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



No action taken (without prejudice to another admin taking action). Volunteer Marek is topic-banned for six months. François Robere is blocked for a week by TonyBallioni. Sandstein 07:44, 1 March 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 Tatzref[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Tatzref (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 - for WP:HOAX / WP:V, WP:TE, editing against consensus and introducing rejected WP:QS WP:SPS, WP:PLAGIARISM of said SPS (alternatively could be WP:COI), WP:NPOV

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

While this report discusses content - this is not a content dispute. Content is produced here to prove plagiarism of a dubious SPS that resulted in the introduction of a hoax to an article:

  1. Tatzref is a WP:SPA whose 210 edits over the past year have revolved around Mark Paul, defending Paul in talk pages - first edit, inserting Paul as a source to articles, following consensus this was unreliable - copy-pasting material from Paul - see revdelled edits to Anti-Jewish violence in Poland, 1944–1946 from 01:42, 22 May 2018‎, and recently (evidence below) - paraphrasing content from Paul and copying citations.
  2. This academic source describes a work by Paul as "expressing the myth" of "the ungrateful Jew". (Per this academic source "ungrateful Jew" = "antisemitic trope")
  3. See RSN, and RfC on Paul (note comment on Tatzref) - consensus not to use this WP:SPS.
  4. Tatzref queried by @K.e.coffman: regarding a WP:COI vs. KPK. No response: [1]
  5. 16:42, 22 February 2019, 17:26, 22 February 2019 - expanding Jewish trade in Christian slaves - counter to prior discussion involving Tatzref - [2][3]
  6. 16:37, 22 February 2019 - insertion of "Jewish restitution text". (WP:PLAGIARISM of [4])
  7. 18:16, 23 February 2019, reverted without discussion 21:25, 24 February 2019 - insertion of "pimp pogrom". (WP:PLAGIARISM of page 152)
  8. Despite challenges to the text and an open discussion at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland - Tatzref is absent.
  9. The "pimp pogrom" and moreso the "Jewish restitution text" are WP:PLAGIARISM (no attribution) of Paul. See User:Icewhiz/Illustration for detailed analysis.
  10. The "pimp pogrom" text misrepresents the sources it cites. Sources are clear this is inner-Jewish violence, while the text suggests possibly otherwise. The text says "more than 100 injured" while a cited source - Barricades and Banners page 127 says "over forty hospitalized".[5]
  11. The "Jewish restitution text" contains severe misrepresentations rising to WP:HOAX (sentence names per User:Icewhiz/Illustration)
    1. Jewish fraud - verified vs. source - there was widespread fraud. However, there was also non-Jewish ("fake Jewish" claimants) and Jewish/Polish joint fraud ventures - omitted.
    2. Thousands of reclaims - WP:OR and misrepresentation of sources (I have both, can send upon request). Kopciowski2008 (English) supports "over 240 cases filed", and Kopciowski2005 (Polish) supports "total of 291 files". Neither source tallies success vs. failure (though many were successful). Neither source (both local microhistories) support "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" that the sentence asserts. (per this academic source- it is hard to estimate, but "extremely small")
    3. Restitution law - this sentence is cited to 38 pages in Polish (two works) and 1 page in English (one work - again a microhistory). I have checked the sources, and it seems to me a libelous (to the cited authors) misrepresentation. I will not send admins to read Polish (But see summary at end of Haaretz here) - but I will refute (sourced) several falsehoods packed into this sentence:
      1. "in effect until the end of 1948" - the 1945 decree was annulled in March 1946.[6][7] (claims continued under different laws till 1948)
      2. "or their relatives and heirs...reclaim simplified" - by design of Polish lawmakers ONLY directly ascending/descending-line heirs could use the simplified route, and this only resulted in possession, not title.[8]
      3. "expedited/21 days/same day" - "rarely as simple" for occupied properties.[9]
      4. "minimal costs" - 800 zloty (almost a month's wages) to file, 20,000 zloty (20 monthly wages) for case. Majority couldn't afford without help.[10]
      5. "outside the country" - Poland block returns from DP camps, Jews returning from USSR came after claims deadline in 1948,[11] "we will not permit some foreign Jews..."[12]
      6. Notable omission - claimants "were often murdered". [13]
      7. Notable omission - no restitution of state property/intent (including Nazi handovers to the state).[14]
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)

17:23, 18 May 2018 alerted

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Clarified use of 2017 source in point 2. In regards to Plagiarism - the text itself is an obvious paraphrase of Paul without attribution to Paul, Some 407(of 723) & 1557(of 3002) chars in the edits are are outright copies of Paul's citations (down to order, page numbers, and style) - this is not by chance, Tatzref cited material not required (even off-topic) to content he actually added to the article. When basing work off of a source (Paul), WP:PLAGIARISM requires attribution (to Paul). See User:Icewhiz/Illustration for full analysis.Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: - even ignoring questions of copyright on citation style (which are unique) and ordering - quoting Wikipedia:Plagiarism - "Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way, may also be a form of plagiarism, as well as a violation of the Verifiability policy.". If you look at User:Icewhiz/Illustration, you will see the prose is a paraphrased summary of the bits of Paul's manuscript I quoted there. This ties in to source misrepresentation - for instance "Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed" in Tatzref's edit - this is not present in the very local microhistories by Kopciowski (each references a single courthouse) - this is present only in Paul who himself does not cite a source for this (he compiles an argument based on dozens(!!!) of examples/sources in the four page long footnote5)). Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Per this Springer published dissertation or this book copying citations is improper. Perhaps it would be best to defer to copyright/anti-plagiarism specialist (Diannaa?) in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@Sandstein: - I apologize for the excessive length and complexity - it took me many hours to research&compile this. Ignoring long-term conduct patterns and weaker violations, the the main argument in a nutshell is that (6) 16:37, 22 February 2019 - insertion of "Jewish restitution text" - is WP:PLAGIARISM of [15] (which isn't cited, see User:Icewhiz/Illustration for evidence) + a misrepresentation/OR of the sources it does cite(11). This is a violation of a number of policies - WP:V in using a WP:QS WP:SPS (and WP:V+WP:OR in relation to the misrepresented cited sources), WP:NPOV, WP:PLAGIARISM, acting against consensus on Paul (RSN, and RfC), and attempting to evade scrutiny/mislead other editors by "stealth introducing" content from a source that would be challenged and removed immediately were it cited directly. The same applies (in a weaker fashion) to (7) 21:25, 24 February 2019, "pimp pogrom" (WP:PLAGIARISM of page 152, misrepresentation(10)).Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
In regards to Tatzref's stmt - I never claimed #10 (pimp pogrom) or Jewish trade slaving were a HOAX - this was said on #11. The "pimp pogrom" text misrepresents the sources it cites (which appear in Paul in the same order and formatting) in a number of ways (not attributing a 1905 Reuter report as done in Bristow, Ury says 100 apartments and 40 injured - the text says 100 injured and 40 legal brothels). All sources I have seen (including those cited) present this as only or mainly inner-Jewish violence (two Jewish groups fighting one another) - the exception being the Mark Paul SPS - and Tatzref's text. I helped expand the new Alfonse Pogrom, but this is probably undue in a high level article covering hundreds of years which currently covers the 1905 revolution (many events) in two half sentences.Icewhiz (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In regards to VM, edits - [16] including "During Nazi occupation Poles and Jews were targeted for extermination", or [17] including "eventually both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination". (not appearing in the source it cites), both returned after a challenge on sourcing/fact, may merit scrutiny.Icewhiz (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Tatzref[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 Tatzref[edit]

Since so many allegations have been leveled and I require time time to look and address at each carefully (I do not have the luxury of spending the better part of my day editing Wikipedia), I will be responding to the diffs piecemeal, after which I will provide a general wrap-up statement. The first installment deals with #10 -- allegedly part of my overall strategy to introduce a "hoax" into an article. Wikipedia defines "hoax" as "a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth." Please be mindful that the allegations impute to me all sorts of devious motivation. Therefore, if any allegation is manifestly untrue, I believe it is appropriate for me to comment on the possible motivation for it having been put forward.Tatzref (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


On February 24, 2019, User Yaniv (יניב הורון) was blocked indefinitely from editing "for Tendentious editing across multiple topic areas and time frames” ( Tatzref (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC) This occurred after it came to the attention of the administrator that Yaniv had deleted text of mine as being allegedly “antisemitic vandalism.” This was deemed to be a “personal attack” and “a chilling tactic designed to stifle opposition, as documented above, and is textbook tendentious editing.” The following is the text in question, found in the article “History of the Jews in Poland” -- under the heading “Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property.”

A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process, entailing minimal costs, was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Many properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.[229] The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”[230] Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).[231]
In his strenuous defense of Yaniv, Icewhiz stated: “Yaniv’s description of the content may have been overly frank, however the problem is with the content itself - not commentary thereof. That suchWP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources (and yes - this is a WP:BLP issue towards the miscited authors - Grabowski&Libionka) - is inserted onto the English Wikipedia is shameful, and that users get blocked for attempting to rectify this - is even more shameful. … There are other editors here who should have been blocked here. As it stands - the English Wikipedia would seem to accept such content, while blocking those who would call it out.”
On February 25, 2019, at 16:43, I placed the following note on the administrator’s user page (
Icewhiz’s allegation that the text purged by Yaniv (יניב הורון), as allegedly “antisemitic vandalism,” in fact constitutes “WP:HOAX material - blatant and libelous misrepresentation of sources” is every bit as offensive and baseless as Yaniv’s. Wikipedia defines “hoax” as “a falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth.” Set out below is the impugned text in question. No cogent evidence had been presented that any statement it contains is a “hoax” or that the sources (pages of publications) cited do not support those statements. Until Icewhiz produces such evidence serious consideration should be given to blocking his participation in Polish-related issues for the same reason that Yaniv has been blocked.
On February 25, 2019, at 22:13, Icewhiz submitted his request for enforcement against me.Tatzref (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

5. Re: “16:42, 22 February 2019, 17:26, 22 February 2019 - expanding Jewish trade in Christian slaves - counter to prior discussion involving Tatzref.” Allegedly, this is part and parcel of my “hoax” agenda.

The latest version of the disputed text is found in the following passage in “History of Jews in Poland,” under the heading “Early history: 966–1385.”
As elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, the principal activity of Jews in medieval Poland was commerce and trade, including export and import of goods such as cloth, linen, furs, hides, wax, metal objects, and slaves.[34] The trade in Christian slaves was opposed by the Catholic Church.[35]
On February 23, 2019, Icewhiz objected to the inclusion of the second sentence and removed it. That sentence was referenced to Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, Jews in Poland: A Documentary History, Hippocrene Books (1993), pp. 257–266.
A little background is needed to properly understand what’s going on. Jewish traders (Radhanites) first came to Poland in the 10th century. Among other things, they traded in Christian slaves, which historians describe as their most lucrative commodity. These slaves were taken to foreign slave markets. The Catholic Church and some of the ruling class were opposed to that trade. A conflict with the Church ensued. When I joined Wikipedia in May 2018, there was nothing in the main text about the activities of these Jewish traders. However, there was an accompanying illustration with the following caption: “Adalbert of Prague freeing Slavic Christian slaves from Jewish merchants—relief of Gniezno Cathedral Doors.” Pogonowski’s book, which was listed under “References” and in several “Notes,” contains extensive information about this trade.
In June 2018, I added information about this trade into the article. This met with some opposition. The matter was then discussed at length in Talk, with my providing numerous scholarly sources, including YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe and a statement by Professor Hanna Zaremska, curator of a gallery at POLIN The Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw that features a display on this topic. The sources I provided amply supported what I wrote. Six people, including myself, participated in the discussion. After some back and forth, there was apparent acceptance by all the participants but one that it was appropriate to mention the opposition of the Catholic Church. Three editors including Icewhiz were involved in drafting or reviewing the following text:
As elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe, the principal activity of Jews in medieval Poland was commerce and trade, including export and import of goods such as cloth, linen, furs, hides, wax, metal objects, and slaves.[33] Kraków became an important outpost on the route for Jewish merchants who brought slaves from Poland and other countries to Western Europe. In the 12th century Jews were excluded from the slave trade, due to the Catholic Church objecting to Jews dealing in Christian slaves.[34] Reference: YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe
However, MShabazz, who had previously characterized my text as “original research” and called me “dense” (“You seem to think that all Wikipedia editors are as dense as you are”) objected to the expansion of the text and kept deleting portions of it stating, “I still don't see any consensus to include this disproportionate content.” I replied to MShabazz as follows in Talk:
Three editors worked on the revised text which appropriately takes into account the heightened importance both the YIVO Encyclopedia and POLIN The History of Polish Jews (see above), as well as other sources, place on this particular "commodity," because of its lucrative nature and the ensuing conflict with the Catholic Church. This is not giving undue weight but rather important context. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity.Tatzref (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
None of the other Talk participants objected to the above statement. If Icewhiz believed it was inaccurate he should have spoken up at the time. He didn’t.
I was inactive from early July until late February 2019 (with one exception). On my return, on February 22, I added the following text into the article: “The trade in Christian slaves was opposed by the Catholic Church.” On February 23, Icewhiz removed that text stating, “We discussed slavery at length at length in the talk page (last archive) - this waa rejected - gain consensus prior to reinserting, and please avoid cook.”
I maintain that there was no clear consensus not to mention the opposition of the Catholic Church to the slave trade, and that 5 out of 6 participants either approved of or did not object to its inclusion in July 2018. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the information I added on February 22 is consistent with what is found in the accompanying illustration.Tatzref (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

10. According to Icewhiz, “The “pimp pogrom” text misrepresents the sources it cites. Sources are clear this is inner-Jewish violence, while the text suggests possibly otherwise. The text says "more than 100 injured" while a cited source - Barricades and Banners page 127 says "over forty hospitalized".”

