Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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



WP:GMORFC[edit]

Consensus exists for the request. Anyone can implement it on their own. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 15 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 WP:GMORFC[edit]

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: [1], and a combined diff of all of the changes is here: [2]. You can see the "before" here: [3], and the "after" here: [4].

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

Result concerning GMORFC[edit]

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)
  • Sure, closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

My very best wishes[edit]

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[edit]

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. [5] I started a discussion of the source.
  2. [6]: MVBW claims the source is ok.
  3. [7]: 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. [8]: Fiamh is hesitant on this source and agrees that it is reliable only as a primary source about author's opinion.
  5. [9]: 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. [10]: François Robere says the source is unacceptable per sourcing restrictions.
  7. [11]: User:Assayer objects too, but he is an involved user, like I and MVBW.
  8. [12] 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. [13]: 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 

Notified


Discussion concerning My very best wishes[edit]

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[edit]

  • This is a retaliatory filing by Paul and a violation of his topic ban issued by Sandstein [14], which explicitly prohibits filing such AE request. Just a few days ago, Sandstein reconfirmed that such ban is still in force [15]. In the process Paul falsely accused me of vandalism and of edits "aimed to whitewash Hitler" [16].
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: [17]. That should stop.
  • The RSNB request [18] 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: [19].
  • 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 [20] (this blog post [21]) to discredit one of the sources used on the page, a book by Petro Grigorenko. There were other threads [22],[23], [24],[25]. 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 [26] ? My very best wishes (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nug[edit]

Paul misleadingly characterised the publication as a local Ukrainian newspaper on RSN[27], 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 [28], 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[29], 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”[30]. 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[31]. MVBW is clearly not, having reminded that I need to follow RS policy[32] 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[33], 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)[edit]

Result concerning My very best wishes[edit]

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)

Actionjackson09[edit]

No action taken on initial report. Filer was given a non-AE block for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:25, 18 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 Actionjackson09[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Harshil169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Actionjackson09 (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
WP:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Don't worry, this is clear cut process and shows user has too much positive views about Indian religion i.e. Swaminarayan.

Actionjackson09 is removing criticism of Swaminarayan, the sect BAPS and related articles without trying to reach on consensus and doing disruptive editing. This is sign of BATTLE GROUND behaviour. User has removed sourced content several times and continuously contributing in related articles without any type of helpful or tractable behavior.

  1. This is their one of the first edit in which they removed criticism and paradox of person who is believed to be religious head by Swaminarayan sect. They just gave summary that removed paradox section.
  2. In this edit, user has removed the sourced criticism from Swami Dayananda Saraswati on Swaminarayan calling it fringe and undue. They referred the talk page discussion but it was related to article Criticism of Swaminarayan sect and came on this page after merge.
  3. This edit is reversal of criticism by Morari Bapu to Swaminarayan, supreme figure in this sect, they refered talk page discussion but third opinion was that content should be placed. See this discussion. (The content was removed from Criticism of Swaminarayan Sect because it was not quaifying criticism but this user is saying that if this was removed from that article, so, it shouldn't be here.)
  4. In most of the discussions, they directly come and say that there is consensus to do so without pinging the person who added it. Check this aggressive revert in which they refer to consensus that content should be removed but the consensus was completely opposite and users who objected never came back to sell their arguments after issue was solved. They said they can't understand the language and thus, it should be removed.
  5. Again, in this edit, user has removed the Mahatma Gandhi's criticism on Swaminarayan by saying that removing poorly sourced section while it was clearly sourced. Point to be noted is praise has not been removed, only criticism.
  6. In this edit, user removed the explanation from other temples which was written in WP:DUE way to encounter claims. This directly implied that Akshardham Delhi (this sect's temple) is largest temple without explaining sides and claims of other temples.

-- Harshil want to talk? 05:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 17 November 2019
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Their most of the edits are related to sect, their temples, their religious heads and their Gods. It clearly shows user has COI with BAPS organisation and their temples. They never engaged in meaningful discussion and removing negative information and adding superfluous claims about the sect. User is intractable for meaningful discussions and removing content without consensus by citing consensus, when we reinstate content then they label us as disruptive editing but not following BRD cycle. User is definitely WP:NOTHERE to built encyclopedia but to promote one religious ideology.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[34]


Discussion concerning Actionjackson09[edit]

