrest.'
'Ecuadorean president Lenín Moreno said in a video posted on Twitter that he "requested Great Britain to guarantee that Mr Assange would not be extradited to a country where he could face torture or the death penalty. The British government has confirmed it in writing, in accordance with its own rules."'
'British Veterans for Peace UK call british government to « respect the rights of journalists and whistle-blowers and refuse to extradite Julian Assange to the US'

Cross edited the page containing the text above and removed an article with title 'Protesters Call on UK to #FreeAssange Outside British Embassy in DC'

I'm not questioning his edits here, merely pointing out that this is very much in the realm of British politics, and Cross "is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

NorthBySouthBaranof: Assange has been in the UK for a long time, he's now in a UK prison. It's a pretty big political story in the UK. Hardly a small matter a politician has happened to comment on in the press. As for striking my comment, I made an edit request in talk as advised by the arbitration committee, and rules for commenting here appear to be that "All users are welcome to comment on requests." Guantolaka (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem: The wording of the topic ban is "indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed." Guantolaka (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I'm pretty sure that a narrow focus on "connectivity" to a "sitting member of the UK government" is not what the topic ban is about. The wording of the ban certainly doesn't give that impression. Also, your own view of whether Assange is a political figure in UK circles is surely irrelevant to the fact that the situation he finds himself in in the UK is highly political. He was arrested by UK authorities, is in a UK prison, and the UK government is involved in deciding extradition, as Pawnkingthree points out. Guantolaka (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing: The Philip Cross arbitration case started because people noticed a certain pattern of editing and brought attention to it from outside Wikipedia. Given that, and my view that there was never great enthusiasm within the Wikipedia community to address the problematic editing until it reached arbitration, it seems reasonable to expect enforcement requests to come from outside Wikipedia too. There needs to be a way for this to happen. If it can't happen via email, can't happen via posts to this page, and can't happen via edit requests through the talk page, how is it supposed to happen?

Sandstein: I'm not a Wikipedia editor trying to evade anything. Please see my reply to GoldenRing about how someone is supposed to raise concerns if you are so intent on shutting any attempt to do so down. Guantolaka (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'll ask again: How is someone who is not a Wikipedia editor but wants to request enforcement go about doing it without being accused of being a "single-purpose account" or of "evading scrutiny or sanctions"? Guantolaka (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NSH001: Thanks for the link and quote. I don't have time at the moment to look to see if there have been additional violations. This instance was brought to my attention and I see it as a clear breach, so I wanted to request enforcement.

For those still doubting if this relates to British politics, here are some additional links showing discussion in House of Commons, comments from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, and how a change of government in the UK could affect Assange's fate: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68] Guantolaka (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing: I don't understand the issue around whether I'm trying to score points or not. Put another way, why do you care why I care if Philip Cross has violated his topic ban? Why does it matter who raises this? If it's a breach, surely there needs to be some action taken? You've already had other Wikipedia editors who are active on the site agree that it is a breach, and yet you continue to focus on my motives. Like I said before, I contacted the arbitration committee, they suggested I come here.

As for your statement that "Editing Wikipedia is a privilege extended to people so that they can help to improve it; if that's not why you're here then we're not really interested in your contributions" the implication here is that the topic ban itself was not put in place to improve Wikipedia, and so raising violations is also not an attempt to improve Wikipedia. I hope you realise that people who find the kind of editing Philip Cross was banned for see the banning as action taken to improve Wikipedia, not simply annoy administrators who want to protect long-standing editors.

If I understand the topic ban correctly, the issue is not about his edits, but about the topics he edits. So your statement "if there were specific concerns with PC's edits, that would be a somewhat different matter" is a non-sequiter.

But on that matter, I'll add that this isn't the first time that admins have attempted to shut down violations by going after the user making the report, rather than addressing the report itself. Icewhiz linked to the previous case but conveniently characterised it as about an "entertainment figure" rather than a political figure, a political documentary, a political journalist and people whom Cross was found to have conflict of interest editing. Guantolaka (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, I admit that I found your previous response quite patronising. My view of arbitration decisions and enforcement are that they are procedural matters. Either there is a breach of the topic ban based on the decision taken by the arbitration committee or there isn't. I fail to see how reporting what I consider a breach to be "stirring up trouble". If you don't think the topic ban is warranted, can you please take that up with the arbitration committee instead of arguing with me about it. If you don't think there has been a breach, I'd appreciate it if rather than questioning my motives, you'd argue with reference to the the arbitration decision.