The article in question is “History of the Jews in Poland.” Below is my text as it read prior to its removal by Icewhiz on February 25, 2019, for this stated reason: “A number of misrepresentations, miss-attribution, and probably UNDUE.”
Three days of rioting in Warsaw in late May 1905, known as the Alfonse or pimp pogrom, involving bands of armed Jewish workers and members of the Jewish underworld claimed the lives of 8 to 15 people, with more than 100 injured. The workers looted and destroyed 40 legal brothels and places frequented by pimps.[1]
Bristow states at p. 61: “Reuter, the British news agency, reported forty houses of ill fame demolished, eight persons killed and one hundred injured.” Ury states, at. p. 127, “five people were killed in the events themselves, another ten died from wounds they incurred during the mayhem, and over forty were hospitalized.”
My text sets out a range of deaths, even though it appears that the higher count (15) is probably more accurate. Obviously, “injured” and “hospitalized” do not carry the same meaning, nor are they necessarily coextensive. In all likelihood, not everyone injured would have required hospitalization. Icewhiz’s point about “inner-Jewish violence” is perplexing. Why shouldn’t an article that deals with the history of Jews in Poland not mention a major pogrom simply because it was perpetrated by Jews on other Jews? This is not an article about anti-Jewish violence perpetrated by non-Jews. In his monumental “The Jews in Poland and Russia,” Polonsky has no problem in squarely placing this important event, which occurred in the context of a major social problem faced by the Jewish community at the time, in the overall history of the Jews in Poland. That entire topic surely deserves a separate Wikipedia article, not just a short passage in this article.
Clearly, Icewhiz’s allegations are baseless on all counts and thoroughly undermine his credibility. This was the bloodiest and deadliest pogrom in Warsaw’s history until World War II. It was an important event that has an extensive academic literature. The suppression of this information has nothing to do with any alleged multiple “misrepresentations, miss-attribution” of sources or with UNDUE. Those are demonstrably bogus charges. Furthermore, purging the information, I believe, goes beyond mere POV. It undermines the reliability of Wikipedia as an objective source of information.Tatzref (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Subsequently, Icewhiz alleged plagiarism of Mark Paul. A comparison of the relevant texts does not bear this out. My terse and factual text is clearly based on Bristow and Ury, the two leading sources that most authors writing on this topic cite. Just because Mark Paul referred to those same sources (as well as many others) in his lengthy commentary on this topic does not taint their use by others. Many authors writing on a particular topic cite many of the same sources, and it is not an accepted practice to acknowledge that other authors have previously referred to those sources or that they learned about those sources from other authors' publications.Tatzref (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Edward J. Bristow, Prostitution and Prejudice: The Jewish Fight Against White Slavery 1870–1939, Clarendon Press, 1982, pp. 58-61; Scott Ury, Barricades and Banners: The Revolution of 1905 and the Transformation of Warsaw Jewry, Stanford University Press, 2012, pp. 126-129; Antony Polonsky, The Jews in Poland and Russia, Volume 2: 1881–1914, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010, p. 93

Statement by Roscelese[edit]

I don't do a lot of editing in this topic area and I'll defer to people who do, but my previous encounters with Tatzref led me to strongly suspect socking or off-wiki coordination as detailed here, due in large part to the account's singleminded crusade towards adding racist pseudohistorical sources into articles. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by VM[edit]

Ok. First, this is an obvious "payback report" for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked by User:TonyBallioni. Icewhiz seems to want to "even the score". In regard to his points, one by one;

  1. I would consider Mark Paul a low quality source. I wouldn't use it myself. However it HAS in fact been cited in scholarly publications. It is also a FALSE CLAIM that Tatzref used the source "following consensus this was unreliable". As you can see for yourself no consensus on this question was ever reached.
  2. The source refers to Paul as a "mild" version of whatever this is suppose to be. This appears to be an academic dispute. Icewhiz's second link, which accuses Mark Paul, a WP:BLP of using anti-semitic tropes... doesn't even mention Mark Paul.
  3. Yes, but this RfC took place AFTER Icewhiz's diff in #1 and on a different article.
  4. Shrug. Insinuation.
  5.  ???. The text about slaves was already in there. Taztref just added that it was opposed by the Catholic Church.
  6. The claim that this is WP:PLAGARISM is blatantly FALSE. First, for it to be PLAGARISM, it would have to be unattributed. But this is cited by Taztref. Even if we're talking about WP:COPYVIO that is not true either as the text is obviously different in the source provided by Icewhiz. What seems to be going on here is that there is one source, used by Tatzref (Kopciowski) which says one thing, and then another source, Mark Paul, FOUND BY ICEWHIZ which says something similar. Icewhiz then is asserting that because a source HE FOUND, says something similar to a source that Tatzref found... it must be "plagiarism". ... ... how does that make sense? What really seems to be going on here is probably that Icewhiz suspects that Tatzref used a source by Mark Paul but attributed the text to a different source, because Mark Paul is a low quality source. However, Icewhiz most likely does not have access to the source used by Tatzref so he can't verify that. Accusing Tatzref of "plagiarism" then is his round-about way of making that accusation while hoping that no one notices the bad faith involved and the fact he has no support for his suspicions what so ever. For the record, I have no access to Kopciowski either.
  7. Ditto.
  8. Uh... that discussion was just started yesterday. Tatzref does not appear to have made any edits to the article since. What kind of nonsense is this?

All I got time for right now. Maybe there's something bad in the rest of the diffs. But the first 8 seems to be spurious and quite false in their presentations.

And regarding Roscelese point - yes, there does appear to be some similarity between Tatzref and GGB and prolly someone should file a check user. The similarity could just be due to the nature of the topic and the popularity of some of the sources among the Canadian Polish diaspora. But yeah, it should be checked.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Francois Robere: Care to elaborate as to what you think my "motives" are? No? Then strike the bad faithed weaselly insinuations please.

Re #5 - the quotes from EverGreen and Malik are not even about the text that Icewhiz includes in his diff! His diffs are about Tatzref adding 'slavery was opposed by the Catholic Church" to the article, and Icewhiz pretends like this is some kind of horrid thing do add (and it's in the sources)

Re #6 - No, it looks like Taztref just used sources that Mark Paul used.

Re #7 - what's your point? "There are also other words in the source which were not used so that's BAD!!!!" ???

Re #9 - what in the world are you talking about? What are you even referencing? Your quote does not appear anywhere on this page.

Re #11 - "this is all very bad" LOL. Are you just being lazy? I think your whole statement is "all very bad". Very very very very very bad. Super bad. If you're gonna say "it's bad" you need to explain WHY.

Dude, you're just throwing random mud, muddy, confusing mud which is hard to understand, and engaging in theatrics about how "bad" something is, hoping that something will stick, but don't actually support any of your assertion. Look, it's not a secret that both you and Icewhiz, along with the recently indef'd Yanniv [18] (freakin' a!!! that list of overlap is long!!! Might want to be more subtle in the future), had frequent disputes with Tatzref. Since one of your tag team got indef'd, you and Icewhiz are now trying to "level the odds" by throwing together a spurious WP:AE report which is really nothing more than a content dispute.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually Icewhiz's #11 is ridiculous. He claims it's a "HOAX" and a "libel" but if you actually read what he's complaining about it's all about the fact that there are OTHER sources which address DIFFERENT details which Taztref didn't include. Why not just add these others sources and details? Did Tatzref try to remove them or something? No? Then this is just silly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Admins - Francois Robere says that admins have been negligent in "protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism". It's clear that by "ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism" he means User:GizzyCatBella. This is WP:ASPERSIONS and a pretty serious accusations. But FR provides ZERO evidence to support it. Let's see the diffs (and I mean actual diffs, not innuendo and bad faithed insinuations) of GCB engaging in ANY kind of "vandalism", ethnically motivated or otherwise. Or ethnic prejudice. If he can't back up that attack, then he deserves a ban, just like Yanniv got from User:TonyBallioni, because it's exactly the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein writes: " In the same section, they write without providing evidence that "this is an obvious "payback report" for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked" - Yanniv did indeed get recently indef blocked. Since User:TonyBallioni was the one who did the blocking, and since he has commented here, I saw o reason to provide a diff for this very obvious facts. Icewhiz was the one who started the relevant edit wars [19] [20], Yanniv then reverted back to Icewhiz's version with a disruptive edit summary that got him blocked, Icewhiz then tried to intervene on behalf of Yanniv, and against Tatzref on Yanniv's talk page with Tony [21]. Again, since Tony was involved in all of this, there was no need to provide "diffs" as he was already aware. If my comment was problematic Tony, not Sandstein would be the one to make that call.

Sandstein then writes: "and accuse another editor of being part of a "tag team" - yes, I made that accusation, but I *did* provide evidence. Here it is again [22]. The three editors have edited 500 articles and talk pages together. Most of them obscure. For a combined 10849 edits. Ten thousand. Eight hundred. Forty. Nine. In about a year. A Grand Tatnum's worth of editing together. AND out of that 500, 200 are articles/talk pages with edit made within 24 hours of each other. 100 of them involved articles/talk pages with edits made within 3 hours of each other. That means these edits are either reverting together, sequentially, or supporting quickly each other in talk page discussions. Note that I did NOT accuse Icewhiz etc. of off-wiki coordination. That's almost impossible to show. But the evidence of tag-team behavior is right there. You can dispute the strength of that evidence. But you cannot claim that, contra Sandstein, it was not provided.

Sandstein then writes: "among other instances of vitriol and confrontative statements" - speaking of unbacked accusations! *Which* statements? I'm disputing the accuracy of Icewhiz's diffs. I think they don't show what he claims they show. It's gonna be "confrontative", there's just no other way to do it.

Sandstein then writes: "that have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request." - oh this one is complete bullshit. I even freaking numbered my statements so that'd it be easier to see which specific claim of Icewhiz's it addressed. If Icewhiz writes "1) something something something" and I write "1) but no something something something" then that has a pretty freaking obvious "bearing" on the subject of this enforcement. This is... just.... uh, completely false.

And seriously. If my comment was indeed problematic, the proper response would be to ask me to strike it. Barring that, it would be to impose a sanction on me commenting on WP:AE. But to pull a six month topic ban out of thin air - even though NONE of my edits to actual articles have been brought into question - ??? Yeah, that's insane.Volunteer Marek (talk)

Statement by GizzyCatBella (unrelated to the original request)[edit]

@Roscelese, Volunteer Marek, and TonyBallioni:

  • I strongly object to being labeled "singleminded crusader adding racist pseudohistorical sources into articles".[23] This is a slanderous, groundless accusation, and I expect an apology. I also demand urgent "check user" being processed to stop speculation of me being in any way connected to the user in question. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by François Robere[edit]

@Volunteer Marek: I don't know what Icewhiz's motives are and I don't care - much could be said about your motives as well - as the report itself is justified. Tatzref's SPA nature was in question from their very first edit, and Roscelese wasn't wrong adding them to an SPI request I filed some time ago regarding another user.

  • #5: Notice what others are saying: EvergreenFir notes that Tatzref "[left out] important context"; MShabazz notes that "Choosing to force in a few facts while ignoring the hundreds of others mentioned in the same sources, often on the same pages, is not acceptable behavior"; and Piotrus notes that the sources do not support Tatzref's central (and might I add - inflammatory) claim, and that he's unable to verify the rest.
  • #6 includes a short paraphrase of Paul (starting in p. 2 of the source) along with data from its footnotes, with no attribution. Looks like plagiarism.
  • #7 Not straight-up plagiarism (ie. copying as-is with no attribution), but they did rely on Paul. Polonsky is cited for support, but in the source he's cited for other claims then those made here; he was probably copied along with Bristow without actually reading what he says.
  • #9 You should put that at the top... I went through the text looking for those bits. Otherwise it's convincing.
  • #11 This is all very bad.

It took me the better part of an hour and a half going through this. I second Icewhiz's findings, and support an indefinite ban on Tatzref from all topics related to Jews, Judaism and Jewish history, along with a warning against using non-RS for any purpose.

I would also like to note, again, that our admins have been consistently negligent in protecting this encyclopedia from ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism. The fact that Bella is still allowed to comment anywhere even vaguely related to Jews and Jewish history, after having committed more egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity than Tatzref ever has, is a sign of their failure. François Robere (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

Zeroth. Responding to ping by Francois above and making a full statement.

First, regarding the request itself, I've recently suggested at talk of one of the articles to Tatzref to add quotations to some of his claims. TBH, I don't see much serious problems here - this request should be put on hold until relevant quotations are added, or not. With WP:OFFLINE in mind, unless another editor actually bothers to analyze sources used and provide relevant quotations showing that Tatzref additions are hoaxes, all we have going on here is a seemingly baseless accusation that some other editors 'don't think Tatzref is representing sources correctly'. Perhaps he is not, hard to say without sources, but WP:AFG suggests we should not be making such claims without sources / analysis to the contrary, and so far I haven't seen much of those, so.... PS. Francois said " Piotrus notes that the sources do not support Tatzref's central (and might I add - inflammatory) claim, and that he's unable to verify the rest." While the latter is true (I can't verify it, offline sources) I never said that "sources do not support Tatzref's central (and might I add - inflammatory) claim". Where did I say that?? If I cannot verify them how can I know whether they support it or not??? Francois makes no diff in his claim of what I said, and I find it rather worrisome that words are being put in my mouth that I do not recall saying. The only comment I can think of that is relevant from recent days is [24] and what I say there should be pretty clear (that I am AGFing Tatzref additions, but I ask him to add quotations if possible to ease verification).

