Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive244

87.224.32.138
''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 87.224.32.138

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS


 * Diffs before being aware of APDS:
 * 21 March 2018 – Asking for content about comments made by Melania Trump to be added somewhere, after being warned by on 15 December 2017.
 * 21 March 2018 – Asking for content about comments made by Melania Trump to be added somewhere, after being warned by on 15 December 2017.
 * (many others)


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 15 November 2018 – Asking for content about comments made by Melania Trump to be added somewhere, after being warned by me and alerted to APDS on 14 November 2018.


 * 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):
 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 14 November 2018

I am requesting an indefinite topic ban from Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, broadly construed, because of posting the same talk page thread over and over, without gaining consensus. The editor has been made aware of WP:REHASH on 14 November 2018. This has been going on for many months, and I don't believe that a different ban would remedy these long-term disruptive posts.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * ✅

Discussion concerning 87.224.32.138
''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.''

Result concerning 87.224.32.138

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

The Rambling Man
''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 The Rambling Man

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: : "The Rambling Man is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence."


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


 * 1) November 7 "You don't get it, you haven't got a clue about it, you haven't even tried to get it, I understand. I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again"
 * 2) November 11 "No thanks, better things to do to check "work in progress Phase I", and I'd suggest you leave them well alone with your recent track record!!"
 * 3) November 4 "”demands”? Dick."
 * 4) November 21 "The main problem is with the so-called experienced editors passing and promoting error after error after error to the main page."
 * 5) November 21 "Oh dear, pointing out that an admin and one of the most experienced editors at DYK both summarily passed an erroneous hook towards the main page is nasty? Honestly, this is lame"


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) September 2017 2 weeks block for breaking the arbitration sanction

There was a recent ANI thread thread about TRM's hostility at DYK. There was obviously no consensus on topic banning him from DYK or ERRORS, but what the ANI filer perhaps didn't understand is that this should have been filed at AE because of the sanction.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

He's just been bashing people who frequent DYK on the talk page, usually complaining about errors in a way that's breaching his sanction. See these threads for the pattern:
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 153
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 152
 * Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Certainly he's finding errors, but he's doing it in the most abrasive way possible. And because his sanction isn't being enforced, he's pulling the rope as much as he's given it. So if it isn't being enforced, it should be repealed.
 * How isn't telling someone that their "judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again" a reflection on their general competence? --Pudeo (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead, you can file the ARCA. The points raised by were excellent and should be raised there too, though. --Pudeo (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning The Rambling Man
''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 The Rambling Man
The issues are all very specific and relate to the ongoing lamentable state of affairs at DYK where errors are frequently promoted to the main page. Sure I can use abrasive language, but that has nothing to do with these sanctions. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. Pudeo has picked isolated diffs. The context will provide much more useful information, that within conversations those quotes make specific sense, yet in complete isolation, of course, they can mean whatever anyone wants to read into them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Galobtter, no, those comments are all specifically in relation to the work being conducted at DYK and are not general in any shape. And no-one can "assure" quality, no matter how much they claim they can.  That would be braggadocious, even for me.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, your example is a general statement about the general state of Arbcom elections, and involves no specific editors. And everything else here is directly in the context of DYK, specifically the problems with behaviour there, including when you unilaterally modified a hook (which I created) to introduce errors and then refused to act in accordance with consensus and restore the original.  None of this is to do with those sanctions (which I agreed at the time they were modified, were completely useless).  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dweller, yes, the amendment was clumsy and rushed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf, I agree completely, but not averse to Arbcom doing a better job of making it less subjective (which is clearly the issue, regular editors have one opinion, AE enforcers have another pretty much every time), but fear they will come up with something even more punitive that they can then apply retrospectively. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller
Examining those diffs in turn: --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) No "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" in this diff
 * 2) No "speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence" in this diff. There are reflections on specific competence only.
 * 3) Mild incivility that he shouldn't have typed, yes. Breach of sanctions? No.
 * 4) Reflections on specific competence only.
 * 5) Can't see what the problem is here at all
 * @Pudeo. It's a response to their lack of competence in a specific area. He's not telling them they're generally incompetent, which was the problem in the past and the reason Arbcom placed this sanction. He's not done the behaviour Arbcom told him not to do. They haven't banned him from telling people that they are not good at something specific. The clue is in the sanction "general competence". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Sandstein, once again you pile in and call for an enormously long block against TRM, as you do every time he is here. I love the way you argue here that context is irrelevant as you cleverly lift a few words from the diff presented above. ""You don't get it, you haven't got a clue about it, you haven't even tried to get it, I understand. I don't care what you think, your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again" clearly contextualises the comment about flawed judgement, that TRM is saying the other user has exercised poor judgement in the specifics of this issue. Well, I'll double up on that. Your judgement is flawed, permanently, with regard to TRM (can someone else dig out the list of previous occasions the rest of the world has said "no offence" and Sandstein has weighed in with "block for a month" or similar?) You should always recuse yourself from these cases or put yourself in the involved section. You are biased. There are plenty of other admins who can take an uninvolved view. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Sandstein, I know I'm not impartial. That's why I'm not posting in the section that tells me not to. Your serial excessive line with TRM speaks volumes, as does your intransigence.--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@, I know the wording of the sanction is poor - it's a shame Arbcom didn't take my advice, but no matter how you cut it, here there are only examples of specific criticism and a mild incivility. No belittling, no harrassment, nothing you'd be bothered about from any other Wikipedian. This is not the behaviour Arbcom set out to prevent, but because of this succession of poorly worded sanctions, people feel free to drag TRM here periodically, so that Sandstein can say "block one month". Honestly, the harassment here is of TRM, which is ironic and ridiculous. --12:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG
Please close this. Timewaste. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
There's no justifiable reason for Sandstein to recuse. That he interprets this remedy differently from other admins and is in the apparent minority on that is not a reason to recuse; cf this AE request or or this one it is hardly that he always calls for sanctions against TRM. That one disagrees with his viewpoint on whether to sanction does not make him involved.

And the diffs above clearly violate both the spirit and the text of the restriction. The whole point of the restriction is that, as said in the ARCA that led to this remedy is that TRM makes frequent comments that are, to varying degrees, barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous, and while no individual post reaches the level of a clearly blockable "personal attack", the comments are collectively really goddamn annoying. The comments here are indeed one of barbed, snide, condescending, and self-righteous (and so are most of TRM's comments at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 152, Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive 153, or WT:DYK).

So that the individual comments are not block-able by themselves ("mildly uncivil") is irrelevant. Comments like your judgement is so flawed that I hope that I never see it exercised again (that TRM says should never exercise his judgement ever again, makes it clear that TRM is reflecting on his general competence in judgement) and so-called experienced (implying that these experience editors are incompetent enough that they shouldn't be called experienced) are clear violations of the restriction. (and one notes there are other violations not indicated here: here he says The problem with losing the prescription is that the level of competence of some reviewers is such that they will simply overlook fundamental issues. and here he says I understand that you cannot assure quality - and pick a comment by TRM at random on those pages and you'd find it to be uncivil, unpleasant, and/or a barb directed at someone.)

If it is deemed that these comments don't violate the restriction, then this should be taken to WP:ARCA, as it is clear that the restriction is meant to curtail the behaviour described above.

I don't know how much blocking The Rambling Man will help; I don't know if there are any good solutions to this (other than TRM doing some self-reflection and improving his behaviour); but that the restriction is violated and that TRM is continuing to be regularly unpleasant is clear. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010
WBG has said everything that needs to be said, Literally nothing else to add. – Davey 2010 Talk 17:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333
Yesterday I got an off-wiki complaint about TRM. I dealt with it via email, and he resolved the issue quickly and easily. Notice how I didn't block anyone for a month. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93
I've defended TRM here enough times, god knows. I do wish he would not say things like the comments posted above, and in general I do wish he'd stop making everything personal and stick to the content, which he's good at; most of the people targeted by his comments are not his enemies, and are actually trying to fix the things he is concerned about.

If the other folks are able to persuade TRM to be more collegial, I'd be entirely happy with that outcome.

If that's not happening, and the uninvolved admins are unwilling to enforce this sanction (mind you, there have been fairly clear violations: in addition to the "I don't want to see you exercise your judgement again" comment linked above, there was "anyone running this time would be doing it simply for hat collection purposes. But hey, let's see who "runs" (i.e. leaves it to the last minute to avoid scrutiny, then leap in with cabal backing!)" ), then we need to take this restriction to ARBCOM and get it scrapped, because we're essentially saying experienced editors can ignore their ARBCOM restrictions with impunity, and that's a terrible example to set. Vanamonde (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC) since I missed you. Vanamonde (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
Burn the witch! (Your definition of who the witch is might vary tbh) Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129
I'm certainly sympathetic to the suggestion that Sandstein should post in this section (thus maintaining a semblance of impartiality), but I agree that, following WBG's suggestion, Sandstein might not have time to move before this is swiftly closed with no sanction. —— SerialNumber  54129  14:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning The Rambling Man

