Page semi-protected


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weighing scales

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Zero0000 at 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Information about amendment request
  • Remove ambiguity

Statement by Zero0000

The sentence "Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required." literally says that non-extended-confirmed editors may delete new articles. This was certainly not the intention. To remove this ambiguity I suggest the insertion of one word: "Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required."

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I also doubt there has been actual confusion. I see this only as a little bit of cleanup that should be carried out on the principle that rules should really say what everyone assumes them to say. Zerotalk 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JJE

Well, has there been actual confusion because of this ambiguity? It doesn't sound likely. And if there was, should this be folded into the pending case on this topic area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • While it does not seem like the current wording has been problematic yet and it is technically impossible for non-admins to delete articles, I am fine with the suggestion of adding 'created' to clarify to what by is referring. Mkdw talk 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I too have no problem with this change. I'm aware. though, that we're about to open ARBPIA4 to review all remedies - as this hasn't been misinterpreted in the past, I think it's something that would be best covered there. WormTT(talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    Zero0000 would you mind raising this at WP:ARBPIA4 so that it doesn't get lost? IF so, I think we can close this and deal with all together. WormTT(talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The change makes sense to me -- agreed that it's confusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be an uncontroversial clarification, I'm okay with it. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur that this matter is best addressed in WP:ARBPIA4. AGK ■ 20:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Initiated by TonyBallioni at 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TonyBallioni

Buffs is currently interpreting WP:ECP to state that admins must either declare protection is for disruptive editing, or apply it under DS. He has taken to requesting logging of ECPs on BLPs at WP:AELOG based on the ruling at WP:NEWBLPBAN. I am requesting the committee clarify whether the practice of using the standard Twinkle drop down Violations of the biographies of living persons policy requires logging at WP:AELOG if it is not intended as a discretionary sanction and it complies with the rest of the policy at WP:ECP. The committee could also clarify whether all actions taken to enforce the BLP policy are under DS or whether the current practice of enforcing it as normal admin actions is fine. I'm sorry to bother you all with this, but since all of his user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP, I'd prefer the committee clarify this before it gets any further. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not really sure how this is an end-run around ARBPIA4 (which I’ve ignored.) We have someone saying that using the Twinkle defaults for BLP protection requires logging, and when approached about it maintains that is the position. If Buffs is going to continue policing ECP (he can if he wants), there should be clarity on what is actually the standard outside of ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Buff's. The reason this is at ARCA is because you said While the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)} (diff)
You also told Risker If you are invoking protection of the article because it's BLP]], you need to log such actions here. Please do so. (diff)
You are saying that you are fine with this now that we are at ARCA, but the fact is that your most persistent activity of the last few weeks on Wikipedia has been policing the use of ECP. As I said, that's fine. What I have an issue with is you making up a requirement that all BLP protections must be logged, telling admins this, and when it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, you responding that you aren't. You have said on two occasions that ArbCom requires ECP of BLPs to be logged.
When I questioned you on it, you didn't back down and instead said Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. (diff).
As for your objections: when someone has made it their mission on Wikipedia to enforce policy on something, are incorrect on what the policy says, and invokes ArbCom as a reason for their position when ArbCom has said nothing of the sort, the place you go to ask for clarification is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs

Well, that's a terribly biased and misleading interpretation of events.

First of all, to state that "all of [my] user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP" is beyond a stretch of the truth. In the only two specific instances he mentioned to me on my user page, the first had no rationale listed whatsoever. I asked for clarification and reminded him that, if it was under DS, to file it in the appropriate logs (even going so far as to provide a link to make it easier should that be the rationale). He stated that he probably overstepped where the protection needed to be. In the other, I asked for clarification and the Admin apparently felt it WAS under WP:DS and filed it under the logs as he should do so. In both instances, I felt such actions were appropriate and it was handled as it should have been.

Second, yes, I've asked for others to be more clear and, if necessary, to log such actions in accordance with ArbCom directives. In most instances, an admin says " have a point there" and it's either clarified, clarified and logged, or any of a number of other actions which amount to  Done. To demonize all such conversations as super-literal policing of the use of ECP is beyond what anyone could objectively say is an accurate summary of events and is quite uncivil, IMNSHO.

Third, it seems quite obvious that the requirements for DS and ArbCom decisions are not being properly logged. You need to look no further than the first page of over 1800 ECP'd pages to see that there are dozens of pages under ArbCom rulings that are not logged anywhere. When notified, most admins go "Gee, you have a point there. I'll fix that!" Some have dug their heels in and said "No, I'm not going to do that". I haven't pursued such actions beyond a one-on-one conversation because of ongoing ArbCom discussion and clarification that's already underway. Bringing this here seems to be an attempt to end-run around that discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, this falls under both ArbCom rulings (not just BLP) AND community consensus at WP:ECP. Please keep that in mind in your deliberations/conversations. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Buffs Responses to comments

  • KrakatoaKatie I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy
    Third paragraph of WP:ECP
    So, somewhere between Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state.
    @Worm That Turned: The point is that ECP is indeed applied for DS reasons. If you're saying the third paragraph no longer applies and admins can just do whatever they want, why bother having a policy at all?
  • I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are
    Then I respectfully submit you aren't looking hard enough:
  • If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it...
    Agree 100%
  • it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS.
    Which is why I have a problem with the way this was initially brought to AFCA. I never said it was. This is no more than a straw man argument. There are hundreds of pages on the list of ECP protected pages which are BLPs that have nothing to do with ArbCom/DS. I don't have a problem with any of them. It's very clear from the edit summaries that WP:DE is a significant problem.
  • If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me.
    Likewise. I never said otherwise. Buffs (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem.
    I'm sorry. I guess I thought we were on a site where the policies actually mattered. I guess us mere peons have to follow the rules to the letter and intent doesn't matter while admins get all sorts of leeway? Last I checked, WP:AC/DS still applies. Specifically: "While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not...repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". Saying that no one can even ask removes that layer of accountability to the community as a whole. Buffs (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ...some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all...
    So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log.
    AGK I never said they were and I don't see anyone advocating as such. An analogy: police officer arrests someone but puts the cuffs on too tight. I'm asking for the cops to make sure the cuffs are the proper tightness, not invalidate the arrest.
  • The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself.
    AGK I would have done that LONG ago if the rules didn't preclude that: "All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged by the administrator who applied the sanction or page restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log." Likewise, this is very clearly defined as a role of administrators, not editors. I find it odd that no one is even discussing sanctioning admins when WP:AC/DS states "While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not...repeatedly fail to log sanctions...Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee considers appropriate..." Buffs (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

My understanding is that ECP (30/500 protection) can be applied by an admin in either of these cases:

  1. In certain topics specified by Arbcom.
  2. In any topic if certain conditions (other methods are ineffective) are met.

In the first case, another admin must not change the protection as it is a discretionary sanction, and the action should be logged. The second case is a normal admin action which can be changed by another admin, and there is no log but pages are automatically listed at WP:AN. See the ECP RfC. Applying ECP is like any admin action—it might be reasonable to ask an admin why they had taken the action. However, it should be assumed that the first case applies if and only if mentioned in the edit summary. Admins have to take a lot of actions and requiring a discussion should be rare. In the second case, if there is reason to think that page protection should be reduced, ask the admin to do that or make a request at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Admins were notified regarding ECP on 23 September 2016: example. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Like the others who have posted, I suggest that Buffs drop this matter. The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Buffs appears to want to make it one. No thanks. Guy (help!) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

With respect to my own protection cited here, the Kurdish set of articles had been a haven for socking-based disruption from confirmed accounts for months before I finally had to apply ECP to a set of related articles, to the relief of regular contributors. Anyway, some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all, so the formality of semiprotecting those articles first just so they could be immediately ECP'd seemed redundant to me. El_C 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here — well, I did, at first, but as I recall, the volume proved to be too great. El_C 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Some more context is available here — it includes Buffs' objection to my application of ECP as well as a comment from another admin, who supported my applying ECP to several Kurdish-related articles. That aside, that this matter is before the Committee —what purview does it have over this?— surprises me. El_C 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

There seems to be some overlap with the items being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop, to follow up on my comments there: uses of page protection that are not explicitly related to active arbitration should be dealt with in standard community venues. If the use of protection outside of remedies has truly risen through dispute resolution without a solution emerging it should be dealt with as its own case and not shoehorned on to an old case that primarily dealt with behavior over a different issue. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Blackmane

Having been involved in the original discussion (and in fact I was the one that suggested that the WP:AN notification be required. Credit goes to MusikAnimal for the hard work though) on implementing ECP as a discretionary measure I would note that the whole point of the notification list at WP:AN was precisely so that there was a log of all ECP's that were levied, irrespective of what they were levied for. Requiring admins to log it elsewhere _as well as it being automatically logged at AN_ is just a box ticking exercise which adds virtually no value. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

@Blackmane: while logging of discretionary sanctions for this situation is a pretty tiny benefit for most instances (how often are these sanctions modified?), due to the rigid rules surrounding arbitration enforcement, it's still welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I wrote the RFC to expand ECP. Option C, which became the bones of the current policy, states that ECP may be used to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. A bot currently handles that AN notification. I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy, and I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are. If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it, but it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS. (I don't think I've ever done it as a DS, but I could be wrong.) If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me. Katietalk 00:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with Katie above. ECP's usage has expanded far beyond DS over the years, and that RfC was the start. Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state. I accept that there are a number of rationales which are subpar, however that's not a question for ARCA. It's a question for the admins who placed ECP those rationale - we also have RFPP and AN if it cannot be resolved with the admin in question. For a review of ECP on a wider scale, can I suggest an RfC? At any rate, I'm not seeing the problem that needs to be clarified from an Arbcom perspective. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would think the current practice would be if an editor does not expressly state ECP is being applied as an arbitration enforcement relating to discretionary sanctions, it would be assumed it is a regular application of ECP. Mkdw talk 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Per Mkdw. I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log. The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself. AGK ■ 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Sexology

Initiated by Jokestress at 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Sexology arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Lift of topic ban

Statement by Jokestress

I'd like this topic ban reviewed, please. My many created articles on value-neutral scientific concepts in sexuality have stood the test of time as NPOV helpful contributions. Example: Androphilia and gynephilia has hundreds of readers daily, and the terms remain widely used by ethical researchers despite the failed attempt to get it deleted here. The graphics I created for that article have been used in books. The sexologists who disagree with me [81] had their clinic shut down [82] since I was last editing. They and their like-minded allies still remain active editors here. Wikipedia has not kept up with the advances in the field. A few editors with very rigid medicalized views on sex and gender minorities maintain ownership of this subject area, causing our coverage to lag behind the published literature. It bothers me to see such an important topic become so outdated. I promise to be nice and not get frustrated with anonymous editors even when they deadname me, misgender me, and so on. I realize it just goes with the territory of using your real name. Sexuality was a small part of my edit history, but it is an area where I have extensive knowledge. Hope I did this right! Jokestress (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Re Floq, my point in the example given is that my editing in human sexuality has resulted in more balanced coverage and viewpoint diversity that reflects the published literature, not just in science but in all fields of academic inquiry. I am a longtime editor in the most controversial academic subject areas like race and intelligence. That debate is very similar in that it is sometimes presented as a "scientific debate" when it is in fact a debate ABOUT science. If Wikipedians treated sex science the way we treat race science, the project would be much more reflective of the published literature. Unfortunately, editors with a medicalized POV have a death grip on the entire subject area. If Wikipedia had been around when "science" claimed gay people had a disease, a gay editor would be in my same position. Since I can't give examples of other editor behavior, just take a look at any article about the intersection of sexuality and consent. If anyone wants some specific examples, my email is open on my profile. I'm once again in a position where I can't elaborate or make my case without breaking some rule. Jokestress (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Re Thryduulf, my POV (scientific consensus) prevailed in the controversy to which you're referring off-wiki, but the other POV (fringe views on human sexuality) prevails here on Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Re Flyer22 and related accounts/IPs, use of the rhetoric "threat to the community" to describe another Wikipedian is the sort of behavior I no longer consider frustrating. I'll ignore it because I want our coverage of human sexuality to reflect the latest published work from all fields of inquiry. Jokestress (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Re Crossroads, the standard Rind bio I wrote [83] is a perfect example of how Wikipedia keeps getting worse because of the small group of editors in this subject area. I have written hundreds of similar biographies after finding a red link somewhere. Crossroads' claim that I added "unnecessary things to make its subject look good" is typical of the kind of aspersions these editors make. I'm not even allowed to respond to such accusations without threats of further action. There is no assumption of good faith for anyone who tries to include reliable sourcing with which they don't agree, no matter how scientific or reliable. No merging of the relevant content from the Rind bio after deletion. Not even a redirect. Wikipedia is demonstrably less useful because of this. Crossroads' other example is too complicated to get into here, but it is another example of a scientific and value-neutral term used by experts that distinguishes three phenomena. I made a little Venn diagram on that page to show how experts think about these topics. I know emotions run high on these topics, but the suggestions that I am "pro-" this or that have been oversighted as actionable libel in the past. It's truly outrageous that even in my absence it doesn't stop. Jokestress (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Re SMcCandlish, every reliable published source I was trying to get included on Wikipedia in 2013 still represents scientific consensus or notable criticism of that consensus. Most of it is still not here. I've sat by for 7 years hoping Wikipedia would catch up with the published literature on sexuality, but here we are, stuck in the 20th century. It seems pretty clear that things won't change until the Wikipedia community takes a hard look at its complicity in perpetuating outdated views on human sexuality. I'm happy to elaborate if I won't get in some sort of trouble for contravening my "punishment." I keep hoping I won't have to do what I did with hemovanadin to try to wake people up around here. That didn't wake anyone up, either. All I got was a lot of angry messages like the ones below, as if I am the problem. We'll see how this discussion goes. Jokestress (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • re Genericusername57, yes! Exactly! ARBpeople, this comment gets to the heart of what I consider the discriminatory practices of this community. Without specifics, I'll simply say that several editors in human sexuality have stated they have "a personal, possibly monetary [professional], conflict of interest" in the outcome of our sexuality coverage. A professional working to get favorable coverage of their fringe views about a sexual minority gets preferential treatment over a member of that minority, even if that minority member is trying to shape articles to reflect expert consensus and notable dissent. This double standard is discriminatory on its face. I was taken out of the equation in 2013, and the problem has only gotten quantifiably worse since then. There is currently a culture war within sexology and a sea change happening in the professional literature that is not reflected in our coverage (with exceptions). Anyone who tries to address this discrepancy here runs into these editors and their sympathetic proxies. As Oldperson observes, these editors are very good at getting their way through sheer numbers and Wikilawyering. They make collaboration so difficult, and the subject matter is so controversial, that even the most seasoned editors stay away by choice or force, leaving them in near-complete control of one of the most vital topics covered on the project. Jokestress (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • re JzG, the hostility and accusations you note are part of the strategy. Uninvolved editors aren't going to collaborate when they are accused of being "pro-pedophile" or worse by the handful of people who control this subject. I can't believe these people are not straight-up banned for using sex offender rhetoric like "threat to the community" to describe other editors. Nothing has changed in 7 years. Jokestress (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • re Aircorn, my 2013 topic ban is on "human sexuality, including biographies." Since most transgender editors were driven from the project during the Sexology and Manning naming dispute Arbcoms in 2013, there's no one left to monitor policy violations on transgender biographies and so on, like today's deadnaming of a trans woman who died yesterday [84]. I'm asking for my topic ban to be lifted because there's a double standard in how we treat editors based on who they are. I also want Arbcom policy clarified and applied equally to all editors. Jokestress (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • re Katie & Joe, yes, that is the problem. I am unable to edit anything in my area of expertise without being accused of this or that. How can I show diffs with evidence of collaboration if I'm not allowed to collaborate? What is my path to forgiveness? I can't even make suggestions on talk pages that uninvolved editors agree with [85] without running into drama. Was it "illegal" for me to remove policy violations at Nikki Araguz today? [86] Was it illegal for me to improve the sourcing? [87] Nikki was even more "controversial" than I am. No one else was going to do it, though. Anyone who cared was driven away in 2013 by two back-to-back Arbcom cases about systemic bias toward sex and gender minorities on this platform. Jokestress (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

