Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Petrarchan47

Petrarchan47 indefinitely topic banned. AGK [•] 18:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{hat|1=No action, at least not in this thread. Other admins remain free to take action. [[User:Sandstein|''' Sandstein ''']] 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)}} — Re-opened by Drmies on 20:55, 18 September 2018. AGK [•] 17:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Petrarchan47

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Petrarchan47 (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions,

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting aspersions :

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

May 2016 KingofAces has made changes to this encyclopedia that should make you shudder
Jan 2017 Otherwise the same tiny handful of editors who have controlled the GMO articles here will continue to reign.
September 2017 I thought we had a crew who was completely committed to all things Monsanto?, If Wikipedia truly has been taken over, in some areas anyway, by a gang of bullies such that the reader isn't getting a full picture of topics guarded by this group, then the reader should be alerted somehow. Only those readers who already know the latest will recognize that the articles are biased. among others at that talk page.
Oct 2017 there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto, whilst those still trying to make WP into an encyclopedia are few and far between.
Aug 2018 May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page? What led to that decision? It appears to me that there is off-WP communication.
Sept 2018 You appear to be wanting to sanitize the coverage here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

June 2016 Warned by admin for violating aspersions principle.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [1]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Petrarchan47 has been around since the original GMO ArbCom with battleground behavior and casting aspersions, etc. with arbs stating Constant aspersions, including veiled accusations of other editors being shills, is not a minor issue and is unacceptable conduct., but the behavior has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of sporadic presence until recently. That's still going on and getting to be a chronic issue now though even though we passed a principle at ArbCom because of exactly this kind of behavior: This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. Previous AE are linked within this case for exactly this kind of stuff.

There's also been a trend of going to Jimbo's talk page saying Wikipedia has a Monsanto problem, etc. that's very similar to Monsanto must be pleased comments we dealt with before David Tornheim was topic banned. I already linked one of the aspersions that came post-notification about me wanting to "sanitize" the content, but this comment still gets into the battleground behavior. They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015+), but the accusatory tone continued towards me. It's getting both petty and incoherent at this point that even I've run out of patience to ignore.

The links above show just some of the sporadic but steady stream of aspersions editors have been mostly ignoring over the last few years. The topic has settled down finally, but editors coming in doing this sporadically are the few still stirring things up. Trying to caution Petrarchan about all this seems to result in more Monsanto is controlling Wikipedia or bending over backwards for Monsanto type statements. They seem pretty committed to still being pointy on article talk pages given this history and warning, so while I was hoping the old GMO stuff could die down, it looks like this editor still needs attention from admins. This is what the aspersions principle was meant to prevent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also reiterate that what Tryptofish says below rings very true about why we needed the aspersions principle. Before that, it got so bad that editors felt like they needed to save diffs as proof of when they made "anti" Monsanto edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, with editors starting to come out of the woodwork, this is starting to mirror this AE case where multiple editors had to be sanctioned for supporting veiled aspersions as part of battleground behavior. I won’t try to debunk all the stuff about me below due to space unless asked (nor is this case about me). It really looks like we need a topic ban at a minimum now, especially after Petrarchan's warning. What you're seeing here for direct or veiled aspersions is the kind of stuff ArbCom really wanted tamped down, so this should be a straightforward enforcement of the aspersions principle as has been done previously. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [2]

Discussion concerning Petrarchan47

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 Petrarchan47

KingofAces43 seems a conflicted editor who accuses others of what he is doing. He has admitted a COI (his specialty is pest management) on his userpage, and his edits seem to always favor the industry, although he claims he can be a neutral editor. He is engaging in bad faith editing by misusing WP:MEDRS.

In his above complaint, he refers to the wrong edit.

"They tried to claim I was using 14-year old sources in that particular edit (in reality were 2015 or newer), but the accusatory tone continued towards me."

This is the edit where he uses an old source.
This is where I confront him about using old sources
Seraphim System also warned him about the importance of using recent sources.

I've asked if he looked for newer sources, he has never responded, but instead he brings me here. In this edit Kings adds reference to the source SERA 2003. However, this source has been updated to SERA 2011.

If he'd done his due diligence, he'd have found it. By relying on the older source, he minimizes concerns scientists are raising about the “inert” adjuvants and surfactants. But the science has been changing ([3],[4],[5],[6]), and he's not including that in his edits, because he relies on the older sources. MEDRS requires him to refer to updated sources.

Here is where I first questioned him about this
Here on September 5, I asked him if he'd checked for updates or newer sources

Sera 2011 *:

Many glyphosate formulations include surfactants, and the toxicity of these surfactants is of equal or greater concern to the risk assessment than is the toxicity of technical grade glyphosate and surfactants appear to be agents of concern

Monsanto/Bayer and Wikipedia articles try to conflate Glyphosate with Roundup. KingofAces43 most recently did that here, misrepresenting the science (see Sera 2011). I confront him here. His misrepresentation follows talking points coming from Bayer, new owner of Roundup.

Wikipedia should not allow this to continue. Bayer is facing over 8K lawsuits worth billions, similar to the one in California. The jury heard ”Monsanto has known for decades that glyphosate and specifically Roundup could cause cancer” Reuters; ”Glyphosate” and ”Roundup” aren't synonymous. Wikipedia must stay fact-based especially regarding contentious issues. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, please take a look at my interactions on the talk pages I've recently edited: Glyphosate, Roundup and Glyphosate-based herbicides. I have not caused disturbance. Things were 'calm' before I arrived... because important updates weren't being made*.