Second, it is a bit strange, to say the least, to see a report on two editors start by two other editors getting banned/restricted. It is nice to see occasionally WP:NPA being taken seriously (I don't hang around AE and such these days much, few years ago NPA was seen as a joke, if things are finally changing in that regard, it is overall a good thing).

Third. As much as I support enforcing NPA and such, I want to caution Sandstein to take a bit more time before swinging ban hammer and making block and ban decisions. I note that Tony has for example asked others whether such an action he intends to take is appropriate. That's commendable restrain. But Sandstein has topic banned VM instantly. I have two issues with that. First, few months ago Sanstein topic banned User:Poeticbent, the most prolific editor in the Polish-Jewish topics, creator of many DYKs and GAs, for what he perceived as a (single) personal attack on Icehwiz (see User_talk:Poeticbent/Archive_16#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction). Offended, Poeticbent has quit Wikipeia and has not edited even since his t-ban expired months ago. Why did Sandstein issue an area topic ban for the most prolific content creator in that area instead of a civility/discussion-related restriction? I don't know, but in the hindsight it is clear IMHO that it was the wrong restriction, and it has led to a loss of a valuable editor. I realize this discussion is not a place to re-assess an old AE decision, but my point is that something similar may be happening here right now. Sandstein saw something he perceived as a personal attack, and without consulting others, decided to topic ban yet another editor for a perceived personal attack instead of considering a civility type of restriction (like a topic ban from discussion pages of EE articles, or a warning that another NPA in that area will result in a stricter measure). A half a year topic ban from an entire content area for a single unrelated NPA in AE is something I feel other admins should at the very least have to review and consult. Last but not least, I thought that at AE and such, the standards for NPA and such were somewhat lower, to reduce any chilling effects people may have in discussing other editors. While VM comment uses perhaps rather direct and strong language, I do not think that suggesting a connection between a ban of another editor and a motivation to criticize yet another editor here is some far fetched personal attack that should not be considered. I am not saying I agree with VM assessment of Icehwiz motivations, but it a statement of fact to say that 1) Yanniv (errr, ניב הורון ? - same nick? There is no User:Yanniv....) reverted Tatzref edits, VM and Icehwiz got involved in a related small edit war at History of Polish Jews, perhaps some other pages - I am not monitoring this in detail 2) Yanniv got banned by TB 3) Tatzref posted a message critical of Icehwiz to several talk pages [25], [26], [27] under heading of 'Icewhiz's defamatory allegations' or similar. 4) Icehwiz opens an AE against Tatzref. I do not think this AE request is a simple as a 'payback report', but again, there is a sort connection between ניב הורון 's block and this AE. I'd leave to the reviewing admins to judge if the connection is relevant here, and if so, what are the motivations for it. But to topic ban another editor for making an (bad-faithed, fair enough) argument that such a connection exists is IMHO rather unfair (6 months?), a wrong tool (civility restriction would be better suited than a topic ban) and finally, a chilling effect (WP:BOOMERANG is all good, but there's a point we can seriously scare people from posting anything in AE if we are too ban-hammer happy on comments like that).

Fourth. If anything I said above would be considered a personal attack, or any related form of offence, and would lead 'someone' to consider banning or blocking me, please give me a chance to WP:REFACTOR any possibly offensive content before hammering me. TIA.

Fifth, and going back to the two main editors in this AE. I respect Icehwiz for inserting a valued POV into many related discussions, but I'd caution him to try to reduce his presence in AE. While it is my subjective view, perhaps, all AE incidents in the last two years two years I can recall reading seem to involve him. At the very least, this must be stressful. Perhaps a change of attitude of sorts may be healthy? I used find myself at AE quite often a decade ago or so. A change of my attitude to wiki and adoption of more friendly and forgiving attitude has, I think, worked out quite well for me. It is a good reminder to all that other editors here are generally also trying to help, and that a good way of settling our differences does not have to involve calling admins for help and receiving a few semi-random bans on occasion, but instead, remembering WP:AGF and trying to meet other editors half-way. See also my essays at User:Piotrus/Morsels of wikiwisdom for my thoughts on related issues. Reading those essays is probably going to be less stressful than reading this thread :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment to K.e.coffman note below: there is no denying that Tatzref is not neutral (and that's ok per WP:NPOV). I'd suggest however staying away from Godwin's law. In your comment about your google search you mention Stormfront, that could lead some readers to think there is a connection ("these audiences") between the respectable Polish-American NGO ([28]), and neo-Nazis. I don't think that's fair comparison. And I don't even see Stormfront in the hits I get after clicking your link, but I see that quote being used in NYBooks book review... Anyway, Tazref is not citing Paul these days. And if he cites reputable scholars that Paul cites as well, that's shouldn't be an issue - if he is using WP:RS, that's the end of the story. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by K.e.coffman (Tatzref)[edit]

On the point of SPI, I don't think it would be helpful as it's unlikely that GCB and Tatzref are the same people. While there are similarities (both accounts promoted and defended KPK & Mark Paul), the editing styles are too different. Mutual connection to KPK is far more likely.

On the original report, I believe it has merit. I've participated in the related disputes and had a chance to observe Tatzref's editing from the beginning. This is not a content dispute, but an on-going and problematic pattern of advocacy-based editing and promotion of fringe theories.

  • His very first edit was to defend the fringe author Mark Paul: [29]. Paul, for example, subscribes to the idea that the Jews in the Soviet zone of occupation in 1939-41 were de facto Nazi collaborators; see here: Paul's thesis. Tatzref does as well: [30], bottom of diff: "Collaborating with one of these states in furthering these goals constituted de facto collaboration with the other."
  • I've asked Tatzref early on if he was connected to KPK; there was no response: KPK Toronto
  • Most of his editing was connected to KPK / Mark Paul. For example, he offered this defense of Mark Paul, ostensibly quoting Jan Karski's writing from WW2 (?): [31].
  • In summer 2018, Tatzref stopped editing. He returned this winter for the AfD discussion on a hot-button topic: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heaven for the nobles, Purgatory for the townspeople, Hell for the peasants, and Paradise for the Jews
  • Specific to the recent dispute, when I saw the material added by Tatzref [32], I found it likewise non-neutral and possibly cherry-picked. It was also oddly ref-bombed. So I was not surprised at all when Icewhiz posted a PDF from Mark Paul where the same narrative was being advanced. I share Icewhiz's suspicion that Tatzref is using Mark Paul as his actual source and just copy pasting citations in to create an impression of RS being used. He might have access to all these sources -- who knows? He did not say as he did not participate in the Talk page discussion: History of the Jews in Poland#Recent edits. Ref bombing also makes the material hard to verify.

In summary, I find Tatzref's editing to be contrary to Wikipedia's goals. His SPA contributions ([33]) advance fringe theories by using cherry-picked materials while promoting dubious publications. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Here's the Stormfront post in question: Polish-Jewish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939–1941: "Indeed very interesting what is brought to light here...", and a link to the KPK document: I would like to know why a respectable org would publish a fringe author such as Mark Paul who asserts that Jews collaborated with the Nazis while under the Soviet rule, and why Tatzref believes the same: [34]. Perhaps he can explain his statement here.
@TonyBallioni, Sandstein, and GoldenRing: Please review my statement above. I don't believe that this is a content dispute, but a promotion of fringe POV. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

Simply, as a matter of procedures, what should happen here? First, this thread needs to be closed. Second, if it will be closed with the 6 month topic ban for VM, and VM disagrees, he needs to discuss this matter politely and reasonably with the blocking admin. If this does not result in anything, and VM disagree, he then should make an appeal on AE. My very best wishes (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I also think the topic ban for VM was unjustified. I believe his recent comments on this noticeboard, including questioning the motivation of the filer, are a justifiable opinion and can be supported by diffs. One can disagree with VM, but this is not a valid reason for a 6 month topic ban from all EE subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani[edit]

Why shouldn’t an article that deals with the history of Jews in Poland not mention a major pogrom simply because it was perpetrated by Jews on other Jews? This is not an article about anti-Jewish violence perpetrated by non-Jews.

Tatzref. Icewhiz was quite correct in arguing that, having read the sources, you omitted that the Alfonse pimp pogrom was a Jew on Jew matter. A pogrom, we all assume, is almost invariably an inter-ethnic form of violence, and omitting this crucial fact of its 'infra-ethnic' character, you left the impression Jews may have been attacking (Catholic) Poles, whatever your intent. On the other hand, Icewhiz had a simple option, rather than deleting this apposite datum: merely tweaking it to clarify it was an infra-Jewish outbreak of violence (and probably impelled by a desire to rid their community of practices which played into the hands of anti-Semites). It looks as though, rather than carefully assaying and reporting the facts neutrally, both of you are slanting the data, by different forms of omission.Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MyMoloboaccount[edit]

While I am not involved in this particular dispute I am know about this event and can state with 100% certainity that one of the claims by Icewhiz is wrong according to scholarly sources. According to Icewhiz in point 10 “The “pimp pogrom” text misrepresents the sources it cites. Sources are clear this is inner-Jewish violence, while the text suggests possibly otherwise" The point raised by Icewhiz about this being inter-Jewish conflict is definitely wrong. All the scholarly source I read on this subject write that while it started as conflict between Jewish groups it later involved Polish workers and impoverished members of the society.There is also an additional layer to this as from what I remember in later stage of the violence converts to Catholicism from Judaism were targeted by Jewish rioters-I will have to dig the sources aboutthis particular part of the event but there was definitely a lot of this in the press published from what I recall. In any case Icewhiz now has admitted that it wasn't solely inter-Jewish violence according to the sources on the discussion page for the articlePolish (non-Jewish participation on either side) - seems to be present in some of the Polish sources, I don't quite see it elsewhere., so I believe it would be appropriate for him to remove this particular accussation and point against Tatzref.