Be careful not to violate your interaction ban; there was no need to bring up the AFD created by someone you're banned from talking about. That's a separate sanction. Also, while I'm here, I don't understand how the linked edit demonstrated misgendering; are you objecting to someone refering to you using the singular they? FWIW, I'm not familiar with the details underlying the case, but this request gives off a distinct battleground-ish vibe. I'm fairly confident that is not going to be a successful way to appeal a topic ban imposed for, among other things, previous relentless battleground behavior. Perhaps it isn't too late to self-reflect and change your approach? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jokestress:, you're gaming the system; continuing to edit gender-related talk pages while this appeal of a human sexuality topic ban is going on (per @Aircorn:'s diff [88]), when it is very clear that a majority of people commenting believe that these edits violate that ban (and the few that aren't sure believe the topic ban should be expanded to include it). This is either civil disobedience, or a refusal to get the point. Unless directed not to do so by an Arbitrator, I intend to enforce the existing ArbCom human sexuality topic ban to include gender indentity. Until this ARCA request is resolved one way or the other, the next edit you make to a gender-related article or talk page will result in a 1 week block. This is a violation of an active topic ban, after several clear warnings by several involved AND uninvolved people over the last few days. I'm trying to bend over backwards to allow you to participate in this discussion, so I won't block for that edit, but this is a last warning that you cannot simply ignore an ArbCom topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
pinging @KrakatoaKatie: and @Worm That Turned: to give them an opportunity to tell me not to block next time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Not involved in the subject at all, but I was curious and went back to the FoFs:

I have to agree with Floq that this seems to maintain an air of battleground seen back in those findings of fact. It seems like this editor is too close to the topic, so I'd be wary about removing the topic ban even though it's six years old. Focus on others and inability to address one's own problems after a ban is a good sign the sanction should remain in place. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

I am somewhat familiar with this case, and like Floq and Kingofaces43 I am struck by just how much of a battleground vibe this request gives off. Additionally, one of the findings of fact in this case related to Jokestress' off-wiki behavior: Jokestress is a prominent party to an off-wiki controversy involving human sexuality, in which she has been sharply critical of certain individuals who disagree with her views, and has imported aspects of the controversy into the English Wikipedia to the detriment of the editing environment on sexuality-related articles. I get the distinct impression from this request that they she would do exactly the same again were the topic ban lifted. There is nothing in the case that convinces me they she understood at the time why their her actions were problematic, and I see nothing in this request that convinces me that this has changed.

Accordingly I don't think that lifting the topic ban at this time will be a net positive to the project, and encourage the committee to decline it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

For reasons I cannot comprehend, Jokestess has accused me (on my talk page) of misgendering and being uncivil by using gender neutral pronouns. Nevertheless I have changed the pronouns I used above to avoid taking focus away from the subject of this request: i.e. Jokestress' behaviour that is incompatible with NPOV articles and a collegiate editing environment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jokestress: Firstly reread Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs, as I see no evidence you understand it. Secondly, if people are genuinely being inappropriately labelled paedophiles by editors who control the topic area as you allege then that is indeed a bad thing, but stressing that as your reason for wanting to return to the topic area is just further evidence you haven't left the battleground attitude behind. If there is evidence of the bad behaviour you cite then it will be easy for other editors to find and go through the appropriate dispute resolution processes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: and others re the topic ban scope. My impression from reading the original case and my memories is that the intention was to ban Jokestress from the biographies of people notable for their connection to sexology and other fields related to human sexuality, which would undoubtedly include people and groups notable for LGB activism. I think that it would be beneficial to extend and clarify that to something like Jokestress is indefinitely banned from the topics of human sexuality and gender, including LGBT+ rights and biographical articles about people notable in these topic areas.. I agree that a person simply being transgender should not mean they automatically come within the topic area, for one thing this could cause if Jokestress edits the article about a person who is transgender but does not make this public, especially if she (Jokestress) does not know they are transgender but another editor does. It might also be worth formally reminding Jokestress and others that discretionary sanctions are authorised for "All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed" (these originated in the Manning Name Dispute and GamerGate cases, both of which post-date this one). Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Flyer22 Reborn

I advise everyone to look at this recent ANI thread started by Crossroads, which outlines Jokestress's problematic editing in the areas of human sexuality and gender and how the editor has not changed. Even the above initial post, as noted by two editors before me, shows the same WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Please do not be fooled by several years having passed. As many know, I am one of the most active editors in the pedophilia and child sexual abuse topic areas, if not the most active, and I have helped get a lot of pedophile and child sexual abuse POV-pushers indefinitely blocked. In fact, Alison and I were key in having such editors blocked or alerting WP:ArbCom to these matters, and WP:CHILDPROTECT was created to help combat the issues. Editors such as Herostratus, Legitimus and myself (just a handful of editors) have consistently kept articles, such as Rind et al. controversy, free of POV-pushing from pedophiles, child sexual abusers and others looking to challenge the medicalization of pedophilia or downplay the effects of child sexual abuse. Over the years, some have come back as WP:Socks, and I have dealt with those as well (often with the help of certain CheckUsers, including Alison and Berean Hunter). Jokestress was savvy enough to avoid getting indefinitely blocked for her behavior in these areas, but she did get topic-banned, and for reasons I and others already outlined there. This editor is very much a threat to the community. Jokestress trying to paint this as silencing a transgender person does not cut it. For those of us who were there -- who know how problematic this editor was at pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics, and other topics -- this was never about Jokestress being transgender.

The sexology case clearly concerned transgender issues as well. And human sexuality is a broad topic, which significantly overlaps with gender (including transgender) aspects. We have various articles, including Transvestic fetishism, Gender variance and Childhood gender nonconformity that show this overlap. Childhood gender nonconformity, for example, very much aligns with an eventual gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation. Prospective studies have shown this. Furthermore, even Jokestress's first suggestion at Talk:Detransition shows overlap between sexuality and the transgender topic. But even if one thinks human sexuality doesn't cover detransition, it's still the case that making a comparison to the ex-gay movement, as Jokestress did at Talk:Detransition, is definitely on the subject of human sexuality, and therefore a topic ban violation. I do not see that, given her views (including on our policies and guidelines) and how she notoriously tries to go about getting those views implemented, this editor should be allowed to edit sexual or gender topics. This is a person who considers all medicalization a bad a thing, and has repeatedly tried to undermine Wikipedia rules such as WP:MEDRS. I especially don't see how anyone (except for pedophiles, child sexual abusers, and related POV-pushers) can be comfortable letting this person edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. The "that was years ago" line of thinking does not hold up, as seen by their off-Wikipedia activity and recent behavior once finally back on Wikipedia. Jokestress has not changed in all of these years. Jokestress has simply behaved the same way off Wikipedia. Coming back to Wikipedia and acting the way she has recently acted, including ignoring two warnings about her editing in these areas, and it taking an ANI thread to get her to acknowledge that she should stop, speaks volumes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And regarding this, this, this and this here and at ANI, WanderingWanda, who I have a tempestuous history with, should not be touching my posts. Nowhere did I call Jokestress a pedophile. The post relates to my experience with pedophile and child sexual abuser POV-pushers, and Jokestress having edited in a similar way -- the same exact thing I stated in the ArbCorm case against her. She was problematic in those areas due to her views on pedophilia and child sexual abuse, indeed challenging the medicalization of pedophilia or downplaying the effects of child sexual abuse, which was reiterated by Crossroads in his ANI thread against her. It is the main reason she was topic-banned from sexuality articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Oldperson

I am not at all familiar with the Fae and Jokestress situation, and I do not have a cell phone much less a twitter account. I am cognizant of one thing, that the anti trans editors outnumber and are more active than the pro trans or trans neutral editors. And are quite expert at wp:wikispeak and adept at almost undectable WIKILAWYERING. Thus an opportunity to TBAN a trans advocate increases their ability to push their POV. As regards lumping everything under the topic Human Sexuality is misguided. Pedophilia may have been accepted in ancient Greece and Rome, but it has proven o have harmful/damaging psychological and social effects in the modern age. Some ancient cultures engaged in child sacrifice, but we don't today, I sanction a ban on advocates of pedophilia. But pedophilia is not akin to transsexualism or homosexuality except in the propaganda of many on the religious right. And thus oppose the lumping of transgenderism/transsexuality under the broad umbrella of Human Sexualiity, as much as it might appear to make sense. That or topic bans need to be made narrower and more well defined.Oldperson (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I have read enough about Jokestress' real-world interactions with others who do not wholeheartedly share her views to be uncomfortable with a simple lifting of this ban.

I do not share the evident alarm and hostility of, say, Crossroads, but I do not think that Jokestress is a comfortable fit for the topic area of gender, and especially transgender, despite her being substantially correct in many cases. Guy (help!) 14:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jokestress: for what it's worth, I do not factor those arguments in at all. My judgment is based solely on what you have written yourself. Guy (help!) 16:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Crossroads

I urge the Committee to instead reaffirm the topic ban, and clarify that it includes transgender topics. Transgender topics were an integral part of the case. The discretionary sanctions, though now rescinded as redundant to the GamerGate discretionary sanctions, were authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification. [89]

Jokestress was topic banned for good reason, and all the evidence indicates that she has not changed since that time and will immediately resume her old behavior. Indeed, she already has.

I only started editing Wikipedia in 2018, but when looking at the history of her article Bruce Rind, which was successfully deleted at AfD, I found out about her and read the Sexology arbitration case and many of the links therein. I encourage anyone who wants to weigh in to look for themselves. The evidence page from that case contains even more info. [90] From all this, it is clear that Jokestress takes an inappropriate-for-Wikipedia, completely activist approach to sexuality and gender, one that is anti-science, anti-medical (in contradiction to WP:MEDRS), anti-reliable-sources when those sources are ones she does not like (which is often), and frankly, at times is questionable regarding WP:CHILDPROTECT.

Since she mentions she has created sexuality articles, I will point to her article Adult sexual interest in children. This was deleted at AfD for being a POV fork of Pedophilia.

Some statements made by Jokestress about pedophilia
  • Another major issue with how this is presented is the undue weight we give to the term as co-opted by psychology etc. to describe a disease/disorder. Saying "pedophilia is a disorder" is merely reification of the concept and a violation of WP:NPOV. The term paidophilia existed for centuries before being appropriated by Krafft-Ebing to describe a psychopathology. It's only since the moral panics of the 1970s that a whole cottage industry of catching and "curing" this population emerged. [91]
  • "...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern..." [92] Note: this is a quote by Herostratus of a now deleted article written by Jokestress, who never denied having written those words, and who had just recently created the article. [93]
  • Those interested in getting this policy reviewed should do so at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection and should make no mention of their reasons for involving themselves in this topic, particularly if their sexual interests have any connection with this subject. [94]

After the Sexology case, she left Wikipedia for 6.5 years. During this time, her attitude about the Wikipedia community did not change. She still has the mentality of bending Wikipedia to a certain POV, the hostile us-against-them approach, and her attitude about WP:WINNING, as evidenced by some of her tweets just from the last few months.

  • This @CreativeCommons infographic I made ended up in a 2018 @thamesandhudson book by @sally_hines! One of my dim bulb haters tried & failed to get the accompanying article deleted from @Wikipedia. Support my newest #dataviz - The Transphobia Project: [link] [95]
  • Deletionists continue stripping @Wikipedia of helpful disambiguation pages. Now they are even stripping away redirects that might help young visitors. Amazing to watch the site slowly gutted from within like a termite infestation. #wikipedia [96]
  • Now that @Wikipedia drove away #sex & #gender minorities, deletionists & fringe ideologues have free rein to distort coverage. They even want to delete helpful redirects, having already gutted articles, disambiguation pages, & images. I could be banned just for citing this: [image of transfan definition] [97]

Now, her recent behavior. At her return, after some userspace edits, she went straight to the lead of the article Detransition, adding in that Direct, formal research of "detransition" has shown political parallels between the ex-trans movement and the ex-gay movement. Mentioning the ex-gay movement is editing about human sexuality, hence a topic ban violation. The source for this was an activist article in a predatory journal, and she added other activist non-WP:MEDRS sources as well. On the talk page she claimed This is a classic "phenomenon vs. term" political debate. This biased article reifies a transphobic ideology akin to the ex-gay movement. She continued suggesting activist sources on the talk page, [98][99] even though she had been warned about this likely being a topic ban violation. [100][101]

Both here and at the short-lived recent ANI thread [102] she continues unremorseful with the same attitude. She just referred to "Flyer22 and related accounts/IPs", showing the same combativeness and bad faith assumptions.