Additionally:

KingofAces43 is a SPA: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Kingofaces43

Tryptophish casts aspersions when accusing me of SPA. Only one of my top pages involves Monsanto: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Petrarchan47

KingofAces43 misuses "Fringe" to delete information about Roundup cancer case whilst guidelines and consensus support me.

KoA43 misuses WP:DUE to keep negative information out

Misusing WP:FRINGE to disallow World Health Organization's IARC response to criticism after calling Glyphosate "probably carcinogenic"

KoA43 reinserts outdated language to bolster safety claim (addressed here)

@Drmies, please revert the reopening if indeed your actions violated this policy (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Dismissing_an_enforcement_request_(alternate)). If not, never mind. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm not sure that the filing statement makes the problem sufficiently clear, but I want admins to know that the problem here is a very serious one.

As I see it, the central issue is this conclusion from ArbCom: Casting aspersions. For admins unfamiliar with the history, the GMO topic area was plagued with aspersions of editors supposedly editing on behalf of Monsanto. (It's fine to say something like For NPOV the page should have more criticism of Monsanto, but it's unacceptable to say You are suppressing information on this page because you are editing on Monsanto's behalf, unless there is solid evidence presented at the proper venues.) And, just since the time of the most recent DS notice on her talk page, here are edits where Petrarchan does exactly that: [7], [8], [9], [10] (see also: [11] and [12], never answered). That's just recent stuff; she has long advocated that editors are editing on behalf of the company: "Monsanto mafia". She also considers the community consensus at WP:GMORFC to be invalid: [13]. (At that RfC, she submitted a WP:POINTy un-serious proposal: [14], [15].)

The other thing I want admins to know is that Petrarchan is essentially a single-purpose account, whose purpose is to crusade against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth. If you look at her talk page, she considers herself retired from editing content, and if you look at her contributions, you will see that all she does is show up from time to time to cast these kinds of aspersions. Except for her, the GMO topic area has been blessedly quiet for over a year, but she is disrupting it. You need to understand that she is not going to change her mind about any of this. Give progressively increasing blocks, and she'll just come back after each one with the same agenda. At a minimum, you need to topic ban her from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And in case anyone is wondering about me: [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Petrarchan has responded here, it seems to me that her response substantiates what I said above about how she is not going to change her mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After some additional editors have commented here (some of whom should have known better), I will clarify some of my previous comments.

I did not say that Petrarchan is a single-purpose account with respect to GMOs. I said that she is one with respect to crusading "against what she sees as editors conspiring to suppress The Truth."
If anyone thinks that I was baiting her (good grief!), they should look at the indenting in the thread from which I provided diffs. Her comments ("Your suggestion...") were directed at me.
We are not here to relitigate the ArbCom GMO case, and there is nothing unclear about the decision about aspersions. To say that users one is disagreeing with in a particular discussion are editing on behalf of Monsanto, but without saying which editors by username, and then wikilawyering that it cannot be an aspersion because it supposedly wasn't directed at anyone in particular, is utterly dishonest. If there is a case for including negative content about Monsanto, make the case on grounds of content, not on grounds of editor motivations or the supposed inadequacy of the community. Describing me, or anyone else, (added: or whomever he was referring to) as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck) or as "[e]diting with the goal of protecting Monsanto" (said by Petrarchan and questioned by MPS1992) should either be backed up with Checkuser evidence or should be grounds for sanctions. And wikilawyering over maybe it was OK because Petrarchan was right on POV grounds (essentially what Atsme and Seraphim System are arguing) is wrong, because being "right" (WP:RGW) is never an excuse for misconduct (and also the community settled the major POV-related content issue at WP:GMORFC).

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Added. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just now: [17], calling other editors "WP:NOTHERE". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content significantly in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 08:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

It seems clear to me that the project would be better off if Petrarchan were separated from this area, where xhe has very strong opinions that constantly run up against NPOV and RS. Guy (Help!)

Statement by Veritycheck

From an uninvolved editor who follows this page and does not know any of the editors. Not one DIFF presented here singles out any editor on the receiving end of aspersions.Tryptofish does offer two DIFFS [18] and [19] which try to bait Petrarchan47 to make aspersions by attempting to put words into his/her mouth. This attempt on Tryptofish's part certainly doesn't make a case. On the contrary, what is far more telling is that they both go 'unanswered' showing that Petrarchan47 does not engage in aspersions.

What is expressed in these DIFFS is that there may be self-interests groups at work, as is true throughout Wikipedia. Let’s not be naïve. WP:GOODFAITH faith is a philosophy not a guarantee. But bringing this back to the accusation, how about providing something more concrete if you have it. Otherwise, not only is it smoke and mirrors, but also a rather sad attempt to squelch what appears to be an important contributor who brings NPOV to the article. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE @Tryptofish Here is the (deleted) response to your comment above concerning me. You said, "Describing me or anyone else as being members of "self-interests groups" (Veritycheck)"...