Lastly the ban on VM seems terribly excessive and unproductive-really not in line with anything VM said here.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning Tatzref[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I’ve full protected History of the Jews in Poland for two weeks as an AE action given the disruption and multi-party content dispute of the last few days. No opinion on if further action is needed here, and will let others decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Roscelese and Volunteer Marek: if either of you file an SPI and request CU feel free to ping me and I can assess to see if CU is needed. I'm not familiar with the users in question, so diffs directly comparing the users would be helpful. This isn't really relevant to the AE report, but since I was pinged and I'm somewhat familiar with the article's drama recently, I thought I'd respond to that unrelated point. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Setting aside the main issue for a moment, I find Volunteer Marek's conduct here worthy of interest. They note that casting aspersions is prohibited, and that accusations must be backed by "actual diffs, not innuendo and bad faithed insinuations", and that if an editor "can't back up that attack, then he deserves a ban". I agree. But I intend to apply these principles to Volunteer Marek. In the same section, they write without providing evidence that "this is an obvious "payback report" for the fact that Icewhiz's partner in edit wars, Yanniv, recently got indef blocked", and accuse another editor of being part of a "tag team", among other instances of vitriol and confrontative statements that have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request. This is inacceptable and disruptive conduct. I note that Volunteer Marek has a relatively long record of AE sanctions going back to 2011, both in the Eastern Europe and in the US politics topic area. This has got to stop. I am topic-banning Volunteer Marek for six months from anything related to Eastern Europe. I am leaving the thread open to allow discussion of the original request. Sandstein 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Sandstein, six months for one sentence, in the relative free-speech space of ARE, that's a bit steep. More than a bit, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
      • The sanction isn't for one sentence, but for the whole of the statement above, in which Volunteer Marek treats Wikipedia as a battlegound. Wikipedia is not a forum for "free speech", but a collaborative encyclopedia project; and AE in particular is not some kind of speaker's corner, but an administrative board whose very function it is to prevent disruption of the project, so it's probably the very worst place for these kinds of antics. Sandstein 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No, it's for one sentence (or possibly two). The rest of the statement is generally replying to the filing party's claims, many of which are indeed dubious. This is far too harsh. Re-think it please. Black Kite (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For similar reasons, I am also logging a warning to François Robere not to cast aspersions against others without convincing evidence. François Robere has fallen significantly short of the expected conduct of a Wikipedian by accusing another editor, who is not the subject of this request, and who is topic-banned and cannot reply here, of "ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism", and of violating "egregious violations of Policy and academic integrity". I am not proceeding to sanctions at this time because it appears that François Robere has no prior AE sanctions. Sandstein 22:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Sandstein, if you don't have objections, I am prepared to block Frances Robere for a week under Eastern Europe AE. Accusations of racist vandalism in what is effectively a content dispute is extremely disruptive, and in my view merits a block on the first instance. If there had been previous AE sanctions, I would make it indef, but this type of behaviour is toxic and needs to stop. It also makes it more difficult to deal with the actual racists vandals we get all the time when people try to use it as a trump card at noticeboards and in disputes. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
      • No objections. This is an understandable approach. Sandstein 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Blocked. Still no comment on the underlying request, because it involves so much getting into the weeds of the content that it honestly feels like something that needs to be dealt with on talk pages, though I do understand the POV pushing argument, so I'll leave that for others to decide. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Getting back to the original complaint, as far as I can tell the plagiarism claims areplagiarism claim 6 is just that Tatzref cited the same works as Paul, in the same order, in a similar citation style. While it's certainly possible that Tatzref copied the citations and changed the citation style slightly, I don't see anything wrong with that. There's nothing original about citing a work and it's perfectly natural to follow citations from one work (whether reliable or not) on to other reliable sources. Do we need inline citations for where a list of citations were found now? No.
    That leaves a bad taste in the mouth for assessing the rest of the complaint. Icewhiz's points 2 and 3 are not comments on Tatzref at all but on Mark Paul. Points 6, 7 and 9 are the "plagiarism" I've described above. That leaves:
  • Point 4 - Tatzref has been asked repeatedly whether they have a COI and have consistently ignored the question (I think a similar case was discussed at AN or ANI recently but I can't turn it up on the spur of the moment).
  • Point 5 - Adding emphasis to Jewish trade in Christian slaves after repeated discussions which showed no consensus for it. This is not great, but it's at the mild end of things, IMO.
  • Point 8 - Not participating in a discussion of the text in dispute. Again, not great, but we're all volunteers.
  • Points 10 and 11 - Source misrepresentation. I've only started looking into this. On it's face, this is a content dispute and I'm not sure at this point it rises to the level of disruption, but as I say I've only just started looking into it.
  • Point 1 - The allegation that Tatzref is an SPA pushing Mark Paul ideas into wikipedia. I've only just started looking into this one, too. IMO this is the one all the rest turn on; if true, then the rest all starts to look like political POV-pushing. If not, the rest are valid content disputes.
Hopefully that saves whoever comes along next some time digging into it all. I'll keep looking at it but don't have heaps of time today. Anyone looking at this should bear in mind that this is an area of history that remains the subject of considerable controversy; as such, we should not necessarily expect to find consensus in reliable sources and so questions of what to include become fairly subtle questions of weight and editorial judgement on which editors can legitimately disagree without necessarily implying behavioural problems. I tend to think that Icewhiz has not made the case for sanctions here, and we should be wary of effectively silencing one side of a valid disagreement with sanctions. But it needs looking into further. GoldenRing (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, with respect to the main request, I lean towards dismissing it with no action because I'm not able to untangle it from the content dispute from which it stems. The request itself is phrased as a content dispute, in terms of complaining about certain content edits or sources, but not making clear how these violate any applicable conduct policies. I'm not saying there aren't any conduct problems here - there may well be - but they would need to be much better presented. Sandstein 12:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note, on further review, it does seem that point 6 is valid - if Tatzref's text is not plagiarised from Paul, there are a lot of phrases that are co-incidentally the same. Icewhiz is right, Diannaa's input on the question of copying citation lists would be useful. GoldenRing (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Copying lists is okay, unless there's a creative aspect or a value judgement. Subjective lists should not be copied verbatim. Lists such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time or Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women are examples of subjective lists that it's not okay to copy in their entirety. What this source is saying is that a copied citation list can be used as a clue that the prose in the document is also copied. This source says it's improper to copy a citation list, but if you read the accompanying prose, what they are saying is that it's lazy and wrong. It might be considered plagiarism, if the list is selective and a lot of thought has been put into it. This would be difficult to prove. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Diannaa, and my sincere apologies for hitting "rollback" instead of "thank" in the history list! GoldenRing (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Becase there does not seem to be interest among admins in sanctioning Tatzref, I'm closing this thread with no action, but without prejudice, i.e., an admin who believes that action is warranted can still take it. Personally, the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is beetter suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct. As regards my sanction of Volunteer Marek, I note that there is disagreement with it, but the proper venue to resolve it would be an appeal by Volunteer Marek. Sandstein 07:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek: If, as appears obvious, you disagree with Sandstein's enforcement action, you may file an appeal on this AE page and it will be reviewed by other admins. Purely as a matter of formatting and avoiding confusion, and not out of a desire to create more bureaucracy or "paperwork," I think that discussion needs to happen in a new AE appeal thread rather than this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Does that mean you don't think other uninvolved admins ought to opine about VM's topic ban here, Newyorkbrad? I don't entirely agree. I think the ban was over the top, and should be rescinded. Brad, you're in essence asking VM to write up a whole thing, "purely as a matter of formatting and avoiding confusion", and I don't think that's entirely fair. I know most people aren't as slow writers as I am, but for me it would take something like half a day to write up a persuasive appeal in a proper way, with diffs and so on. I think Sandstein should withdraw the ban before we close here. Why would that lead to "confusion"? Bishonen | talk 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
      • @Bishonen: Obviously Sandstein should withdraw the sanction against VM, which has garnered no support and deserves none, but I am pessimistic that he will do so. If there’s a sufficient consensus right here to overrule it here, fine. It was unjustified, and at a minimum was substantially overbroad, and if this is the right place I vote to reverse it. I can’t imagine an appeal from it would take long to write, either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
        • It's a ludicrous sanction and it needs fixing, and it shouldn't be down to VM to appeal it either. Black Kite (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
          • A consensus to reverse appears to be emerging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Volunteer Marek[edit]

The sanction is overturned by a clear consensus of the uninvolved administrators commenting. GoldenRing (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
"Topic ban reduced to one month in duration, beginning as of this date" [35]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

In this recent WP:AE request concerning another editor I made a couple statements concerning the motivation of the original poster (Icewhiz) and their reasons for filing their request. On the basis of my statements about the original poster, Sandstein issued a 6-month topic ban from Eastern European topics, although he also claimed that my comments "have at best a remote bearing on the diffs that are the subject of this enforcement request". This part of the rationale was demonstrably false, as almost all of my comment addressed substance of the request (my points were even numbered to correspond to the filer's points). This was noted by other administrators (User:Drmies, User:Black Kite) who responded to Sandstein:

At that AE request, Sandstein did not respond to my explanation. Other admin also disagreed vehemently with Sandstein's actions.

  • User:Bishonen said "I think the ban was over the top, and should be rescinded". Additionally she states that the ban should've been overturned in the WP:AE request itself, as there was consensus for its removal, and that having me file an appeal would be unfair to me, since the ban was obviously undeserved in the first place (yet, here I am).
  • User:Newyorkbrad said "Obviously Sandstein should withdraw the sanction against VM, which has garnered no support and deserves none". Note that Newyorkbrad specifically says "withdraw" and notes the strong WP:CONSENSUS for Sandstein's actions "If there’s a sufficient consensus right here to overrule it here, fine." (yet, here I am)
  • User:Black Kite added that "(the ban is) a ludicrous sanction and it needs fixing, and it shouldn't be down to VM to appeal it either. " again noting that there shouldn't even be a need for an appeal (yet, here I am)
  • Then at 23:39, February 28 Newyorkbrad stated: A consensus to reverse (the topic ban on me) appears to be emerging

However, without any response to the other admins, Sandstein nonetheless closed the AE report with the topic ban still in place, less than 8 hours after Newyorkbrad's last comment.

My first reason for appealing the ban is then simply that Sandstein's action was against clear WP:CONSENSUS and he did not provide a sufficient rationale for it. I understand that since the area is under discretionary sanctions, a unilateral action such as this, strictly speaking is not against policy. Just because you can do something does not mean you should. If this was a disagreement between Sandstein and one other administrator, then yeah, sure. But here we have FOUR administrators explicitly and strongly opposing Sandstein, and NONE supporting him. Yet, he went ahead and did it regardless, ignoring the input of others. If this was article space and someone acted in this manner, then it'd be THEM who'd be looking at a sanction.

As a result I DID ask Sandstein on his talk page to rescind the topic ban [36] per #1 here. Sandstein responded with a "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question to me, which was worded in a way that no matter how I answered, I would be admitting to having done something bad. I responded. Sandstein replied that he was "not entirely convinced" and that "you do not convince me that you understand why I considered it necessary to impose the sanction". I decided to be entirely truthful in my appeal, and rather than pretending falsely that I did understand, I explicitly stated that I did NOT in fact understand why it was necessary. Of course, as exemplified by the four admins discussed above, I wasn't the only one. It seems that NOBODY but Sandstein understood why it was necessary.

In the end however, Sandstein magnanimously reduced the topic ban he imposed on me against consensus to one month rather than six. I sincerely thank him for that. He also generously told me that I was free to appeal the reduced topic ban. Thanks for that as well. So here I am.

Here is the bottom line, and I'm going to be honest. I've been around long enough to know that the way to get a sanction removed is to grovel before administrator power and hope for the best in the ensuing Struggle session. I can't do that. I disagree with the topic ban and I see no reason for it. Obviously I am not the only one, since the topic ban was imposed against strong consensus from FOUR other admins. I do believe that the majority of my original comment was non-problematic and specifically addressed the issues raised in the WP:AE report.

However, it is true that the two sentences directed at Icewhiz's motivations, and my description of him, Francois Robere and Yanniv as a "tag team" were inappropriate and I should not have made them. If given a chance I would have struck them or removed them. I made a mistake. But so did Sandstein in imposing the topic ban. I am here admitting that I made a mistake.

Since the crux of the issue was my comments at an WP:AE request from Icewhiz, I can totally understand if the one month ban is converted into a restriction on me commenting on Icewhiz's WP:AE requests. Most likely there will be plenty of opportunities for me to violate such a restriction in the future and I promise not to do so. Such a restriction would be both fair and relevant to the nature of the original violation.

Of course, I'd rather not be sanctioned at all. So if possible, I will simply promise to refrain from commenting on other editors' motivations when they file requests at the drama boards, and I will not describe groups of other editors as "tag teams".

I'd appreciate it if the discussion of this appeal stayed relevant to the nature of the appeal rather than digress into various red-herrings (since that's kind of how we got here in the first place)

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Re:Sandstein - as already noted, yes, discretionary sanctions can be imposed without consensus. That does not mean they should be, especially if consensus is overwhelmingly against them. "I do it just because I can" is a terrible rationale for, well, anything, Sandstein. And no, the appeal is not based solely on the fact the sanction was against consensus. The appeal is based on the fact that the sanction was INAPPROPRIATE and did not provide adequate justification as reflected by consensus judgement

Regarding Icewhiz's statement. I'm going to keep this to the minimum. Icewhiz, if you truly feel those diffs are "bad" then go ahead and open up a separate WP:AE request. NONE of them concern this appeal. To quote Sandstein, they "have at best a remote bearing on the subject of this appeal request". I'll be more than happy to respond to them in the most appropriate and deserving manner if you do choose to open up a separate WP:AE request.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(if any admins DOES wish me to reply to Icewhiz's aspersions here I will be more than happy to do so - for now I just wish to note that "the editor" whom Icewhiz is citing approvingly in #4 of his comment [37] is User:Kaiser von Europa who was indefinetly banned by User:Salvio giuliano for making violent threats and pushing neo-Nazi POV back in 2013 [38]) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz accuses me of making "aspersions" by saying the anon-IP is a sock puppet of a banned user and that there is no SPI case for this user. Yeah, there's no SPI case for that user because they were making threats and WP:OUTING and stuff had to get oversighted and the SPI would've just played into that. As the block summary states, you can email Salvio for the relevant info. There's no doubt that this is KvE. WHY are we talking about this on an appeal that has NOTHING to do with that diff or user?????? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

(and actually THERE IS INDEED support in a KvE SPI archive [39] for the fact that the user in question is KvE, contrary to Icewhiz's assertion. Click any of the blocked IPs in the SPI. Like this one. Click geolocate. Then click on the contributions of the anon account Icewhiz is citing approvingly [40]. Compare the nature of the edits. If there's still any doubt, click geolocate. It's him.

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

This appeal should be declined. I had written a longer comment, but then my browser tab crashed. I'll therefore only note that the only argument made as grounds for the appeal is that my topic ban in response to Volunteer Marek's AE statement was "against consensus". This is an inapplicable argument because discretionary sanctions do not depend on consensus, but are explicitly a matter of an individual administrator's discretion. For the rest, I'll refer to my conversation with Volunteer Marek (permalink) on my talk page. Sandstein 08:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I disagree that waiting for consensus would have been appropriate. Discretionary sanctions are intentionally not based on consensus, because if that were the case, vested contributors would be effectively immune from sanctions as long as - as often happens - they are quick enough to summon their friends to weigh in on an AE thread. I therefore take special care to not treat AE as though it were in any way a consensus-based forum, in order to not let Wikipedia's consensus culture (which is otherwise essential to our project) take over this board. Moreover, the sanction appealed here is a one-month ban, not the six-month one that others disagreed with, which makes relying on that disagreement in this appeal questionable.
Additionally, the ban is justified on the merits. Volunteer Marek is one of several editors (some of which I already sanctioned) who have been treating Wikipedia (including AE) as a battleground in order to attempt to win content disputes related to Poland and Polish Jews in World War II. This is not acceptable. Volunteer Marek's statement at AE for which they were sanctioned reflects this battleground mentality. Because Volunteer Marek's appeal does not reflect an understanding that it is this battleground mentality, in addition to the specific aspersions cast on others, that led to the ban, I believe it remains necessary. Sandstein 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Concurrent to the AE, VM has made a number of sanctionable actions elsewhere which were more serious than his conduct at the AE. I believe presenting this evidence at the appeal is relevant, as filing this evidence in a separate AE request would be a re-discussion of the same issue:

  1. 16:19, 26 February 2019 - "You showing up to an article you've never edited before but which was a target of a now indef-banned user I had serious trouble with a few years back and whose sock puppet I reverted recently. Want to explain that one?" - WP:ASPERSIONS - alluding to some connection between myself and a sockpuppet.
  2. 15:46, 26 February 2019 restoration of WP:REDFLAG material challenged on sourcing - "During Nazi occupation Poles and Jews were targeted for extermination" - tagged with "fact|date=August 2017". He then 15:46, 26 February 2019 remove the fact tag, stating " ref is right there". He did not participate in the discussion of this municipal funded source (beyond the non-argument of "And the source is reliable"). To add insult to injury - the cited (quite questionable) source - available here does not contain this REDFLAG material at least per my reading (checked each instance of a "zyd" inflection). Violates WP:V.
  3. At the AE - 05:59, 26 February 2019 VM admitted that "For the record, I have no access to Kopciowski either." - which is a shocking admission considering his 06:36, 24 February 2019 revert of material challenged on REDFLAG + source misrepresentation grounds. Nor has he participated on the talk page there. (for the record - Kopciowski was one of the sources I accessed prior to claiming misrepresentation). Violates WP:V and WP:AGF (of the challenge).
  4. 06:09, 26 February 2019 - rollback to a version from 5 March 2017. The material was challenged by an editor on 14:03, 27 July 2017. for "There is no evidenc for the passage, the outrageous comparing of Poles and Jews in the last sentence ist terrible". The WP:REDFLAG content in question is " as Nazi party was elected to power in Germany, repressions intensified, eventually both Poles and Jews were classified as subhuman and targeted for extermination". The cited source - [41] - is a webpage from the municipality (certainly not a RS for history) - and furthermore does not (per my reading) contain the REDFLAG content. VM did not explain his revert on the talk page nor even in his edit summary - an auto-generated edit summary for a very significant edit. Violates WP:V and WP:AGF (of the challenge).