Jokestress' latest ploy appears to be claiming that she has to be here to correct Wikipedia's supposedly biased treatment of this topic. This is wrong for at least 4 reasons: (1) The comparison with race issues is a false analogy. Race issues are not a "debate about science"; rather, science refutes racist ideology, and as for so-called race science, as the article linked to says, Scientific racism is a pseudoscientific belief. (2) Like other WP:FRINGE theory pushers, Jokestress is claiming Wikipedia's coverage of a topic is unbalanced and needs her to correct it. However, loading it up with her cherry-picked sources is likely to lead to WP:FALSEBALANCE. (3) There is no reason to think our coverage of sexuality and gender is biased so that she is needed to correct it. I speak from experience that these topics have editors with a wide variety of viewpoints already, including many who are openly LGBT, and the consensus building process works as it should. (4) Even if it were true that our articles were unbalanced, Jokestress is not the person to help us correct it. Her hostile approach will drive editors away. And the sources she adds are poor. [103][104] They are all activist, are opinionated partisan media pieces, and/or from a predatory journal.

We know her behavior patterns; they're documented for us in the previous case. If her topic ban is lifted, our gender and sexuality articles will be loaded up with carefully selected opinionated sources in service of an agenda. Anyone who opposes this will experience opposition until they are driven away or worn down. What do we expect? She is an activist, and activists engage in activism. And as for the articles specifically on pedophilia, with the comments from her quoted above, I'll leave as an exercise for the reader what that will end up like.

Her topic ban should stay, and it should be clarified that it does cover transgender topics. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: To be clear, what is being suggested is not a widening of the topic ban, but rather clarity that it was always meant to be included. Indeed, it is being treated as included already both at ANI and here. Clarity in the topic ban description is needed because this user apparently intends to wikilawyer and edit as close to the edge of her ban as possible. (And in any case, the reasons for her original topic ban apply just as much to transgender topics as to sexuality in the narrow sense.)

I'll briefly address Jokestress' latest comments. Her statement several editors in human sexuality have stated they have "a personal, possibly monetary [professional], conflict of interest" in the outcome of our sexuality coverage. appears to be false; there is no "several" I have ever heard of, and this appears to be a thinly veiled reference just to User:James Cantor, whom she is banned from talking about. Her claims of being indispensible, of most trans editors having been driven away, of a conspiracy of editors having shut down debate, are simply untrue, indeed absurd from my experience in these topics. The issue is not just a lack of evidence of collaboration on her part; it is positive evidence that nothing has changed since last time; that she is actively uninterested in collaborating, but instead in winning, activism, and promotion of fringe views; that she is not sorry for her past behavior; that the same behavior and attitude continues off-wiki; and that it is essentially impossible for her to contribute NPOV content on this topic. As another example of this in particular, check out this enormous "enemies list" style chart on this site [105] titled "academic pathologization of transgender people". -Crossroads- (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

I also ask ArbCom to reaffirm the topic ban, and to clarify that it includes transgender topics, more generally than ArbCom has said this already. While such a clarification that "human sexuality" includes "pages having to do with transgender topics and issues" appeared in the recent-ish Fæ ARCA, that user's restrictions read "human sexuality, broadly construed" and the latter two words are missing from those of Jokestress. This has (quite self-evidently) provided WP:WIKILAWYER wiggling room, and that just needs to be shut down and prevented from happening again the next time someone with a gender-issues axe to grind gets disruptive.

Beyond this, I'll just repeat what I said at Jokestress's user-talk page and the ANI thread: The Detransition edit [106] was a T-ban breach twice over, in being about both transgender and LGB politicized issues, and it severably fell under the WP:AC/DS that pertain to such topics (merged with the GamerGate sanctions).

For an editor T-banned from human sexuality to return to the no. 1 most conflict-generating human sexuality topic on Wikipedia (transgender matters), and head straight for potentially the most controversial subtopic within it (detransitioning), and then draw a comparison (in WP:NOT#FORUM- and WP:SOAPBOX-crossing ways, as a drive-by non sequitur seemingly aimed at controversy not at article improvement) using one of the most controversial subtopics of the LGB subject-space (self-declaration of being formerly homo- or bi-sexual), and to do so in an extra-provocative way by citing a brand new paper (primary source, with no impact and with no review outside the journal's own committee yet, if there really even is one) from predatory-journal outfit Science Publishing Group (a publisher whose entire website is on our URL blacklist), suggesting that detransition and ex-gay are far-right, Bible-thumper "discourses" about the "ungodly") – all supposedly without understanding it's a topic-ban breach or disruptive within an AC/DS subject?

Well, it just beggars disbelief, and was amazingly non-productive. If this had been reported to the correct venue (WP:AE instead of WP:ANI), I think a block would have been issued on the spot. And the sheer hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance of a gender-identity tolerance activist using WP as a platform to simultaneously attack two self-identity decisions she doesn't like is just stunning, another example of political correctness turned ass-over-elbows. This hasn't been taking a long break to reflect on mistakes made and how to better integrate into a collaborative editing environment. It's just been stewing and biding one's time for years in hopes that editorial attrition, memory lapses, and forgivingness would enable a resumption of the same WP:GREATWRONGS antics.
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

PS: If it's really true that "[a] few editors with very rigid medicalized views on sex and gender minorities maintain ownership of this subject area, causing our coverage to lag behind the published literature", WP just does not require Jokestress in particular to try to deal with it. We have many thousands of editors, and we have NPOV and NOR noticeboards for a reason. And they seem to better understand the difference between just "published" versus "reliable and secondary".  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  06:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
PPS: I hadn't noticed this until now, but Jokestress continued editing at Talk:Detransition for about two days after the T-ban breach was pointed out, and in a similar politicizing vein: [107], [108], [109]. The gists of these and this edit to the article itself (inserting that predatory-journal, primary-source citation) indicate that Jokestress seems to believe the article is "biased" if it doesn't recast the entire subject in terms of activists' claims about transphobes using cases of detransitioning, and the term itself, as socio-political weapons against transgender rights (which to anyone else probably sounds like maybe a subsection at most). Regardless how one feels about such matters, it's absolutely a string of Jokestress T-ban violations, and clearly an advocacy not neutrality stance. There are probably things we can use from Jokestress's preferred sources, if any of them are non-primary and from reputable publishers, but we don't need Jokestress to find them or tell us how to use them. But that's beside the point, anyway: if a T-ban couldn't apply to some particular edit just because it was decided after the fact that it wasn't entirely and certainly non-constructive, then we wouldn't have T-bans since they'd be utterly unworkable.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  07:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jokestress: In response to your response: The gist of WP:CIR is that even if you're dead right about some fact in a content dispute (which is quite indeterminate at best in this case), being an intolerable pain in the backside to everyone around you in trying to force WP:THERIGHTVERSION (especially when you have an off-site fiduciary/professional and/or political interest in changing the wording) makes you essentially incompatible with how Wikipedia operates. If your science is so good, you should probably be writing for a different kind of publication, especially since this one is not about WP:WINNING, which is what your ARCA request focuses on. If WP were really lagging behind actual scientific consensus, on a subject covered at least in part by WP:MEDRS, it is not plausible this would not have been noticed except by you. Ergo, the reasonable conclusion is that this consensus has not shifted as far as you believe or would like. This is probably why you are citing primary-source material published this month (actually with a cover date of next month!) in a minor journal from a notoriously unreliable publisher. That's not science, it's politicking in a science costume. Halloween was more than a week ago (early Ministry notwithstanding).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  10:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jokestress: Re "I am unable to edit anything in my area of expertise without being accused of this or that" – A very common experience, and why so many of us avoid spending our hobby time here getting deep into topics that relate directly to our professional lives, or which cross our socio-personal doctrine lines. Since for you this topic is both, it's a doubly poor idea to mix your advocacy business with what should be the pleasure of a pastime. Others typically are not as blind to our biases as we are, and insistence on pursuing one here robs others of their pleasure in participating. When one thinks of oneself as something like a personal reliable source who is here to set things straight, one is making a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  05:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Genericusername57

On User:Jokestress' User page she self-identifies as the activist Andrea James. Ms. James was a vocal critic of a 2018 Atlantic cover article on childhood gender dysphoria which featured several desisters and detransitioners. She said of the issue's editors: this July Atlantic cover story debacle will be a more historically significant journalistic event than nearly anything else in their careers. Everyone involved is going to be held accountable, even if it takes a decade or more.[110] In a blog post response to the article, she wrote:

The "ex-trans" movement, similar to the discredited "ex-gay" movement, can always count on axe-grinding coverage that vastly over-represents their numbers and POV. [...] The "ex-trans" movement is an anomaly, a rounding error, a tragedy to be sure, but ultimately a fringe movement embraced and amplified by bigots. [111]

One of Ms. James' recent ventures was a kickstarter for a data visualisation project she claims will identify transphobia in the media; it received US$23,302 in backing. She explicitly identified the detransition-related Atlantic article as her motivation[112] and used it in fundraising appeals[113]. (Alice Dreger, who has alleged harassment and threats from Ms. James, described the kickstarter as a page to crowdfund her work harassing me and others[114]; the author of the Atlantic piece, Jesse Singal, called it such a massive grift[115]) It appears to me that Ms. James has a personal, possibly monetary, conflict of interest with the topic detransition, and that her article edit adding ex-gay movement and an "'Ex-Trans' Activists Exposed" ref prominently to the lead[116], as well as talk page edits labelling the article biased[117][118], are inappropriate advocacy importing an off-wiki conflict. gnu57 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aircorn

While this is open and despite being informed that she is violating her topic ban she is still contributing to the talk page at Talk:Detransition.[119] AIRcorn (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

And now at Nikki Araguz.[120][121] It doesn't matter if they are good edits or not, being topic banned from a topic means you can't edit that topic. This is especially bad since you were clearly warned by Floquenbeam above[122] and acknowledged it at their talk page.[123] AIRcorn (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WanderingWanda

1. Jokestress's tenure was before my time and I have no strong opinion about her topic ban. I do know that if I was in her position I would've gone about things a bit differently: I wouldn't have broken the ban before asking for it to be lifted, for example, and wouldn't have gone after other editors when making the request.

2. I am taken aback by some of the quotes by Jokestress about child sexual abuse above, and this isn't just an academic but a personal issue for me. I was also, however, concerned by some of Flyer22's statements: I have helped get a lot of pedophile and child sexual abuse POV-pushers indefinitely blocked...Jokestress was savvy enough to avoid to getting indefinitely blocked for her behavior in these areas...This editor is very much a threat to the community...I especially don't see how anyone (except for pedophiles, child sexual abusers, and related POV-pushers) can be comfortable letting this person edit pedophilia and child sexual abuse topics. I understand this is a difficult topic to talk about, but these statements, to me, go beyond just commenting on content, and instead publicly brand editors with a scarlet letter. And they don't just brand Jokestress herself, but any editor who would support lifting her topic ban and giving her a second chance. With that said, I've been told that it was inappropriate for me to attempt to redact Flyer's statements myself. I fully agree and apologize. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Literaturegeek

Jokestress has failed to show she can work sensibly in this topic area. I find it bizarre that an editor specialising in transgender issues could seriously think, even for a minute, that there should be a 100 percent ‘success’ or ‘satisfaction’ ratio of people with gender dysphoria or identity issues who transition, and then conclude and POV push on Wikipedia that the small number of said people changing their mind and detransitioning represents transphobia, etc. This rigid, inflexible and extreme black and white thinking, combined with concerns raised by editors above, suggests that this editor is not WP:COMPETENT to be editing in this area. People do change over time and while it may seem unlikely at this juncture who knows perhaps Jokestress can prove us wrong, in say a year from now, by editing sensibly in other topic areas before appealing this topic ban at a later date.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sexology: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Sexology: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I remember this case and not fondly. Before considering any changes to Jokestress' topic ban, I would want to see evidence that she would be willing to work collaboratively in the area. However, that's not the impression I've got from this request, which is very much on the offensive. As such, I am minded to decline this request. WormTT(talk) 10:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    Regarding the request to reaffirm the topic ban an add "broadly construed" or some notes about transgender issues, I'll hold off for now to see what other arbitrators think, but since I believe the scope of Jokestress' topic ban was wider than the area that discretionary sanctions were authorised for, and discretionary sanctions were specifically authorised for "paraphilia and transgender issue", I don't see myself objecting. WormTT(talk) 10:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I don't see any evidence that there's a yen to collaborate with other editors here. If there is, and I missed it, we need some diffs to show it. As far as widening the topic ban, I need to hear what other arbs think before I weigh in. Katietalk 15:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline to lift the topic ban. @Jokestress: Your original comment reads as an open request to return to the battleground editing that led to the ban in the first place, and whilst I could extend the benefit of the doubt for initially poorly chosen words, you seem to be doubling down on it in subsequent replies. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute, but I don't believe that you're the only editor capable of maintaining NPOV in our coverage of human sexuality. If you want a route back to editing this topic, it's having more faith in your fellow editors and demonstrating a willingness to work with them rather than against.
Reading the original case, it seems clear that trans issues were a significant locus of the dispute, so it's reasonable to conclude that they were intended to be included in the topic ban. I'd therefore support clarifying the ban to something like ...from the topic of human sexuality and gender. I'm not sure how that works with the "including biographies" provision, though. Everyone has a sexuality and a gender, so was the idea to t-ban Jokestress from all biographies? Or just those of people notable for something related to sexuality/gender? If the latter, we should clarify whether the subject simply being trans prevents Jokestress from editing their biography (I'd say it shouldn't). – Joe (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline to remove or reduce the TBAN. It's clear that Jokestress isn't willing to work with other editors rather than against them. I'd support Joe's proposed clarification to the wording. With regards to biographies, I think the TBAN covers the entire biography of anyone whose primary claim to notability concerns their work in the area of sexuality and gender, and/or the portions of a BLP article that deal with a subject's gender and sexuality. So she could update the filmography of an actor who happens to be transgender, but not any content that concerns their gender. ♠PMC(talk) 01:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well... that escalated quickly. I had been following this request awaiting further input from the community. There's a very clear consensus the community does not want this, therefore, decline and I support Joe's proposed clarification. Mkdw talk 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline the appeal. I am not satisfied with the quality of editing in Jokestress' editing; interpersonal conduct standards are also poor. It is perhaps telling that Jokestress is, at the time of writing this, blocked for a short time. On the amendment request relating to scope of case, Jokestress is currently banned from editing content relating to human sexuality. The committee has repeatedly ruled1 2 that transgender issues are within that scope. With the scope not in doubt, we could only clarify the nature and meaning of a Wikipedia:Topic ban. We should not need to do that every time an editor is topic banned. I endorse Joe Roe, the subject simply being trans prevents Jokestress from editing their biography (I'd say it shouldn't), but the existing language says the same. The language never supported an attempt to ban Jokestress from every biography. AGK ■ 11:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


Requests for enforcement


The previously existing "automatic article ban" sanction on SashiRolls is replaced by the following:
  • SashiRolls is subject to a standard interaction ban with regards to Tryptofish. At this time, such sanction will remain one-way per the previous AE appeal. Anyone believing Tryptofish should be again subject to a reciprocal restriction should file a separate request.
  • SashiRolls is topic banned from the subject of genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, broadly construed.
  • SashiRolls is cautioned that more than one administrator below has considered an indefinite block, and that further disruption stands a strong chance of leading to this result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AE article ban at glyphosate and original AE case for reference

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.[124]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 06:39, October 27, 2019 Violates WP:ABAN at glyphosate and other articles where Tryptofish has edited first.[125][126]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. June 4, 2019 Blocked for personal attacks in another topic after leaving GMO topic.
  2. Aug 10, 2019 Blocked for edit warring and harassment again.
  3. June 2017 1-year indefinite block.
  4. Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
  5. Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party.
  6. Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the last AE had tamped down. I won't belabor the previous AE that established extremely disruptive demeanor by SashiRolls in this subject, but short of a full-topic ban, their battleground and hounding behavior led to them being article-banned from all articles in the subject Tryptofish had edited first (Jill Stein being the only current major GMO/pesticide-related article the ban doesn't apply to my recollection). That's also part of a now one-way interaction ban with Tryptofish.[128] There's a long record of disruption, harassment, etc. looking at their block log and other AE-based sanctions. Glyphosate was the center of SashiRolls' trouble May, so there's no realistic way to claim this was a "I forgot" moment, and El C gave them guidance in my sanction link on avoiding an article like this.