You're putting words in my mouth. What part of my statement above names you, or any other editor for that matter, a member of a "self-interest group"? It's a false allegation. There are already too many of those floating about. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The judgement whether to enforce sanctions is based on the DIFFS presented that either confirm or refute infractions. Allusions to “a lot of history” only muddies the waters. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions says, "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations"

In which DIFF does Petrarchan47 accuse Kingofaces43 of working for, or having an association with Monsanto? In none. Petrarchan47's statement, "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto", suggests a stance. Having an association or being paid by Monsanto is clearly not indicated . Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CANVASSING Admin shopping. Kingofaces43 requests, "I’d be glad if you want to review the case to get more admins involved". Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MPS1992

As another uninvolved editor, I would like to know if the statement "Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban" -- part of a diff provided above which is being used as evidence for a topic ban now -- is something I would not be allowed to say on Wikipedia. And if so, why. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has provided an explanation, so I will take the liberty of expressing this opinion wherever and whenever I see fit. MPS1992 (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanitize the coverage" casts aspersions -- well, no it does not. It's part of a discussion in which the editor argues that "Using MEDRS to support that idea is a gross misunderstanding" and so forth, and therefore it is a comment on the edits, not on who is paid by whom or any other nasty insinuations. This really needs to be kept in context. MPS1992 (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: if the effect of the edits is to sanitize the coverage, then yes that's a perfectly reasonable (neutral or however you wish to describe it) way to describe edits or proposed edits. That's an entirely reasonable argument for an editor to make in a discussion. MPS1992 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I don't edit in this topic area but I am familiar with some of the history. The diffs presented against Petrarchan47 are innocuous, and certainly nothing deserving of a t-ban. Petrar is not a SPA and has made significant contributions to controversial articles in the past without incident, including BP, Corexit, and Deepwater Horizon oil spill to name a few. I do hope that the points she brought up in her statement are carefully reviewed because her editing contributions over the years are evidence that she adheres strictly to NPOV and closely follows RS guidelines. The accusations against her are meritless, and if anything, a boomerang may be in order. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the clarification of aspersions, it would prove helpful if the committee would expand and clarify aspersions in general by adding “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence that clearly supports the allegation ....and in cases where the diffs do not support the allegations, a boomerang will be implemented or something more formal along those lines. Clarification will help reduce the complaints that are filed against editors simply because their POV doesn’t align with that of the filer, which tends to happen when the filer lacks a valid argument to support their position during consensus discussions, especially in highly controversial articles that have DS 1RR/consensus required restrictions. It would not surprise me if the thought process in such cases is something along the line of Why argue and lose consensus when it’s easier to file a case at AE, create the illusion of disruption with aspersions and innocuous diffs, and just get rid of the opposition? Clarification will also help put an end to editors presenting multiple innocuous diffs prepended by aspersions when there is no smoking gun that unambiguously proves disruption or misbehavior. Such complaints are gaming the system, plain and simple, and such actions justify a boomerang. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To arbs & admins alike - in response to this recently added/modified comment, specifically the aspersions directed at Petrar including "...but has usually been ignored because they tend to be more of sporadic presence until recently" - usually been ignored? ^{KoA modified his statement since I posted this so see my modified statement below dated today. 18:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)} How much more disrespectful can one be to a productive editor who has given freely of her time to help build this encyclopedia, and who has done commendable work over the years? Unfortunately, the insults didn't stop there - the filer then disparaged other editors who happen to disagree that any of the evidence presented in this case is worthy of a t-ban, referring to us as "editors starting to come out of the woodwork". There is no ambiguity about what that comment implies when stated by an entomologist. Based on the manner in which this case was presented and the most recent disparaging comments, it appears the filer is the one with the behavioral issues, and appears to harbor ill-will toward and a sense of superiority over Petrar and anyone else who disagrees with a certain POV. Such behavior is unacceptable, and since misconduct is the crux of why we're here, it deserves serious consideration. One last observation regarding this diff which was included above - it demonstrates Petrar's use of RS in an effort to support the inclusion/exclusion/clarity of information. How is that misbehavior or incivility? If it is, we all may as well call it quits. The correct approach to inclusion/exclusion of material is to call an RfC and let consensus decide instead of filing vexatious litigation at AE. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Content significantly in excess of 500 words removed as an admin action. Sandstein 08:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dialectric

I left the GMO sanctions alert notice for Petrarchan47 on August 17, 2018. All but the most recent 2 diffs submitted by Kingofaces43 predate this warning.

In answering this request, a Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment may be in order. I suggest arbcom clarify what falls into the category of actionable aspersions. The specific language in the GMO case principles is singular, and targeted - “An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence” etc. Some difs presented by Kingofaces43 are general and do not call out any specific editors - statements like “there is no shortage of folks bending over backwards to defend Monsanto”. Dialectric (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphim System

Some brief comments - my understanding of WP:ASPERSIONS is that it means to make repeated accusations of misconduct without presenting evidence. I don't think all of these diffs would be considered aspersions. Without getting into too much detail. there is evidence and diffs supporting at least some of what Petrachan47 has said here. The complaining editor does not exactly have clean hands here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other editors here, this comment Admins, with editors starting to come out of the woodwork, this is starting to mirror this AE case where multiple editors had to be sanctioned for supporting veiled aspersions as part of battleground behavior. is troubling. As one of the editors starting to come out of the woodwork, I think it's absurd to suggest we are supporting veiled aspersions. This comment [20] was directed at me and I'm not defending Petra's actions but what I see going on between KoA and Petra is part of an ongoing content dispute on the article, and KoA's hands are far from clean. I'm also more concerned that KoA has several times represented his preferred version as consensus as happened here [21]- that to me is an indication of more serious misconduct, especially since it happens again here while this complaint is open and the discussion on the talk page is ongoing [22] - I don't see Petra's behavior on the article as currently rising to the level that requires a topic ban - I think there is a possibility of that in the future, but this complaint is premature. I say this even though I was on the receiving end of some of Petra's comments that are cited in this complaint. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: I don't support topic banning a good faith editor for getting heated during a particularly difficult and controversial discussion, but if Petra still does not understand which of his comments were a problem, then perhaps I will change my mind about supporting a sanction. For example, I don't think there is evidence to support the comment he made against you here [23] and I think he should retract it. My goal with the article has been to keep it neutral, without it tilting too far in one direction or the other, and in my opinion, a review of the article's history will show that your own editing has been neutral and geared towards building a consensus. If Petra continues to lash out at editors who are in good faith trying to engage him in the consensus process, then I think we are just going to end up back here sooner or later anyway, so some indication that he understands this would go a long way.Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Minor4th