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


 * I see nothing actionable here. I see frustration, exasperation and annoyance, and undoubtedly born out of that I see comments that are less than ideally phrased, but none of it is passing comment on the general competence of editors. If you wish to see TRM using less emotional language then the best way forward is probably to sort the problem at its root - i.e. either fix errors in DYK queues, demonstrate that the matters TRM is highlighting are not errors, and/or get consensus that errors in DYKs appearing on the main page is not a problem (this last will require a wider consensus than just the editors regularly involved with the DYK project, probably an RFC). Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the actual context of the edits? Even if these were violations (which I still do not see) a month long block would be significantly disproportionate - as is the norm for your suggested actions when someone brings TRM here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of this sanction, context does not matter. The ArbCom decision prohibits conduct such as the one at issue here under all circumstances. In addition, any misconduct by others does not excuse or mitigate misconduct in response. Even if there are problems at DYK, we as a community expect users to resolve them without resorting to incivility and personal attacks. Blocks are never, in my view, either proportionate or disproportionate. Calling them so reflects a mistaken view of blocks as punitive: "the punishment has to fit the crime". However, blocks are not punitive, but preventative. They have to be as long as is likely required to deter a user from repeating misconduct. Because a prior two-week block proved insufficient as a deterrent, we must now increase the block duration. All blocks can however be lifted once the blocked user convinces us that they are no longer needed.   Sandstein   13:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Context is always important. Even "bright line rules" like 3RR and self-unblocking need context to identify whether a violation has actually occurred, and this sanction is nothing close to a bright line. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(Initial list compiled by Thryduulf. Others may expand it, but let's not go back too far.)
 * March 2017 Sandstein blocked TRM for 1 month 40 minutes after a report from a user with a known long history of antagonistic interaction with TRM. The only outside comment was "I think you can probably cut him [TRM] some slack for that [diff]."
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man
 * March 2017 Appeal of previous block, length reduced to 1 week.
 * July 2017 Sandstein agrees with the unanimous consensus that the overly long request is not actionable]]
 * May 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month, six other admins and at least 12 other commenters said "not a violation", several also asking Sandstein to recuse.
 * June 2018 Sandstein recommends a block of 1 month. Six other admins (including me) and at least four others see no violation. 1 admin sees a posisble violation but no need for a sanction given the context. Myself and Dweller at least call for Sandstein to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In my view, the request is actionable. The statements "your judgement is so flawed", "with your recent track record" and "so-called experienced editors" are "reflections on [the] general competence" of editors. The statement "you haven't even tried to get it" is a "speculation about the motivations of editors". Based on The Rambling Man's block log I would impose a one-month block, as an escalation of the most recent two-week block. I invite further comments by administrators.  Sandstein   12:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see nothing actionable. The statements are not what is being claimed. I concur with Thryduulf above. TRM draws increased scrutiny due to his efforts in high profile areas and we should all focus on improving this project instead of discussing every potentially questionable comment he makes. I agree that Sandstein should recuse themselves from anything involving TRM. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to recuse myself from this and any future case involving The Rambling Man. I regularly work at AE and comment or act on most cases, whereas the admins who I recall often defending The Rambling Man seem to show up here mostly or only when The Rambling Man's conduct is at issue. This makes me take their input less seriously, and it seems to me that it is they who should consider whether they are sufficiently impartial.  Sandstein   17:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is certainly your prerogative to not recuse, as I have no means to force you to do so. However, I continue to believe it to be a grave error on your part.  It is unfortunate you believe that only those who are here all the time merit having their comments seriously considered. If that's so, then you should make a formal proposal to limit commenters here to a named group of admins. A fresh or just different perspective is often helpful.  My impartiality on this issue is clear.  A month block is only punitive and you want to issue one for every instance someone drags TRM here.  331dot (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Per Thryduulf and 331dot, I don't see anything that's seriously actionable here, and certainly nothing that warrants a month-long block. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this needs to be taken to ARCA; 's wording in the previous ARCA effectively introduced further ambiguity to this remedy. What is happening is that has managed to not violate the remedy as worded on every instance, but likely violating the purpose in which such remedy was drafted in the first place. So if we never going to enforce such remedy because of the nature of its impossibility, perhaps it is time to drop it altogether. Alex Shih (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It seems we won't find agreement here. Rather than closing this, or me imposing a block resulting in an acrimonious appeal discussion, and then repeating the whole thing next time around, what do you say we refer this to ArbCom and ask them to either lift the sanctions as no longer needed, or impose any new sanctions that are appropriate to the conduct reflected in the recent AE requests listed above?   Sandstein   12:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No objection to returning to Arbcom. 331dot (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Arbcom will be able to do about things that are not violations not being punitively punished, but I've got no objection to anyone taking this there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll raise this at WP:ARCA later today (or if anybody else wants to do this that's OK with me as well).  Sandstein   13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * QUESTION – If TRM is blocked, will he still be able to edit his ERRORS2 page, as it's in his user space (that's a cross-namespace redirect)? Since the alleged violations are all occurring on Wikipedia talk:Did you know it seems that the issues presented as evidence here may be avoided by blocking his participation on that page, while we can still benefit from his positive contributions on his alternative errors page. Disclosure: I rarely look at WP:Main page, much less read any of it (wow, 15.5 million average daily views), and have never participated at Template talk:Did you know. I haven't yet even fully read Did you know to familiarize myself with the DYK process. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't technically possible to block users only from certain pages. All blocks apply to all pages except the user's own talk page. Bans can be more selective, but a topic ban or page ban is not supported by the remedy that is to be enforced.  Sandstein   13:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

can you re-close, incorporating my comments? If not, just revert this edit. Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I think that the WMF or developers may have something in the works that would support selective blocking, and this strikes me as a good use-case for that. In the meantime maybe he could merge his ERRORS2 to his talk page so that he could keep it going during any blocks. wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My first impression upon looking at the evidence presented is that I see violations of WP:Civility, which is a core policy and one of the five pillars. I see veiled disrespect for his fellow Wikipedians, with whom he disagrees, poor application of Wikipedia etiquette, and personal jabs, if not outright attacks. Arguably he is disrupting the DYK process to illustrate a point, albeit the very good point that the process' quality-control is lacking. So, irrespective of whether he's breached his ArbCom sanctions, I see a valid rationale for blocking simply for civility violations. However, as this request for comment concluded, while incivility is sanctionable, consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. I've read through the cited discussions on Wikipedia talk:Did you know, and sorry, I don't really see any mitigating factors. I do see someone who is passionate about quality control on the main page, but he should have been able to make his valid points on WT:DYK without resorting, perhaps in frustration, to the language used. I don't see a collegial climate on that talk page. I share TRM's passion for quality, and quality-control work (aka "gnoming") is perhaps my main focus as an editor and administrator. Among other things, I patrol for error transclusions, but when I find them I don't feel the need to be uncivil towards those making the errors (example). The fact he has felt the need to create an alternative ERRORS page speaks volumes to me about TRM's issues with collaboration with his fellow editors. There are several maintenance queues that few others besides myself are working; errors which would go unfixed for a long time if I didn't personally fix them. I don't think berating others about their failure to fix these errors would really help to make the errors get fixed any faster, not on a volunteer project where I'm nobody's boss (I'd love to have grant money so I could hire people to handle some of these tasks, but that's another issue).


 * is very active on Wikipedia. I've been tracking him on the ist of Wikipedians by number of edits, where we're both in the top 400, but it's been hard to catch him. Though I don't participate very often on the "drama boards", I'm well aware that his signature blue-box signature is often seen there. It's his focus on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen, he's very good at it. We don't have any process for random assignment of "judges", so I don't see any reason for him to recuse, unless he's been active working the DYK process, of which I'm unaware.


 * Since the conclusion of the "FO" RfC, it's seemed obvious to me that issues of civility enforcement would be heading to the Arbitration Committee. The community has said that the WP:Civility policy is sufficient for determing enforcement, and that further guidlines (disparaged as "rulz" or "bureaucracy") aren't necessary. So, as I agree with Sandstein's view here (though perhaps a block repeating the previous duration is adequate, rather than an escalation in duration) if there is no consensus on enforcement here, then the next step is clearly WP:ARCA to put the ball back in the Committee's court so that they may establish a precedent that may be followed in future civility enforcements given the community's failure to provide clear statuatory guidance. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

ජපස (i.e. jps) topic ban appeal
''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 ජපස (i.e. jps)

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * User topic ban under imposition of discretionary sanctions listed here: :


 * Notification of the administrator who imposed sanctions :



Statement by ජපස (i.e. jps)
I am hereby appealing the topic ban JzG imposed 5 April 2018 here and am formally asking for it to be lifted. JzG has been asked multiple times to give terms for lifting the sanction or to lift the sanction, and he has not replied: ,,,

No conditions have been placed by JzG for lifting the ban, but I can identify that in that time I have worked in similar areas to great effect: E.g.:

And on other wikis, where I worked with the content in question without issue: I pledge to continue to try to tone down my rhetoric. Thank you for your consideration: jps (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * .
 * I apologize for my username being "weird", but it was a compromise worked out to allow me to continue to editing Wikipedia while avoiding some external harassment. You can e-mail me about it if you would like to know more. As far as why I was banned, I have linked to the rationale provided by JzG above. The stated rationale in toto is "your rhetoric has not toned down in any meaningful way". I believe that I have demonstrated that I have been able to tone down my rhetoric in a meaningful way in the interim and pledge to continue to strive to do such into the future. As far as edits I would like to do, I hope you will forgive me if I do not do a full accounting, but I see, for example, some copy-editing in the lede that would be useful. For example, the sentence, "The centerpiece of the park is a large representation of Noah's Ark from the Genesis flood narrative contained in the Bible." would be better simplified to "The centerpiece of the park is a large representation of Noah's Ark based on a description from the Bible." as "Genesis flood narrative" is a clunky Wikipedia neologism. This is only one example. There are a variety of other wordings that could do with a copy edit. jps (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Rhododendrites
Only commenting here to point out what I noted on jps's talk page, pinging JzG, back when the topic ban was issued, and also receiving no response.

There was an ANI thread about this matter here, which was closed without action. It was after that was closed, without any edits by jps on relevant topics (or, really, anything at all, as far as I can see), that the topic ban was issued without any additional context. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I am happy for others to decide this, I am not going to lift it because of jps' extensive history of problematic editing. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning ජපස (i.e. jps)

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


 * Support lifting the ban. It's been well over six months, jps has edited constructively in the meantime, and has pledged to try to tone down his rhetoric (which was the reason JzG gave for the ban). Also, while it's true that jps has an "extensive history of problematic editing", it's far from the whole truth; he also has an (in my opinion even more extensive) constructive history of defending the wiki against pseudoscience. The only possible reason I can see for not lifting this ban is that it's so limited that it can't, reasonably speaking, inconvenience him that much: it only pertains to the Ark Encounter article. But apparently it nevertheless chafes him, and I think it's time to get rid of it. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC).
 * I'm inclined to grant the appeal as its an article ban and its been a long time and it doesn't appear that any other administrator has taken issues with jps' editing in the topic areas as a whole. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can somebody please link to the actual article at issue? Not linking to it in either the ban or the appeal is quite annoying.  Sandstein   18:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is Ark Encounter, per JzG's ban notice. The ban is only from a single article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. Person with the weird username, can you please tell us why you were banned from this article, what you intend to do differently in the future, and what kinds of edits do you intend to make to that article if the ban is lifted?  Sandstein   21:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on the user's reply I'm OK with lifting the ban on the assumption that it is likely no longer needed, and noting that it can be reimposed should it turn out to be needed again.  Sandstein   12:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Request concerning Religion in Israel

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Article concerned : Religion in Israel. I am requesting removal of ECP on that page


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

As suggested by User:Oshwah I am seeking another opinion regarding this page. My philosophy is that we should have as few pages as possible under ECP protection. While this page does mention the conflict, it is not about the conflict. I would love the page to be unprotected, and if there is vandalism or issues, we can always re-protect. 99% of the page is about religion in Israel, and the conflict makes a mention, but is not the subject of the article. Apologies if this should have been placed elsewhere. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , your first article has nothing to do with the conflict, it has to do with Israel's nation state law. Your second article is about religion in the West Bank, not Israel proper. So again, nothing to do with the conflict. I would also caution you in throwing out terms like "frivolous." All it does is breed a chilling effect. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because there are times when religion plays a role in the conflict, that does not necessarily mean that an article about Religion in Israel is about the conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Religion in Israel
''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 Zero0000
This is an article which has large sections that are outside ARBPIA but other sections which are clearly related to the conflict. Since protection of article sections is not yet available, keeping protection on the article seems the best option at the moment. Zerotalk 02:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser
The funny thing is that religion per se does not play a role in the IP-conflict. I was genuinely surprised when this article was tagged with the 30/500 protection. Debresser (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
The statement "religion per se does not play a role in the IP-conflict" is rather hilarious....when, say, Muslim or Christian Palestinians are routinely denied entry to Israel, while Jewish people have an automatic right to citizenship. I cannot even understand how anyone can claim that religion does not have anything to do with the IP conflict. (But, then again, I remember back in the late 1960s (yeah, I'm old....), discussing with a Swiss man who assured me that Swiss women were not discriminated against, and that they absolutely didn't want the right to vote. (They first got that right in 1971)). Discrimination isn't felt by those who are not discriminated against.) Huldra (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Religion in Israel