This is also fairly moot considering the article ban, but a lesser but still disruptive trend is their gaming of 1RR in the subject. The diff above shows their mentality of trying to violate WP:ONUS policy to avoid gaining consensus for disputed material and reinsert it instead when you read their edit summary. Arbs at the original GMO case were clear reinsertions like SashiRolls performed are gaming 1RR.[129]. Edit warring is part of SashiRolls' previous sanctions too.

I'd normally just undo a single ban violation like this and move on, but given the last AE and the aspersions, harassment, etc. that went on then, I definitely don't want have to be interacting with Sashi again in this subject, so I'm just asking the sanction not be ignored like this. El_C, Awilley, and TonyBallioni are familiar with the behavior problems through previous enforcement actions, and there were plenty of WP:ROPE (or lack thereof) comments last time this came up in the GMO/pesticide topic. Especially given El C's post-ban warning about battleground behavior in this subject for comments like "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on"[130], this is an editor who should be staying far away from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • With El C's proposal for glyphosate, broadly construed, that would at least cover all the areas I linked above in the interaction analyzer where there were more topic-based issues than just interactions w/Tryptofish including Roundup (herbicide), Seralini affair (centered around a glyphosate experiment), and sections of articles relating to glyphosate at say Monsanto legal cases. We have an identical ban on the books for David Tornheim as an example even though we should be past this point in terms of WP:ROPE and previous sanctions, but it's something as long as there's stiff warning about testing boundaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Recent calls to sanction Tryptofish are in WP:ASPERSIONS territory and continuing the same behavior Sashirolls was stirring up before resulting in / in violation of their interaction ban regardless of the WP:ABAN portion. That trend of Sashi striking out a battleground behavior against editors in the subject followed by WP:POT/gish gallop (also contributing to length issues here) calling for those editors to be sanctioned was supposed to stop with the current one-way sanction by El C at the last AE even if it should be reformulated into a normal one-way i-ban and topic ban.
The original 2-way interaction ban between Sashi and Tryptofish was explicitly considered no-fault on Tryp's part, and the appeal had consensus there was no wrongdoing on their part when changed to one-way.[131] We've had multiple direct violations of Sashi's interaction ban easily crossing WP:BANEX into just hounding Tryptofish at this AE instead now trying to directly muddy the water by calling that Trypto's parole.[132], not to mention being blocked here and still continuing their battleground behavior. It shouldn't be any surprise those of us on the receiving end of Sashirolls injecting this into the subject, regardless of specific editor, are getting frustrated the longer they are allowed to do that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Responses to admins

  • El C, I understand the trickiness of the sanction if this had been a periphery article where one would have to search the history as you say, and would be open to leeway in such a case. However, this is the exact article/topic where the previous disputes with Tryptofish happened in May. In terms of "obviousness" for the sanction, this one would be the highest-ranked.
A full topic-ban considering the behavior not only directed at Tryptofish would simplify things though. The current article ban wording technically should keep Sashi out of the main controversial areas anyways, but outside of glyphosate and the main GMO articles, that might be hard for Sashi, admins, etc. to track. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To be clear DGG, we already established Sashirolls had battleground/advocacy problems in glyphosate-related subjects outside the Tryptofish interaction per the last AE, El C's additional warnings, and Sashirolls' responses here. We're needing some sort of topic restriction as El C said they should have done on second thought of similar coverage to prevent disruption if the current article ban language isn't used anymore (e.g., at a minimum, glyphosate broadly construed) . Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Response to Vanamonde93
*Vanamonde93, I'd normally bring this to a talk page since I'm at the word limit, but this does need to be addressed since you accused me at this AE. I am going to have to ask that you strike the claim I "continue to misrepresent" the Jill Stein AE as those comments were not helpful at the last AE, and you were already made aware you were misunderstanding that AE by the very person who filed it when you made those claims about me. You at least shouldn't be doubling down on that, which has only continued to misrepresent me and inflame the situation further based on Sashirolls' comments here.
I was explicit that AE was opened under both politics and GMO DS due in major part to their behavior at Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides before and also at this very AE. Of course I'm going to point out there have been previous sanctions/topic bans related to GMO/pesticide topics. In admin discussion, Laserbrain was clear how exactly the behavior partitioned out under GMO or politics DS shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from [Sashirolls'] poor behavior, as was NuclearWarfare. We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under, but the fact is behavior issues occurred and sanctions were considered with respect to both. As I said before, your comments to me are going in the weeds well past WP:NOTBUREAU territory, so please reflect on the previous guidance you were given about that case and what I've actually said so we don't sidetrack this AE. I can collapse this comment later if need be, but I did need to point this out since it was directed at me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Admins, just a note that this recent comment is a violation of SashiRoll's interaction ban with Tryptofish where they specifically point out a conversation on my usertalk with Tryptofish (though I have no problems with others reading it in context of previously planned content work and dealing with edit warring problems). If you read my comments there, the topic was getting close to a point we mainly had just content disputes and fewer behavior-related problems needing the DS before Sashi's involvement now or back in May. Many of their other comments here are not exceptions under WP:BANEX either. Seraphimblade is on point with describing them as disruptive at this AE with continued pot-stirring comments like that and following editors against the ban.
This has been open for ~9 days now, and well above word limits because of that despite me leaving most of Sashirolls unsupported claims unaddressed with myself at ~1k words prior due to these admin comments and Sashi at >2k words. I won't harp on taking things slowly, but problems are piling up related to that. Their continued comments are convincing me my previous support for just a broad glyphosate ban was too lenient and unlikely to prevent disruption as Laser brain brings up, especially as Sashi was blocked once already for behavior at this AE. A full topic ban would at least stop the problem in this DS area and prevent at least a subset of editors from having to deal with their behavior like myself who would rather not be needing to request DS at all by taking limited time away from editing. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Seraphimblade, just for procedural clarification based on your comments[133][134], but I believe that's saying anyone could implement a wider topic ban without lifting the old sanction if that's the procedural concern? I wonder if bringing up specific language in the admin section would help bring things to a close? Tryptofish already provided standard template language here for clarifying the interaction ban and a standard topic ban for this DS area.
That said, that topic ban alone on top of El C's old sanction should functionally do the same for simplicity's sake unless I'm missing a detail. If considering options is why action hasn't been taken, the above could be proposed below as something concrete to consider acting on unless admins suggest better concrete options. Maybe that would help to get things moving forward. I'm on extremely limited time this week, but if there's anything I can clarify as the filer on topic scope if need be, I'll try to do so. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphim, that should work, especially considering El C was clear they wanted an article restriction with the topic ban due to the behavior back in May (e.g., you could ignore all the problems that came up at this AE and it would still be a valid sanction change). Though just being clear that when you say GMO, you mean the general DS language provided for topic scope including pesticides etc. Some admins have forgotten in the past that the GMO case included pesticides, etc. and there has been confusion with topic bans when someone logged the official sanction as just GMOs while intending to cover the whole topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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 SashiRolls

All Hallow's Eve collapse

I have made a grand total of one (1) edit to glyphosate or any other article related to Monsanto since being given a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. I did not get involved with Tryptofish in any way and did nothing which could remotely be considered wrong. I reverted an edit once and only once for which there was no established consensus. This is quite clearly bullying by a page controller.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also please note that I have never been banned on the basis of GMO for anything. This was explained to KoF by @Vanamonde93: the last time KoF brought me to AE in order to remove an inconveniently conscientious editor from the subject area:

Kingofaces43, why are you claiming that SashiRolls has been sanctioned under the GMO DS before, when that's patently untrue?

(source)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Here they are again, continuing to make the false claim, hoping everyone will have forgotten.
The result of the AE case was a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. Again, I did not interact with this person. I reverted removal of information reliably sourced to the New York Times once. This should boomerang. I recommend an AE-ban for KoF as a result of their repeating accusations that have been previously identified at AE as being "patently untrue" in an effort to smear my reputation. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the edit (§) now that I have been (for the first time) informed that someone thinks I do not have the right to make it. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except those who read the sources) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, with regard to this baiting behaviour at RfA 1 (ignored, then repeated: 2). I believe the 2-way IBAN should be reinstated as per Tryptofish's own statement:

Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Up until now, I have not commented on this baiting behaviour (making false claims to which I am prevented from responding), but I assume since the 2-way IBAN is being used against me here I have the right to speak about it. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Will just add Tryptofish's first baiting comment, appropriately enough at Wikipedia Talk:Harassment (10 June 2019: less than 5 days after getting wiki-friends to help him wriggle out of his well-deserved "no fault" IBAN). The claims are, obviously, false. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I also am, of course, aware that El C described the 2-way IBAN as being assorted with multiple ABANs, however did not log it as such (since this would have been a draconian sanction unwarranted for no wrong-doing, which I could have successfully appealed were it on the books). What we have on the books is a 2-way ban that Tryptofish couldn't accept and so had to wriggle out of. Above are two clear examples of Tryptofish referring to me obliquely. By his own admission below, absolutely none of my subsequent edits prior to the opening of this case have referred to him (even obliquely), including the reversion of KoF's removal of the person identified by the NYT as having requested ghost-writing help from Monsanto for his Forbes article. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone should really sanction Kingofaces43 for contempt of AE.
Fact check
  • use of the word battleground in the original case: Kingo: 8,admins:0
  • use of the word advocacy in the original case: Sashi: 1 (speaking of KoF), everyone else: 0.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C:: No that is obviously not OK. You have yet to study the very clear evidence, despite the fact that you edit en.wp 13/24 hours a day (mostly in vandalism removal). Please provide evidence of any disruption. Topic banning me for removing obvious whitewashing is just going to confirm the general opinion that en.wp admins are not to be trusted. You seemed not to like me pointing out the clear ownership behavior on the talk page... ( One wonders why. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I said El C, demonstrate that this double jeopardy is warranted, despite the fact that Trypto has been shown to have been spreading false rumors about me just above just as I have shown that KoF is making stuff up above. You need to recognize where the real problems are, which requires study, not video-game style vandalism reversion. You need to study the texts. Please indicate which texts you have read. Have you read the NYT article in question, for example? Do you think @Sj: was wrong to follow up my edit as he did given there was no consensus for KoF's edit? I happened to see the page on my watchlist, saw how silly the whitewashing was, saw there was no discussion on the TP associated with KoF's "authoritative" removal and acted. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
El C: I simply want you to encourage you to reflect. RfPP is a page where you count the number of IPs who have vandalized and decide whether page protection is necessary. That's a good thing to do. I know I've appreciated seeing various pages I am one of the principal authors of protected. The 3RR noticeboard is in general a question of counting the number of reverts to see if it goes beyond 3. Writing an encyclopedia also requires in-depth study of sources. That's what I do. That's also what you should be doing here, rather than "policing tone" of someone reacting to the two complainant's blatant misrepresentations. As shown above, there is an example of one just three sentences lower ("I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls"). TF has referred to me disingenuously on more than one occasion on very public pages (RfA, WT:HA) and should stop doing so. Look at those diffs, please, and tell me explicitly that you think they are OK, please. Please also confirm that KoF's repeating "battleground" 8 times in his initial complaint was OK too (cf. Psychological projection).(their 1RR complaint was rejected by everyone who looked into it, even TF). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have, of course, not said that Trypto "baited me into making an edit on glyphosate". As one who has been harassed (by Cirt, by Trypto who has shown up to every significant noticeboard discussion I've been involved in, including, of course, this one), I have WT:HA on my watchlist and participate there in an effort to improve the toxic en.wp environment. I also have every right to participate in RfA without having aspersions cast on my actions. NB: in neither case did I dignify their pot-stirring with a response (nor did anyone else). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
El C. Please refrain from calling adding another smoking gun diff "refactoring".🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want El C, but I would appreciate that you stop calling me "the user" (as you do below) and saying weird stuff about refactoring code. The former was one of CIRT/Sagecandor's depersonalization tactics. I am a person and the above is not code. I have the right to defend myself... and since you have provided the "smoking gun" proof that I added a diff showing Trypto insisted on getting an answer from an RfA candidate about something concerning me that the RfA candidate could no longer see (not yet being an admin), we should be good. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Fact checking KoF who said "We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under", I discover that in fact it was only KoF who said this (talking about events from over 3 years ago, for which time was served for any "wrong-doing"). Again, this should be closed with a ban from AE for Kingofaces43 (contempt of AE) and the reinstatement of the 2-way ban with Tryptofish, and the reassertion of what is logged (a 2-way IBAN only) without going back and changing what is logged. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

El C has provided a link below (§) which is unrelated to this case (to a comment made on my TP by a user entirely uninvolved in this discussion). In fact, El C probably wants other admins to see that another person KoF prosecuted commented on my page just after El C cherry-picked a line from a paragraph I wrote (without providing the context). El Cshould have provided the link to the context (Talk:RFA, where Trypto had been trying to encourage admins at RfA to get involved (cf. WP:CANVAS) in the case KoF had just filed and on which Trypto had commented just two hours earlier). Here is the full statement in context. I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling, or why they chose to link to a 3rd party commenting about Tulsi Gabbard on my page. (Incidentally, I just helped en.wp by providing strong evidence of an LTA sockpuppet acting on that page who has now been blocked (months after being temporarily blocked for harassing me with their first edit to en.wp))

The nonsense about GMO & Jill Stein is just that. Trypto later boasted about coming to Jill Stein to hound another user I have followed the edits of editors who were parties to the GMO ArbCom case [...] and I observed that one such editor made an edit to this page that violated the DS, so I came here and corrected it. source (in fact he didn't "correct" anything in mainspace, Victoria Grayson did... but that's not overly important). Read Nuclear Warfare's comments and tell me where he talks about GMO. He doesn't. at all. He and only he decided the 6-month topic ban. The question was about sourcing of a sentence about 3rd parties, and about my inexperienced efforts shortly after I first became active on en.wp 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest KoF start a clean request which recognizes there is no TBAN or ABAN logged anywhere. Too many words have been spilled into this page and several others because of this request. In any case, I will not be participating further for at the very minimum 3 days. I have 40 or 50 pages to translate this weekend. Sorry. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Final Statement So a few people had comments this weekend. I'll take a break to reply.