I have not looked at these Monsanto articles in a long time, until today when I was trying to find info on the recent jury verdict and damages award against Monsanto. What struck me right off the bat was KingofAces' ownership-like behavior in these articles and his engaging in what looks like edit warring to me. I do not think the diffs provided amount to casting aspersions in the least. The diffs reflect more poorly on KoA in my opinion. Not to cast aspersions, but I wonder if KoA might be, consciously or unconsciously, using the Arb sanctions to bully away from the Monsanto and pesticide articles those editors who do not share KoA's pro-Monsanto editing behavior. Minor4th 21:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement be Aircorn

I have been an involved editor in the GMO topic area for quite a few years. My point of view very much aligns with Tryptofish when it come to the science around safety and other aspects in this area. I have clashed with Petrachen in the past, particularly over the WP:GMORFC. The current dispute essentially stems from the Round-up/Glyphosate articles and while I am only tangentially interested in them, the discussions and participants are similar to what was occurring at the GMO pages when it was at its most intense. It has thankfully settled down now and as a result the articles are getting much needed improvements.

There is a lot of history here that may be lost on some new editors just looking at the individual diffs presented. Edits that are viewed to favour GMOs have long been labeled as pro Monsanto and those that don't part of an anti GM agenda. I have apparently been working for Monsanto since 2010, although I am also an anti GM activist. The accusations got so persistent and nasty that the inevitable ARB case made a point about casting aspersions. It should have been clear to anyone involved in it that this was not to be tolerated anymore.

Some stray thoughts

These discussions have a tendency to be side tracked by going after the filer. I am not always a fan of KOA's editing style, but he has not to my knowledge insinuated that editors opposed to his POV are part of an activist group or something similar. There was a period were he conflated them with climate change deniers, but I have not seen that happen recently. If editors want to bring an AE case against him they should, but I feel this one should concentrate on whether Petrachan has violated the casting aspersion principle or not.
Making edits that are pro Monsanto and pro science is not mutually exclusive.
Saying that you are not casting aspirations does not mean you can then cast one.
Saying someone is a SPA is not casting an aspiration as our contribution history is available for everyone to see. Personally I would not label either Petrachen or KOA as SPAs, but I can see why someone might.
Coming out of the woodwork is a common phrase.
There is no need to clarify anything about having a boomerang against the filer for unsubstantiated complaints as this already occurs[24].
Making general claims about editors motivations, especially given the history at these pages, is not much different than specifying which editor the claim is targeted at
I don't believe Petrachan was baited at Jimbos Talk page. Given the context and history, saying Editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto is antithetical to building a NPOV encyclopedia and in a sane world, should be grounds for a topic ban. can easily be read as casting an aspersion on an editor and clarifying that statement can only be to their benefit. AIRcorn (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Commenting on this because it appears to have been reopened, based on the talk page post I saw in petrarchan's talk page. I am acquainted with her, and have edited some of these GMO articles but not in a very long time. I think that the diffs presented here are innocuous, and do not rise to the level that they justify a sanction under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions . In fact, considering the high level of abuse and insult that I see thrown around Wikipedia constantly, sometimes by administrators, I find myself amazed that they are introduced as evidence to throw the book at this editor. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Adding link. Coretheapple (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Petrarchan47

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

I find Tryptofish's comment and diffs, and their argument for a GMO topic ban, convincing. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. The reported diffs are confrontative, but they are mostly about content, not other users. Because no admin has taken action so far, and the thread is being used for what look like pointless recriminations, which I do not intend to read, I'm closing the thread now. @Drmies: This does not prevent you from taking action if, unlike me, you believe it is warranted. Sandstein 19:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sandstein, I wonder if that really should be "unlike I"; I invite grammarians to take up this point separately in some other forum. I'm not happy with how this went and how you closed this--if I had been you, I'd have someone else close it. Still, you have a point. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Sandstein: Perhaps sleeping dogs should lie, and feel free to hat/hab this postscript. However, I agree with Drmies and I see concerning conduct in the two most recent diffs. The remaining diffs are rather older and reviewing them may be stretching too far back. By way of context, I note the respondent was a named party to the original case. AGK [•] 18:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, I've looked at all the diffs again. "Sanitize the coverage" casts aspersions [[[User:MPS1992|MPS1992]], "sanitize" isn't really neutral]. "Your suggestion that the addition of 'negative' information...editing with the goal of protecting Monsanto..." does likewise, and puts words in other editors' mouths that they never said (though, it should be noted, Tryptofish's comment just above also accuses others of having an agenda). "NOTHERE" is really a ridiculous charge, thus a personal attack. "May I ask how you happened to turn up and create a brand new page?"--no you may not; Seraphim System had been glysophating for a week already. I believe these violate the "no casting aspersions" part. These are four recent edits. So, AGK, what do you think? Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and AGK: If either of you believe that action is warranted, then please take action rather than just talk about it. This is not a discussion board, and we do not need or care about consensus. I note that this thread was reopened by Drmies, which is fine by me, but only if actual action is now taken promptly. Sandstein 08:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm with you, Sandstein, and have dropped AGK a line via email, hoping we can bring this to a conclusion soon. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sandstein: In my view, we are obliged not to unilaterally overrule your decision. Dismissing an enforcement request is done with a "consensus of uninvolved administrators" (AC/DS), so to a degree we need to talk about it. However, as you have now deferred on this matter I shall proceed. Thanks for the prompt follow-up. AGK [•] 17:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decided: The conduct in evidence, and particularly the most recent instances, were clear breaches of the behavioural standards required in this unstable topic area. In my judgment, a sanction on Petrarchan47 is required. I have considered a short-term sanction, eg limited to 3 months, but in all likelihood this would simply postpone the problem. Such an outcome is unsatisfactory for this type of topic area. I have also considered a limited-scope sanction, eg a topic ban of the most recently affected article. However, the conduct in evidence is obviously related to the topic area more broadly. Therefore, I am topic banning Petrarchan47 from editing anything relating to genetically modified organisms etc., interpreted broadly and under the original case scope. I have notified Petrarchan47 to this effect, and also thank my colleagues above for their input. AGK [•] 18:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Santamoly