I hope you also realise that when you write "one way of looking at your actions here is to see someone stirring up trouble where otherwise there would be no trouble", you are essentially saying you'd prefer to turn a blind eye to arbitration decisions. I'm sure that would mean less trouble for you, but surely a topic ban is not merely a symbolic action? Guantolaka (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof

If the standard for being connected to "post-1978 British politics" is "anything that a politician has ever commented on in the press," I think that's a standard which is far too broad and unenforceable. I'm also concerned about allowing a clear breach of the AE rules - we have here a complaint not by a member of the community in good standing, but an anonymous single-purpose account created specifically to complain about a long-established user. Their comment should be struck. We don't need possible scrutiny-evading socks participating in these processes; even if this is not a sock, it seems to me that creating an account solely to complain about someone else is a violation of WP:NOTHERE. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent being set here - that ArbCom can permit unaccountable anonymous SPAs to file administrative complaints about long-standing users - is, in my opinion, a pernicious one. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This looks like a breach of the topic ban to me - the decision as to whether Assange is extradicted to Sweden or the US is a political one, made by the Home Secretary. [69] Philip Cross should have stayed away from anything to do with Assange as it clearly touches UK politics. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NSH001

This is a clear breach of the topic ban. Assange's effective imprisonment in the Embassy has been an issue in British politics since he moved in there – and even before that with the UK's response to the EAW. If there is a general election before the courts decide the extradition request, then there is a real possibility that Corbyn will become PM and block the extradition to the US (but not to Sweden, if that is revived). So it is very much an issue in British politics.

I suspect there are other instances of Cross abusing borderline cases (he really hates peace activists, and anyone who opposes the neocon lying-to-start-wars-or-military-conflict agenda) but I haven't got the time to plough through hundreds or thousands of edits to find some examples (plus I try to stay away from places like AE and ANI). It would be helpful if someone could do that. Guantolaka? --NSH001 (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Julian Assange should not be extradited to US - Jeremy Corbyn (BBC).

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but Mr Corbyn's intervention "means the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".

Plenty of other sources can easily be found with a google search. --NSH001 (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, your edit of 14:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC) is a classic straw man argument – those instances don't determine whether or not the article relates to British politics; it clearly is related, and I even gave you a quote from an impeccable source (the BBC's diplomatic editor) illustrating that that is indeed the case. --NSH001 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the limits

Cross is exhibiting a persistent behaviour of pushing the limits of his topic ban. Unfortunately he got away with it last time, but only because the filer of that complaint made a stupid mistake. We need to be firm about enforcing the topic ban, otherwise we will just have to waste our time yet again with complaints of this nature. We cannot allow this behaviour to be repeated. --NSH001 (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Assange and his extradition are first and foremost related to US and Ecuadorian politics. It may become (or perhaps is becoming) a UK political issue - however this being a UK political at present? Hard to see it as such, even if Corbyn reacted. At the moment - article revision as of 17:03, 16 April 2019 - the only thing that seems related to UK politics is Corbyn appearing in a long list of names ("This view is held by Edward Snowden, Daniel Ellsberg, Rafael Correa, Chelsea Manning, Jeremy Corbyn, Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, and Glenn Greenwald...) in the reactions section. Cross' edits to the article (linking only non-minor ones) - [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] - are unrelated to UK politics.

Philip Cross, as evident in past requests here - e.g. this one from 17 Jan 2019 regarding an entertainment figure - is under a bit of scrutiny by people who don't regularly edit Wikipedia (or are occasional editors). This is also apparent in a cursory search in relevant social media. Cross, who has positively contributed in the almost year since his TBAN, should consider appealing his sanction. In any event he hasn't breached anything here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Philip Cross

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. Neither the article nor the edits relate to British politics. Assange is a political figure and a topic of political controversy, but more of international politics, rather than specifically British politics. Sandstein 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the concerns by NorthBySouthBaranof, and invite Guantolaka to promptly provide reasons why they should not be indefinitely blocked for (one has to assume) misusing multiple accounts in order to evade scrutiny of their prior editing history, or any applicable blocks or sanctions (WP:SCRUTINY). Sandstein 09:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GoldenRing, could you inform us which member(s) of the Arbitration Committee have told you that Guantolaka's participation at AE is appropriate, so that we can ask them to confirm this here on-wiki and to indicate why? Sandstein 09:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe, is it possible for you to explain why, as a member of ArbCom, you consider it appropriate to - as an editor above puts it - "permit unaccountable anonymous SPAs to file administrative complaints about long-standing users"? Sandstein 10:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: A couple of points. First, I replied to GoldenRing and, if I remember correctly, also to Guantolaka, but the content of the response was discussed and approved by the committee as a whole (I'll ping Opabinia regalis as another arb involved). Second, I don't think it's my/our role to "permit" editors to do anything. Guantolaka contacted us with a report; we referred them to AE. They pointed out that they couldn't edit AE as an anon./non-AC user; we suggested an edit request. That was based purely on our understanding that, usually, when a user can't do something because of account restrictions, we provide a way for them to request that someone else do it on their behalf. My apologies if that's not the practice at AE, but as far as I'm aware it's not written anywhere.