One of the commenters I am only allowed to respond to here because of the fact that KoF filed this case, (erroneously) alleging a violation of an IBAN, because I reverted his deletion of another person (SJ)'s edit. That commenter (Mr. Trypto) has recently written over 9.3K in this thread and 8.4K in another discussion thread about things concerning me.

Despite my conciliatory efforts to get him out of my hair (I offered to delete the evidence page, for example, and hatted any reference to him on this page), they didn't take the hint and continued adding more and more comments to this noticeboard thread, and spreading disinformation about me at deletion review: e.g. "SashiRolls is also banned from GMOs" (source).

Let's read his words again: "I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction [2-way IBAN], it will be reinstated." --Tryptofish: 20:35, 5 June 2019.

Again, after bringing an initial case against me at AE in 2016, he has followed me to AE at least 4 times: twice for Cirt (Christmas 2016, May 2017), and twice in 2019 for Kingofaces43. He was particularly involved in lobbying against the CIRT unblock in 2018 ("strongest possible oppose") at AN, and followed me to AN/I with scary fish pictures. Since his part of the IBAN was lifted, he has opened discussions about my actions at RfA, alleged that "someone" hounded them at WT:HA, and said demonstrably false stuff at deletion review in addition to lobbying for sanctions here.

Perhaps Trypto himself, in the interest of fairness and the sheer volume of evidence, will voluntarily submit to the reinstatement of the 2-way IBAN given his difficulty staying away from me / not talking about me. Nope, Tryptofish has indicated he won't take responsibility for his actions. (actions = fishing for sanctions at noticeboards, speaking of which, I forgot to mention their comments on Kolya's unanimously rejected ArbCom case.)

Meanwhile, Laser brain is miffed. Laser brain has done 1/6 of the work I have in mainspace this year. I have never seen him on a single page I've contributed to, suggesting he might not be an expert on my skills or lack thereof.

Tony Ballioni says he has nothing to say about this case, but has taken the opportunity to make a speech about making sanctions clear. What could be clearer than a 2-way interaction ban? Certainly not a 1-way IBAN which sanctions the victim of a demonstrable pattern of noticeboard fishing.

Regarding glyphosate I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last three months. My prediction is that it will be hard to find, because it doesn't exist. Many of my additions this year have remained (or were moved to another related mainspace page by an admin). It's difficult to see what the complaint is. Here it appears to be that I reverted Kingofaces43 once and reverted my reversion as soon as it was suggested I should, which I would submit is not nearly enough to topic ban someone.

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the link added to a previous case I was uninvolved in. This helps to explain why Laser brain & Seraphimblade showed up here (they were involved in that case). Also I think folks should be aware of this free-ranging battleground strategy discussion between KoF & Trypto on 31 October 2019. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not believe anyone spoke of removing the IBAN. I certainly didn't. This thread demonstrates very clearly that a 2-way IBAN is the only way to get Trypto to stop lobbying for sanctions even when no evidence of disruption in the glyphosate topic area has been produced. It's funny how some are then trying to conflate glyphosate + surfactants with GMO.
I was just reading a blogpost about the state of the GMO "battleground" back in 2013 (after reading the Kingofaces43 v. D. Tornheim case Trypto linked to). All I can say is that I'm glad I've never edited in the GMO area. (Upon further analysis, I see that the Séralini affair was added to the GMO topic area five days after my last edit to that article.)
The connection between a pesticide and a genetically modified organism is pretty slim, I would have thought, but reading Gen. Fish's battleplan (above), I see that blurring the boundaries is part of the gameplan. It appears that if you once add RS like Le Monde or the NYT to the "glyphosate" or "Séralini affair" entries you can now be banned from writing about thousands of entries on food, agriculture, and weed/bugkillers, broadly construed? Na, surely people have more sense than to magnify 0 violations in a topic area into a ban from a wider one...
Speaking of good sense, maybe someone will come along and observe that trypto quite clearly has violated the terms of his parole in this very thread (as well as in several other highly visibile venues: RfA, WT:HA, DRV). !vote 2-way IBAN and everyone wins. Maybe even topic-ban KoF & Trypto from GMO for their over-investment in the topic area and watch the sky not fall. It only requires a little courage. ^^ 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Diffs: DS/GMO talk page notices were added to glyphosate on 21 May 2019 & to Séralini Affair on 21 May 2019 (at my request, since it was being claimed I should have known that these pages were part of the GMO topic area, yet there was nothing on the talk page or the mainspace page showing that...) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Of course, Trypto doesn't want anyone to realize that it is very problematic not to be telling encyclopedia readers about the special regime of sanctions cooked up. I believe that it was decided that standard procedure for pages related to a topic was to put a talk page notice on those pages. Neither glyphosate nor Séralini affair had such a notice. Regardless, I violated no special GMO rules on the page, either in May or since. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Trypto has provided a diff! Now, how can this diff from 10 May 2019 be construed to violate DS? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Fact: the reverted edit was moved to Monsanto legal cases here (by an admin) without there being any disruption after discussion on the talk page. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure: During this long period of being roped up here, my arms have grown tired. As a result, I have asked Darwinbish if they would like to come gnaw on anyone's ankles. (§: I'll stay here in the stocks, y'all can get a head start for the hills, if you want.)

Case Summary:

  • 20:34 26 Oct SJ added referenced information about an op-ed written for Forbes by Henry I. Miller with the help of Monsanto.
  • 00:46 27 Oct KoF removed "ghostwriting" language used in the NYT article, the name of the person involved and the date of the Forbes article.
  • 12:39 27 Oct I reversed KoF's removal of information, not finding an active discussion about it on the TP 12 hours later.
  • 17:26 27 Oct KoF filed an 8.6K complaint at AE
  • 18:59 27 Oct I reversed my 12:39 27 Oct edit at the first opportunity to do so.
  • 13:38 10 Nov: 15 days later, after the typing of >100K, the AE case concerning this single edit has not been decided.

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm going to try to make this simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm. I guess I'm glad that I was not logged in when the edit to glyphosate happened. But, good grief! First of all, I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls, even after the IBAN was revised to 1-way, and I am aware of this AE only because I was pinged. But I've got to wonder: why didn't SashiRolls just say here something like "woops, that was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again"? (He did self-revert in response to this complaint.) This is the first time that SashiRolls has violated the "letter of the law" of El C's IBAN, but it is unambiguously a violation. I will note however, that SashiRolls has also shown up, after the IBAN was in place, at WT:HA, where I have long been a very active contributor. Here's a permalink to the current version of that talk page: [136]. If you just do a very fast skim of it, you will see me showing up in nearly every thread. But when you get down pretty low on that talk page, when you come to WT:HA#Abuse of Administrative Boards, there he is. I stayed out of the thread that he started, and the next one, until what I describe next happened (even though this happened after the IBAN had been changed to 1-way). In a later thread, I was discussing some things with TonyBallioni: [137], [138], and then SashiRolls replied directly into that part of the discussion: [139], taking up the thread of "opposition research" from Tony's reply to me. I found that a bit uncomfortable. I did not make an issue of it, because it did not, strictly speaking, violate the "letter" of the IBAN. He wasn't replying directly to me, and a case can certainly be made that he could have had a legitimate interest in the harassment policy, and El C's IBAN was written only in terms of mainspace, for the entirely valid reason of not applying to noticeboards, and this was policy space. It sure looks to me like testing boundaries.

But, as already noted above, it is simply preposterous to argue that it was not obvious that glyphosate was part of the IBAN. The original conflict that led to the IBAN took place at that very page (along with the related Séralini affair). And SashiRolls has actually said that he knew that glyphosate was included in the ban: [140]. And, for a topic area that ArbCom placed under 1RR, the tone of the edit was clearly battleground-y. It's a violation of the existing 1-way ban, no matter what modifications anyone might consider for the future.

For the future, changing it to a GMO topic ban, in part, might be helpful, as might, in addition, making the 1-way IBAN a traditional 1-way IBAN. But whatever you do, please do not eliminate the 1-way IBAN with me. I don't need any more of this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Admins: I think that a TBAN just to glyphosate would be a mistake; it should instead be a TBAN over the entire GMO DS topic area. For example, the run-in with me very much also involved Séralini affair. Also, it would make little sense to topic ban from glyphosate but not from Roundup (herbicide). (The DS topic areas of previous AE complaints are irrelevant here.) And I do think there needs to be a TBAN in addition to the IBAN, because otherwise I have no doubt that I will find myself with Tryptofish-only and SashiRolls-only talk page sections going on simultaneously at multiple GMO page talk pages (and I think everyone agrees that asking SashiRolls to look at long-term page edit histories is suboptimal, so it needs to be topic-based). My experience so far has been that the GMO area is the only topic where I've had problems that would not be easily covered by the IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely not baited SashiRolls into making the edit at glyphosate, which is what this AE is about. I haven't baited him anywhere else either, but if he feels mistreated he can open a separate complaint about it. (Otherwise, it's just deflection.) And a great way not to be troubled about anything that I post would be to stop following me around and reading what I say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Following up on some recent comments:
@El C: About your burnout-related comments, that's the way (but as a non-admin) that I've been feeling for a long time about my own interactions here. 'Nuff said. About the TBAN scope, though, whether "light" or not, I really would strongly encourage you to simply follow the scope of the GMO DS (which include carefully crafted wording about "agricultural chemicals"). That definition of scope was worked out with much effort over a monster of an ArbCom case and a subsequent amendment, and has been working very well. There is no need to try to reinvent something new.
@Vanamonde and KofA: I personally like both of you very much, and I hope we can all lighten up a bit about the topic area for Jill Stein. As I understand it, the earlier sanctions were logged under AP2 and not GMO, but arose from the GMO section of the page (a BLP of an AP politician). The complaint we are dealing with here, however, is focused on one edit at the glyphosate page, but with too much noise in the background. The nature of this complaint leaves everyone including me feeling irritable, but I think both of you are acting in good faith. Peace.
--Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to briefly address Levivich's comment. At least some of it might be true, if what we were talking about were a standard IBAN. But it wasn't. One thing that I think everyone, including El C, agrees about is that the sanction that El C imposed (I'm talking about the original version of the IBAN, not the brief indef) was a Rube Goldberg improvisation that should be cleaned up here. Let's be very clear what was, and what was not, in effect at the time that this AE was opened:
Here is El C's original statement of the sanction: [141]. Quote: either of you are subject to an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first. That was not subject to any exception based on the momentary context. Subsequently, the sanction was lifted for me, making it a 1-way sanction applying to SashiRolls. Thus: SashiRolls is prohibited, full stop, from editing any page that I edited first. And SashiRolls knew that glyphosate was such a page, because he said so himself: [142]. And Levivich knew it too, because he too said so himself: [143]. And both of them ought to remember it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The tl;dr: SashiRolls was banned from editing glyphosate, and he knew it: [144]. But he chose to thumb his nose at that sanction: [145]. That's it. It's just that simple. All the rest is noise, or intentional misdirection. What remains to be done now is to fashion a resolution that keeps things peaceful between him and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • During the brief indef block, SashiRolls posted at Wikipediocracy that he thinks that I am trying to get some negative information about Monsanto deleted from the glyphosate page. At the time he posted that, here is the single edit that I had made, to the talk page: [146]. Judge for yourself. So what we need is: (1) a standard 1-way IBAN with me, and (2) a standard TBAN from GMOs, with the scope defined in the standard way devised by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • +1 to what Tony Ballioni said. It's above my pay grade what you all should do more broadly, but whatever you decide, I want this user to be kept away from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Admins should consider self-awareness and willingness to accept responsibility. (And noting: [147].) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since Jusdafax wants to enable Levivich who wants to enable SashiRolls, I think admins should be reminded of this: [148]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

This request has been open since October 27, and is starting to look like a festering wound. I'm tired of logging in every day to see whether anyone has made a decision. So I'm going to try to make this real simple.

As for the existing sanctions against SashiRolls that affect me, I request that you make two (2) changes:

  1. Change the existing 1-way sanction that is about SashiRolls interacting with me to a standard 1-way IBAN.
  2. Change the existing ABANs that apply to SashiRolls to a standard TBAN from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.