Editing Holocaust history requires careful use of good RSes. Alluding to sock-puppetry, not discussing ("And the source is reliable" not being beyond a mere semblance of a discussion - in the other 2 - no discussion at all), and inserting WP:REDFLAG material after it has been challenged (and without verification) is not careful editing. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

VM's assertion of socking above - diff - is not backed up by evidence (in any of the user pages or relevant SPI case (which has no finding of sockpuppetry at all)) - absent evidence, this is WP:ASPERSIONS in this appeal. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The SPI from 2015 didn't find a match (it did result in the IPs from 2015 being deemed disruptive but no match vs. the named user). The 64-bit IP in question is geolocated to a location quite a bit away, and their edits (at least additions) all involve porting of factoids(e.g. people born) or weblinks that exist in the corresponding entry of the towns. No evidence supporting the rather serious accusation towards the 64-bit IP has been presented - other than being a German editor interested in modern day Poland (former Prussia). Icewhiz (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz[edit]

Please forgive me, Volunteer Marek, if my comments kill your worthy appeal.

What kind of "goods" does Icewhiz have on Sandstein that would cause an administrator to blindly take the side of an editor who is extremely disruptive in so many topic areas subject to sanctions? Sandstein topic-banned me from the Arab-Israeli conflict almost a year ago in an equally egregious exercise of egomania, despite a similarly strong consensus against the block.[42][43] Then he took Icewhiz at his word and "warned" me for a topic-ban "violation" that occurred before he imposed the ban.[44] Why does Sandstein act like he is corrupt and incompetent? Does anybody give a fuck, or will the only response be to block me for making an accurate personal attack? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus[edit]

(I can't figure out if I am involved or uninvolved... :>) Anyway, keeping it short this time:

  • first, I think we need to consider chilling effect for banning an editor for expressing views at AE or other dispute resolution. Sure, WP:NPA and such need to be observed, but for obvious reasons they have to be relaxed in such a setting. In all honesty, Sandstein seems to be very fond of sanctioning people for things that many other admins and editors would not. On one level, I do appreciate that WP:CIV and such are getting enforced, but this is too inconsistent, and has made me, at least, frankly afraid to even post in discussions where Sandstein is involved. I even consider it remotely possible he will topic ban me, now, for saying I am afraid of him. Is this the environment we want to create?
  • second. CIV/NPA should be enforced more, but topic ban is not the correct remedy. If an editor has civility issues, a ban from talk pages, or a type of NPA-related 1RR ("if you make a personal attack, you will get a 24h ban") or such would work much better. From a purely technical perspective, IF VM indeed has a problem with NPA, CIV, or such, the topic ban he received DOES NOTHING to address the issue. A topic ban is a content-level remedy. Why content-ban an editor when no evidence of content-issues have been shown? It's like prescribing antibiotics for a viral infection.
  • lastly. A year ago Sandstein topic banned a very prolific content creator, User:Poeticbent, author of ~1,000 DYKs and dozens of GAs, for half a year, for a minor transgression (out of the blue, it was Poeticbent's first serious sanction AFAIK). Poeticbent has since retired from the project, citing ungrateful attitude of the community. This should illustrate the danger of semi-random, poorly thought general restrictions. If someone has a problem with civility, or sources, or such, we can craft better, more targeted and specific restrictions than general blocks or bans. More surgical and less nuke-like restrictions should be the future of conflict-resolution at Wikipedia, not the other way around. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Volunteer Marek[edit]

  • Vacate sanction--I utterly dislike this ridiculous cowboy approach to AE sanctioning. When there are many respected folks who are actively opposing your sanction, you ought not enforce it and I am very willing to say that Sandstein was actively gaming the system by taking advantage of the no-consensus clause. And, if I see repetition of such a worse sanction, I am very willing to drag him to ArbCom.WBGconverse 09:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If VM does toe the line, you (TP) need to put the evidence in a fresh AE thread and then deal with it, rather than support Sandstein's blatant gaming of AC/DS.WBGconverse 15:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Sandstein on two points:
  1. I think it is wrong to sanction any user simply for his/her alleged "battleground mentality", unless such mentality is obvious for everyone. This is not case. We are not Thought Police.
  2. I think this is usually a bad practice to sanction someone who just came to comment on WP:AE and not a subject of the complaint. This is unless the user said something really outrageous. VM did not.
  • Now, speaking about "Discretionary sanctions are intentionally not based on consensus", I think this usually works for the uninvolved admins, excluding only cases when an admin can be personally biased against other contributors - for whatever reason. If such suspicion arises, then I think it would be a generally good idea for an admin to stop sanctioning contributors X,Y,Z he sanctioned in the past, and leave this to others. There are many good admins around who can do this work. My very best wishes (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Editors regularly offer admin opportunities to draw a line addressing civility, aspersions, and battleground conduct. I'd appreciate it if the admin acted on one of those opportunities and drew a line somewhere close to the pillars. This way we can nip problems before they reach the sandpaper-and-hot-sauce level. Levivich 22:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, with all due respect, there wasnt simply a lack of consensus for the ban. There seemed to be an explicit consensus against it. Drmies, Black Kite, Bishonen and Newyorkbrad all at least expressly disagreed with the severity of the ban, and several of them explicitly disagreed with the ban entirely. Not one other admin said one word about Volunteer Marek's comment as being worth as any ban. I will say your point to VM is valid, there is literally no reason for involved parties to comment on an AE except to add diffs about the complaint. Thats a defect in this board that it even allows for comments by involved users, hell that defect is on display in this very appeal. But it does. And a six month ban for making a supposed ASPERSON without even asking the person to back up his comments is in my view way too extreme. Also, I dont think he even violated WP:ASPERSIONS. It does not say that a single claim made against an editor without diffs is disallowed. What it says is repeated accusations about serious misconduct without evidence are disallowed. If somebody makes a single accusation and does not bring diffs the proper thing to do is ask them to bring diffs. Not jump and say I caught you for jaywalking, here's 6 months for it. I get that the sanctions allow for admins to make these kind of decisions without discussion, but I really think you are being too quick with the trigger on this. nableezy - 03:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As an administrator who has had negligible interaction with VM, I am probably entitled to put these comments in the administrators' section. I'm being cautious only because I have interacted negatively with Icewhiz in other parts of the project. In the previous case Drmies called AE a "relatively free-speech space", which Sandstein jumped on. But Drmies was correct: four of the five arbcom rulings highlighted at WP:ASPERSIONS identify noticeboards like this as places where accusations are allowed that wouldn't be allowed elsewhere. Evidence is required, but Sandstein could have just asked for evidence for, or discounted, the one or two points for which VM did not provide enough. This board must not become a place where editors are afraid to state their opinions in good faith. I thought VM's comments were expressed too intemperately, but that's not offence enough. Also, the arguments of both Sandstein and Icewhiz that all is well because VM deserves a ban for something else are irrelevant for this appeal. The original sanction was startlingly severe and the reduced sanction is still unreasonable. Revoke it. Zerotalk 12:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Volunteer Marek[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • On this appeal from the modified topic ban, there should be a reversal and the sanction should be overturned in its entirety. The inclusion of a couple of overly personalized sentences, in an otherwise appropriate posting on this AE page, does not warrant a topic-ban of any length from a major substantive topic area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No reversal. VM toes the line. This time an admin considered it crossed. If this is reversed, the behavior is going to continue. He needs to step away from the line, not continue to delicately walk it.--v/r - TP 15:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would grant the appeal and overturn the sanction. VM didn’t add diffs because he assumed I knew what he was talking about, and if we’re honest, yeah filing an AE request against the person who your wikifriend just got indef’d for calling an anti-semitic vandal does look a lot like a tit-for-tar filing, even if that wasn’t the intent. Yes, he should tone it down and walk away from the line like TParis says, but the points VM raised could have been the basis for an AE report against Icewhiz, and while I don’t think we would have given anything more than a warning, we wouldn’t have sanctioned him for bringing them as on their face they are legitimate concerns. I don’t think it’s appropriate to be sanctioning someone for commenting on one AE thread about issues that would be a valid report in another. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did say in the original AE that I thought the ban was over the top and should be rescinded before we closed the discussion, so naturally I support this appeal. I also want to say that while Sandstein is certainly entitled to place a topic ban per his own discretion, it seems to me quite provocative of him to close the AE where he did so[45] without responding in any way to the comments of other admins on that ban. @Sandstein: you ought to have waited for somebody else to close. Your close was a separate action from your topic ban. To do it in such a manner, with Newyorkbrad's "A consensus to reverse appears to be emerging"[46] as the last comment, showed scant respect for your fellow admins. Bishonen | talk 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC).
  • I haven't had time to review the diffs yet, but in terms of procedure; AE is rather odd in that administrators generally try to reach a consensus for sanctions that individual administrators are authorized to place. This action may have been protected by policy, but it wasn't a wise thing to do. Sandstein, surely you can see that once a discussion had been initiated among uninvolved administrators, waiting for consensus would have been reasonable? If not; yes, a single admin is authorized to place a sanction, but said sanction may also be revoked based on a consensus among uninvolved admins at AE. Therefore, the ban needs to be justified on its merits, in addition to being within procedure, and so far only TParis has provided such justification. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Sandstein: first, to be clear, I'm speaking of consensus among uninvolved admins, not general community consensus; the comparison to ANI is misleading. Second, any sanction by an individual admin that doesn't have the support of other admins will be overturned on appeal. If we have a problem of users with admin friends willing to overlook their every transgression, unilateral AE actions won't fix it at all; it will simply engender more drama. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I said in the original case that the sanction should be overturned, and I stand by that. I appreciate Sandstein's reduction of the sanction, but I am still of the opinion that any transgression, especially in response to an AE filing, was not severe enough to receive anything more than a warning. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Newyorkbrad. I was grateful that Sandstein reduced the topic ban, but NYB makes a good point. And Black Kite's note makes me realize that one easily responds strongly to something as serious as being brought up at this board. I've been here, and the complaints have always been silly and specious and I could laugh them off, but this was a "real" case which has/had real implications for someone's work on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree this should be overturned entirely, and I wonder whether Sandstein's continued Judge Dredding on AE needs to be looked at. Fish+Karate 10:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Please see my comment+disclosure in the previous section and consider it or not at your discretion. Zerotalk 12:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


GiantSnowman is warned to follow the letter of the restriction imposed by the committee carefully. Per the restriction, cases of sock-puppetry should be referred to another administrator if three escalating warnings are not practical or reasonable. GoldenRing (talk) 11:01, 6 March 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 GiantSnowman[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
GiantSnowman (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/GiantSnowman#GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review - to wit, "[GiantSnowman] may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings"

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. The February 26, 2019 block of for 48 hours with an explanation of "Block evasion"
  2. The February 15, 2019 block of for 48 hours with an explanation of "Vandalism-only account"

Reviewing the contributions for, it does not appear to me that this user is engaging only in vandalism. There appears to be a dispute regarding content and sourcing, and an allegation that some material added is a hoax. There has been little dialogue with this user and it is unclear to me whether the underlying problem is that the user is contributing inaccurate material in good faith, is contributing accurate material that lacks sources, or is deliberately perpetrating a hoax. In any case, this is not a vandalism-only account, and the three esacalating warnings required by the arbitration remedy were not placed.

Reviewing the contributions for, this user is not engaging in vandalism. Rather, this user is also in a content dispute with GiantSnowman. The talk page for this user is blank, and I cannot find any explanation for the block beyond that in the block log. I surmise that the basis for the block is that the IP may be a sock of Woking123 (talk · contribs) (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Woking123 but note that GiantSnowman is the only contributor), but the evidence for this is far from conclusive, and the IP may well be another editor at a nearby location who shares (unsurprisingly) the same geographically-limited interests. In any event, this block is not based on vandalism, and the three escalating warnings required by the arbitration remedy were not placed.