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 Actionjackson09[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Actionjackson09[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It looks like they were only given a notice after these edits occurred, and several of the diffs linked are a year or more old. There's nothing actionable here. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The first, fifth and sixth diffs are all well over a year old. Meanwhile, for the second diff, there was a discussion on the talk page, and the filer of this report has today re-inserted the section [35] despite the fact that there is clear consensus not to include it. For the third and fourth diffs, there was a small consensus (3v2) to do so. The filer has reverted this removal by two different editors three times in the last two days, including once after posting here. I would suggest that the subject of this report is perhaps not the major issue here. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169[edit]

No diffs or other information. Will inform the filer. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 17 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 Harshil169[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Edward Zigma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 14:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Harshil169 (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/CASENAME#SECTION :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
  3. Date Explanation
  4. Date Explanation
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
  • Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Harshil169[edit]

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 Harshil169[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Harshil169[edit]

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

MyMoloboaccount[edit]

MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. Sandstein 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning MyMoloboaccount[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
MyMoloboaccount (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/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 03:31, 17 November 2019 The restored sources are: a) course notes from UT Austin ("Cienciala notes 2006"); b) an unknown website ("pw25"); c) a popular newspaper ("Rzecz").
  2. 18:21, 17 November 2019 Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source)
  3. 18:53, 17 November 2019 Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions.
  4. 23:05, 17 November 2019 In the source: "several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters"; in the text: "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army".
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Took part in the relevant ArbCom case and PD discussion.[36]
  • Referred to the decision in an edit summary.[37]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • Note that the sourcing restrictions expanded upon by ArbCom apply to source representation as well as to source choice.
  • Molobo's editing practices have been discussed extensively,[38] before he decided to take a "long Wikibreak".[39][40][41] He is well aware of the issues with his editing.
  • DS do not require TP discussion. That said, discussion did take place.[42]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[43]

Discussion concerning MyMoloboaccount[edit]

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 MyMoloboaccount[edit]

I note that François Robere didn't even attempt to discuss with me at all his opposition to the edits or possible improvements. This seems a bit battleground behavior in my view.

  • Rzeczpospolita is a mainstream reliable publication, neverthless I didn't contest FR second removal.I still believe the infromation it supports isn't controversial and it can be used as source-but I will not reintroduce it if this isn't supported.
  • Anna_M._Cienciala is a high quality source:
  • was a Polish-American historian and author. She specialized in modern Polish and Russian history. Graduating with a history doctorate in 1962, she taught at two Canadian universities for a few years before joining the history faculty at the University of Kansas in 1965. She retired in 2002.
  • sentence ""several Jewish accounts that describe positive encounters" and "numerous positive records of Jewish survivors praising [the] Home Army" mean the same basically and further text states that Home Army was praised in these witness reports ie ""the Home Army is openly praised in the testimony of Salomon Liberman". I find hard to see anything controversial here-again FR didn't even discuss anything, and I would be open to any discussion how to praise it differently-however, again it is bit difficult to see controversy here.
  • Misrepresenting a source by highlighting what the source explicitly states are exceptions. Wrong. The article is about Radzilow, and Radzilow is the exception mentioned by author. I don't believe it is necessary to mention that in other locations it was different, but this could be added. Again no discussion was made to phrase it differently and edit war took place. FR didn't engage in any discussion on talk page.
  • Interpreting a source in a way that suggests a false equivalence ("false", as it isn't in the source)That's wrong-Zimmerman mentions at least two examples of protecting communities by AK-Hanaczow and Lviv where numerous Jews were saved by Wladyslawa Choms who was an AK officer in charge of the operation. And that is just at brief glance.

Ongoing harassment[edit]

This unfortunately follows a strain of personal attacks and wikistalking FR has been engaging in for a while now:

  • When I mentioned that I have nothing against mentioning that Nazis targetted Jews as victims of genocide, FR responded "that's a lie" despite me actually entering following sentence in the article with Jews targeted for immediate extermination [44]

In response FR stated you're perfectly content pushing Jews out because "this isn't about the Holocaust".' [45]

  • When I quoted Nuremberg Trials that state Nazis committed genocide against Poles as well FR responded

[46] This is all damaging to Wikipedia, and the nice façade you're putting up for our fellow editors [47] I'm sorry, but this is just a load of dishonesty and ignorance. Molobo brings a legal definition; I say we can't use it (it'll be OR)

[48] It's lies, obfuscation, and inability to admit a mistake

Going even as far as carrying out accusations of "WP:TROLLING" which is a very serious personal attack That's WP:TROLLING right there(FR was unaware that Prussia also refers to a region that belonged to Poland in 18th century and when I mentioned this stated And then he preaches, in a most condescending manner, something completely wrong: that Prussia - 18th century Prussia - was part of Poland)