And that's it. I'm pretty sure that all of the admins who have commented so far (other than Sandstein's stated intention to close this) have already indicated support for these two adjustments. As for any additional block or other sanction, I don't care. I'm not looking for punishment. Just a better way to stop the disruption as it affects me. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm, DGG, Vanamonde93, Laser brain, TonyBallioni, and Seraphimblade: This discussion has been open too long. Please simply enact what I describe just above. It will be easy to do. And if you cannot do that, please explain to me why you cannot do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Some recent comments about the threatened close, but now no longer what should be the focus. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am very worried that admins have not responded. It seems to me that almost all who have commented have said that they recognize that there is a significant long-term problem here, and that even the conduct during this very AE discussion was poor. El C has given a go-ahead for anyone else to act. I really think I see a clear consensus to act, but indecision as to exactly how to do it. I think it would be a travesty if this were closed with no action taken due to indecision. I request that Sandstein please be a little flexible about not closing this report too soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Sandstein has said below: There seems to be agreement that the current sanction does not work and should not be enforced. In the event that anyone closes this request with no action taken, I think that there absolutely needs to be an accompanying clarification. Does the result mean that all sanctions on SashiRolls are now lifted, and SashiRolls is free to act as he wishes, or does it mean that the existing sanctions, unmodified, remain in effect, and can be enforced? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that reply, Seraphimblade. That is also my understanding of how things work. But I was really quite shaken by the things that Sandstein seemed to be saying, and I also did not want to see a close that would later get wikilawyered. (In fairness though, I do agree with Sandstein that this request has stayed open too long.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Recent replies to other editors, not particularly essential unless you want to see what my rebuttals were. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich:I know you asked Seraphimblade, not me, but all you really need to see is what SashiRolls has said right here on AE, including today. And if you have to ask why that indicates disruption, well, you'll never know. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich: That's not what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And as we add Mr. Ernie to the group of enablers, I don't recollect such a "thank", but I suppose it might be possible. Here is the only edit Mr. Ernie made at SashiRolls' talk page in June: [149]. Judge for yourself: it was a rather negative comment about me, and I was under absolutely no restriction at the time. There is no parity between that, and what SashiRolls has said right here at AE while under restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to thank Seraphimblade, and I hope that this will be the resolution. I find it interesting that another editor mentions an appeal to ArbCom. I decided yesterday that, had no one decided to close this complaint by today, I would request an Arbitration case, so I'm quite prepared for such a case. Do keep me informed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund

Just going to butt in here: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I'm definitely involved with regard to SashiRolls. I think this interaction, my previous experience at ANI, and the even older AE discussions linked above point to a consistent pattern of asserting incredible levels of bad-faith on other editors in topic areas involving left-wing anti-establishment politics, while simultaneously demanding the assumption of good faith for his own actions.

Most discussions I have with SashiRolls contain multiple variations on the theme in the final sentence of his comment to EL_C here: an over-the-top, evidence-free, non-specific allegation of malicious intent that is guaranteed to derail the discussion if anyone bothers to address it. By the same token: I suspect that everyone pretty much recognizes that SashiRolls' off-handed accusation that Tryptofish has "harassed him" (here) is absurd, and yet — because it has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute — it sort of just slides by without a remark from anyone.

It looks to me like that problem has been ongoing for years, it hasn't improved despite multiple sanctions, and, yes, I suspect it has gone unaddressed partly because the admins most familiar with the behavior end up feeling burned out and/or emotionally involved after being on the receiving end of it. I understand it would probably be draconian to suddenly turn this AE request in to a referendum on SashiRolls' long-term behavior, but I just want to note that what is on display here is more-or-less the norm, and I really doubt a topic ban will address the root problem. Nblund talk 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I appreciate El C erring on the side of unblocking.

This report should be closed as no violation. It is based on one diff: this one, which was restoring sourced content that KofA removed here. This is not an edit war, this is one revert. It's not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp, because it's a revert of KofA, not Tryp. It's not a violation of a TBAN because there is no TBAN. It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded. So, there's no violation here.

It reads to me that when Sashi reverted KofA, KofA's response to that was to take Sashi to AE, and allege it was a violation of a TBAN that he had already had explained to him did not exist. This is the weaponization of AE, and it should be discouraged. Sashi hasn't edited that article or talk page since May, and one revert gets him reported at AE? I find it outrageous.

Finally I note that on Sep 27, both Sashi and Tryp (along with other editors) were pinged to a thread (about a content dispute involving KofA, incidentally). Tryp posted in that thread; Sashi did not. That's evidence of Sashi complying with the IBAN even though Sashi doesn't agree with it.

Reverting KofA's edit was not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp. Unless there is evidence of Sashi violating the IBAN since it was imposed, this report should be closed as no violation. Also, before we institute a TBAN from a topic area, we should probably have some diffs of disruptive editing in that topic area from, say, within the last 30 days. Levivich 03:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tryp: perhaps you missed the part where I wrote "It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded." Not sure where you got the idea I didn't remember the ABAN. What I find simple is this: Sashi hasn't violated the 1-way IBAN since it was instituted. Ergo, there is no further sanction that is needed to keep things "peaceful" between you two, because things are already peaceful. Unless you have some diffs of recent disruption to share? Levivich 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: What diffs are there showing disruption since the one-way IBAN was instituted?

@Tryptofish: A diff from May? Seriously? You're wasting people's time. The one-way IBAN is obviously working fine. Sashi hasn't interacted with you since then and isn't even appealing it or anything. If you want Sashi to leave you alone, as you say, and they have been leaving you alone for six months, why do you keep posting here? Levivich 01:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: You cannot institute a TBAN against an editor with zero diffs of disruption. You can't TBAN someone today for something they did six months ago, if they haven't continued doing it since. To do so would be a blatant abuse of our policies, which says sanctions are preventative, and not punitive. I understand that the rules are that any admin can unilaterally institute a sanction, but if an admin abuses their admin powers and blatantly violates our policy by instituting an entirely punitive sanction on the basis of zero evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last six months, I will take it to Arbcom and ask them to remove the admin's bit. Levivich 18:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I agree fully with the statement by Levivich above. I urge that it be read, and if need be, reread, line by line.

For personal reasons, I make this statement extremely reluctantly, but feel strongly that it needs to be made, especially in agreement with the reference to the “weaponization of AE.”

My thanks to Levivich, and I strongly agree that this report should be closed as no violation. Jusdafax (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Seraphimblade: I agree with the objections to your proposal by Levivich and Mr. Ernie. I also suggest a review of this link provided by SashiRolls regarding the strategy discussion (Sashi’s term), which I feel should be taken into account. Since there are a couple statements now mentioning ArbCom, it appears that regardless of the outcome here, that the matter is far from being concluded. So it goes. Jusdafax (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

Impose a standard 2 way IBAN between Sashi and Tryptofish. Contrary to Trypt's earlier statement, they have obliquely referred to Sashi several times since the 1 way was imposed, have popped up for comments everywhere Sashi has been discussed, and what I can only assume was sarcastically using the "thanks" feature for an edit I made on Sashi's page supporting the 2 way back in June. This is the easiest solution here, so please impose it and close this. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Odd that I am now considered by Tryptofish to be an "enabler" of SashiRolls for showing up to speak some common sense. FWIW you can check my thanks log here to see Trypt's thanks. And yes it was for the diff they linked. For someone who has "entirely stayed clear" of Sashi they have an awful lot to say here, and at all the previous noticeboard discussions. Simply reinstate the 2 way mutual IBAN, call it no fault, and let's all move on. There's been no disruption to article space. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade I object to your proposal. There is no shown disruption in this report to that topic area. Typically such bans are preventative, which would require showing problematic edits in that topic area. This is purely a minor foul against a difficult to understand custom sanction. A mutual no fault IBAN between Sashi and Trypt solves any problems. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Any TBAN on GMOs must include Monsanto and glyphosate, as they are the bêtes noires of anti-GMO activists. This should be made more clear. An IBAN can't really be an automatic ABAN, that would be far too prone to accidental error (and indeed deliberate gaming). Guy (help!) 16:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This auto-ABAN concept would be unusual, and it's not mentioned as part of the sanction in the AE close or in the ACDSLOG, where it's noted simply to be an IBAN. IBAN itself has no such provision, and it in fact explicitly allows editing the same article without direct contact (in fact, the community recently overwhelmingly overturned an AE block in this situation). It's unclear to me whether this was just an erroneous statement by El_C, or if it was specifically intended to be an expanded IBAN with an automatic ABAN from any article edited first by the other user. This needs clarification first. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Laser brain: Just as a procedural note, we cannot actually indef block under Arbitration enforcement; blocks are limited to a one year maximum. You may discretionarily block as you see fit. This seems to be trending towards a revision of the existing sanction, simply due to the fact that the existing one is impractical. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It's a violation. But in retrospect, I'm not sure my unique sanction framework was the most well-formed idea — expecting them to search every article to see if the other party has edited it is a bit much. Unless they knew in advance that the other party has edited there, then it's just a straight interaction ban violation, which is (?) or should be in place, and consensus is for one-way. Anyway, now that I think about it, I should have probably just done a straight GMO topic ban alongside a one-way interaction ban, which we can still do. Sorry for the lapse. El_C 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kingofaces43: Still, due to my lapse, I get the sense that this will be more a discussion about implementing these new restrictions on the user than one involving the enforcement of existing ones. El_C 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless there are objections from other uninvolved admins, I intend to reformulate the sanction to cover an interaction ban with Tryptofish (one-way) and a topic ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. El_C 19:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: Your objection is noted. As is the aggressive, battleground tone. A pivotal reason why you should stay away from Tryptofish and the articles they edit. El_C 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: Your battleground tone is noted, again. Anyway, I want you to not edit articles where Tryptofish frequents. If there is no consensus among uninvolved admin to restrict you toward that end, also topically, that's fine with me. I'm not sure why I would need to study the nuances of the latest content dispute to adopt that approach. El_C 21:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, in regards to video game approach that SashiRolls attributes to me, I note that, currently, I have closed 8 out of 17 reports listed at AN3 and been equally active in RfPP. Just two example. What's most visible is not necessarily an indication of focus or time commitment. So that, coming from someone who argues for the need of further study, is especially ironic. El_C 21:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Once again, a superficial overview, not only of what I do on Wikipedia, overall, but also the often much more nuanced role that involves AN3 and RfPP. And those were just two examples. To say that I don't study sources as a Wikipedia editor is plain false. Diverting this request, which is about you, to focus on me, is a rhetorical device whose usefulness is in question. El_C 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: this isn't a negotiation. You are not permitted to refactor comments that others may have already responded to. Full stop. El_C 23:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reached out to Awilley to get their input about SashiRolls' conduct in these very proceedings. We have a user here, SashiRolls, who has been indefinitely blocked so many times for battleground behaviour and personal comments (which this time I was the recipient of) — always with another final warning. I'm not sure why this continues to be tolerated. There is a dissonance here that mystifies me. El_C 17:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm getting the sense there is severe admin burnout associated with anything having to do with SashiRolls, which leads to the continuation of egregious behaviour, seemingly indefinitely. As far I'm concerned, a GMO (or GMO-light) topic ban follows from SashiRolls stating, for example, that they may compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on. [150] That my somewhat misguided ABAN sanction failed to fulfill this intended topic restriction is not a reason such a ban from this topic area should be withheld. Vanamonde, in light of this, does your objection to a topic ban still stand? El_C 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling@SashiRolls: this innuendo reflect poorly on you. I am obliged to attribute the quote, not provide what you deem as "context." Context which I am entitled to contend is immaterial, anyway. El_C 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I have indefinitely blocked SashiRolls for linking externally to a deleted page that was twice deleted as an attack page. But due to the DRV being mixed about its status as an attack page, I've unblocked SashiRolls — so this request, which I have suspended, can now resume. El_C 23:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, my consent is given to you (or any other admin) to apply any sanctions you see fit. The one-way interaction ban already has the needed consensus, per Tryptofish's AE appeal. The question as to whether a topic ban (and its scope) should also be applied is one which I'm going to leave for someone else to decide. El_C 21:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that "an WP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first." is an unreasonably restrictive sanction. It is not necessary to prevent disruption, and it prevents full consideration of a very wide number of articles. A standard i-ban is sufficient, and, given the above stateent by El C, ithe wording should be changed. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I can see why this needs to be a standard one-way IBAN, together with a warning that skirting the edge of the ban would be grounds for heavier sanctions. I don't see grounds for a TBAN yet; SashiRolls's behavior is poor, but I see no evidence that it's worse in a given area, only that it's worse when related to Tryptofish. Kingofaces43, I pointed out to you in a previous AE discussion that SashiRolls' TBAN from Jill Stein was under AP2 discretionary sanctions, not GMO discretionary sanctions. You've repeated that erroneous statement here. The enforcement log is here. That's borne out by the administrator comments at the relevant AE discussion. It might seem like a minor point, but it is very relevant to establishing the locus of bad behavior; and if you continue to misrepresent it, it reflects poorly on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Playing holier-than-thou isn't doing you any favors, Kingofaces43. I'm not going to excuse SashiRolls's behavior because of your choice of words, but his behavior doesn't excuse your throwing the kitchen sink at him, either. He was sanctioned for his behavior on the article on Jill Stein, including, but not limited to, material related to GMOs. And that's what you should have said. What you typed in your initial request is a misrepresentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    @El C: No, I'm not going to stand in the way of a TBAN. SashiRolls's attitude here is terrible. I just don't want egregious bad behavior on one person's part to make us blind to everything else that goes on. Tryptofish, you know I've a lot of respect for you, and I'll go on record saying that your conduct in this area is something that other users should seek to emulate; but I think you have, on occasion, been blinded in this manner; and I have neither the time nor the patience to go into this further at this time, so let's just deal with SR and move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am miffed that anyone is even discussing all these elaborate mechanisms to enable this editor to continue to take up community time. I supported his unblocking a year ago (after previously advocating for an extended block owing to poor behavior) saying "I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikipedia." I still think this is remotely true, but my impression was that unblock was a "you're on thin ice" action and he's been blocked, what, three times since then? For poor behavior? Enough is enough, this should be an indef block. I object to the continued formulation of esoteric sanctions to attempt to deal with this editor. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No comments one way or another on this specific case, but I read Laser brain's comments and felt the need to comment more generally: there has been a trend of late to try to craft specialty sanctions to contain disruption in known areas while allowing freedom in every area other than the super niche rules. That is both next to impossible to enforce and also spreads disruption elsewhere because super-niche sanctions are prone to being gamed and people causing disruption in similar ways that do not fall technically foul of the sanction, but if a more standardized remedy had been applied, would obviously been a violation.
    All this to say, if sanctions are merited, I strongly oppose some special sanction. Make it standard. If that's an indef regular admin block, cool. If it's an AE block for however log, sure. If it's a TBAN, no problem, just make it a regular TBAN instead of a unique article one with special carve outs.
    In short, we should stop insisting on giving disruptive individuals every opportunity to prove they aren't going to change. If they've already shown it, then deal with it in a respectful ordinary fashion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with TonyBallioni here. If someone is editing disruptively in a DS area, they need to be removed from this area. In this case, I think it is quite clear that SashiRolls' conduct has been disruptive (including even at this request), and I think they should be removed from that area, with a firm understanding that if the disruption moves elsewhere or there's any testing of the topic ban conditions, the next step is likely an indef. Most people manage to edit, even frequently, without causing too much trouble, so there's only so many chances for change we should give those who persistently are causing trouble. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
    Sandstein, as El C has now explicitly stated he has given his consent to changes if needed, I would object to such a closure and think we should consider more options. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Right, but then I suggest you go ahead and apply whatever sanction you deem appropriate now. There's been enough considering. The parties before us expect a decision, one way or another. AE actions are unilateral and do not need discussion or consensus. AE threads should not stay open for more than a few days. Sandstein 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    Given that the discussion has broadly agreed that, at the very least, the current sanction regime is not working and is difficult both to obey and to enforce, I would propose that we replace the "auto-ABAN" sanction with a standard interaction ban on SashiRolls with respect to interacting with Tryptofish (there does not, at this point, seem to be much reason to believe that a reciprocal ban on Tryptofish with respect to SashiRolls is also needed, so such sanction would remain one-way), and a topic ban from the GMO topic area. Unless someone shortly objects, I'll go forward with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to be agreement that the current sanction does not work and should not be enforced. But El_C has not replaced it with another sanction, and I see no admin consensus here to do so without their consent. Unless somebody actually does something soon instead of just talking, I intend to close this without action. Sandstein 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since there is still no admin ready to impose a sanction on SashiRolls, I am implementing what consensus there is: lifting the ban on editing articles first edited by Tryptofish. The corresponding ban applying to Tryptofish has already been lifted by the prior AE decision that made the interaction ban apply only to SashiRolls. All admins remain free to impose whatever additional sanctions they deem appropriate on SashiRolls. Sandstein 19:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Withholding closure per Seraphimblade's objection above. Sandstein 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Tryptofish, no, that means nothing of the sort. The only way an existing restriction can be lifted is either if the admin who imposed it specifically says it is lifted, or if there is a formal consensus at an appeal to AN/AE/ARCA to lift it. None of those things have happened. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gas Van and sourcing requirements