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)

N/A, not a discretionary sanctions request

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

For background, the block of appears to be a continuation of a dispute over sourcing that started in 2016. See User talk:Woking123. GiantSnowman placed escalating blocks related to the sourcing dispute, and Woking123 evaded them, and has been indefblocked for socking. The problem however is that the initial blocks that led to the socking do not appear to be well-justified by blocking policy, both because the additions of unsourced material appear to be minor and in good faith, and because the articles involved are ones where GiantSnowman is (and was) a primary editor.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning GiantSnowman[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 Legacypac[edit]

My prior research suggested that GiantSnowman blocks users as socks of this one editor who made but a handful of edits several years ago. Users and IPs are blocked whenever anyone goes near a group of pages. There is no SPI case for this, just an accumulation of blocked IPs and registered users. I came to the conclusion there is but the weakest of connection between these users and he was abusing the block button. It seems highly unlikely that the alleged sockmaster would pursue such a minor issue for years on a few football pages. A clearcut ignoring of his restriction, doing exactly what lead to the whole ArbComm case.

@Tony-he has a block button as an Admin. He used it to block an alleged sock of a user he as blocked alleged socks of before. If this is really the same user he violated his restrictions with a consecutive block. If it is not a sock he violated his restrictions with a warningless block. That it took several days to notice should not mean he will not block someone else on the same basis tomorrow. Only a block of GS or removal of his block button will stop the ongoing disruption by a rouge admin. Legacypac (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If blocking an Admin does not stop him from imposing blocks that is just wrong. If after a multi week ArbComm case we learn the authorized sanctions are unworkable that is just wrong. GS has no problem blocking random editors for very little or no reason. The incredible leeway being extended here to let him keep a clean block log is NOT how non-Admins are treated. We are blocked first, questions maybe asked later. Legacypac (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @User:Jayron32 your position goes exactly against the ArbComm discussion here [47]. If you don't like the decision take it up with ArbComm but if you refuse to follow the decision you may face your own ArbComm case. The blocking of alleged Socks of his favourite punching bag was what lead to these restrictions, yet he went right back to blocking the alleged same user again. This is a bright line violation and the mandated remedy is a block. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jayron32 please don't be a troll. Address the substance of my point - that your interpretation of restriction is wrong or admit you did not read the restriction. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tgeorgescu[edit]

I have no opinion upon whether the blocks are right. Anyway, if GS suspects sockpuppetry and the users engage in WP:TE or vandalism, I'd say block them on the spot, don't wait till they produce more damage. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Gricehead[edit]

As the person requesting the block of on WT:Footy, to give background this is a user who adds literally hundreds of invented football players and managers to historic squads, going back to 2016 across at least four static (or at least long term fixed) IP addresses. They occasionally add an innocuous edit to a football space which isn't vandalism, but well over 95% of their edits are of the type mentioned. They have often gone unnoticed for long periods due to the difficulty of disproving a negative on historic articles, but eventually they slip up and add one of their inventions as a 24th player in a 23 man international squad, causing the light to shine on their other efforts more closely. Never have any of the four IPs we've collectively discovered interacted on their talk pages. At least one of them ( had escalating blocks placed and returned each time but the last, year long, block to continue the disruptive editing. By this time they'd moved to a new IP address. This was a good block. Gricehead (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by WBG[edit]

Good blocks per BK and Floq. Close this without letting this to go into the more heat than light territory. WBGconverse 11:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Sandstein, But blocking GiantSnowman would not prevent them from using the block function.--Nope, it would. GS (once blocked) can't unblock himself and thus can't block anybody else except the one who blocked him at the first place. WBGconverse 11:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GiantSnowman[edit]

I'm always happy for my blocks to be reviewed. One was clear vandalism (as confirmed by Gricehead, and I understand the IP has now been re-blocked by Floquenbeam for the same behaviour) and the other is a clear sock per DUCK and Black Kite's comments. I'm currently on holiday so not really online over the next few into the timing of this report what you will (yes, I will assume bad faith here, thanks, given that it would have been nice if Uninvited Company could perhaps have spoken to me first about the two blocks in question rather than running straight here trying to get me in trouble (which is what it appears like)). GiantSnowman 11:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Fram[edit]

No comment on the vandal block, it seems from comments from others that this was an obvious vandal. About the Woking sock block: for starters, it is a clear sock, no doubt there. Whether the block of an obvious sock is within the letter or the spirit of the ArbCom restriction doesn't really concern me either. For this specific sockmaster though, I would urge GS to try a different approach. When I looked in the history of this sock, it was very unclear what their indef bvlockworthy behaviour was. Every edit by these socks I have looked at (socks from October 2018 or thereabouts, not earlier ones) looked to be perfectly factual. So I would urge GS, the next time he spots one of these socks, to approach it on the talk page and start a discussion about a way forward for both of them (e.g. pick one named account, no more IPs, and no more blocking), as the current situation is a huge timesink for both without any benefit for enwiki. Of course, if I'm missing stuff and the sock is actually inserting sneaky vandalism, copyvio's, ... then unblocking is not an option. Fram (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein, if you are just expressing your opinion, no problem of course. But if you are stating your intention, please don't. Give them if necessary a warning that sock blocks con't fall under the "vandalism" exception, ask them to give better summaries (as NYB does), propose ways forward (like I did), but blocking now seems extremely harsh for this. Fram (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Berean Hunter[edit]

It is ironic that GS has been brought here for issues related to not communicating. Can someone show me where he was asked about this? The remedy requires GS to "respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions and to justify them when needed", but he wasn't given a chance. That bit of fact-finding would have helped to forego this whole report because the underlying incidents have since gained the endorsements of uninvolved admins that one issue is about a vandal, and the other as an IP sock. There is nothing actionable here. Oppose taking any action against GS.

Since the committee does not make policy, I doubt that it was their intention when writing the remedy to override existing policies concerning banned editors and sockpuppets. I don't believe it was their intention to tie GS's hands by making him adhere to some fictitious system of escalated templates that is out of process. You don't warn banned editors or sockpuppets, you just block them. Those that are asserting that he should be placing warnings are incorrect. The language of the remedy may need to be corrected at ARCA to more accurately reflect the committee's intentions and help avoid confusion.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl[edit]

Regarding the applicability of enforcing remedies from an arbitration case: as described in arbitration case 2015-10, under the remedy "Common sense in enforcement", administrators should not second-guess the remedies and corresponding enforcement actions issued by the arbitration committee. Thus on principle, I don't see staleness as a reason not to enforce a violation of terms by which an editor is under review. However, the same remedy in 2015-10 also states Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. As Floquenbeam stated, given that the circumstances is an obviously correct block, enacting a block on GiantSnowman does not seem to be suitable reaction. isaacl (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that it is not reasonable to expect warnings to be given to obvious socks, as the standard response is revert, block, and ignore. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I had forgotten the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review, which does make it apparent that the arbitrators intended warnings to be given to known socks, given a distrust on the interpretation of known. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich[edit]

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Proposed decision#GiantSnowman admonished and placed under review, the arbitrators have a discussion that begins with GS is asking if the wording could include an exception to the edits of known sock puppets. Levivich 17:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning GiantSnowman[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • What are we supposed to do here? I know the remedy says to report to AE, but we can't exactly block someone for using the block function, because per the blocking policy, it's only supposed to be used to prevent ongoing disruption to the project, which clearly isn't the case here. There is no authority to topic ban in the remedy, and regardless, a topic ban from blocking may as well be a desysop. The most I think we can do within policy here is log a warning to follow his sanctions and note that editors are free to take him to ARCA for future violations. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Block for a week, then longer if it happens again? I don't understand this question. only supposed to be used to prevent ongoing disruption to the project, which clearly isn't the case here – Sure – if these blocks are nobrainer obvious vandalism, then there's no ongoing disruption – but there's also no arbitration remedy violation, so obviously don't block anyway! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    You missed my point with the quote you cited: the only enforcement provision the case had was blocks (the default enforcement provisions). Per WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, we can't block GS just to punish him for violating a sanction unless we think that block will serve some purpose in preventing future disruption, which I don't think there is any evidence of. If GS was on a blocking spree, then yeah, blocking him would prevent something.
    What has been raised here is two unclear-if-violations blocks, one two weeks ago and one 48 hours ago. The one two weeks ago is stale, so a block for that would be nothing put a punishment. The one 48 hours ago for block evasion, well, that's more recent, but if that's all that can be found I'm not really seeing an argument for a block even if it's a violation. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Further clarity here: I think if this was a timely report (it’s not) and there appeared to be an ongoing threat of bad blocks/violations of the remedy, we could theoretically have a preventive block here. What we have now, is two blocks, one that this report caused an admin to reblock over that was two weeks old. Another that is almost three days old and may be valid. We also have a report that was filed when the person who enforcement against is on vacation, hasn’t made a block since the last one, and is going to be away for at least 2 more days. In these specific circumstances even if there was a violation, my understanding of the facts and reading of the blocking policy would not consider a block to be preventative, even though it may be in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think I missed your point! The block would, ostensibly, serve the purpose of preventing GS from blocking anyone in the future. The things you're saying are true about a lot of AE blocks – admins will hand out really long blocks for things that in and of themselves are not disruptive, but do violate arbcom remedies (hopefully because they are part of a larger pattern of disruption). They're done to prevent further violations of arbcom remedies, i.e. disruption. I can not fathom why this case would be any different. Is it because GS could self-unblock and then go right on blocking others? That isn't what you're talking about, is it?? (That wouldn't end will for GS, obviously.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    We would not block in similar circumstances if the editor was a non-admin. It is both the lateness of this report, and its lack of actions to act upon that are the issue. One possible hyper-technical violation of the remedy that was impossible to comply with anyway, plus the editor in question is on vacation and was never talked to? A block here would achieve nothing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    A+ ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have not reviewed the other editor yet, but regarding User talk:, they were definitely vandalizing, and have been for a month. It took me a little research to verify, and only after all that work, I stumbled across this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 122#South Korean Inventing IP Editor back. I understand there might be some bad blood here, but UC could have asked GS about this on his talk page... Anyway, the wording of GS's sanction exempts him from having to make 3 escalating warnings for obvious vandalism. The IP was at it again today; I've blocked for 3 months. No comment either way on the other editor yet. Maybe tomorrow.
p.s. If there is a problem with the other editor, Tony's still got a really good point above.... --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment There's little doubt that the second editor,, is an IP sock of indefblocked user Woking123, both through IP location and behaviour. Uninvited Company claims that "the IP may well be another editor at a nearby location who shares (unsurprisingly) the same geographically-limited interests" - which is possible, except that the IP (and the others) are 100 miles from Woking. Anyway, assuming this is a sock of a blocked user, how is GS supposed to give them three escalating warnings? We don't even have templates for that because obvious socks just get blocked... Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein: Blocked admins can't block anyone. They used to be able to unblock themselves (in the case of accidentally blocking themselves, which I've done), but they can't any more. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My reading of the remedies is that AE has jurisdiction over this issue. But I would decline to exercise this jurisdiction. The only authorized enforcement action is a block. But blocking GiantSnowman would not prevent them from using the block function. Even if, therefore, we were to conclude that GiantSnowman violated the restrictions applying to them, the sanction we could impose would be ineffective in preventing further violations of the restrictions. Therefore, if action is necessary here, it would need to be taken by the Arbitration Committee. Sandstein 11:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. A block would therefore be an effective remedy. That being the case, I am of the view that the request has merit. The applicable restriction reads: "[GiantSnowman] may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings". GiantSnowman does not contest that they have violated this restriction in the cases reported here by not leaving any prior messages for the IP users at issue. Even assuming that the "clear vandalism" exception applies to the first case, the second case is allegedly a case of socking, which is not vandalism, and the exception therefore does not apply. I would therefore block GiantSnowman for a week in enforcement of the restrictions. Sandstein 15:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd strongly suggest that you don't. There isn't any consensus for it, and as pointed out, an admin can't issue escalating warnings to an obvious sock, because the warning templates don't exist - socks are simply blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with BK: I very strongly disapprove of this distinction between "obvious sock" and "obvious vandal" being used to block GS for a week for a first offense. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    I join in agreeing that there would be no consensus for a block here and that should definitely not happen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, of course, it would not ordinarily make sense to leave three escalating messages to a suspected sock to tell them to stop socking. But it's not up to us to decide whether the restrictions make sense. They say that there must be three escalating messages before a block (obvious vandals excepted). So GiantSnowman has to leave three rather pointless messages to the sock, or ask somebody else to block it. If that restriction makes no sense, then ArbCom should change it. To me, this illustrates that this sort of micro-managing restriction is almost always a bad idea, but that's not up to me to decide. Sandstein 22:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. As a volunteer, no one is twisting your arm to block and where it is a question between the letter of the policy and the spirit of it, one should align with the spirit of it. You can always defer to the members of the committee on this for better clarification. Then you would be sure to not be mistaken.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to disagree with various admins above. The arbitration committee have restricted GiantSnowman's use of the blocking function and asked us to enforce that restriction with blocks. It is, I think, generally accepted that blocks placed at AE can be considerably after the fact and that the deterrent effect of such blocks is how they satisfy WP:PUNITIVE (the majority of blocks for 1RR violations fall into this category, for instance). It seems bizarre to me to argue, as Sandstein has above, that although the arbitration committee has placed restrictions and authorised blocks to enforce them, it would not ever be possible for AE admins to place blocks.
    Secondly, I think he has violated his restriction here. The vandalism block I'm happy to let lie; it's obvious vandalism if you know about the Korean football vandal and not obvious vandalism if you don't know about them. But the sock-puppetry block is a clear violation of the restrictions. There is no exception in the restrictions for sock-puppetry. He is required to either give the appropriate warnings (they need not be templated) or to consult another admin regarding the block. Yes, this is onerous and bureaucratic, but thems the breaks when you're found to have abused the block button.
    Thirdly, I think we need to be very careful here not to be seen to be treating admins brought to AE differently to non-admins; some of the responses here so far seem to me to be looking for reasons to avoid action and we oughtn't to do that. That said, I don't think the violation is so egregious that we should block on a first offense, just as we probably wouldn't block or ban an editor for a single instance of mild TE.
    Given all of the above, I'd close this with a logged warning to carefully observe his restrictions. GoldenRing (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @GoldenRing: two points. First if this report had been filed against a non-admins violating a TBAN, it would have been laughed out of AE for being stale and UninvitedCompany would be looking at a logged warning not to waste time and to stop going through the weeds of another editor’s contributions with the intent of finding violations (which given the timing, is clearly what happened here.) Taking any action on this report would be treating GS different because he was an admin.
      Second, the deference argument is nonsense (sorry for being so blunt). It’s commonly used in an attempt to get around the prohibition on punitive blocks, but if the only purpose of a block is to deter, it is just punishing someone. There needs to be some form of likely future disruption it is preventing, and in this case there clearly is none. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      I agree with your first point; I can not figure out what UninvitedCompany was trying to accomplish here. These super-trivial reports of behavior that is obviously not an actual problem seem like a huge waste of time for everyone involved. Save it for if/when GS issues bad blocks. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I find either of these blocks to be substantive violations; they seem, (to borrow a phrase from basketball) ticky-tack at best. The 5. was a block for socking/block evasion. We don't typically warn for those. And there seems to be agreement that his assessment of who it was is correct. The 124. is more problematic, in that it does appear that he did not warn three times, however it seems that the opportunity to sanction specifically for that has passed. I am in agreement that issuing a block 2 weeks later for any singular, non-continuing action is not useful. I would be comfortable sanctioning with a logged warning and a clear message that if GS continues to issue vandalism blocks without warnings, we can revisit this with an eye on further sanctions. --Jayron32 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Jayron, the way I read the wording of the restriction is that 3 warnings are required for anything that is not clear vandalism. If there's something to sanction for the socking block, OK (haven't looked yet). But I would oppose any kind of logged warning for the vandalism block, as I do not think he violated the restriction. It says "GiantSnowman is placed under review indefinitely; during the review, with the exception of obvious vandalism, he is subject to the following restrictions..." (emphasis mine). Plus, stepping back and doing a reality check, it would be weird sanctioning him for a 100% obviously correct block; the issue from the ArbCom case was the mass rollback and blocks that weren't obviously correct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Just to be clear, I think a logged warning is the most severe sanction I would be comfortable with. The least severe sanction I would be comfortable with is "nothing at all". That is, I'm equally OK with doing absolutely nothing. Sorry I wasn't more clear. My only point was that, given that these violations (if there were any at all) were so minor, there should be no substantive sanction against GS, at most a warning. But if the finding here is that it isn't even worth logging a warning, that's cool too. The cries for his head because two weeks ago he blocked someone in an entirely justified manner seems histrionic. --Jayron32 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No action is warranted. GiantSnowman should use slightly more descriptive block-reason summaries (e.g. “inserting false statistics in multiple articles” or “obvious sock of vandal XYZ”) to make the reasons for these sorts of blocks more explicit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, good idea - and same goes to @Fram:, thanks for the suggestions. GiantSnowman 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My take on this from being on arb com at the time, was that the blocking of obvious socks was not intended to be an exception. The only exception was obvious vandalism, which includes " (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. " (fromWP:BLOCKING POLICY). It was my impression that we meant what we said. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • My take was that as with any remedy, it should be interpreted and enforced in a way that addresses problems rather than creates them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That was the reason behind our use of "broadly interpreted"-- to avoid creating problems about what did or did not fit under the remedy. It seems that it did not work--the argumentation just shifted to the exact boundaries of "broadly" The creativity of those on arb com is no match for the deviousness of the community. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I’m not sure “deviousness” is the right word there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure "creativity" isn't the right word either. Are you actually saying that the restriction was designed to stop GS from blocking obvious socks? If it was, the "creativity" of ArbCom was pretty short-sighted. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Legacypac: Did you just say you'll file an ARBCOM case against me unless I block GS? Please do that. I need I good laugh. --Jayron32 05:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Legacypac:: I'm not trolling. When you said "you may face your own ArbComm case" I thought you meant "you may face your own ArbComm case". If you did not mean that, you should not have said it. As to the rest of your statement, I don't believe that I am wrong. I stand by everything I have said to this point. --Jayron32 14:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek[edit]