Santamoly indefinitely topic banned. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (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 Santamoly

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :

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

3 August POV edit against consensus
18 August Shows the attitude
18 September POV edit, against consensus
19 september POV, edit-warring against consensus

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): [25]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Background: Crimea is a territory which was annexed in 2014 by Russia. The annexation, as described in this article, is recognized by a small minority of countries and not recognized by a large majority of countries and all international organizations. There is a de-facto consensus that in articles related to all aspects in modern Crimea we mention that it is administered by Russia but is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. I am sure there was a discussion on that, I can not easily find it now, but it is sufficient to state that this has been implemented in all articles in 2014 and still stands. In particular, Crimean Bridge (Crimea) connects Crimea with mainland Russia, and the article mentions that from POV of Russia, it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international.

In February 2018, administrator Acroterion placed a DS EE notice on Santamoly's talk page adding that "As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources..." On 28 February the user was blocked by Drmies for harassment.

On 3 August, Santamoly removed info about Ukraine from the article [26]. I reverted them, citing de-facto consensus. They reverted me [27] saying the text has noting to do with the bridge, and were eventually reverted by another user. They were unhappy and went to the talk page discussion but failed to gain consensus. On 18 August, they went to my talk page and essentially said that Ukrainians are not capable of building bridges. I replied that with this attitude they should not edit articles related to Ukraine. They continued to support their view at talk pages. However, recently they edited the articles again, introducing POV edits [28], [29] and again removing mention of Ukraine [30] saying in the summary that my edits are "ideologically driven". Note that this is factually incorrect. I am here to enforce consensus, and not to introduce POV, and I am accused on a regular basis by pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, and anti-Ukrainian editors in edits advocating POV opposite to their views.

Given the behavior of Santamoly, I believe they are not able to constructively edit articles related to Ukraine and should be, well, topic-banned from editing these articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [31]

Discussion concerning Santamoly

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 Santamoly

Service ceiling of an airplane:

An unlikely topic that seems to concern some editors is the matter of the "service ceiling" of an airplane [[32]]. The incorrect term was used, and many other aeronautical engineering types jumped in on the discussion [[33]], as one can see, and the discussion was EXTENSIVE. It seems that there is a political side to the topic of aircraft performance which, to me as an engineer, seems a bit over the top. I haven't edited this page for months after it appeared there were three active partisans with an agenda lurking nearby. Upon checking, I haven't edited this Talk Page since May 2018; it is now the end of September. One engineering-type editor (not I) remarked,"It appears that consensus among those same (politically-driven editors) is to keep deleting talk page comments presenting reliable data and lock the talk page." It's apparent that the Talk Page comments are being edited and manipulated to someone's outside agenda, and I haven't been there for months simply because it's too difficult to engage in this type of pointless partisan discussion.

The point I made on march 25 is,". . . we shouldn't be reluctant to discuss it in a polite and civil manner. The entire point to be made is that what is shown as the Service Ceiling ought likely to be explained as the Practical ceiling."

On March 29, I asked,"Can you please sign your comments? It keeps the discussions at a polite and civil level. Thanks!"

Shortly after, I suggested,"I feel like we're making progress on this topic. BilCat holds that we can only accept Reliable Sources in this matter, and that manufacturer's certification data is in the realm of "original research". Fair enough. So can we then focus on which sources are acceptable as Reliable Sources? After a brief search, I have found two sources offering detailed technical data on aircraft of the world, published 15 to 20 years ago, long before the Su-25/39 became politicized, and I can offer them to this group for discussion . . ."

As you can see, I was looking for some level of consensus, but the partisans didn't want this.

Although I have edited thousands of Wikipedia articles over the last 10 years, I don't have the heft to engage in active Wiki-combat with powerful admin-type partisans who are able to block me or ban me from editing. As you can see from the SukhoiSu-25 Talk Page, they continue to aggressively menace other editors, not just myself.