After that he started contacting admins asking for sanctions about me but was rebuked several times [49] rebuked [50] asked to use proper venue [51]


Long story short:I mentioned Poles were victims of Nazi genocide, quoted reliable scholars and Nuremberg Trials. FR went ballistic after this and started using personal attacks, gunning for sanctions and wikistalking me-this has been ongoing since August--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Response to My very best wishes[edit]

I note source restrictions do not mention history notes published on University pages. Anna Cienciala was a professor and her history lectures are published on website of University of Kansas; this seems a reliable source and high quality ones.Again-there is no mention about history lectures not being allowed;this should be clarified.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by My very best wishes[edit]

  1. Yes, this looks to me like a violation. Diff #1. This seems to be a self-published source by Anna M. Cienciala. Is not it?
  2. There is no doubts that MyMoloboaccount knew about this editing restriction. However, was not it necessary to place a notice on the page per Arbcom instructions to sanction someone? My very best wishes (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MyMoloboaccount[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request is actionable in part. MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week.

    (A) Only the first diff is actionable. As to the remaining diffs, it is neither explained nor apparent how they might violate Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations. I therefore disregard them. (B) As to the second diff, it is also actionable only in part. (B.1) Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy. Using it as a source does not violate the remedy. (B.2) The use of the lecture notes by Anna M. Cienciala violates the remedy. These notes are neither a "peer-reviewed scholarly journal", an "academically focused book by reputable publishers" or an "article published by reputable institutions". The reputation of the author is irrelevant. What matters is that this is not one of the types of publications allowed by the remedy. (B.3) The same applies even more clearly to the use of the source http://www.dws.xip.pl/PW/bron/pw25.html (the "pw25" reference). This site looks like some kind of military blog, it is not in English and the link does not even work. This is the worst kind of sourcing imaginable.

    As to the sanction to be imposed, MyMoloboaccount does not seem to have been sanctioned previously. The remedy states that "Editors repeatedly failing to meet this standard may be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action." This means we cannot impose a topic ban for the first violation. But the decision also provides: "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month." This means that a block is the only allowed, and therefore mandatory, enforcement action. For violating the ArbCom decison, MyMoloboaccount is blocked for a week. Sandstein 23:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually #3 is also actionable: it is a serious misrepresentation of a source in a contentious area. That's edging towards final warning territory IMO. FR is correct ion characterising this edit as removing the vital context that this is a minority view, albeit a significant minority (as the source says, "Several opinions comprise an exception"). I'm as fed up with these guys scrapping as anyone else is, but that is not kosher. Guy (help!) 00:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1[edit]

Wrong forum — this is not a discretionary sanction. Please submit a report at AN/I. El_C 03:21, 18 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 Kazemita1[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Kazemita1 (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:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics


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


  1. 30 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "Removing undue content. There is enough explanation about MEK related matter just prior to this", but this is false; the information he removed has not been discussed anywhere else in the article.
  1. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1's edit summary says "See talk page about the reasons why it is undue" and in the talk page discussion, says You added this piece which is not related to MEK, i.e. the topic of this article., but this is false; the information he removed describes the group behind an attempted attack on the MEK on European soil.
  1. 1 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says “There is no need to combine the two sentences. It is already long enough.”, but does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources.
  1. 31 October 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content back in the article that's not verified by source. Kazemita1's edit summary says "per Admin's comment (copyvio)", but he does not explain how the text he added is supported by sources.
  1. 3 November 2019 Uses the article's GS policy to revert content out of the article. Kazemita1 removes reliable sources from the article, but doesn't give a reason why.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 


  1. 5 May 2019 Kazemita1 warned for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article.
  1. 14 May 2019 Kazemita1 blocked for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article.
  1. 3 July 2019 Kazemita1 final warning for edit warring on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article.
  1. 16 September 2019 Kazemita1 restricted from making any edits to the People's Mujahedin of Iran for 2 weeks for edit warring.
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 


Kazemita1 has edited the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (and a couple related pages) exclusively since April this year, a page that forms part of the Post 1978 Iranian politics General Sanctions. Kazemita1 has a history of edit warring on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, and was previously warned, blocked, and sanctioned for edit warring there.

The Diffs of edits provided show that despite past sanctions, he is still engaging in edit warring. Kazemita1 uses the article’s revert restrictions to add and remove contested content while failing to provide relevant explanations for his edits. He has been successful at imposing his edits this way, even though his reasons are often misleading or irrelevant.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Pinging @Kazemita1: Notifying that there is an AE report concerning your edits.


Discussion concerning Kazemita1[edit]

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 Kazemita1[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Kazemita1[edit]

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