No action taken because a motion that would make this request unenforceable now has the support of a majority of arbitrators. Sandstein 15:18, 11 March 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 Volunteer Marek[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Volunteer Marek (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 16:01, 7 March 2019 1RR of this edit [48]
  2. 6:54, 7 March 2019‎ 2RR
  1. 16:03, 7 March 2019‎ 1RR of this edit [49]
  2. 16:54, 7 March 2019‎ 2RR

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 21 June
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user broke 1RR two times in two different articles --Shrike (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: VM has inserted WP:UNDUE paragraph into BLP article [50] and I have reverted later I saw him again appearing on my own custom watchlist [51] --Shrike (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[52] --Shrike (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Volunteer Marek[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 Volunteer Marek[edit]

None of these articles had a 1RR notice. On none of these articles does the 1RR notification pops up when you make an edit. The edits themselves are not related to P-I except in the sense that *everything* related to Israel is related to P-I. The edits are about internal Israeli politics.

I would also like administrators to consider the nature of the edits. The info I added to these articles is *very well sourced*. The party in question has been described as the Israeli version of the Ku Klux Klan ("Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism. “I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say it’s the equivalent in the United States of the KKK being welcomed into the corridors of power."). User:ShimonChai removed the well sourced info with spurious edit summaries, under the pretense that these weren't "inline citations" (they were). The same user has also build templates [53] for the party in question [54] as well as for the related Lehava movement (which has been described by the Anti-Defamation League as "extremely abusive, racist, inflammatory, and violent", and which has carried out terrorist attacks). I don't know if that indicates any connection or support for the party but it does raise eyebrows (just like if a user main contributions was making fancy KKK logos). User:Number 57 removed the info because... well, I'm not exactly clear as to why. Something something Nick Griffin. They also for some reason pointed to the article on the British fascist BNP as an excuse to remove this info, even though the BNP article in the very first sentence refers to it as "fascist". All of Number 57's justifications for their reverts have been vague and same for the discussion on talk ("get consensus!" which is usually an indication of "I can't say why this edit is wrong WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). To be fair, I think Number 57 had a legitimate disagreement over *where* in the article the info belonged, although I did find their inability or unwillingness to articulate their reasons frustrating.

User:Shrike him/herself has made problematic revert at Benjamin Netanyahu. The situation there is even more ridiculous. Right now, the biggest story of Israeli politics is that Netanyahu has made an alliance with this far-right, racist, "Israeli KKK", party in order to get a majority in the Knesset, in order to stave off potential fall out from the indicitments for corruption and bribery which have been filed against him. There is at least THIRTY stories on this in Haaretz. There is at least THIRTY stories on this in Jerusalem Post. There is at least FORTY, or even FIFTY stories on this in Times of Israel. It's been covered extensively in New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Atlantic, Time Magazine, New Yorker, ABC News, Tablet, Forward and scores of other publications. Basically ANY mainstream source has covered this story. Yet, Shrike removes the info with the edit summary that claims this is a "trivial detail" [55]. That is ... mind boggling. It'd be one thing if they rewrote or cut down some of the text, but wholesale removal of what is the biggest story of Israeli politics is clearly over-the-top POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

As for Icewhiz's spurious accusations - hey there Icewhiz, here again? - yes, I used bare URLs. This done for two reasons. First, we have bots that will come in and fill in the citation templates. Second, I often put in bare URLs initially, then come back and fill them in a little later. But here I was reverted before I had a chance to do so. I did in fact do that in the second edit [56]. I was still reverted. The whole "citations" thing was being used as an excuse. Ok, now, Icewhiz, can you explain how you can in good faith refer to THE major political story in Israel as "minor deal"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing " that in itself shows that 1RR was in force at the time the edits " <-- I'm not clear on how the fact that the notices were added AFTER the fact show that 1RR was in force at the time of the edits. I'll be honest. In every other area under ACDS, no notice means no restriction. I do realize that somehow P-I topics are different but who the hey can remember all that, especially if you're not all that active in the area? If I knew 1RR was in force, I wouldn't have broken it, since breaking 1RR is, well, just stupid. It's kind of ridiculous for there to be a situation where "we put these sekrit sanctions in place, but we're gonna tell you about them, except for a brief mention eight freakin' months ago which you are required to remember because you got nothing else going on in your life OR on Wikipedia". Who the hell can remember some message someone left on their page eight months ago???

Also, I would like to very much point out that I do NOT have "a sanctions history approaching the length of the A1". In almost fifteen years of editing I've had a few sanctions ... three... four maybe, plus a couple blocks for mouthing off to admins from before 2012. Now, I'm not gonna hold that statement against you and I understand why you might think that; it's true I *am* always being dragged to AE by someone or other. So it may *seem* like I have been sanctioned frequently, but that is simply not the case (although I guess it depends on your definition of "length of A1"). Out of all my trips to AE, at least as of the last time I crunched the numbers, 70% resulted in no action, 23% resulted in a big ol' WP:BOOMERANG to the filing party and only 7% resulted in sanction and that's not even considering those which I got successfully appealed. I choose to edit controversial areas. In good part because some of my expertise is in that areas. But the fact that people try to use WP:AE to win content disputes is not my fault. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

And seriously folks... and admins, it seems even arbitrators aren't aware that this works the way it does (i.e. applies w/o a template) and are surprised when they find out - see User:Doug Weller's statement over at the Arb motion Sandstein metions: "I've always assumed that it doesn't automatically apply and only applies if the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} is added to the talk page and the edit notice ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice added to the article". [57]. If you set up rules in a stupid way, then yeah, people will accidentally break them. This is like putting in a stop sign but placing it behind a big ol' tree to make sure no one sees it and then saying "but we announced eight months ago that we'd have a stop sign there".Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved DannyS712[edit]

I just want to note that for the record, I alerted Volunteer Marek using {{AE-notice}} in Special:Diff/886743438. I have no connection to this enforcement request; I just didn't know if Special:Diff/886742901 met the requirements. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by OID[edit]

Marek edits with correctly cited material. Reverted by editor claiming citation is wrong (no comment about the content) Marek reinserts (and on the latter occasion with proveit) showing nothing wrong with citation. Instead of expressing dismay that someone who edits in a controversial area is clearly being fucked with by tag-teaming, perhaps you should do something about the misleading edit summaries, tendentious and disruptive editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RE Icewhiz. The material is cited correctly. Citation *style* is not grounds for removing content - you change the citation to match the one in predominant use at the article if necessary. Claiming citation style issues to avoid making an argument on the content is one of the oldest tricks in the edit warriors manual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit]

Beyond the possible BLP issues, VM inserted and reverted (in the batch above): Zvi_Sukkot insertion, Zvi_Sukkot revert1, Otzma insertion, Otzma revert1 bare URLs as citations which generally, per Wikipedia:Citing sources, is something that we avoid. This is far from "correctly cited material". Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

RE OID - A bare-URL is not a proper citation. If the URL breaks (and this happens quite often) - there is often no way to ascertain which published piece it refers to. A proper citation will generally including identifying information (at the very least - title of the piece, author (or venue)) - see WP:CITEHOW - this is beyond a style issue. Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
An ARBPIA banner is not required. I added it since the pages are clearly conflict related. I was somewhat surprised to see Marek for the first time in articles I had edited approx. 24 hour prior [58], [59] - my edits being the prior edits to his first.Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
RolandR - VwM.Mwv is EC (yet I still asked him to stay out of the core of ARBPIA). Otzma is not a typical party and is mainly known for its positions/actions in regards to the conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Masem - I did not say a bareurl citation was not valid - it is - barely. It does not however meet WP:CITEHOW. I myself did not edit the two articles here after VM started. I did ask him to format bare URLs in Netanyahu.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: - anyone may add the banner. It is merely informative (mainly to newbies, established editors should know better) and ARBPIA's General 1RR restriction is in force whether it is there or not (who decides? Admins at AE as well as ARCA. The banner is currently wrongly placed on several Iran/Israel articles ARCA decided was out of scope). Most of Otzma Yehudit's ideology is conflict related, and Otzma Yehudit#History mainly details activities versus Arab minorities and groups - it is clearly in scope. Over 90% of Zvi Sukkot's page is about alleged anti-Arab activities including his arrests due to them - the exception would be a single sentence on his marriage and kids.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57[edit]

Whilst I think Marek was being a bit of jerk here, I don't believe this is an ARBPIA violation. I am fully aware of sanctions in that topic area, but I saw this as a dispute over domestic Israeli politics rather than being conflict-related. Neither article was tagged with the ARBPIA notice until after this had stopped. If I had thought this was conflict-related, I wouldn't have reverted more than once.