With the article having been split, the sourcing requirement no longer applies to the new article where the dispute in question resides. In regards to the general question as to whether the sourcing requirement is dispute-specific, the consensus appears to lean towards the negative — that is, once a restriction affects an article, any dispute therein falls under its restrictions, including disputes which in-and-of-themselves are out of scope. El_C 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Assayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Page for which administrative measures are requested 
Gas van
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Impose source and revert restrictions in line with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.
Diffs of edits that necessitate these sanctions or remedy and additional comments by editor filing request

The article on the gas van is used to propose the narrative that these were actually a Soviet invention.[151] After a prolonged discussion in June 2018 consensus was reached to focus upon the German use of gas vans in the Holocaust and briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union only in a section in the main body of the article.[152] After a controversial IP edit[153] on 28 September 2019, which lead to a page protection for edit warring[154] User My very best wishes started to basically restore the earlier version[155], [156]. These edits were immediately challenged by me[157] I got reverted within minutes[158], on another occasion even while I was still working on the article, using an “in use”-template.[159] Without going into details of the revision history, it is fair to say that there is no consensus to restore or expand the extensive section on “Soviet gas vans”. Input was sought from uninvolved users to no avail.[160], [161], [162], [163]. Such input[164], [165] got reverted anyway.[166] During the RSN discussion on a local Crimean nespaper it was raised, that this topic area was under strict sourcing restrictions, In fact, the article Gas van is an article on the Holocaust both in Poland and the Soviet Union. For example, Gas vans were used at Chełmno extermination camp. Since it has been maintained that the "same" gas vans as were used by the Nazis were first used, probably even "invented" by the Soviets, the "Soviet gas vans" were effectively integrated into the narrative of the Holocaust. Otherwise it would make no sense to prominently insist that “the gas vans were used by the Soviet NKVD in 1930s".[167] It is worth noting that Holocaust deniers highlight this alleged “prehistory” of the gas vans. Therefore, strict sourcing restrictions are all the more important. Despite input from uninvolved users that the Crimean newspaper article looked “totally unreliable”, “irrelevant”, and “absurd”, there is not much hope that this input will be reckoned with.[168]. See also [169] for a violation of 3RR. @EdJohnston: had been asked to impose sourcing restrictions, but effectively declined[170].--Assayer (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing request

I will not reargue the whole matter here. Suffice it to say that both My very best wishes and Pudeo rather argue ad hominem than on content. Strange to read that trying to build consensus through discussion and by soliciting outside opinions is somehow branded “epic struggle”. To claim that this is merely about a few RS they do not like is plainly a misrepresentation of the discussion. Even worse, Pudeo insinuates denial while they could have known the content I proposed for inclusion.[171], and takes citations out of context, e.g. that I responded to My very best wishes linking to texts by known Holocaust deniers. I do maintain, however, that my request is not about content, i.e. who invented or used gas vans, but if a certain part of the article is exempted from sourcing restrictions or not. El_C has captured that point very well. Once that issue is resolved, enforcement requests focused on editors’ conduct may follow. Maybe ARCA is the place to go. Maybe I withdraw this request and file a request against individual editors. But the issue will still have to be resolved.--Assayer (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Paul Siebert

Actually, a behaviour of one party of that dispute has been brilliantly described as scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet. By applying source restrictions, we will deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing, because good quality sources say virtually nothing about the "Soviet gas van" topic. Currently, the Soviet gas van section is based on a heavy use of the following sources:


  • Григоренко П.Г. В подполье можно встретить только крыс… (Petro Grigorenko, "In the underground one can meet only rats") — Нью-Йорк, Издательство «Детинец», 1981, page 403 (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage).
  • Александр ЛИПКОВ, "Я к вам травою прорасту…", Alexander Lipkov, Kontinent, N 123, 2005 (collection of memoirs).
  • Шрейдер М.П. (Shreider M.P) НКВД изнутри: Записки чекиста. (NKVD from within. Notes by Chekist ), Moscow: Возвращение, 1995. (memoirs. The author tells a story that was told to him by a witness of what he believed was gas van usage)

Russian tabloid/newspaper:

  • Газовые душегубки: сделано в СССР (Gas vans: made in the USSR) by Dmitry Sokolov, Echo of Crimea, 09.10.2012. An op-ed article in a local Ukrainian newspaper, authored by some local self appointed historian with unknown credentials. During the [RSN discussion], not a single user except the one who added that source supported the idea that that source is reliable.
  • Н. Петров. «Человек в кожаном фартуке». Nikita Petrov, Novaya Gazeta (ru:Новая газета, спецвыпуск «Правда ГУЛАГа» от 02.08.2010 № 10 (31)) This article cites no historical documents, so its fact checking and accuracy cannot be established. Most likely, it just reproduces the facts from this publications:
  • On the way to the place of their execution, the convicts were poisoned with gas (Russian), by Yevgeniy Zhirnov, Kommersant (This source is cited in the article too, thereby a false impression is created that two journalists made independent research of that subject).
  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Two Hundred Years Together (Двести лет вместе), volume=2, Москва, Русский путь, 2002, ISBN 5-85887-151-8, p. 297 - a very questionable book authored by Archipelago author. It was widely criticized for antisemitism. In this book, Solzhenitstyn says Jews must repent for invention of gas vans.

In addition, the article is using several English sources, each of which cites the same tabloid article published in 1990. They are telling essentially the same story, but the material is presented in such a way that a reader gets an impression that various aspects of Soviet gas van usage were independently discovered by several authors.

Source restrictions will allow us to purge the article from all questionable primary and questionable sources, and the long, exhausting and senseless dispute will die.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I double checked, the admin that applied this restriction cited WP:ARBEE, not Antisemitism in Poland case, so I have no idea why the same cannot be done in this case too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@El C: I myself was thinking about ARCA. Actually, usage of poor sources is a root of many conflicts covered by ARBEE, so I have no idea why the sourcing expectation clause cannot be expanded onto the whole area. In my opinion, that may be a universal solution, which is not directed against some concrete source and some concrete POV. If no action will be taken regarding this request, I am going to prepare a broader ARCA request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @Swarm: Don't you find it illogical that admins easily fully protect the article (as if a full protection can help to resolve a dispute that has already lasted more than a month on a talk page and several noticeboards), but do not want to protect the article from garbage or primary sources, which are being heavily used in the article? By taking the action proposed by Assayer, admins would not take side in a content dispute. As Guy noted elsewhere, admins are janitors, their role is to provide a comfortable environment for good faith users. We, good faith users, are calling: the article is overflooded by questionable sources, please, help us to create a good environment for our work, don't allow good sources to be diluted by a WP:SYNTH, primary and questionable secondary sources! Instead, you prefer to abstain. Do you really think one month of a dispute, when one party was repeating the same arguments and ignoring a community input was not enough to resolve that "content dispute"? All needed words have already been said, all arguments, which are quite sufficient to convince any good faith user have already been presented. Do you sincerely believe one more month will lead to a progress? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your approach is superficial, and that leads to an escalation of a conflict, not to its resolution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Swarm: there were three separate RSN threads (conclusions of all of them I support), and one NPOV thread. Have you read all of them? Have you read the whole talk page discussion (including the 2018 discussion on the same subject? Anyway, if all admins will confirm that this article is already under the said source restriction, that is the very outcome that I wanted. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I have added a sourcing requirements notice to the article talk page (which I have suspended while this is being discussed), but now I'm not so sure about that decision, because the dispute is about the Soviet Union in the 1930s rather than what the article is chiefly about (Nazi Germany in the 1940s). See my talk page for more context. El_C 03:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I think you're missing the point. The question is whether these sourcing requirements should apply to the article when the specific dispute (but not the article) is out of their scope. Perhaps, though, this is a question better suited to ARCA. What do you think? El_C 16:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandstein. I'll still leave the article talk page notice suspended, for now. Depending if other admins also agree with your position, or if there is an ARCA filed. But I appreciate the clarification. El_C 16:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Please note that once this request is closed, I am likely to un-suspend the sourcing requirements notice — unless there is an ARCA filed, in which case I will hold off. (Unless, of course, if there is also further input concerning the notice itself here.) So please let me know about intentions to file an ARCA immediately after, that way an un-suspension/re-suspension could be avoided. El_C 19:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

  • To sanction someone, an administrator must first place a notice on the page (per the rules), exactly as El_C did. Yes, it might be reasonable to put such notice and specify that it is about edits on Polish history or about Nazi Germany section. But there were no any disputes about this section. However, placing such notice for the whole page would mean excluding the content and sources completely unrelated to Poland and WWII. Was that intention by Arbcom? I do not think so. Placing such notice would mean overstepping the boundaries defined by Arbcom. If that happens, then a request for clarification or amendment to Arbcom might be needed.
less important comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • This WP:AE request by Assayer is apparently a follow-up of this discussion started by Paul on talk page of EdJohnston. As a note of order, I did revert recently several edits by this indeffed user on the page (there was no violation of 3RR rule by me, contrary to the claim by Assayer). Paul happened to disagree with his block [172].
  • This is actually an epic struggle by Paul and Assayer to remove a few RS they do not like from this page. I have never seen anything like that before. For example,
  1. Here Paul and Assayer argue to use a blog post by unknown person [173] (this blog post [174]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko - (discussion on article talk page)
  2. Here Paul and Assayer dispute another RS (discussion on talk)
  3. Here they want to exclude an article by Russian historian
  4. [175] - yet another noticeboard post
  5. [176] - one more noticeboard post by Paul
  6. [177] - one more noticeboard post by Paul
  • And now this WP:AE request. This is very strange because the content dispute concerns only a couple of paragraphs on one page, Gas van.
  • I do not think whole article Gas van is covered by the sourcing restriction for the Polish history. According to Arbcom decision, it cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.. It uses language like "articles on the topic", not "broadly related to". This is not an article "on the topic of Polish history" although a part of one section about Nazi Germany is indeed related to the Polish history.
  • What is happening here, in my opinion? Assayer and Paul are trying to misuse the decision by Arbcom about limiting sources on Polish/WWII subjects in order to remove the content on the Soviet NKVD crimes in 1930s which is completely unrelated to the Polish/WWII subjects My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Nug. What a Solomon judgement, very literally! Now this entire disagreement is moot. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

Assayer writes in this very statement: briefly mention the possible existence of gas vans in the 1930s Soviet Union. It has already been showed on the talkpage that besides Russian sources, Western scholars state Soviet gas vans as a fact. Besides the works of others like Catherine Merridale, Robert Gellately, Timothy J. Colton's 1998 Harvard University Press book states: Isai D. Berg, a cutthroat section chief in the Moscow NKVD, ginned up a gas chamber (dushegubka) on wheels, an airtight lorry camouflaged as a bread van that suffocated internees with engine fumes on the drive out to Butovo.

So Assayer, perhaps you should already accept this as a fact and stop bludgeoning denial on the talk page where you already have made 76 edits?

Assayer's lamest insinuations are rather disruptive as well:

  • 13 June 2018: I got the impression that generally the interest primarily stems from the importance of the German gas vans and the perceived irony that the Soviets might have come up with a gas van first. In fact, Holocaust deniers relish this.
  • 22 October 2019: I know that Grigorenko has been cited by Holocaust deniers. You are really not sure if this needs to be reflected on the page? So you suggest to use works by Holocaust deniers?

Paul Siebert has made these insinuations as well: [178]: Don't we find it worrying that the article reproduces the narrative of the book published by the known Holocaust denier's publisher house?