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


 * Decline removing protection. This is perhaps the most clearcut example of a topic that falls within the Arab-Israeli conflict that I have ever seen, and I consider this request for unprotection to be borderline frivolous. 's response on his talk page was excellent: this article involves the Law of Return and actions of religious groups.Even ignoring the content of the article, the subject itself is quite clearly within the conflict. This recent quote from Catholic bishops of Israel, the overwhelming majority of whom are Arab, makes this clear: Our faithful, the Christians, our fellow citizens, Muslim, Druze and Baha’i, all of us who are Arabs, are no less citizens of this country than our Jewish brothers and sisters. This is just within the last two weeks. Here is an article that discusses the shrinking of Arab Christians in Bethlehem after 1950 and the role of religion both in the United States and Israel in the conflict. This is just from a quick Google news search for "Arab Israeli Christians". I'm sure if I dug into actual academic souring for this topic, the results would be much more numerous. This isn't even getting into the issues surrounding the Dome of the Rock and the Temple Mount.This is the very definition of an article that should be under ECP as an Arbitration Enforcement action. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , we disagree on the first article: it has everything to do with the nation state law has quite a lot to do with the conflict in my view (and the views of major publications ) and the fact that religion, especially amongst Christians and Druze who serve in the IDF makes this article even more under it. Also, as I said, we have academic books written on the analysis of the Palestinian Christian population in Israel. Here is another academic book that examines the role of religion in regards to Palestinians in Israel as a whole and the interactions with politics specifically in the post-Oslo Accords era. Here's another that specifically discusses the Dome of the Rock and the role it played post-Oslo and in the 2000 negotiations at Camp David.I'm sorry, but I really can't in good conscience support unprotection of what to me seems can't possibly not be a part of the subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep the WP:ECP protection on Religion in Israel. The wording of WP:ARBPIA3 still allows editors who are not extended-confirmed to make comments on the article talk page:  None of the sub-articles that are linked from Religion in Israel are currently protected. Their talk pages are free of the ARBPIA notice at present (Search the text of Religion in Israel for the phrase 'Main article:' to see which ones they are). So new editors (with fewer than 500 edits) who want to work in this area have some options available to them. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I have edited the request to make clear that this concerns an article, not a user.  Sandstein   13:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Only two admins have expressed an opinion here on lifting the ECP on this article, and neither one favors lifting. Since this protection is a 'sanction' I suppose the appeal against it is an 'arbitration enforcement appeal' and per WP:AC/DS it needs the 'clear and substantial consensus' of uninvolved administrators. It doesn't have that consensus. So this appeal should be closed as declined and the protection should remain. This would not prevent anyone from making a further appeal at WP:ARCA if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

CaliSurferDude99
''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 CaliSurferDude99

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAPDS, 1RR/consensus required restriction per 2016 US Election AE


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


 * 1) CaliSurferDude99 adds a number of "chants" to the infobox of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020
 * 2) I revert that as "unsourced cruft"
 * 3) CaliSurferDude99 restores their edit without having discussed it on the talk page, violating the "consensus required" restriction
 * 4)  reverts this content, commenting "Wikipedia is not a political joke website"
 * 5) CaliSurferDude99 restores the content, violating "consensus required" a second time. They also make threats in their edit summary: "Further reverts may result in noticeboard".
 * , content is rolled back by without comment
 * 1) CaliSurferDude99 restores the content, violating "consensus required" a third time and violating 1RR/24h, while calling their edit a "vandalism revert"
 * 2) I revert, stating "Per WP:BRD and page restrictions (see big notice above), the onus is on you to obtain consensus for your proposed addition, as several other editors have reverted you". I also issue an AE notice on CaliSurferDude99's talk page.
 * 3) CaliSurferDude99 restores the content "for consistency with Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016", violating "consensus required" a fourth time despite warnings. They also post an unsigned complaint on the article talk page, containing no attempt to obtain consensus, but rather demanding that other editors "stop reverting and vandalizing".


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None I'm aware of.


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions on American Politics on 21 November. See also the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This editor seems to understand vandalism and consensus backwards. The onus is on them to obtain consensus for their content, but they call vandalism the reverts of their desired content by several other editors.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Notice placed.

Discussion concerning CaliSurferDude99
''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.''

Result concerning CaliSurferDude99

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


 * Indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. Clearly a problem, and their knowledge of WP leads me to believe they are a returning nuisance, though CU didn't throw up any likely candidates, a new user threatening others with noticeboards doesn't ring true.  But besides that, they seem determined to be a problem in political articles, and that's their only area of concern so far.  Whatever they were trying to do, it wasn't building a useful encyclopaedia. Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog
''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 Jytdog

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms


 * Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users

First, User:Jytdog was, |among other incidents, topic banned in December 2015 by Arbcom:


 * "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted."

This lifetime ban appears to stand since I can find no information on the Arbcom page about an appeal or it being lifted.

Since then, he has repeatedly deleted content from He Jiankui, AfDed 'designer baby', edited Assisted reproductive technology/Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Human germline engineering/Gene therapy/Synthetic lethality/CRISPR/genetic engineering/Lulu and Nana - and that's in just the past week! (I have not tried to review all 3 years, but I suspect he has edited many other off-limits articles.) Diffs:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designer_baby_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=868229648
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genome-wide_complex_trait_analysis&oldid=871623102
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=He_Jiankui&diff=prev&oldid=871805131
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CRISPR&diff=prev&oldid=871393400
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=871392670
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_engineering&diff=prev&oldid=871392501
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lulu_and_Nana&diff=prev&oldid=871371978
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_germline_engineering&diff=prev&oldid=871675647
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synthetic_lethality&diff=prev&oldid=871534152
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitochondrial_replacement_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=871663845

These are clearly GMO-related articles, narrowly interpreted; for example, the FDA has regulatory power over human gene therapy and germline engineering (such as He Jiankui's CRISPR babies) precisely because the results are legally defined as GMOs, and the main application of CRISPR currently is making agricultural GMOs. 'Broadly interpreted', they are even more clearly GMO-related. In addition, someone who has earned a lifetime topic ban should go above and beyond in avoiding the behavior that resulted in the Arbcom case and strive to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Jytdog's response was to deflect and redefine his topic ban as narrowly as possible, double down on his behavior, and dare me to take it here:


 * "Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing...The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further."

Second, Jytdog has engaged in unacceptable harassing behavior.

Jytdog and I have never interacted before and have no history, but when I criticized the justifications he made in Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination) of designer babies being 'sci fi' which don't exist and so not worthy of an article (pointing out the existence not just of He Jiankui's CRISPR babies but a long history of selection on optional traits, ongoing contemporary applied & research projects, and many imminent technologies widely expected in the future, all of which he appears to be ignorant of), his response was to look at my contributions and AfD not one but two of my articles, which I have worked on for years, on the grounds that they are too good for WP. His response?


 * "I am sorry you feel that it is hostile."

This is an unacceptable way to respond to criticism, and it is especially unacceptable as it is done while flagrantly breaking a lifetime topic ban.

Jytdog has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Jytdog
''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 Doc James

 * Human cases of genetic modification I would view separately from the GMO topic. But at this point it is really mute. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, human GMOs are GMOs in every way, legally, biologically, and practically, there's no way to claim that the CRISPR article is human-only which is a 100% clearcut violation of his topic ban, and even if they were not, Arbcom specifically said to interpret it broadly. It is not a moot point because the decision has not been made & is still being discussed, the proposed remedy allows him to come back at some point, and it would not condemn his bad behavior in this case. --Gwern (contribs) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No not legally. Different laws apply to humans. Also culturally very different. One does not say vet med and medicine are the same profession. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Excelse
Just noting that I have no dog in this dispute and only came here to fix the report which was filed in a malformed manner. Excelse (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
CRISPR, gene editing, etc. generally do not fall under the classification of GMO. That topic area is reserved for insertion of genes like transgenesis, not editing. GMO can be a nebulous term for those not familiar with its use, but that's in part why gene editing is preferred nomenclature in this particular topic. The ArbCom case was pretty clear on making the DS and sanctions fall within agricultural related topics if you dig into the arb discussions. Either way, I recall this coming up before and the topic not being a problem at all in terms of the GMO santcions, though I'd have to dig for the specific AE or ANI where it came up later on if this doesn't get withdrawn.

As Doc James said, it's pretty moot at this point. Considering the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior Gwern has exhibited in the mentioned AfDs and talk pages. (inability to WP:FOC, sniping at editors on content discussion pages, etc.) this does look like a tendentious filing where they'd be risking a boomerang for pursuing battleground behavior. It's probably better and more expedient if this was withdrawn at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Just a brief statement to say that I agree that "GMO" as commonly understood does not cover CRISPR, so the diffs provided were not violations of Jytdog's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
While likely moot I would just like to say that the topic ban was broadly construed and that would cover CRISPR, gene therapy and gene editing. He should not have been editing in this topic area if he was still banned. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Jytdog

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


 * As filed, the request is not actionable because it does not contain diffs. Additionally, Jytdog wrote on their user page: "I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." In view of this, I am of the view that this request should be closed without action, but that it may be refiled (properly, with diffs) should Jytdog nonetheless return to editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein   18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for adding the diffs. Nonetheless, at WP:RFAR, a motion effectively banning Jytdog is about to pass, which is why I am still of the view that this is likely moot.  Sandstein   18:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון
''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 : 20:25, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA topic ban

Today I received an email from יניב הורון which consisted solely of a link to the Six-Day War article history, where there has recently been some disagreements between the usual suspects in this topic area. My interpretation of this is that due to their topic ban in this area, they were seeking some kind of assistance – i.e. trying to recruit me as a meatpuppet.

After I responded on his talk page, it was reverted with the edit summary "That wasn't my intention, dear moser. But thanks for answering me in private."