I also find the tag-teaming accusation above to be inaccurate. Firstly, with regards to the edits on Otzma Yehudit, I did not remove Marek's additions (as ShimonChai had), but instead moved them to a different part of the article (in this edit I actually reinstated the racism claim after Shimon had removed it). Secondly, I also pointed out to Shimon that their accusation of Marek not using inline citations was incorrect. Number 57 11:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GPRarmirez[edit]

  • "As for Volunteer Marek; it's rather depressing to see an editor back here, what, 48 hours after having a sanction overturned? with a clear violation."

    I'd say less depressing and more red-flag alarming.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by ShimonChai[edit]

Am going to invoke WP:VOLUNTEER, and probably stop editing for awhile. ShimonChai (talk)

Statement by RolandR[edit]

I am surprised to see that Icewhiz thinks that an article about an Israeli political party is "clearly conflict related", since barely a week ago s/he gave the contrary advice to a non-edit confirmed editor asking where it was permissible to edit: "What yes... Israeli politics (as long as not extremely conflict related".[60]. If such articles are not covered by ARBPIA for edits by new accounts, then neither are they covered by the IRR ban. RolandR (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

@Sandstein: it seems Kafkaesque to sanction an editor for reverts to pages prior to a notice that a 1RR applies to that page being placed. Whether or not you are allowed to sanction somebody is a different question to whether or not you should sanction somebody. If somebody is editing a page with a good faith belief that it is not a part of the conflict and the 1RR does not apply and there is nothing to notify him that it does then I dont think they should be sanctioned for it. Hell, an admin violated the 1RR at the same article, and I dont think anybody is claiming that Number57 was acting in bad faith in assuming that this article was not covered under the sanctions. What should actually be punished is acting in bad faith, such as bringing a complaint about a 1RR violation where all the reverts took place before anybody ever claimed that the 1RR applied. All that is necessary here is a formal declaration that the 1RR applies or it does not (and personally I am of the view that most political party articles in this topic area are being included in the topic area even when they should not be). nableezy - 18:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Volunteer Marek[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It looks to me like Number 57 (diff, diff), ShimonChai (diff, diff) and Volunteer Marek (diffs as above) have all broken 1RR on these articles. Neither Number 57 nor ShimonChai have been alerted to DS; not that this is necessary to deal with a 1RR violation, but it's at least extenuating. As for Volunteer Marek; it's rather depressing to see an editor back here, what, 48 hours after having a sanction overturned? with a clear violation. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also not massively impressed with Shrike bringing here 1RR violations on pages he himself has never edited. It stinks a bit of playing "gotcha". How exactly did you come across this? GoldenRing (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If the articles had ARBPIA notices on them before the edits, this would have been a straightforward 1RR violation and a sanction. However, they didn't - Icewhiz added them after VM had made his edits (as Number 57 points out, he wouldn't have reverted more than once either if he'd been aware). As GoldenRing says, there's a bit of "gotcha" going on here. I'm somewhat unimpressed. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • on Icewhiz's contention that bare-urls are not valid citations, that's wrong. They are not complete citations and if we were trying to judge this article for GA/FA, that would not be appropriate. But I certainly know many an experienced editor including myself, trying to start or improve an article, to dump bare url references as a first pass, with the anticipation to come back later and fix those. As long as the url links to a clear and obvious source, those suit the bare minimum of WP:V and should not at all be considered actionable. --Masem (t) 16:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence as to whether this is an actionable 1RR violation. On the one side, the articles and reverts are about an Israeli politician and a political party, not the conflict. On the other side, the politician and the party seem to be notable in part because of their position on the conflict, which is covered in some detail in their articles, and conflict-related content makes up the majority of the text in Zvi Sukkot. Because the applicable restriction is very broad ("any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict"), when push comes to shove, this is probably inside the scope of the restriction. The presence or not of an edit notice is immaterial under the terms of the restrictions currently in force. I'll leave it to others to suggest appropriate sanctions. Sandstein 17:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While these may technically be violations by a strict reading of the sanctions, I'm not seeing that in the circumstances the spirit is met - certainly we should be very careful to avoid encouraging "gotchas" and the appearance of tag teaming is also concerning. The purpose of awareness requirements is so that we don't sanction users for breaching rules they did not know were in force, so we need to evaluate whether it was obvious that the 1RR restriction applied to this page and in this case I don't think it was - the article is not related to the dispute, and it has previously been established that simply being related to Israel does not automatically make an article within the scope of the restrictions. Accordingly I think the appropriate sanction for VM here is a "no action" close, accompanied by a warning to Shrike not to play (or appear to play) "gotcha" with arbitration sanctions and a hefty trout for all the experienced editors claiming that a bare URI is not a citation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Thryduulf: The Ideology section of Otzma Yehudit reads: The party is considered to be Religious Zionist, Kahanist, ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab, and far-right, and has also been described as racist. It calls for the annexation of the West Bank, and for complete Israeli rule between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The party is against the formation of a Palestinian state, and advocates for the cancellation of the Oslo accords, as well as for imposing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount. The party also advocates for increased teaching of Jewish history in all elementary schools to "deepen Jewish identity in students". The party is against "freezing construction of Jewish settlements, releasing terrorists, or negotiating with the PA". The party advocates for the deportation of "Arab extremists". On 24 February 2019, party member Itamar Ben Gvir called for the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel who are not loyal to Israel. The party advocates for what it calls "Jewish capitalism" as its economic system; they plans on saving "billions of shekels from the reduction of the defense budget following the removal of the enemy", which would be directed at infrastructure development, reducing bureaucracy and regulations, as well as allocating resources to strengthen "weak populations". The party also supports aiding the elderly and disabled. The party is also opposed to abortion. The party supports easing restrictions on the IDFs rules of engagement.. This is hardly the only A-I conflict material in these articles. I'm struggling to see how this is not obviously related to the conflict? GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious and should probably already know this. Who decides whether an article comes under a sanction? I notice that the ABPIA tag was added by icewhiz, not an admin and apparently someone with skin in the topic area. Shouldn't these decisions be made by uninvolved admins? About the violation itself, we should probably just let it go. The article was not tagged and we're just talking about response to reverts (like this one).--regentspark (comment) 04:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • We, the admins, decide this in the course of deciding whether or not to sanction. Talk page and edit notices are currently not relevant for this decision. But arbitrators are now discussing a motion that would make an edit notice (placed by an admin) a prerequisite for enforcement. Sandstein 08:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Broadly, per Sandstein. All articles that are "reasonably construed" as related to the A-I conflict are subject to 1RR; I would suggest that Volunteer Marek has been here long enough to know that, and the notices that have been applied to the pages since this complaint was raised are a red herring (though obviously helpful to editors). No-one is here arguing that those notices are inappropriate; that in itself shows that 1RR was in force at the time the edits were made and that those concerned should have realised it. If Volunteer Marek didn't have a sanctions history approaching the length of the A1, I'd close this immediately with a warning; but he bloody well ought to have known better. If any editor actually involved in the situation had brought this complaint, I'd probably give a short block; as it is, this is a pretty naked attempt by someone not involved to get an opponent in trouble. GoldenRing (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification on sanction notices (icewhiz, sandstein and goldenring). The ARCA motion under consideration is all the more reason to just let this go. Even if this could be construed as a violation, and I'm not sure it is one, it is a fairly minor one. A couple of reverts on citations (including the "inline citation" one). On the other hand, if the motion does pass, we're just penalizing something that, in a few days, wouldn't have been a violation at all. That seems overly bureaucratic to me and makes me see this entire exercise seems as a gargantuan waste of time. --regentspark (comment) 10:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that in view of the motion, which seems likely to pass, and the borderline nature of the violation, this is probably not the best case for imposing sanctions. Sandstein 10:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing as no action because the motion will now pass. Any admin who disagrees is free to revert. Sandstein 15:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


The comment was clearly inappropriate, especially given the previous warning. BullRangifer has struck the comment and apologised and so I am closing this with no action, but this is thin ice being skated. GoldenRing (talk) 09:03, 13 March 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 BullRangifer[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Rusf10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
BullRangifer (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 
  1. March 12, 2019 Personal attack- calls me incompetent and says I should be topic banned.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. July 20, 2018 Received a warning for personal attacks on another Donald Trump related page.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • The above warning was issued within the previous 12 months and therefore qualifies.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Cannot believe that after narrowly escaping sanctions with a warning for exactly the same type of comments last year, BullRangifer continues to personally attack me for expressing views that he disagrees with. I have done absolutely nothing to provoke him here as I have not had any contact with him in months.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @BullRangifer:- You are mischaracterizing the AFD. The page was brought to WP:AFD as an WP:ATTACK page, this has nothing to do with GNG or a lack of sourcing.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @BullRangifer:- This did not "START" here, it started last year when you were given a warning. Because you are already aware, there's not reason for me to start a discussion on your talk page that would presumably go nowhere. You should have been fully aware that attacks, battleground behavior, and uncivil comments are not allowed.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @MastCell: What is the expiration time for a warning? BullRangifer's was roughly 8 months ago (not a year). So when @Awilley: brings up my warning which was issued around the same time as BullRangifer's, despite the fact I have done absolutely nothing to provoke BullRangifer this time, am I to assume that it can be disregarded too?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


Discussion concerning BullRangifer[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 BullRangifer[edit]

  • Frivolous, just like the AfD. It is not because we disagree on Trump, but because of filing a frivolous AfD which ignores article creation requirements. GNG is abundantly fulfilled, and I expect a speedy keep to happen soon. Rusf10 tends to come down on the opposite side of RS on all things Trump, and I consider that a matter of incompetence. We are supposed to side with RS and edit accordingly. There may be a disagreement on that, but it's not a matter for this frivolous AE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You may want to review what an attack page is. If RS uniformly and consistently criticize someone or something, and we document that, WE are not attacking the subject, but are doing our duty. It may look like an attack, and it certainly is, but it's not OUR unsourced or poorly sourced attack, it's our documentation of the attack.
On the subject of Trump's lack of honesty, all RS consistently document him as the most dishonest public person they've ever met, with abundant documentation and examination of whether it's a deliberate lie, a falsehood, an exaggeration, or a misrepresentation. It's now up to over NINE thousand false statements during his presidency. This all has a bearing on his veracity, and thus the article deserves to be kept.
You are confused about the nature of a forbidden attack page and a properly sourced article which documents negative information. We are not attacking Trump, but RS are doing so. They are documenting all the times he shoots himself in the foot. We must document that. It's our job, and a disagreement about that does not justify an AfD or starting this disruptive AE proceeding.
Arbitrators have more important things to do. I happen to have a talk page for discussing such things. AE is a "last resort" thing, so don't START here. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have refactored my comments at the AfD to reduce the heat. The personal mention wasn't really necessary there. Sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ahrtoodeetoo[edit]

  1. I didn't see it as a personal attack. While I don't believe the complainant is incompetent, I think it's reasonable to question their ability to understand critical policies if they think Veracity of statements by Donald Trump is an attack page.
  2. A single personal attack shouldn't form the basis of an AE complaint unless it's really, truly, horribly, terribly, egregiously bad. This certainly isn't that. I'm not one to condone incivility, but come on now.
  3. BullRangifer struck the offending part of his comment and apologized.

R2 (bleep) 19:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning BullRangifer[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Simply on context of BullRangifer's comment in light of Sandstein's warning in July 2018 resulting from this AE request, this looks like a cut-and-dry personal attack that would merit a block. Adding other comments above, there's even more reason as the editor displays a battlefield mentality. Rusf has every right as a concerned editor to question if the page is an attack page, and as I don't see any other previous attempt to delete that page, it's not like they are pushing any POV. Whether that's right or wrong is not the question here, but it certainly is not any type of behavior that should draw a personal attack that BullRangifer has been previously warned about. --Masem (t) 19:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The comment by BullRangifer was inappropriately personalized. Questioning Rusf10's competence in this instance is arguably fair—any editor who's been here for more than a decade, as Rusf10 has, should have a basic understanding of what an attack page is, and should recognize that Veracity of Donald Trump, whatever its merits, is not one. But in the context of an AfD, it is enough to simply make the point that the proposed deletion grounds are incorrect. If there is a larger problem with Rusf10's editing or competence, then AfD is not the venue in which to raise it.

    That said, it looks like the warning to BullRangier is nearly a year old, and BullRangifer has stricken the offending comment and apologized. In terms of a proportionate response, I'm with Ahrtoodeetoo. A single personal attack, unless outstandingly egregious, is rarely sufficient grounds for a block or other AE sanction, and more to the point, the offending comment has already been stricken and an apology offered. A sanction at this point would be purely punitive—and disproportionate—although of course if a pattern of such inappropriately personalized commentary continues then the question could and should be revisited. Those are my thoughts, anyhow. MastCell Talk 20:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Invoking WP:COMPETENCE is usually offensive and often unnecessary in my opinion, and it makes it worse when you pipe it as incompetence. And it was not the right forum for discussing that anyway. That said, I'd be more concerned if BullRangifer hadn't quickly stricken the offending comments and apologized (something I wish more editors would do). Also to be fair, on the subject of July 2018 AE warnings this one is probably also relevant. (Not calling for a boomerang or counter-warning...I'd personally lean towards closing with no action.) ~Awilley (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, close with no action. I'm not calling for a boomerang either, but Rusf10 may want to be aware of of Awilley's special Thicker skin sanction. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC).
    • Though this was on an AFD Page, not a user talk page. --Masem (t) 21:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)