I don't want to step on AE's toes, but personally I don't think the hostile, accusatory response to the filer here is warranted. What should matter is whether an arbitration sanction has been breached and if so what enforcement is appropriate, not the relative edit counts of the parties. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me that the concerns expressed here with respect to Guantolaka aren't about their edit count per se, but that they are a single-purpose account who has only made edits with respect to this enforcement request, which strongly suggests some form of evading scrutiny or sanctions. I'd like to hear from other admins about whether a block on this basis would be appropriate. Sandstein 13:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's hear from others, but I would argue strongly that the suggestion of evading scrutiny is not enough for a block. – Joe (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No action, given the diffs. Agree that while at some point there is an interaction of Assange/Wikileaks to UK politics due to information that was leaked, the article about his asylum and arrest and likely subsequent trial is not "broadly" about UK politics. --Masem (t) 22:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Guantolaka, there's a limit to what "Broadly" is taken as. Assange has little connectivity to any sitting member of the the UK government; as Sandstein points out, Assange may be a political figure, he's not a political figure in UK circles as much as within US ones. (Or another way to state this, if we were doing with the AP2 (American politics) case, I would definitely consider Assange in the "Broadly" of that topic. But for the UK, not really. Being under arrest by UK authorities is not the same as involvement in UK politics. --Masem (t) 22:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As another point, the extent of these edits (several being small copyedits, the others removing sections on protests in favor of Assange that are poorly sources (non-usable RS, not unsourced) are all reasonable edits. I know if this did fall under the topic ban, even such edits would be a problem, but as this is very much an edge case, I think that also merits review. If the edits were to include more UK political positions as related to Assange, then you might have something, but these are definitely edits with zero association to UK politics in their core material. --Masem (t) 13:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would not take action here either. I appreciate the concerns about WP:BITE, but in the absence of further evidence, the most parsimonious explanation here is that we have someone attempting to score points in an old feud by using a new account to report what is at best a marginal violation of the topic ban. I don't know that I'm ready to block Guantolaka, but I'm definitely not willing to sanction Philip Cross either; under the circumstances, any violations would have to be quite egregious before I'd be willing to reward "gotcha" behavior of this sort. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese

Blocked for two weeks. Sandstein 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Roscelese

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity_and_Sexuality#Motion:_Roscelese_restricted_.28September_2015.29 :

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

April 23, 2019 Rosclese reverted a good faith edit with no discussion on talk.
April 23, 2019 Rosclese reverted a good faith edit with no discussion on talk.
April 18, 2019 Rosclese reverted a good faith edit with no discussion on talk.
April 11, 2019 Rosclese reverted a good faith edit with no discussion on talk.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4 April 2019 Just three weeks ago, Roscelese was blocked for a week for violating these same restrictions.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 4 April 2019 Date by Sandstein (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.
Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 4 April 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Roscelese was blocked for this same behavior just three weeks ago.

@Roscelese: I did not include the reversions you made that were fixing obvious cases of vandalism. It is demonstratively untrue that you discussed reversions on talk in the other cases, however. In The Silent Scream article, for example, there has been no discussion on talk since November 11, 2017‎. The other difs show similar results. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I did not cite any reverts to Catholic Church and homosexuality or Islam and abortion. I also missed the edit on anon's talk page, but I wasn't looking there as the restriction says that she is required to "to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page" (my emphasis). --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Roscelese

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

Statement by Roscelese

I was tempted not to dignify this with a response, but since my failure to be painstakingly explicit last time was a mistake, I'll have to point out: I did discuss the substantive changes on talk (where they were accepted by the user in question), despite Slugger's false claims that I didn't, and I'm sure AE will agree that it is not necessary to discuss reversions of drive-by promotion. If the drive-by users want to talk about it further with me than my clear edit summaries, I'm happy to engage. Slugger has never edited any of these articles as far as I can tell, and will have a more productive Wikipedia experience if he stops following me around. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Here's my discussing the religion&homosexuality edit, and warning the user about adding falsely cited content in the abortion&health edit. I think it's also clear from the rest of my edit history that I am discussing substantive reverts on talk (eg. here) - just not, like I said, obvious drive-by promotion where the revert is fully explained by the edit summary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I feel like this also gets into the purpose of the restriction - the restriction was put in place to prevent my engaging in edit wars, not to arbitrarily double my edit count by having me copy-paste every edit summary into a talk comment.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Roscelese

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

@Roscelese: Please provide diffs of the edits with which you discussed the reverts at issue. Sandstein 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request has merit. The restriction reads in relevant part: "Roscelese is subject to the following restrictions. Other than in cases of indisputable vandalism or BLP violations, they are indefinitely prohibited from: making more than one revert per page per day, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". This restriction does not exclude what Roscelese calls "obvious drive-by promotion", but only "indisputable vandalism or BLP violations", which the edits at issue are not. Roscelese has demonstrated that they met the discussion requirement with respect to revert 3 at Homosexuality and religion. But concerning revert 4 at Abortion and mental health, a user talk page warning does not meet the discussion requirement, which refers to the article talk page. Roscelese does not argue that they have met the discussion requirement with respect to the other two reverts. Roscelese has therefore violated the restriction at issue. Taking in consideration the relatively recent one-week block, I am now blocking Roscelese for two weeks. Sandstein 15:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Israel Has 101 Different Types of Permits Governing Palestinian Movement". Haaretz. 2011-12-23. Retrieved 2019-04-07. The most common permits are those allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, or in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Over the decades, however, the permit regimen has grown into a vast, triple-digit bureaucracy.

[2] "FBI email chain may provide most damning evidence of FISA abuses yet". Foxnews.com. 2019-03-25. Retrieved 2019-04-12.

[1]

[1]