Crimean Bridge (Crimea):

I can appreciate that some partisans feel an imperative to interfere with some of the details of articles that touch on their concerns, but the edits I made are simple, technical items concerning engineering topics. The Crimean Bridge (Crimea) article is about a significant engineering achievement. It's not about the political status of the adjacent territories. Those will be sorted out in the fullness of time. In this example, I worded the change of administration of Crimes from "annexation" to "accession" which is the term used in the statutory documents here:[[34]]. What's interesting to me as an editor is that the same active partisan types that appeared in the Sukhoi Su-25 page, objected to this change.

Again, I registered a mild complaint, and in turn was threatened with a lifetime ban. A bit aggressive, it appears to me. When I'm totally retired from academia, I may return to organize a bit of sensible discussion on some of these partisan details. But I'm there yet. It's a lot of work responding to emotional remarks such as the complainant's unsourced statement that "it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international". Where is the source for such an aggressive statement?

The question that stays with me, then, is,"Why this sudden urge to ban me from a couple of fringe, esoteric, topics?" I may persist for a short while in order to see if there's any consensus. I always provide sources for discussion, and request feedback. My edits are always sensible and well-sourced. Further to this question is that, below, a comment by "AGK" says,"Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing." I'm not sure what constitutes a "Pointed change to prolific articles" but I always provide sources to support my edits, so my edits can hardly be described as "disruptive". In summary, even though various political partisans may be briefly shocked by a different point of view, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is just normal academic discussion. "AGK" suggests an indefinite topic ban, but what would that look like? Any topic concerning airplanes? Or bridges? There may be 50,000 articles under each topic!

And lastly,at the end of this page, there appears to be some remarks in Hebrew, but I'm not sure what this is about and cannot comment.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Santamoly

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

This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice. Sandstein 18:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Sandstein with respect to II (18 August).
(A) However, I also consider tendentious editing to be evidenced by some aspects of III (18 September). Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing. Consequently, I disagree with my colleague and consider this type of edit to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions.
(B) The repeated restoration of content as in IV (19 September) appears to be a sustained failure to seek consensus. Reference is unhelpfully made in the edit summary to the prior version being against consensus, but the relevant talk page activity is at best a spill-over of existing tensions. As normal in this type of topic, the dispute is protracted and consensus has been elusive. Editors are expected to genuinely build consensus, and tolerate The Wrong Version where needed.
(C) Finally, I would otherwise regard I (3 August) as an unactionable content position. It is not for uninvolved administrators to make comment on those. However, when read in the context of the other conduct, the diff also begins to appear part of the same pattern of behaviour demonstrated elsewhere.
I will pause for a short time to allow comment by the respondent (offline since this enforcement request was filed). However, given the conduct in evidence, I am minded to impose an indefinite topic ban. AGK [•] 17:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Decided: I am topic banning Santamoly from Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AGK, especially after reading Santalmoy's response which, imo, is a classic non-response (and is, at 800+words, way too long anyway). I support an indef topic ban from Eastern European articles. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

יניב הורון

יניב הורון is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 07:09, 20 September 2018 (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 יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_(2011) :

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

22:36, 17 September 2018 Falsifying sources
22:10, 19 September 2018‎ Falsifying sources while seeing see talk, where his one single comment is this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for 1 week

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The first diff shows the use restoring the following passage

In addition, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.

Supposedly sourced to this NYTimes article. The article contains nothing of the sort, and even a cursory reading of 1948 Palestinian exodus would quickly disabuse you of the notion that saying in Wikipedia's narrative voice that the Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary is um not in keeping with the NPOV policy. Regardless the user claims in the edit summary that the material is supported by reliable sources and attributed when it is in fact neither attributed or sourced in any way. The user was alerted to the fact that the material is not in the source and asked to self-revert. There was no response. I wrote on the user's talk page that reverting without reading the sources while lying about what was in them would bring a report here. The response was seemingly saying that the user is not responsible for the content they revert. Which was then followed by the user again inserting into the article the same sentence that is not in the cited source. While making a singular comment on the talk page that does not in any way even attempt to engage in good faith collaborative editing. Regardless, the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited.

Icewhiz that is a. not the source cited, b. not attributed, and c. not even what Karsh says. nableezy - 05:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]; Yes, Icewhiz, I directly say Yaniv is lying about sources and about having read them. Exactly as he did here when directed another user to "read the damn sources". Here Yaniv seemingly acknowledged that the material that they repeatedly reverted to insert was not reliably sourced, saying they would find other sources for the material. You know what never happened? That. Yaniv routinely lies about material being sourced, for the simple fact that he is reverting without actually checking the sources. And the users who have checked them, and removed the material that was sourced, shouldnt have to deal with such mindless reverting. Or your attempts to retain a revert on your side for that matter. nableezy - 06:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]; Icewhiz, it is very kind of you to play lawyer for Yaniv, however when a user reverts an edit they are taking responsibility for the content of that edit. When Yaniv includes a passage, attributed to no one, and cited to the NYTimes, and that source does not contain that material, and despite having been told about this on both the article talk page and his user talk page, and then they do it again, they are taking responsibility for that content. And again, the Karsh cite doesnt even contain the, again, ludicrous NPOV violation that you are trying to hand wave around, making that entire argument moot. nableezy - 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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 יניב הורון

On a second look NYT might be an accidental miss-citation, but Karsh is cited at the end of the passage and definitely supports it. In any case, there's currently a discussion in the talk page of that article involving several editors from both sides. All the complains, arguments and whining belong there, not here. I would appreciate that next time someone fills a spurious report based on "I don't like his edits" instead of specific violations of Wikipedia policy, be sanctioned per WP:Boomerang. The problem is that garbage reports to censor someone you don't like have no consequences for reporters, which leads to more nonsense reports by people who don't think twice before wasting everybody's time, including the administrators'. I recognize I have made mistakes in the past, for which I have paid and learned, but this report is simply rubbish. Also Nableezy has been threatening me on my personal talk page, as well as other editors who don't agree with his viewpoint (see WP:OWN). This user's lack of basic WP:Civility is astonishing, but even more surprising is the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it so far.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This editor continually engages in edit-warring towards a strong nationalist POV, with knee-jerk reverts and false claims about consensus being specialties. Admins who have previously issued warnings include: NeilN and Black Kite. User:Black Kite closed this AE case with "יניב_הורון is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." But, if it is possible, his behavior is worse than before.