Petro Grigorenko or the Soviet gas vans have nothing to do with the Holocaust, but some fringe Holocaust deniers have cited them, so they must be bad. Wonder if quoting the Harvard University Press book makes you a Holocaust denial narrative pusher? Great way to poison the well. Suggest WP:BOOMERANG. --Pudeo (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations: "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. ... Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action. "

If "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" is interpreted to mean any article which mentions Polish history of that period at all and the whole content of those articles was included, that would mean, for instance, that editors writing about animal euthanisation or executions in the United States or Korea in the gas chamber article would need to use exceptionally high quality sources or risk being sanctioned.     ←   ZScarpia   18:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Question by Nug

Paul Siebert stated above[179] that the article should be subjected to WP:ARBEE. If the article Gas van, including the Soviet section, is also subjected in its entirety to the Polish history during World War II (1933-45) restrictions as well, does that mean that Paul is in fact violating his topic ban and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive257#Paul_Siebert ought to be re-opened? --Nug (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To end this seemingly intractable content dispute, I have been WP:BOLD and split the article into Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van, turning Gas van into a disambig page. Hope that helps. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by K.e.coffman

@Sandstein: Do I understand you correctly that the sourcing restriction already applies and that El_C's note on the talk page to this effect [180] should be restored? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning Gas Van and sourcing requirements

  • I would take no action. As submitted, this is a content dispute. Who invented and used gas vans is a content issue. AE does not resolve content disputes. If specific editors consistently and seriously disregard sourcing requirements, make an enforcement request focused on their conduct. Sandstein 09:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @El C: In my view, the "Antisemitism in Poland" article sourcing expectations already apply to Gas van. That is because the remedy states that it covers "all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland". The article Gas van contains material about this topic, insofar as it addresses the use of gas vans in Poland. Accordingly, the sourcing restrictions apply to the entire article, including as regards the use of gas vans outside of Poland. These restrictions can be enforced against individual editors via AE requests. No further admin action is needed in this regard as well. Sandstein 15:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • To various queries: This is my interpretation, other admins may disagree. If you want authoritative advice, ask at WP:ARCA. From my reading of the (as usual) vaguely worded remedy, any article that contains substantial text about Polish WWII history is an article "on" Polish WWII history, and the remedy then applies to the entire article, not only to the Polish WWII history content. Does this make sense? Perhaps, or perhaps not, but we apply remedies as they are written. Sandstein 20:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pudeo, your last comment is looking for a WP:BOOMERANG. This does not fit into the AE remit, so no action at this time seems correct. Guy (help!) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with no action. This is a content dispute. Handle it like a content dispute. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think it's fairly uncontentious that Sandstein is correct in that Arbcom's blanket implementation of this sanction covers this article. It seems fairly obvious that this article is within the scope and that it applies to the article as a whole. However, reading the recent RSN thread, many users view this as legitimate content dispute as opposed to your claim of a behavioral problem regarding unreliable sourcing, and coming directly here after that looking for a "purge" is not a particularly good look. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


Article semiprotected two weeks to prevent further disruptive editing/edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Pinchme123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2 :

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

This is for a number of related IPs, which all appear to have been used to edit List of concentration and internment camps in the past week by the same individual.

  1. 1 November 2019 This first edit was reinstatement of challenged material to List of concentration and internment camps. It was also from the edit that began to show that this editor has a changing IP address, which initially made it hard for me to know if they were in fact the same editor.
  2. 1 November 2019 This edit reinstated the challenged section heading change, in addition to beginning their NPOV insistence. It also violated the 1RR sanction.
  3. 1 November 2019 Here once again they reinstated the challenged section heading and violated 1RR, despite having been warned of the discretionary sanctions for the article on one of the IPs' talk pages (see below). Their accompanying talk page note is where this again-different IP seemed to show they were the same editor.
  4. 2 November 2019 Another edit reinstating the challenged section heading.
  5. 9 November 2019 It was at this point this editor began reinstating the NPOV tag to the section in question, despite multiple editors disagreeing with their assessment, on the talk page.
  6. 10 November 2019 This was one more edit violating 1RR and challenged material sanctions for reinstating the NPOV tag. It was also the IP that they received the discretionary sanctions notice on. (see below)
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

This group of IPs doesn't appear to have had any prior blocks.

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

They were made aware of the sanctions on at least two of the IP Talk pages: 1 November 2019

2 November 2019

Additionally, another user posted a note about the discretionary sanctions on the talk page: 2 November 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

This editor has been quite disruptive. Their proposed edits run counter to the recent RfC about this specific content. They have posted on the article's talk page, but do not seem interested in engaging with a productive discussion, such as ignoring requests for sources, disputing the accuracy of the RfC's conclusion, and denying that content experts are not experts. This is not merely a content dispute however, because as you can see the editor in question is repeatedly breaking the discretionary sanctions in their pursuit of changes that go against the community's decisions.

I know requests for enforcement for older edits are usually dismissed here as stale, but I included all of them from 1 November to today to highlight the pattern, which was initially hard to make a case for with the shifting IP addresses.

The list of IPs used for specific edits made to the article itself are 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:AB,, 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:46, and 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A. In addition, on the talk page they have also used 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:45, 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9E,, and

If this is the wrong venue to try and address this issue, please don't hesitate to let me know where I should instead take this.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Just in case, I notified the four IPs: [181] [182] [183] [184]

Discussion concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

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 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:7A

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I've semiprotected the article for two weeks due to disruptive editing and edit warring from multiple IPs, who may or may not be the same individual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


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

Request concerning WP:GMORFC

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms
Additional comments by editor filing request

Don't worry, this will be very easy. Atypical, but very easy. Face-smile.svg

At WP:GMORFC, administrators enacted Discretionary Sanctions that require that any revisions to the text that was selected by the community be, first, approved at another widely published full 30-day RfC, a consensus of administrators at WP:AE, or by decree of the Arbitration Committee. I am here at AE to request approval for such a revision.

The proposed revisions are entirely minor. They consist only of:

  1. Correction of WP:Linter errors.
  2. Correction of some page numbers in the cited references.

That's all. The reason for correcting those page numbers is that, at the time of the RfC, a few of the sources were published only online, in advance of hardcopy publication, and the page numbers subsequently changed for the paper versions. These issues came to light when some bots, and some editors making gnomish revisions, discovered them. The discussion leading to me making this request is at User talk:Tryptofish#WP:GMORFC. The proposed revision is here: [185], and a combined diff of all of the changes is here: [186]. You can see the "before" here: [187], and the "after" here: [188].

I do understand that making this request for such minor changes is somewhat over-the-top. My reasoning, however, is that I don't want to open up a precedent for some future editor making substantive changes saying something like "but you let them change it without getting permission." So I'm doing this "by the book".

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning GMORFC

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 Kingofaces43

As Tryptofish linked, I set up the changes in my sandbox, though unfortunately the large amount of text/refs makes showing the specific changes in the diff interface difficult in one edit. In short, you can look at individual step-wise edits at User:Kingofaces43/sandbox2's history between the original RfC text on the first Sept 8 edit to the final edit on Sept 13 to confirm these are all either linter error fixes or url/page updates. No change to the visible text itself, and I ran the newly proposed text through an on-wiki Linter error checker, which came up clean. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GMORFC

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Support As far as I can tell it's just general housekeeping with no change in meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On review, everything looks reasonable and in order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this seems fairly straightforward and benign. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes

Request withdrawn by filer. El_C 18:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Paul Siebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Date: 15:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Ignoring the RSN discussion consensus.
  2. Date: 14:33, 7 November 2019 Re-adding the source (Gas vans were also reportedly used in other parts of the Soviet Union[1]) that was recognised as unacceptable during the talk page discussion mentioned in the Diff #1 (see "Additional comments" section for more details).
  3. Date: 19:40, 28 October 2019 Accusation of bad faith. Cherry-picking.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on on 05:09, 7 November 2019.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Diffs #1&2. In my opinion, this is a clear example of WP:STONEWALL: repeatedly pushing a source with which the consensus of the community is clear: "unacceptable". Below I summarize the RSN discussion (the discussion MVBW refers to in the Diff #1) and present viewpoints of ALL participants (I did my best to transmit them accurately; I omit only the posts where no clear opinion was expressed):

  1. [189] I started a discussion of the source.
  2. [190]: MVBW claims the source is ok.
  3. [191]: Slatersteven says they don't know if the source is mainstream, but agree that it is op-ed, and should be used with attribution.
  4. [192]: Fiamh is hesitant on this source and agrees that it is reliable only as a primary source about author's opinion.
  5. [193]: Darouet says the source is totally unreliable, and that pushing this source feels like scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel in one of the darker and more remote recesses of the internet.
  6. [194]: François Robere says the source is unacceptable per sourcing restrictions.
  7. [195]: User:Assayer objects too, but he is an involved user, like I and MVBW.
  8. [196] Pavlor argues that such sources should not be used, and his argument is essentially what our policy says: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.
  9. [197]: TFD also disagrees with usage of that source (I personally find some of their arguments unconvinsing, but my opinion is not relevant here).

In summary: not a single user, except MVBW, expressed a clear support of the source, and many of them were clearly against its usage. Two other users concluded that source is op-ed, actually, a primary source that describes the opinion of the author, and, therefore, should be used with attribution only. Nevertheless, MVBW claims he does not see any WP:RS-based reasons not to use this source (Diff #1), and he re-added it into the article (Diff #2) without attribution.

Regarding the diff #3, MVBW claims that I misled others by misinterpreting newspaper's disclaimer. To support this claim, he selectively quoted the disclaimer, and he omitted the key sentence. The extended quote (the sentence omitted by MVBW is in bold) says: "The authors' point of view may not coincide with the editorial point of view. Responsibility for the accuracy of the facts presented lies with the author. The editors are not responsible for the content of advertising materials." Obviously, in that context "the authors" means Sokolov, so my statement was correct. I refuse to believe MVBW does not understand that (he cites this sentence in his another post), so it is hard to imagine that this mistake was a good faith mistake, not a WP:GASLIGHT.

@Sandstein: Well the AE format a catch-22: to prove persistent and outrageous ignoring of consensus, one has to present a long list of user's actions, but AE word and diff limit does not allow that: in reality we have a long and barren discussion on the talk page where that user is repeating the same arguments again and again, and that behaviour clearly fits DE criteria. However, due to AE format limitations, I presented just one short case that is possible to describe briefly. If a longer list of evidences is needed, it is more suitable for arbitration, which I will do if this case is declined.

Regarding the topic ban, your wording was quite clear any continuation of your WWII-related conflict with the user My very best wishes in any forum, such as AE. As previous AE cases demonstrated, that topic is devoted to the events that happened before WWII, and is not related to the conflict around Hitler-Stalin conflict.

I am also reminding other admins that I am not interacting with MVBW (no comments on him, no responses, etc), and Nug is perfectly aware of that, so his request for an interaction ban is insincere.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

  • This is a retaliatory filing by Paul and a violation of his topic ban issued by Sandstein [198], which explicitly prohibits filing such AE request. Just a few days ago, Sandstein reconfirmed that such ban is still in force [199]. In the process Paul falsely accused me of vandalism and of edits "aimed to whitewash Hitler" [200].
This is not the first such violation on WP:AE by Paul. For example, he recently came to WP:AE specifically to accuse me, without any actual evidence, of "scraping the bottom of the fringe barrel", asking admins to "deprive that party of any possibility of POV-pushing" and mentioning very same RSNB discussion as in this complaint: [201]. That should stop.
  • The RSNB request [202] was started by Paul. I do not think there is any policy (WP:RS)-based reason to exclude the source in question. I can explain more with diffs about diffs 1-3 by Paul if any admin suggests it. Speaking about diff#3, here is what I said on RSNB: [203].
  • As a note of order, I never submitted a single question or request about gas vans on any noticeborad. Paul and Assayer did it on at least four different noticeboards (or more). For example, here Paul and Assayer argue to use a blog post by unknown person [204] (this blog post [205]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko. There were other threads [206],[207], [208],[209]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking about topic ban violation, if this is not WWII-related, how did it happen that Paul mentioned Hitler twice in his inquiry to Sandstein [210] ? My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nug

Paul misleadingly characterised the publication as a local Ukrainian newspaper on RSN[211], it is in fact a Russian language newspaper based in Sevastopol, Crimea. Russian wiki does have an article on this newspaper in question, the Crimean Echo [212], and google translate indicates that the editor-in-chief is considered an “honoured journalist” and the newspaper has won numerous awards including one “For professional excellence”. One of the features of the newspaper is that it brings in “historians and publicists from all over the CIS talk about important events”. Evidently Soviet gas vans is one of those topics covered by such a CIS historian. Nothing to indicate it is some kind of unreliable fringe publication. MVBW did point to the ru-wiki article[213], but it seemed to have been overlooked in the noticeboard discussion. Note that Paul Seibert is under topic ban for calling MVBW a “Hitler defender”[214]. Clearly he has an ongoing personal issue with MVBW, as this latest request indicates, so perhaps Paul should be subject to a one way interaction ban with MVBW. --Nug (talk) 11:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • This AE filing is tedious, and Paul also implicitly attacked MVBW as a “civil POV pusher” without evidence in discussing this case on El_C's talk page[215]. MVBW is clearly not, having reminded that I need to follow RS policy[216] This filing itself is a violation of the AE sanction upon Paul Siebert. In closing the AE report (which included evidence of Paul’s behaviour on the Gas van article), Sandstein banned Paul from editing WW2 in Easern Europe topics "and also any continuation of this tedious squabble in any forum, such as through another AE request". Paul’s squabble has long ago become tedious, we have seen it in the way Paul has continually squabbled over a number of sources provided by MVBW on RSN[217], most being deemed RS in the end. And the recent filing WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements where Paul sought a mechanism to sanction MVBW. This harrassment of MVBW has gone on for a long while now, I had hoped splitting the article would help in taking the heat out, but evidently not. —Nug (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning My very best wishes

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would decline this request. Like many similar previous ones, it reflects a content dispute (whether a particular source should be used or not). AE does not resolve content disputes. "Ignoring consensus" is not a conduct problem that warrants sanctions, except in extreme cases, which this evidence does not establish. I am minded to ban or block the next user who drags gas van-related content disputes to AE. I will not even read any replies that pertain to the content dispute, sources, etc. so you can all save yourselves the effort. Sandstein 11:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As to whether this request is a violation of my topic ban of Paul Siebert, it looks quite possible to me at first glance, but I'll let other admins handle this if necessary. Sandstein 14:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Dispute detailed in the request does not encompass WWII, so again, this isn't a topic ban violation on the part of the filer. But I would also decline this request as being outside of AE scope. I made it rather clear with my last AE close that with the contested article having been split into Soviet gas van and Nazi gas van, the former is no longer subject to the aforementioned restrictions, so there is basically nothing for AE to do here. El_C 15:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)