A moser is a term for a Jew who reports a fellow Jew to authority. This infers that יניב feels betrayed by someone who they had thought was on their side, which I see as further suggestion that they were hoping I would help them out in some way. And I'm not even Jewish.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * I don't find Yaniv's explanation convincing. If the email was sent by mistake, why wasn't there a follow up a few minutes later explaining the previous one? My comment on his talk page was 15 minutes after the original email. Also, why would he need to contact me by email about this topic rather than write on my talk page. Number   5  7  15:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

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
I sent an email to Number57 because of his expertise in Israeli politicians' infoboxes and elections. Mordechai Gur, for example, is in the Six Day War infobox, but does not have his political career in his bio's infobox (MK, minister without portfolio, health minister, etc). As far as I understand, his political career is not ARBPIA related. However, I hit "SEND" prior to filling the content. I was going to explain myself to him but I was miffed by Number57's post on my talk page instead of asking me in private what do I want, or simply telling me he's not interested in having a conversation in private, hence my rash and impolite response. As far as the Jewish term "moser", I understand it was received the wrong way, but it's a general thing to say when someone takes something private and makes it public. In Israel that's something students say to one another on outing stuff to an instructor or a GF. In any case, I won't bother Number57 anymore, although a "no thank you" as email response would have been enough.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * regentspark: The prohibition of sending emails is not explicity mentioned in the topic ban. However, I won't send emails anymore. For the record, I didn't ask anyone to be my "meatpuppet" or do my edits like Number 57 claims.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein: I agree my edit summary was disrespectful and I apologize for it.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 10:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
I think Sandstein raises a good point. The BAN applies to pages and articles, and it seems to me the page is pretty explicit on what it includes. If we also want emails to be included that should be up to the community perhaps to decide if that should be under the scope of a BAN. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Regarding precedent, in this AE request I filed against Captain Occam the primary evidence I provided were e-mails sent to me by CO. The case ended with CO being indef blocked by TonyBallioni, but not as an AE enforcement action, as an individual admin action. Nevertheless, the discussions and statements in the case request may be pertinent here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
Yaniv has repeatedly skirted the boundaries of his topic ban. And yes, this looks like trying to get a proxy edit. But, his editing when it has actually been outside of the topic area hasnt been so bad to say that he should be indefinitely blocked. Tony, taking into account both the email and the response in the edit summary, with the response being the bigger thing imo, a NPA/CIV block and another stern reminder to stay away from the topic area would suffice. And honestly, I very much doubt an indefinite block will accomplish what you are hoping, I see that more likely leading to an alienated editor who comes back however he can. An outcome I rank as the worst.  nableezy  - 06:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, attempting to violate WP:MEAT on an article in the topic area is without question a violation. Its just silly to argue otherwise.  nableezy  - 07:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony, I actually do hold several things against Yaniv to be honest, I very much disliked his editing style when he was active in the topic area. It was my request that resulted in this current topic ban. But, each time Yaniv has been blocked or banned for something he has adjusted, at least ever so slightly, to not continue doing the same thing that resulted in his being blocked or banned. So my view is at the very least he has shown a willingness to attempt to correlate his actions with our policies when he suffers some consequence to breaking them. Now is that enough? Idk, nobody would ever give me admin rights here so it isnt something I really even have to think that much about. But I do think that if indefinitely blocked that breaks that progress, and I dont think that is in anybodys interest. Including my own, as somebody who both disagreed with his editing style and his actual edits for the most part.  nableezy  - 17:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz
WP:TBAN clearly does not include private communication, such as e-mails, and regulating off-wiki conversation (dinner table as well?) is a slippery slope. Yaniv offered an explanation that he intended to send something else - and his explanation has some credibility in that sending an e-mail "consisted solely of a link to the Six-Day War article history" to someone is a really odd way of approaching someone for the first time (no hello? no introduction? no explanation?). Yaniv's use of "Moser" - on his own talk page - was inadvisable, however this is in colloquial speech (in some circles) something akin to saying "snitch" - in such colloquial use there is no Jew/non-Jew distinction. Saying "dear moser [snitch]" (one one's own talk page) is mild incivility - but it is not a TBAN violation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
As much as we'd like banned editors to stay out of the editing cycle completely, I agree with Sandstein that private emails don't violate the letter of a topic ban. So I think this is not actionable even though it was a clear violation in spirit. Zerotalk 11:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra
While I agree that contacting anyone off wiki is a borderline violation at best (hence, I would be willing to ignore that)...calling someone a moser is way beyond behaviour that Wikipedia should accept.

Just to recap: the killer of Yitzhak Rabin "justified" his deed by the fact that West Bank rabbis had called Rabin a moser and a rodef (see eg ‘Killing a King’ Examines Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, New York Times). And it is argued that that the law of the moser "is far more serious and deadly than the law of rodef. (link Haaretz)

We don't accept that editors call other editors by the n−word (and it doesn't matter whether the target is Afro–American or not). Nor should we ever allow anyone to call another editor "a moser", Huldra (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JFG
Methinks some editors should apply a healthy dose of skin-thickening lotion. But thanks for teaching me some Jewish slang. No violation, no action. — JFG talk 21:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning יניב הורון

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


 * I'd welcome any input about whether there is any precedent as to whether using the Wikipedia e-mail function is within the scope of a ban. As a matter of first impression, I doubt it, because WP:BAN only mentions edits to pages, not e-mails.  Sandstein   21:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, yes, emailing an administrator regarding an editing conflict on a page which one is banned from constitutes a violation of the ban. If Yaniv had posted at ANI requesting attention to the article, we would consider it a violation; I don't think attempting to do so privately protects the intent to violate the ban. If that was the intent, I don't know if that is established. However, I cannot cite precedent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the wording of WP:BAN, it is not sufficiently clear to me that Wikipedia e-mail is within the scope of a ban. The "moser" is incivil, but not a topic ban violation. I therefore decline to take action here. This does not preclude any other admin who sees things differently from taking action.  Sandstein   10:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Like Ivanvector, I can't cite a precedent but I agree that this is a violation of the tban. We could be pedantic and ask if the email was sent by clicking on the send this user an email button (on wiki-ish) or directly (off wiki) but that wouldn't change the fact that this was an attempt to influence the editing of the article. --regentspark (comment) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think this rises to the level of an indef block. In essence, we have a link to an article sent over email and a single snide comment in response to a protest against that email. That's not really egregious enough for a long block, let alone an indef one. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the revert and insult directed at Number57 on the talk page. I agree that this is an attempt to skirt the TBAN, and even if it’s not a technical TBAN violation, the response to it, including the wikilink accusing someone of being a Jew who reports other Jews to non-Jewish authorities is simply unacceptable on a collaborative project. This response would in my view fall under DS in the topic area as it was in response to an editor raising concerns about their behavior there. Given the scheer length of the block log and past TBAN violations, I think we’re at the point of an indefinite block: first year AE, regular block after that. If people want to nitpick on it, then it can be as a regular admin action for the response on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , I think my point is that at some point after having three TBAN blocks and 2 other AE blocks before that, he should know to tread lightly. Increasing the block durations by a week every time until we hit 52 seems impractical. I like Yaniv and hold nothing against him, but his talk page for a while was basically a noticeboard for ARBPIA conflicts. If others don’t want to block this time, I’m not opposed to that, but I think that this should at the very least be closed with a logged warning letting him know that any future violations or misconduct in the area will likely result in a long block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Attempting to encourage another editor to edit on one's behalf where one cannot edit oneself because of a topic ban is an attempt to evade the topic ban. How one goes about trying to get that other editor to do so is irrelevant: email may not be covered by the topic ban, but the Wikipedia editing which the email implicitly solicited is. As Ivanvector has pointed out, "If Yaniv had posted at ANI requesting attention to the article, we would consider it a violation": likewise if it had been a post to a user talk page, or anywhere else. It would make no sense at all if we were to take the line that attempting to obtain proxy editing to evade a ban were somehow more acceptable if done secretly than if done openly and visibly; if anything, the attempt to hide what was being done makes it less acceptable. There is nothing to be gained by wikilawyering about whether the particular method employed to try to evade the ban is explicitly covered by some written wording (whether in the the ban, in some "precedent" or anywhere else) when we all know that what happened was an attempt to evade a ban. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Given this user's history, a significant block is appropriate. Not for the email, which may well be outside our scope, but for edit summary. Jonathunder (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go against the grain here, and say that we should not be blocking. We would be setting an extremely dangerous precedent if we blocked for an email, because we are then by extension obligated to sanction other individuals for emails about things which (due to site-bans or t-bans) they are required not to discuss. This obviously isn't happening. If Number57 had edited the article in response to the email, they would still be completely responsible for the edits, and as such Yaniv cannot also be responsible. I don't think we should be implementing sanctions for any off-wiki behavior that isn't harassment. The edit-summary is blockable, but given the apology above, I think a block might be punitive at this point. I would recommend a logged warning about personal attacks and attempting to circumvent the t-ban. Vanamonde (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection I strongly disagree that clear attempts to influence the editing of an article covered by a topic ban are dependent on the manner of communicating the attempt, nor on the recruited editor actually making an edit. The attempt itself is the violation: that a topic-banned editor contacted another editor for the purpose of influencing editing in the topic from which they're banned. The method of contact is irrelevant - the ban means the editor may not participate, and asking another editor to do something for you is indeed participating. We don't say that canvassing is okay if you do it off-site, for example. Again, I can't be certain that that's what happened here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not okay in principle; I don't think we have the jurisdiction to sanction for it. See, for instance, the ARBCOM case about the East Europe mailing list: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list. The Principle about off-wiki conduct says "A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct." (emphasis mine). We can warn Yaniv because Number 57 clearly found the email undesirable; but we can't sanction it as a t-ban violation, in my view., this is in reply to your point, too. Vanamonde (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * While I think linking to an article that describes the death penalty being applied to snitches is worth a long block, I’m sympathetic to Vanamonde’s point of view i.r.t. the EE mailing list finding. I also personally don’t want to be the admin at ARCA over a block here, which is where this would end up: I think the current committee may rule differently, but I also don’t think it’s worth the hassle. Unless another admin prefers to block, which I don’t oppose, I propose logging the following warning: יניב הורון is warned that future attempts to game their topic ban, as well as other forms of disruption or failures to meet the behavioral norms of the English Wikipedia in any topic area, is likely to result in a lengthy block. comments are welcome. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would explicitly add "engaging in personal attacks": otherwise, I am fine with that, or the equivalent. Vanamonde (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Let's ignore the email, either because it's hearsay, outside our remit, or otherwise inadmissible. Looking just at the edit summary and the existing block log, a strong final warning is warranted, if not a block. Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec2) I don't have any objection to you applying a civility block here. In fact, I may be one of the few civility blocks enthusiasts left on Wikipedia. But I recommend that it be placed as a normal admin block rather than as an AE block, because the "moser" comment doesn't seem to be related to the Israeli-Arab conflict topic, for which AE sanctions are authorized. - Edit: Or failing that, I'm ok with the warning as well.  Sandstein   21:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, as I've said a couple times here, I generally disagree that we cannot sanction a Wikipedia editor for actions that occur elsewhere when those actions specifically relate to a conflict on Wikipedia. That is a very bad precedent to set. As for what to do here, I tend to believe Yaniv's explanation about the "moeser" comment, at least in the way it was intended, and otherwise I'm really not familiar enough with this topic area nor with Yaniv to recommend a course of action. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog
''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 Jytdog

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms


 * Jytdog violating GMO topic ban and harassing users

First, User:Jytdog was, |among other incidents, topic banned in December 2015 by Arbcom:


 * "Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted."

This lifetime ban appears to stand since I can find no information on the Arbcom page about an appeal or it being lifted.

Since then, he has repeatedly deleted content from He Jiankui, AfDed 'designer baby', edited Assisted reproductive technology/Mitochondrial replacement therapy/Human germline engineering/Gene therapy/Synthetic lethality/CRISPR/genetic engineering/Lulu and Nana - and that's in just the past week! (I have not tried to review all 3 years, but I suspect he has edited many other off-limits articles.) Diffs:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Designer_baby_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=868229648
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Genome-wide_complex_trait_analysis&oldid=871623102
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=He_Jiankui&diff=prev&oldid=871805131
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CRISPR&diff=prev&oldid=871393400
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=871392670
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_engineering&diff=prev&oldid=871392501
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lulu_and_Nana&diff=prev&oldid=871371978
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_germline_engineering&diff=prev&oldid=871675647
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synthetic_lethality&diff=prev&oldid=871534152
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitochondrial_replacement_therapy&diff=prev&oldid=871663845

These are clearly GMO-related articles, narrowly interpreted; for example, the FDA has regulatory power over human gene therapy and germline engineering (such as He Jiankui's CRISPR babies) precisely because the results are legally defined as GMOs, and the main application of CRISPR currently is making agricultural GMOs. 'Broadly interpreted', they are even more clearly GMO-related. In addition, someone who has earned a lifetime topic ban should go above and beyond in avoiding the behavior that resulted in the Arbcom case and strive to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety.

Jytdog's response was to deflect and redefine his topic ban as narrowly as possible, double down on his behavior, and dare me to take it here:


 * "Please play the ball, not the man. My TBAN is on ag biotech, not this sort of thing...The locus of the case was ag biotech. I have been regularly editing human gene therapy and related topics and you are the first person to make drama over this. In any case, WP:AE is thataway. What you are doing here, is really inappropriate. I won't be responding to you further."

Second, Jytdog has engaged in unacceptable harassing behavior.

Jytdog and I have never interacted before and have no history, but when I criticized the justifications he made in Articles for deletion/Designer baby (2nd nomination) of designer babies being 'sci fi' which don't exist and so not worthy of an article (pointing out the existence not just of He Jiankui's CRISPR babies but a long history of selection on optional traits, ongoing contemporary applied & research projects, and many imminent technologies widely expected in the future, all of which he appears to be ignorant of), his response was to look at my contributions and AfD not one but two of my articles, which I have worked on for years, on the grounds that they are too good for WP. His response?


 * "I am sorry you feel that it is hostile."

This is an unacceptable way to respond to criticism, and it is especially unacceptable as it is done while flagrantly breaking a lifetime topic ban.

Jytdog has announced his retirement (after apparently yet another, unrelated to this case, instance of poor judgment), but I feel his past behavior still deserves some scrutiny. --Gwern (contribs) 17:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Jytdog
''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 Doc James

 * Human cases of genetic modification I would view separately from the GMO topic. But at this point it is really mute. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, human GMOs are GMOs in every way, legally, biologically, and practically, there's no way to claim that the CRISPR article is human-only which is a 100% clearcut violation of his topic ban, and even if they were not, Arbcom specifically said to interpret it broadly. It is not a moot point because the decision has not been made & is still being discussed, the proposed remedy allows him to come back at some point, and it would not condemn his bad behavior in this case. --Gwern (contribs) 17:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No not legally. Different laws apply to humans. Also culturally very different. One does not say vet med and medicine are the same profession. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Excelse
Just noting that I have no dog in this dispute and only came here to fix the report which was filed in a malformed manner. Excelse (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43
CRISPR, gene editing, etc. generally do not fall under the classification of GMO. That topic area is reserved for insertion of genes like transgenesis, not editing. GMO can be a nebulous term for those not familiar with its use, but that's in part why gene editing is preferred nomenclature in this particular topic. The ArbCom case was pretty clear on making the DS and sanctions fall within agricultural related topics if you dig into the arb discussions. Either way, I recall this coming up before and the topic not being a problem at all in terms of the GMO santcions, though I'd have to dig for the specific AE or ANI where it came up later on if this doesn't get withdrawn.

As Doc James said, it's pretty moot at this point. Considering the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior Gwern has exhibited in the mentioned AfDs and talk pages. (inability to WP:FOC, sniping at editors on content discussion pages, etc.) this does look like a tendentious filing where they'd be risking a boomerang for pursuing battleground behavior. It's probably better and more expedient if this was withdrawn at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Just a brief statement to say that I agree that "GMO" as commonly understood does not cover CRISPR, so the diffs provided were not violations of Jytdog's topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn
While likely moot I would just like to say that the topic ban was broadly construed and that would cover CRISPR, gene therapy and gene editing. He should not have been editing in this topic area if he was still banned. AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Jytdog

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


 * As filed, the request is not actionable because it does not contain diffs. Additionally, Jytdog wrote on their user page: "I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." In view of this, I am of the view that this request should be closed without action, but that it may be refiled (properly, with diffs) should Jytdog nonetheless return to editing Wikipedia.  Sandstein   18:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for adding the diffs. Nonetheless, at WP:RFAR, a motion effectively banning Jytdog is about to pass, which is why I am still of the view that this is likely moot.  Sandstein   18:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SonofSetanta
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 :


 * Sanction being appealed : diff


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


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

Statement by SonofSetanta
I would like to appeal for the removal of an ArbCom decision some years ago to ban me from editing articles related to the Northern Ireland Troubles as a result of violation of Wikipedia guidelines on editing such articles. I have no particular motive for making my request at this time. I've noted that a number of more level headed and well informed editors have improved articles I worked on and believe that Wikipedia has taken appropriate action to moderate the behaviours of some whose idea of balance I took issue with.

There will be no mass editing by me as a result of a successful appeal. My history will show I have continued to assist in the improvement of Wikipedia on a small scale in the intervening time but have distanced myself from anything controversial.

I put it to you that I am a valuable editor who just didn't have the common sense to know when to stop over certain matters. Experience has begotten a wisdom I didn't have when I joined Wikipedia and age has calmed me down.

SonofSetanta (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Sandstein
Thank you for the opportunity and thank you for taking the trouble to set my appeal out for me. I was unaware you were the banning party.

I have no plans to edit anything at the moment, Troubles related or otherwise. Wikipedia was a very big part of my life for a long time and I believe I became obsessed. Since the ban I have largely confined myself to improving articles when I have noticed inaccuracies, spelling mistakes, missing citations etc. My intention would be to continue this policy. The biggest bone of contention for me was the Ulster Defence Regiment article. I joined Wikipedia specifically to improve it and remove what I perceived as bias; partly because of my specialist knowledge of the subject. I was unprepared for the reaction I got and I hadn't developed the skills and patience to deal with what transpired. I believe I have those qualities now, at least to a much greater extent than back then. That article is now pretty well balanced and I rarely look at it although I do refer others to it.

I note comments from interested parties below and am pleased to address those concerns: My previous identities are declared on my home page and have been for several years; a reflection on my improving attitude towards the wiki I would suggest. My major interests are military history and Irish history but I have a third level education (an HND in keyboard technology and a degree in history) and am knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects as my posting history shows.

I believe it is necessary to point out the difficulties surrounding editing Troubles articles when I joined and in many subsequent years. Although I have done no serious research on the subject prior to submitting my appeal what I have seen leads me to believe that the situation is calmer now as a result of various adjudications.

I should also bring to the attention of interested parties the difficulties I had concerning copyright of images. I did feel aggrieved as I felt there were no concerns about anything uploaded by me. Initially I searched through my own photographic collection and provided fresh scans and negative images to Wikipedia proving my ownership of the files. After a short time however I became disillusioned and stopped responding. I don't believe I have uploaded an image since then.

In a final statement I believe it is my behaviour over the last 5 years+ which merits the lifting of the ban. I pulled back and didn't make any further fuss.

I'd like to thank everyone involved for giving me the time of day, regardless of the outcome.

SonofSetanta (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

 * Note that I have reformatted this originally very malformed appeal, but it will still be closed shortly if the missing information (including a link to the sanction being appealed) and notification diff is not provided.  Sandstein   20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Moved from the results section,  Sandstein   07:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I've moved the above here because I initially didn't recognize that this was an appeal against a sanction by me.
 * Since the ban in August of 2013, SonofSetanta has made relatively few edits. I invite them to describe the edits they intend to make in the Troubles topic area if the topic ban is lifted.  Sandstein   07:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My views on lifting the ban are similar to those of Salvio giuliano below. In the end, I still recommend not lifting the ban at this time until we see some more competent, conflict-free editing in other topic areas. In particular, the startling lack of technical competence exhibited by SonofSetanta in making this appeal (check their recent contributions) indicates that they are probably better suited to editing in topic areas that are not particularly challenging to work in.  Sandstein   09:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Andy Dingley
Support You seem to have run afoul of. I see that as no slight on any editor here, so I would support the removal of your restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SonofSetanta
I've added the diff to what I believe is the original AE thread placing the TBAN. As Sandstein appears to have been the placing admin and has already commented here, I'm declining to notify them again. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no particular opinion on whether removing the topic ban will be beneficial to Wikipedia, but I'd point out that for a few years after the TB, they were fairly active, but that's not been the case more recently. This year, they've made 11 article edits, last year (2017) they made 6, and there were 6 in 2016.  This would raise the possibility that they don't have substantial interests outside of the topic banned subject area, and if the ban was lifted, they're very likely to be an active editor in the area of The Troubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought appeals were supposed to be posted at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The pink "Important Information" box says that one of the uses of AE is to "appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators." The collapse box a little farther down, titled "Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions" says: "Appeals by sanctioned editorsAppeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages... The editor may:  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;     2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ('AE') or at the administrators’ noticeboard ('AN'); and     3. submit a request for amendment at '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-llists.wikimedia.org)." Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by SonofSetanta

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


 * I'm not going to be any part of the decision either way on this, but I assume this is what's being appealed. Reviewing admins should also be aware of the history of SoS's previous incarnations . &#8209; Iridescent 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that, after the ban, SonofSetanta has made so few edits gives me pause, because, generally, that is how an editor shows that he has learnt from his mistakes and proves that he can make edits in a collegial fashion even concerning topics he has strong feelings about. And in the light of SonofSetanta's colourful track record, the need to show that he has learnt is, in my opinion, especially strong. On the other hand, this is an area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and, so, topic bans and blocks can be reimposed swiftly (and without much discussion, if need be), which makes me think that we can take a chance. So, basically, I'm still on the fence, but I'm not outright opposed to lifting the sanction. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would decline this for the reasons Salvio mentions above. Without an edit history post-TBAN, it's challenging to examine whether SonofSetanta will be able to edit in that topic area without new issues arising. For me, I'd need more 'good behavior' to look at to feel comfortable lifting this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I, too, would decline the appeal at this time. For us to consider an appeal, the appealing user has to show that they have been able to work constructively in areas not covered by their sanction. This user has not done so, and at their present activity level, is not going to be able to do so for a while. Vanamonde (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Iovaniorgovan
''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 Iovaniorgovan

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 28 November tit-for-tat nationalist skirmishing for the purpose of establishing WP:FALSEBALANCE
 * 2) 28 November strange WP:OR conclusion based on an image to support a nationalist position
 * 3) 5 December Attempt to assert false balance/equal validity through Wikilawyering
 * 4) 26 November Attempt to create false balance through equal validity.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Two blocks related to this issue can be found in the block log...it's not clear that either of them were DS blocks.


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


 * Eastern Europe alert - 18 April 2018
 * Balkans alert – 26 November 2018
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I am writing this request as a neutral party. I have had no participation in this dispute or topic area. I became aware of it via 's post at WP:VP/PR. The relevant dispute is about the Origin of the Romanians article. It is not clear whether this article belongs more correctly under the Eastern Europe or Balkans DS, but this user has been alerted to both at different times. is a single purpose account. His first edits in April of this year pertained to this subject, and he has not edited any other subject since. From the moment he started editing, his sole purpose has appeared to be to promote the "Dacian continuity" theory about the origin of the Romanian ethnic group, and promote Romanian nationalism. From the start, he has been embroiled in conflict with editors who have had to fight his continued advocacy for that point of view, and has been blocked two times for this same advocacy. Having researched this dispute, which was recently declined at DRN, I have come to the conclusion that Iovaniorgovan is not WP:HERE to build an encylopaedia, but to promote this theory. He repeatedly attempts to establish WP:FALSEBALANCE through claims of "equal validity". I believe that topic banning Iovaniorgovan from the "Origin of the Romanians" topic will end the dispute, and so I am requesting review here. I do not think that nationalist editing of the kind done by this editor is in the interest of the encylopaedia. I hope an uninvolved administrator agrees with me, and makes use of the DS at their disposal. Maybe this is a malformed request; maybe I'm wasting my time. However, even the slightest review of this user's edits, and the sheer amount of time he has wasted for well-meaning editors at the origin of the Romanians article suggests to me that real problem is this editor, not any other factor. If he can prove his capability to edit neutrally in some other topic area, maybe I'll change my mind... RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Further comments: Draft:Origin of the Romanians looks like an attempt at a pro-Dacian continuity POV fork of the actual article. I've read through the RfC, and I'm sorry to say that I don't see anything at all productive in it...all I see is excessive procedure used as a cover for advocacy. As above, I hope that action will be taken. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notification of AE request

Discussion concerning Iovaniorgovan
''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 Iovaniorgovan
I unequivocally reject these charges. I am not a "nationalist", nor have I ever been, nor do I try to make any edits to the article in question along such lines. Perhaps the editor filing this AE is not particularly familiar with the subject, and I don't blame him/her because it's a complex subject. One of the main theories presented in the article is the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory; the "Daco" part represents the Dacian component, so "Dacian continuity" is part and parcel of "Daco-Roman Continuity Theory" [DRCT] according to mainstream scholars. Now please allow me to address the edits that the filing editor found to be in violation:
 * 1. The work cited is by the President of the Romanian Academy, Ioan-Aurel Pop, and represents mainstream DRCT viewpoint (hard to find a more WP:RS than this, therefore I believe that the charge of this source being WP:FALSEBALANCE is unfounded).
 * 2. The image in question was added in support of two WP:RS that have not been disputed by any editor and are still in the article ("Romanian ethnographers point at the "striking similarities" between the traditional Romanian folk dress and the Dacian dress depicted on Trajan's Column as a clear evidence for the connection between the ancient Dacians and modern Romanians."), which is exactly what the image depicts. Furthermore, this image is also included in the Romanian version of the article. Again, the image supports the "Daco/Dacian" component of the DRCT, and not some "nationalist" agenda, as the above editor implies.
 * 3. That's taken from the Talk pages, where I stated my opinion that the current structure of the article is flawed (see more below) and hence I proposed a solution according to what my understanding of WP:NPOV is. It's just a discussion. Incidentally, we're in the middle of an RfC concerning precisely this issue (more on this later).
 * 4. That's a revert on a previous revert by one of the editors supporting the article's current structure. This type of edit warring got us all in trouble, not just me. We all got hit with blocks, and deservedly so. My first block was lifted after less than an hour, while my second block came (after I added one image to the article) because I misunderstood the wording of the DS, but then so did everyone else (as you can see here). I've toed the line ever since.

Additional comments: While I have contributed to other articles, I agree that most of my edits have been on this article, the reason being it's time-consuming and as much as I'd like to contribute more I just can't find enough time at the moment. Once we agree on a sound structure for the article and things resume their normal course I'll surely expand my editing interests. Now here's the reason we've gotten to this point, as far as I can tell-- the structure of the article is flawed, as observed by several independent editors in the last few months:


 * How an editor characterizes the content of the article: [...] In fact, reading over some sections... the article is extremely abstruse as it is. [...] How is the average reader supposed to know what any of this "evidence" has to do with the origins of the Romanians? [...]
 * An editor's suggestion on how the article should look like: [...] This will help to keep the evidence framed: readers will see how evidence is marshaled in support of one theory or another and can get a feel for the arguments each side uses. I think the uninformed reader who just wants to know where the Romanians came from will be able to weigh two or three theories better than hundreds of fact(oid)s. [...]
 * An editor's description of sections in the article: [...] The archaeological data is the worst. It is an info dump the relevance of which is nowhere made clear.Part of the problem is that the "evidence" is written as if the reader should draw his own conclusions. Take, e.g., the paragraph on Gothia. One can only guess what this is supposed to tell us about the origin of the Romanians. [...]
 * How another editor describes the article: [...] I realise now this article intentionally presents the theories seperately from the evidence [...]
 * Another editor's take on how confusing the content of the article is: [...] I think part of the confusion that I experienced reading the article is that the two theories are occasionally mentioned in the same paragraph, with no clear division between the two.[...]
 * Again, the same editor providing a reader's perspective: [...] so I might not be able to add much to this other than offer the perspective of the reader. If there are two conflicting and contrasting theories about the history of Romanian, the two theories should be kept somewhat separate within the article, and it should be clear at any point which theory is being explained. It is not clear which theory is being discussed in the paragraph in question, and adding a single sentence about the other theory only makes things more confusing, rather than adding balance. [...]

So, as you can see, the independent editors are in full and unanimous agreement that the structure of the article needs to change (as is my view). In light of this, and in order to bring edit warring to an end, I already filed for a dispute resolution (it went nowhere unfortunately because apparently the Mediation Committee was disbanded recently), and then for an RfC (pending). I think it should be clear to anyone that my intent (as evidenced by my actions) is to solve the current issues, and not engage in time-wasting edit warring or promoting any kind of agenda. Furthermore, as I stated before in the dispute resolution comments, I'm willing to abide by whatever the "moderators" decide. As you can see, I have hardly made any edits lately and I believe it'd be wise to allow the (currently pending) RfC to conclude properly, seeing as we've all come this far.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to Borsoka: Leveling false accusations will not help create a good editing environment. This editor however has contrived to create a false narrative by misinterpreting my edits/statements. The whole discussion he's referring to can be read here for all to see, where my edit in question is clearly this, which as you can see by reading the discussion was not about "ignoring facts" but was actually a "statement of fact" (as that editor did not partake in all discussions, including the most important ones). Having mostly Romanian and Hungarian editors involved is par for the course, considering most WP:RS are in Romanian and Hungarian (not exactly two languages of wide circulation), so making that observation has nothing to do with "nationalism" but with common sense. I've always been respectful of all editors, as one can see by going through my edit history. Moreover, a "bludgeoning" charge from 7 months ago cannot reflect on all my recent edits just because one editor (Borsoka) feels that way. After we all got hit with blocks (including Borsoka), the admin folks suggested that we bring up any issues to the Talk pages, and that's exactly what I was doing. If opening a conversation about an issue and talking with the other editors to try to achieve consensus counts as "bludgeoning" in that editor's opinion, then maybe he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia. Again, this whole debate is not about the false narrative of nationalistic impulses, but rather it's simply about structure (as anyone taking a cursory look at the article will not fail to notice). It's about building a better encyclopedia. p.s. the "independent editors" mentioned above have been notified of the pending RfC (except the editor who already "moderated" another RfC).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to  Sandstein   : Thanks for taking the time, just wondering why not just tag my edits until I establish a better track record? Seems harsh to jump straight to a topic-ban, especially while we're in the middle of an RfC about the very subject of this heated debate.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Response to EdJohnston: Thanks for your comment. Honestly, if I were you I'd probably be thinking along the same lines: SPA's = BAD, and many of the signs here do point towards yet another "one of those nationalistic" debates. However, I want to assure you that that's not the case. While SPA's might fall into that category 99 times out of a hundred, there are exceptions, and this is one of them. The entire debate is (and has been almost from get-go) about the structure of the article, which is flawed for all to see. If I'm somehow at fault for "the latest round of disagreements" for the simple reason that I've tried to do something about an issue several independent editors (see above) have agreed on, then I'm guilty as charged. In my naiveté I thought the editors' job was to improve the state of Wikipedia articles. Again, I'm the one who sought dispute resolutions in order to create a sound editing environment and avoid edit warring (see above) and we're currently in the middle of an RfC regarding the very issue of restructuring the article, where we (editors from both sides of the argument) are working on a draft of the article in order to create a structure that works. As such, I can't help but wonder at the timing and wisdom of these proposed sanctions, seeing as this is the closest we've come to a solution since the whole debate started. Trust me, my interests are varied and the last thing I want is to spend 2 hours a day editing on this topic. When this structure thing is settled I will voluntarily take a 6 month break from it and focus on other subjects.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Borsoka
I agree that Iovaniorgovan is not here to build an encyclopedia. He regards WP as a battleground between Romanian and Hungarian editors, clearly ignoring facts which contradict his assumption. His bludgeoging tactics which have already been noticed by other editors  clearly show that he does not want to reach a compromise, but to push his own PoV. He has been quoting cherrypicked texts from other editors for weeks (as he does above), but he fails to ping the same editors to confirm (or disapprove) his conclusions. I agree that he should improve his abilities to cooperate in other articles before returining to his favorite (actually, single) topic in WP. Borsoka (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I would appreciate if you pinged all editors whose words you have been referring to when defending your case. You only pinged two of them. You also informed only one of the wikiprojects which are interested in the article. Interestingly, your choice was WikiprojectRomania. Have you realized that you are on the edge of a topic ban? Do you think that this canvassing does support you ? Borsoka (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment., all editors but two want to avoid a structure which requires the repetitions of the same facts and arguments, because WP is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias do not repeat the same facts and arguments twice or three times. I suggest you should accept this approach to reach a compromise. Borsoka (talk)

Statement by Tgeorgescu
is precisely the same story as, but with admigration theory instead of Dacian continuity theory. I will let you research his activity and you should make up your own mind if another arbitration enforcement would be required. I prefer that somebody else, with more authority, collects the evidence for it, since I do not want to receive all the blame for the likely topic ban. Oh, yes, both editors are quite fond of WP:PROXY. I don't have a dog in the fight among the three theories. Equilibrium (truce, stalemate) is all we have and all we will have, so bickering about this is much ado about nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

is also a WP:SPA, so following your reasoning he would qualify for a similar ban. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

When Iovaniorgovan was asked at to retract with and that accusation that I would be paranoid, he replied with. I guess that's what people call gaslighting. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Iovaniorgovan

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


 * I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.  Sandstein   08:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * With respect to, a separate enforcement request would be needed setting out, among other things, that the awareness requirements are met.  Sandstein   10:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Over time, there has been a lot of disputing at Origin of the Romanians. Clearly the latest round of disagreement has been touched off by the arrival of User:Iovaniorgovan (about 4/15/18) and User:Cealicuca (early July) at the article. Both of these editors are WP:Single purpose accounts. When we notice SPAs working on hot-button articles that are prey to nationalist emotions, we expect that these editors ought to behave with extreme correctness if they want to continue. Rather than extreme correctness, we see a lot of editing that appears non-neutral. (Also a ridiculous response to being given a routine uw-3rr template). So I support User:Sandstein's recommendation for a topic ban of Iovaniorgovan, though my advice is to make the ban be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE. The ban should be indefinite, though I agree with Sandstein it might be appealed after six months if 'they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.' EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ed: indefinite ban from making any edits related to Eastern Europe, appealable in six months. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be imposing the topic ban limited to Origin of the Romanians because there is no evidence of disruption outside this topic. This does not prevent another admin extending the topic ban's scope if they believe this to be appropriate.  Sandstein   19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca
''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 Cealicuca

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Macedonia or Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe.


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


 * 1) Latest edit	2018-12-07 16:31 Evidence of being a WP:SPA: most edits at Origin of the Romanians and the rest of article edits (which are not many) regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes, except for, which is about Romanian nationalism, broadly construed. Since that is for now the only germane point, I kindly ask to do the honors of providing more evidence if it would become needed. Anyway, if nobody else will do it, I will do it.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

48 hours block for edit warring (27 November 2018).


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

(27 November 2018) and (4 May 2018).


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

wrote I lack the topic-area knowledge to be able to determine whether this is merely a good-faith content dispute or nationalist POV pushing. However, I can look at Iovaniorgovan's contributions and determine that they are indeed a WP:SPA. Single-purpose accounts are almost always a bad sign, particularly in hotly contested topic areas. On that basis alone, I would topic-ban Iovaniorgovan from Origin of the Romanians until they have a track record of at least six months productive editing in some unrelated topic area.

Since is a WP:SPA same applies to him.

Explanation why that diff is nationalism, broadly construed: it basically says "We're not Russkies."

Additional reply: I won't go into details, but for Romanian identity it is very important that we aren't Slavs. I knew from the beginning that and  will be topic banned, but I tried to teach them the WP:RULES, etiquette (what we consider not done) and that they are WP:SPA. I wanted that they are given the chance to understand why they get banned and given a chance to better their ways in order to avoid it. They had enough time to learn from what I told them, but they chose to ignore it. If they will cease breaking WP:RULES and pushing POVs, I will have nothing against them.

Newbies rejecting honest criticism is never a good sign.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Cealicuca
''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 Cealicuca
I would respectfully ask the administrators as well as Tgeorgescu for some time (say a week, but more likely less) for me to come back with a full and comprehensive answer to this. In the mean time, and Tgeorgescu can make sure of this, I will not  touch any article on Wikipedia, nor will I participate in discussions on any Talk page. This would ensure that the time I'm asking for would not mean letting me disrupt any article or talk page. I hope this is an acceptable request.

Thank you.


 * Ah, I see. Well, since my request is unacceptable, then I would point out, for the time being, to the following:


 * My account is 6-7 months old. I wonder how many editors start basically on an article, only to later "expand" to other articles.


 * Being very present (and frankly eating up all my time) on the Origin of Romanians talk page is both my choice (obviously) but also related to other factors I hope I can expand on soon. And it's also an accident - since it was purely chance that I decided to contribute. Of course, I thought that it's common sense to do that on the talk page, rather than going in the article itself. Oh how wrong I was...


 * I appreciate Tgeorgescu's concern, but let's do a comparison to other editors on that page, for the past 6-7 months. For example this is Borsoka's activity, with a majority of edits on the same article and an overwhelming majority of edits on the talk page. This, although his account is 10 years long (about 17 times more "time" than mine).


 * I am surprised of Tgeorgescu arguing my edit here is related to nationalism. I would be curious to see the argumentation.


 * Also, although I was indeed involved in edit wars, I was not the only one. Again, Borsoka (who's help Tgeorgescu asked) was received an arbitration "remedy" for Eastern Europe here, as well as several recent blocks (just like me), the latest seen here. You can even compare a little bit my activity to Borsoka's, on that specific page. Can't tell the difference, really. If you can't, look here. Borsoka seems to be a lot more active, both on the page as well as on the Talk page. So why the double measure?


 * For this specific accusation "and the rest of article edits [...] regard Romanian-Hungarian disputes", I will not answer (completely) right now. But it's a good thing that you mentioned this, since it helps me a lot. Thank you.


 * And the last thing... as I am well aware of just how much time this sterile and toxic article eats up, I have already tried to diversify. Some of my latest edits have tried to steer away from the article, and I've also acquired some new books which I intend to use as sources. Martin Gilbert's "The First World War: A complete history" (one of the best sources on WW1), Glenn E. Torey - The Romanian Battlefront in World War 1 (yet another exceptional source). Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages is yet another source I will be able to consult. So yes, I fully intend on diversifying.Cealicuca (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Changing the name of the category from "Slavic language" to "Slavic influence", for the Romanian language, is nationalism?!?...Cealicuca (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Borsoka
, thank you for the statistics about my activities in WP. I did not know that such a tool exists. It is a nice surprise for my coming 10th birthday in WP. Sorry, I do not comment your above remarks relating to me. I have several times asked you to report me at the relevant notice boards if you think that I deliberately ignore basic WP policies. Borsoka (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Cealicuca

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


 * As in the case regarding Iovaniorgovan above, I am of the view that discretionary sanctions topic areas are not a good place for single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting a particular point of view. Cealicuca has not contested being such an account. A more detailed statement by Cealicuca, for which Cealicuca requests more time, is not needed. I would therefore also topic-ban Cealicuca from Origin of the Romanians until they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas.   Sandstein   12:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As argued in my post on the Iovaniorgovan complaint, I support Sandstein's proposal of a topic ban of Cealicuca, but suggest that it be from all topics covered by WP:ARBEE and not just from Origin of the Romanians. The ban could be appealed after six months per Sandsteins's condition that 'they demonstrate productive editing in other topic areas'. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here as well I agree with Ed: indefinite ban from making any edits related to Eastern Europe, appealable in six months. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will be imposing the topic ban limited to Origin of the Romanians because there is no evidence of disruption outside this topic. This does not prevent another admin extending the topic ban's scope if they believe this to be appropriate.  Sandstein   19:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

MarkBernstein
''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 MarkBernstein

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate
 * 14 April 2016 topic ban from Gamergate


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


 * 1) 23:50, 14 December 2018 violation of topic ban
 * 2) 00:34, 15 December 2018 violation of topic ban


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) 14 April 2016 topic ban from Gamergate
 * 2) 15 May 2016 1 week block for topic ban violation
 * 3) 22 May 2016 6 weeks block for topic ban violation
 * 4) 9 September 2016 6 months block for topic ban violation
 * 5) 11 December 2017 1 year block for topic ban violation

just came off from a 1 year block from violating his topic ban and apparently his two first edits were topic ban violations.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

He is "prohibited from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.".

Milo Yiannopoulos has a whole chapter on Gamergate. Pinging admin who placed the topic ban and did the last block. --Pudeo (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning MarkBernstein
''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 MarkBernstein
I am very sorry to see this — and only learned of it when a Wikipedian emailed me this morning.

I had made, in passing, what I thought to be a completely uncontroversial contribution to a discussion about a public figure. Editors were disputing whether or not Buzzfeed was a reliable source and were proposing an RfC; a few moments’ with Google uncovered a number of alternative sources for the detail in question.

I had simply forgotten that, at one time, the gentleman whose biography was being discussed had been known in connection with Gamergate. In the intervening years, he has become known for much else. I honestly don’t recall — I certainly did not recall at the time — what he had once said about Gamergate, or where he had said it. Nothing in the topic under discussion served to remind me.

I did not think it would be disruptive, when editors heatedly were discussing the viability of a citation, to offer an alternate source. I thought that this was an opportunity to improve to encyclopedia by locating better sources for a reference some considered doubtful, and by doing so to avoid unnecessary and unhelpful contention in the community.

I do not wish to say too much of myself, as I myself appear to fall under the topic ban! Nevertheless, if I may go so far: I see that I was quite wrong in my thinking, and I heartily apologize. In the event you permit it, I will not make the same mistake again. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
This is an extraordinarily blatant violation, but as it's coming off of a block that is so long, I can imagine that he might have in-good-faith thought the topic ban was no longer in effect, or forgotten that topic bans also apply to talk pages. If he promises to abide by his existing Gamergate topic ban and additionally a post-1932 American Politics one (as there is quite a bit of overlap, the additional TBAN will decrease the chance of an inadvertent violation), I think there is a chance he can still contribute constructively. If he ignores this thread and makes even a single additional edit in the topic area, I see no other options beyond an indef block. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 04:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Liz
I know that many topic bans are considered to be broadly applied but the edits that Bernstein did concerned white nationalism, not Gamergate. Just because a topic has associations with a subject, if an editor doesn't edit about the stated topic, is it considered a violation? As a participant in the Gamergate controversy in 2014-2015, I would argue that the political subject of white nationalism and Nazism has little to no direct association with Gamergate and gender controversies. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

 * the violation stems from the wording of the GamerGate sanction: "...prohibited from ... editing any page relating to ... people associated with [Gamergate]". Given that this is an unusual formulation, I would like MarkBernstein to be heard before a sanction is applied, but it is a violation. Vanamonde (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The t-ban was imposed here, and logged here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fish and karate
The "recent" blocks (ie, those enforced a year ago, and about 18 months ago) are for editing articles, is the wording sufficiently clear that this ban encompasses article talk pages also? If so, then it's a breach of the topic ban. <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 10:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo
The diff you're looking for is. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;  Discuss  11:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Sanction as enacted:
 * You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed

Article that was the focus of these comments and edits was Milo Yiannopoulos. So the only actual question is whether Yiannopoulos is a figure associated with GamerGate or any gender-related dispute or controversy. That seems unarguable to me: not only was Yiannopoulos involved in GamerGate (e.g. publishing leaked discussions between gaming journalists), he is also a walking gender-related dispute or controversy.

We might be inclined to AGF, but after all these blocks and bans there is no real room for it. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
In the discussion here the admin who placed the sanction did not consider edits to the Milo page as a violation. Presumably MarkBernstein does not consider Milo to fall under the topic ban either, so perhaps in lieu of another block I would propose the topic ban to be expanded to explicitly cover that page. Dr. Bernstein has done vital work in the past protecting Wikipedia from BLP violations. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
MB admitted he messed up & won't do it again. Therefore, I'd say no to a indef ban. Perhaps a 1-month block will do. Most importantly, we must be careful not to punitively block/ban an individual. Bans & blocks are to be preventative measures. GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning MarkBernstein

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


 * That's a very clear breach of the topic ban. My only question is whether to block for another year or whether to extend that to indefinite with the first year under AE provisions? Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the history of violations, not all of them resulting in blocks, and the editing which led to the restriction in the first place, I do not believe Mark Bernstein is able to contribute constructively while avoiding the area of his topic ban. If he were so able he would have done so after returning form the 1-week, 6-week, or 6-month blocks before even getting to the 1-year one. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering they just came back from a year block and engaged in the same behavior for which they've been blocked multiple times, I think extending it to indefinite makes the most sense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't make a determination here until the requesting editor links to the decision that imposed the actual topic ban that is to be enforced.  Sandstein   10:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was prominently linked as the first in the list of previous sanctions, but for your benefit I've copied it to the section you didn't look beyond as well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the topic ban that is to be enforced, but an AE thread from which it resulted. What we need to be able to assess the situation is a diff of the sanction as it was posted to MarkBernstein's user talk page by the enforcing admin. Only that diff contains and verifies the exact wording to which MarkBernstein is bound and which we are now called on to enforce.  Sandstein   11:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks to those who posted the diff. The sanction reads in relevant part: "prohibited from ... editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, ... (c) people associated with (a)". Milo Yiannopoulos is a person associated with Gamergate because there is a section about Gamergate in the article about Milo Yiannopoulos. The page Talk:Milo Yiannopoulos, which MarkBernstein edited in the reported diffs, is a page relating to Milo Yiannopoulos, and therefore a page relating to a person associated with Gamergate. This means that MarkBernstein violated the topic ban. As usual, I would double the duration of the most recent block, and therefore impose a two-year block (of which one year, the maximum allowed, under AE authority).  Sandstein   11:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking into consideration MarkBernstein's statement, I'd now leave it to the banning admin,, to determine what to do. I am not convinced that a block is urgently needed.  Sandstein   17:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Sandstein, User:The Wordsmith is not currently active. As you point out, a block is not urgently needed but the situation regarding MarkBernstein needs to be settled down in some way. The fact that the same problems keep on recurring is what keeps the issue alive. He is obviously well-intentioned but that doesn't keep him from constantly bumping into whatever the current limits are on his editing. To avoid an endless circle, I'd propose another one-year block under AE authority. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by PeterTheFourth
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" 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 : – PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : MarkBernstein is blocked indefinitely; for the first year, the block will be an AE action.

One year AE block for allegedly violating a topic ban from Gamergate, imposed in this diff.


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by PeterTheFourth
The editor who imposed the topic ban that MarkBernstein is allegedly violating,, said that prior edits to Milo Yiannopoulous were not violations as they did not relate to Gamergate ( the topic that MarkBernstein is banned from.) They said that here. Given that, I would think that it is reasonable for MarkBernstein to believe that other edits unrelated to Gamergate to the talk page of Milo Yiannopoulous would not be topic ban violations, and unreasonable to indefinitely ban him for such. Let alone barely 12 hours since the AE request had been filed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Would not give the best odds to civility policeofficer Pudeo being the best at judging consensus. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did ask permission from MarkBernstein - as he is blocked, he can't post here. Would you like him to 'state this in his own words' so I can copy paste it here? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo
This is a bad faith appeal by PeterTheFourth who made a personal attack on prior to filing this: given the boneheaded stupidity of the above by somebody who seems to only sit around on Wikipedia to indulge in the fantasy of being an authority figure (I looked for edits unrelated to them being an admin and couldn't find em as long as 10 months back) I'd be perfectly happy to start an AE appeal if you were okay with that.

The consensus by editors and administrators was that it was a breach of topic ban. Yes, the May 2017 comment by The Wordsmith (who's currently inactive) is at odd with this. But Milo Yiannopoulos is clearly a person associated wtih Gamergate or gender-related disputes as he pretty much gained his fame covering Gamergate (Milo Yiannopoulos). The topic ban is meant to be that broad, because people would edit-war these biographies based on Gamergate connections and it's just one "social justice issue" that's controversial about them. This was the fifth topic ban violation, so those are escalating blocks and it's hard to assume good faith anymore. --Pudeo (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by PeterTheFourth

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


 * The appeal is inadmissible. Per WP:AC/DS, only the sanctioned user themselves may appeal a sanction.  Sandstein   23:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Obtaining permission to appeal on behalf of another user is not enough. The sanctioned user must formulate an appeal in their own words, and then somebody can copy it to AE. We want to know what the sanctioned user has to say, not anybody else.  Sandstein   00:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneful
''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 Ivar the Boneful

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles :


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


 * 1) 17:16, 20 December 2018‎ 1 Revert
 * 2) 05:41, 21 December 2018‎ 2 Revert


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


 * 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):


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 05:53, 21 December 2018


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

User:Ivar the Boneful Where did I said that you continued to edit the article? I only said that you continued your edits in Wikipedia and ignored the warning.Are you willing to self revert or not? --Shrike (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The user was warned after the last revert was done and asked for self revert yet he ignored the request and continued his edits . --Shrike (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If the user will self-revert I will withdraw the request --Shrike (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ivar the Boneful Now you know that the article under 1RR so please self-revert --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ivar the Boneful I already explained that after you was asked to self revert you continued to edit the Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Galobtter Then please remove the talk page notice about relation to the conflict. --Shrike (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A talk page notice was added by user:Zero0000 --Shrike (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2018 (UTC)



Discussion concerning Ivar the Boneful
''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 Ivar the Boneful

 * User:Shrike that's totally false. I haven't made any further edits to that page. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I've got no idea why an article about an American Jewish organisation falls under special Israel/Palestine rules, but if that's the case I'm happy to abide by them ... as demonstrated by the fact that I haven't made edits to the page since receiving a notice that it was under 1RR. User:Shrike's timestamps above clearly demonstrate this. Shrike should withdraw this request for a block as groundless. Shrike also claimed I was asked to self-revert and ignored it, which no one has asked me to do until now. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Your opening statement says that I "ignored the request and continued [my] edits". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How could I have "ignored the warning" when it was delivered twelve minutes after the edit you're claiming was a violation? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Shrike Self-reverting to your preferred side of the content dispute would vindicate your decision to file a vexatious ARBCOM request, so no I won't do that. You still haven't addressed why you falsely claimed that I continued editing after being warned about 1RRR. I don't care if it's a deliberate lie or you just misread the edit times, it should still be withdrawn. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Suggest no action, article is not under ARBPIA, and talk page discussions are ongoing, Ivar should not have reverted while discussions are ongoing.
 * I have removed the AE template from the page. It should not have been placed on the page in the first place, it was also never logged which means it was not placed appropriately. The page is not subject to AE sanctions since the ADL page is not an AE subject area. The subject is mostly US Jewish relations and while it might have some IP conflict area, that does not make the entire page subject to AE sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Ivar the Boneful

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


 * I've moved Ivar's comment to his section. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like no violation to me. The alert was given after the purported violation and while some of the text being disputed does seem related to ARBPIA, 1RR applies to pages "that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". I don't believe that the anti-defamation league as a whole is reasonably construed to be related to the conflict, ergo no violation. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Sandstein   19:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Infoman182
''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 Infoman182

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE : specifically violation of WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, and WP:NOHOAXES


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


 * 1) 13:11, 26 December 2018 Casting aspersions, possible admission of WP:WIKIHOUNDING
 * 2) 14:27, 26 December 2018 Personal attack, casting aspersions
 * 3) 13:47, 26 December 2018+13:45, 26 December 2018 un-sourced antisemitic WP:HOAX content (no participation in talk (where this was explained), removal was clearly marked as "not historical"). Casimir III the Great is a historical figure (as are his wives and consorts). Esterka is a mythical figure, invented some 100 years after Casimir's death - a supposed Jewish mistress or concubine, which is widely featured in antisemitic literature. Accusation of rudeness is a bit personal as well, and off base given that finding sources calling the mythical Esterka a concubine is not hard at all. In any case - we have a false myth, long promulgated in antisemitic literature, presented as factual in a Wikipedia article on a historical figure.


 * 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): 12:50, 26 December 2018


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I restricted contents of this complaint to edits made after the user was alerted to discretionary sanctions. This user (created in 2016) has 34 total edits.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : notified

Discussion concerning Infoman182
''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 Sir Joseph
The lead of Esterka ends with "The legend of Esterka was a permanent fixture in Polish antisemitic literature.[2] In reality, the anti-Semitic tradition of blaming Esterka for Jewish privileges granted by Casimir is known to have been started by Jan Długosz, some one hundred years after the supposed events." It's clear that someone here has an agenda to push. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
(Something to note, not a statement) - Heated dialogue took place within user's own talk page space, and was opened by a filing editor. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Infoman182

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


 * Well, this certainly leaves something to be desired. From that discussion, you can see that he is fairly pugnacious, casting aspersions and making personal attacks. In addition to that, the edits he made prior to the warning seem biased  which can still be taken into account when determining what action to take, although they cannot form the sole basis on which a sanction is justified. And I get the same impression from the other edits made after the warning. For these reasons, I am minded to impose a topic ban.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with a Poland-related topic ban. The "Esterka" matter is mainly a content dispute, but an editor with all of 34 edits who engages in this kind of aggressive, uncollegial conduct is clearly a net negative for Wikipedia.  Sandstein   21:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to a ban from all Poland-related topics until this user reaches the EC threshold. Go do some other stuff and show you can get on with people. GoldenRing (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)