Perusal of his talk page shows an exceptional number of complaints from other editors. "Hello, first of all could you please stop being so trigger happy with reverts" and so on and on.

Here we see a typical Yaniv edit. The edit summary says "(per Hebrew, see talk page)" but the sources don't support the text and the talk page shows a strong consensus against the edit. Problems like this are so common with Yaniv's edits that every one has to be reviewed closely at the cost of good editors' time.

Here is another perfectly typical Yaniv edit. Claiming to "restore source" he puts back a dead link to an article than doesn't mention the subject.

The worst recent revert was this one with the summary "see talk page, no consensus for this". The revert put back dead links, sources that don't contain the material cited to them, a copyvio, and lots of similar trash which had been exposed on the talk page. Needless to say, and true to form, Yaniv had not contributed to the talk page discussion at all. Zero^talk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly started but I have to run. Probably I'll revise the above later. Zero^talk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

Yet another spurious complaint against Yaniv. The stmt is attributed to Efraim Karsh - a well known historian. While it does seem that there is an errant citation to NYT mid-passage, Karsh clearly says this (in this, clearly cited at the end of the passage) -

Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to "cleanse" a neighbouring ethnic community. ...... The desertion of the elites had a stampede effect on the middle classes and the peasantry. But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.

I will further note that Karsh isn't saying anything extraordinary - Arab evacuation orders are well documented in some cases, the implication of evac orders is a long standing claim, and this is attributed to Karsh regardless.

Conversely - stating on the article talk page that a user was 19:22, 19 September 2018 (Nableezy) - I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported., 01:25, 20 September 2018 (Zero0000) -- "Restoring discredited lies...", and by Nableezy in the AE complaint - "the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited."(Nableezy), - would seem to be accusing an editor of being a liar (as noted above, this assertion seems to be incorrect, as the content is supported by Karsh) - which would be a WP:PA vs. Yaniv, and a WP:BLP violation towards Karsh. I will note that in 15:30, 18 September 2018 Nableezy directly accuses Yaniv of "lying" - If you continue to make reverts that blatantly misrepresent the sources cited and continue to claim that the material is reliably sourced I will ask that you be banned for repeated disruptive editing and lying about sources. You can certainly continue reverting once a day, apparently nobody wants to stop that tendentious editing, but if you do so while blatantly making things up about sources you clearly have not read I will ask for a topic ban. - which beyond being quite personal, certainly discourages civil discourse in response.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that NYT was inserted into this decade+ old passage in 22:00, 26 January 2008 to support "Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion" - subsequent modifications - 01:42, 21 June 2009 left the citation dangling in the middle of the passage. Instead of axing a very established and notable position outright (and furthermore stating that it is "lies"/"lying") - a better course of editing would be to rectify the citation usage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

Let's start from the main point: Karsh does not say that the Palestinian flight was "predominantly voluntary", or anything even remotely like this. Indeed, I doubt you can find a single serious historian who would make such a ludicrous claim. Here's what Karsh actually says:

Why did such vast numbers of Palestinians take to the road? There were the obvious reasons commonly associated with war: fear, disorientation, economic privation. But to these must be added the local Palestinians’ disillusionment with their own leadership.

The edit by Yaniv is deficient in multiple respects. First, it is not supported by the reference provided (NYTimes article). Let's WP:AGF for the moment and assume that Yaniv meant to cite Karsh instead of the NYT source. Even then, the edit is deficient because firstly, Karsh doesn't say anything like that, and secondly, the edit doesn't attribute the claims to Karsh, but presents it as a matter-of-fact view -- which is completely backwards. Karsh is, in that article, arguing against the general view -- namely the "New Historians" view.

I don't know how Yaniv edits in general, so I have no comment on what action to take. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning יניב הורון

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

The request has merit. The contested text is not supported by the cited New York Times article. The text primarily reflects the position of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict ("Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary") and, as such, if it is to be reproduced in Wikipedia's voice as it was here, rather than attributed to somebody, it would need excellent sourcing. That is not the case here. By repeatedly restoring this text without appropriate sourcing and/or with misleading sourcing, יניב הורון has violated the core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV in their conduct aspect ("Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another".). In determining the appropriate sanction, significant aggravating factors are the prior warnings by NeilN as cited by Zero0000, the very recent block by RegentsPark for similar problems, and the exceedingly confrontative response by יניב הורון to this complaint, in which יניב הורון does not address their own conduct but levies accusations at others. I conclude that under these circumstances, יניב הורון's editing in this topic area is a risk to the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I am topic-banning יניב הורון from the topic area. Sandstein 07:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GHcool

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 GHcool

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Veritycheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GHcool (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :

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

23:38, 6 July 2017 GHcool is the original author
20:22, 7 September 2018 GHcool's restores his edit
19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert
22:44, 20 September 2018 After the revert, GHcool restores his edit less than 3 hours later

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

19:31, 2 June 2016 Blocked: 1RR violation at Tourism in the Palestinian territories
20:26, 9 June 2016 Blocked: Contentious edits
14:48, 10 January 2011 Blocked: 1RR violation at at Hezbollah
21:35, 13 August 2009 Blocked: 3RR block at Kafr Saba
23:23, 2 April 2009 Blocked: 3RR on Israeli–Palestinian conflict
01:13, 24 April 2008 Blocked: 3RR on Camp David Accords

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

GHcool has a history of blocks, no less than six now, in the area of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Apparently, blocks are meaningless to him as is shown with his complete disregard of respecting Active Arbitration Remedies that spans a decade.

His userpage includes an almost 4000 word article, including 14 sections, that expounds his strong, unashamedly POV, views on Israel. The very style and format may violate WP:FAKEARTICLE as it resembles an article with section headings, links and sources. What is certain is the overwhelming bias he has that is so clearly written in his words concerning the conflict.

These views combined with half a dozen blocks, all in the same area, show that he is unsuitable for participating in this topic.

@Icewhiz: I added a diff to help follow events clearly. The complaint was not modified. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have a different interpretation of, “If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit”, and specifically the word, “FIRST”.

I take this to mean First as in a consecutive series of events (my reverting his content earlier today - the 'first revert' within 24 hours), not as in chronological history (the point in the past the edit first ever appeared on Wikipedia). If my interpretation is incorrect, then I withdraw the complaint. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Your clarification on the meaning of "first" in this context would be most welcome. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

He has been notified.

Discussion concerning GHcool

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 GHcool

Statement by Icewhiz

Spurious report - "original author" a year+ back. This provision applies to the first revert of content. This has been previously removed - e.g. by Veritycheck on 7 Sep - making the set of diffs (removal+revert) from 20 Sep moot.

I would point out the filer has been using edit summaries to convey aggressive messages - [35] or make conduct remarks - [36]. Formulating a RfC question in a non-neutral manner and canvassing (namely 15 users on their talk pages + "bumps") at [37] is also instructive. Veritycheck also GAMEed 1RR reverting 24 hours + 4 minutes apart on Israel - 16:42, 12 September 2018 16:46, 13 September 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the text at WP:ARBPIA3 (to which Veritycheck links) is out of date (and misplaced - the motion (link) should have been on WP:ARBPIA where 1RR resides and to which the motion refers to) - it reflects a 19 May 2017 motion, however there is a 4 January 2018 motion that supersedes this - here - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. which explicitly spells out "first revert made to their edit" - this has been updated in WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, but the out of date and misplaced provision in ARBPIA3 remains.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite:, GHCool reverted once on 20 Sep - the other diff is by Veritycheck (The one titled 19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert is Veritycheck). Note Veritycheck modified his complaint after I posted here. Veritycheck is claiming an original author vio of the 20 Sep revert in relation to originally authoring this in July 2017. Beyond being vexatious (a 1+ year diff) - Veritycheck reverted the same content on 7 Sep - so this content has already been reverted once.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

@Black Kite: There are no two reverts by Ghcool one of the reverts is by Veritycheck.Please check this. The only relevant revert is the 20 september but its not a violation as it not first restoration of his edit.So it doesn't violate the rule. --Shrike (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

The purpose of the remedy is to make the editor wait 24 hours after the other guy reverts. The revert violates the remedy, clearly.

But it is an extremely stupid remedy, because nowhere except in ARBPIA does one find this interpretation of 1RR. I warned ArbCom at the time that this would happen (and Icewhiz didn't believe me). Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request.

I suggest no sanctions. GHCool should be warned to discuss the matter on the talk page in this section. I see no real discussion by them, except simply saying that their edit is self-evidently correct. Discussion doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content, not the person removing it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that absolutely nobody understands the remedy, which is not surprising. The 2017 edit is irrelevant. The edit on 7 September (diff2) is the reason why the revert on 20 Sep (diff4) is a violation. The first revert made to diff2 was on 20 Sep (diff3). Obviously, I do not support any action based on this stupid remedy, but it was clearly violated. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't see anything actionable here. VC is claiming that a 2017 edit should be the original edit and then hides in the list of reverts that the revert was done by VC and not GHcool. I see this as a bad faith request. Using this logic, nobody would ever be able to revert. VC made an edit and GHcool reverted, that is what happened here and that is allowed. Using his months back prior editing is ludicrous. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GHcool

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

@Icewhiz: Can you clarify something here? If I'm parsing what you say correctly, you are saying that the two (unambiguous) reverts within 3 hours on 20 September - which under any other circumstances would have been a violation - somehow don't count because that particular edit has been reverted more than 24 hours previously (i.e. in this case, on 7 September?). In that case, are you saying that the restriction says anyone can edit-war on an ARBPIA page as much as they like, as long as there had been a previous edit and reversion more than 24 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz and Shrike: Ah, gotcha. I looked at the history, saw GHCool's two edits and didn't link them to the ones here correctly. Yeah, there's not a violation here. I did think that would have been a ludicrous idea and I'd just misread something, and I was right. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to note that I will not take action here because I find anything involving xRR too complicated to understand and apply with a reasonable amount of time and effort. I leave this to smarter admins and editors. Sandstein 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards