Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 29 April 2021 (→Race and Intelligence: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Plebian-scribe

@Ymblanter: Just a quick clarifying question on your close: the talk page is currently semiprotected until May 5, as the result of an RfPP request. Do you just mean there's no consensus to change or extend that existing protection? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: This is indeed what I mean. After May 5, if disruption continues, a new RFPP request can be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

François Robere

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 François Robere

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GizzyCatBella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

François Robere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Sanction under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision - interaction ban with GizzyCatBella

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

1- Referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page --> (...in June another one was blocked (the imposing admin, who was knee-deep in the TA, has since been desysopped... in August an I-ban was imposed between three editors...) diff -

2 - Furnished within a new text and restored my prior removal - - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Explanation and additional information:

On August 9, 2020, a two-way interaction ban was imposed on François Robere and me. (important - please note that the two-way ban is of no fault of myself but François Robere and another participant; the reason for imposing two-way interaction ban was the fact that one of the assessing administrator's didn't like one-way interaction bans One-way interaction ban have initially been proposed,,,)

On April 18, 2021, François Robere referred to me in their post on the Arbitration page and included link to my talk page despite the fact that interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly.

This latest development prompted me to bring this to the administrative attention; however, I was also surprised to see that François Robere (after modifications) also commenced restoring my removals on one of the articles despite the precise instructions per WP:IBAN that editors under interaction ban can not - undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means.

François Robere restoration of my prior removal furnished within a new text -

My prior removals - - please notice Szarek is affiliated with PiS.. - notice young historians changed to young missionaries, restoring the exact citations (see Behr Valentin 2017-01-02 Historical policy-making in post-1989 Poland), etc.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. edit war block
2. personal attack block

Warnings:

1. warning
2. warning
3. warning
4. warning
5. warning

I’m going to add BANEX rules for everyone to see easily with related underlined.

Exceptions to limited bans

• WP:BANEX

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:

1. Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious" – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree.
2. Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
   • asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)
   • asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban
   • appealing the ban

As a banned user, if you think your editing is excepted from the ban according to these rules, you should explain why that is so at the time of the edit, for example in the edit summary. When in doubt, do not make the edit. Instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask whoever imposed the ban to clarify.

An important note to all administrators for future actions

Failure to note in closing that results in two-way interaction bans and not mentioning the fact that one side is of no fault may result in denial of the guilty party of responsibility (as we can see in the statement of user against whom this enforcement is requested) or confusion. Just as I was worried about during my closing.,

Quote of one of the involved administrators involved in my case --> (they allowed me to quote them on that) -

..Indeed, my recommendation for a one-way IBAN was unfortunately not accepted. But all that remains at the discretion of the closer. I certainly will oppose any attempts to use that sanction against you when your appeal is submitted, since this was a bogus report whose closure should have made clear you were not at fault. I think the fact that the closing failed to note this is not to the credit of the AE process. Feel free to quote me on that.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Please note - François Robere has not been notified about this complaint since it's not clear to me if that's allowed - see WP:IBAN - Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to edit each other's user and user talk pages. Please advise if I can notify or let the user know. Thank you. I believe I can do that under the circumstances --->

Discussion concerning François Robere

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 François Robere

Background

1. The ban between the OP and myself was imposed as part of an AE request filed by a third editor.
2. It wasn't clear that I should be party to an I-ban, but one was enacted anyway; along with another between the OP and the filer. Both were "no fault" bans.
3. During the discussion I've shown that the OP was following my activities on Misplaced Pages, including my "sandbox", mainspace edits, and correspondence with at least one admin.
4. Soon after the ban was imposed I stated that it makes me uneasy, since it can be "weaponized" against me.

The diffs

1. Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive.
2. Diff 2 is unrelated to the OP.
   1. I've edited Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) before, including on Szarek and the ref to Goddeeris.
   2. On March 3rd I mentioned the IPN in a comment.
   3. On March 4th I mentioned Szarek.
   4. On March 5th the OP made her first edit to Institute of National Remembrance since January the previous year. Later that day she removed a statement regarding Szarek.
   5. On the same day I posted a long analysis of the changes made to the article by other editors. I did not mention the OP nor her edits.
   6. Point #22 in the analysis refers to the IPN's budget. An hour and a half after it was posted the OP removed a mention of the IPN's budget.
   7. The discussion evolved throughtout March. On March 29th I collected quotes from several sources and posted them to Talk. This is my work, it has several new sources and perhaps 80-90% new content.
   8. On April 14th, seeing as no substantial objections have been raised, I added the content to the article.
   9. The edit was soon reverted, and we went back to Talk.
   10. After I replied to the reverting editor, another editor voiced their support for my edit.
   11. The OP then made an off-topic comment about an edit that editor made three weeks earlier. She then inserted an opinion that pertains to both our edits, potentially complicating the discussion for me.

Another incident

1. On February 3rd I commented on Talk:Bogdan Musiał.
   1. 2.5 hours later the OP made a large removal of content added by Buidhe.
   2. On February 4th I posted a question on Musiał, Israel and religion.
   3. Three minutes later the OP deleted the content on Musiał, Israel and religion.
   4. Prior to this the OP had last edited the page on June 2018.

François Robere (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) RandomCanadian

"interaction ban forbids to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly." - making a long-winded AE request about it seems about as clear cut of an infringement as I could imagine. Making an AE request is also very much against the purpose of an IBAN, which is to avoid confrontations between two editors - WP:BANEX also seems to suggest you'd have better done to ask an uninvolved editor about it before making a report here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• As to the evidence presented, referring to the interaction ban itself (one amongst a chronicle of other sanctions imposed in the area) within an ArbCom request for clarification () does seem to be a perfectly allowable course of action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The history of Institute of National Remembrance seems more complicated; though I note that the removal of dead link source by GCB (apparently reverted by FR, along with a much larger change - not sure if this was just lack of attention and forgetfulness) appears to be incorrect per WP:LINKROT. Other changes seem much more minor; though they might be violations as understood under the guidelines. Of course, two editors under a mutual IBAN editing the same page is obviously recipe for disaster and the wiser recommendation to everyone would be to avoid it if possible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Volunteer Marek: Linking to the discussion announcing the IBAN (as part of a reply which does appear to contribute to the discussion, by arguing the case that there is still disruption and need for enforcement actions) can hardly be construed as violating said IBAN, unless we're in lawyering territory. Of course entirely ignoring this has gone to and been amended by ArbCom so many times the whole area seems to be irreparably prone to WP:DRAMA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Volunteer Marek: I do not see such a link in the evidence presented by GCB here. If there's something I'm missing point it out, but the supposed link to their talk page is a diff of an edit (block notice) by Rexxs, not by FR. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• On further look, agree with JzG and Paleo that this appears to be entrapment over what are, in essence, very minor details (a few words here and there, an incorrectly removed source, on an article FR edited first). As to VM's comment, the ArbCom discussion is clearly BANEX, I've also had a further look; so that's end of argument as far as I am concerned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @VM: You seem to be arguing over technicalities. ArbCom IS, by default, an appropriate forum to talk about sanctions related to ArbCom cases and ArbCom enforcement actions. Everyone in this tense topic area could use more WP:AGF and less technicalities, me thinks (otherwise, the IBANs and other sanctions would not have needed to be imposed, ...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The more I read into this issue; the more I look at prior parts of ArbCom case; the more I look at all the WP:DRAMA (including the absurd quibbling over BANEX), the less inclined am I to think that there's any solution to this but a permanent topic ban for many of the involved participants - Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project, and if editors can't agree to collaborate on a topic and are instead perpetuating a long, entrenched, dispute, the solution would be to remove the problem (the editors) and hope that new faces bring new looks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Since both users are involved in that amendment discussion, wouldn't this be somewhat unevitable? It also appears that Robere first participated before GizzyCatBella joined the discussion. One could argue that Bella should have avoided that thread to avoid involvement, but this is ARB related. Why not try to endure eachother, at least on that page (encouragement to both to avoid trying to trap the other)? —PaleoNeonate – 02:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

In this comment, aside from making personal attacks and false accusations against other users and administrators, FR gratuitiously referred to GCB ("in June another one was blocked") and linked to one of GCB edits. The comment in general adds nothing to discussion and is not even on topic - it does not address the use of sources in the topic area. It's just an unnecessary griping about other users, including one that he is interaction banned with - GCB. There was a hundred different ways that FR could've said the same thing without violating the IBAN, or, just not make the comment altogher. Yet, they chose to do that anyway. As such, that one is a clear cut IBAN violation. Volunteer Marek 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate - GCB made a comment on a request for clarification and amendment concerning an area they're active in. In that comment GCB made no reference, direct or indirect, to FR. GCB was one of ... 29 (?) editors to comment at the request. It was a general discussion. This is completely, 100%, different from FR's comment, which specifically refers to GCB and links to one of their edits. It should also be noted that the IBAN was put in place due to FR following GCB around, not vice versa. Only reason it was made mutual is because admins believe that "one way interaction bans don't work" so they said "might as well make it mutual" even though it was FR who was at fault. Volunteer Marek 02:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian - FR didn't just "link to a discussion announcing an IBAN" (there's two links related to GCB in their comment). He also linked to GCB's talk page. FR's comment is basically the standard griping and attacking of GCB, precisely what and why he was IBAN'd for. Volunteer Marek 03:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@RC, there’s nothing “supposed” about FR linking to GCB’s talk page. It’s right there in FR’s comment at ARCA: it’s FR’s 18th line here in this diff . And yes it’s to a comment by Rexx (and that part of FR’s post is also problematic, especially since Rexx isn’t around anymore to defend himself against FR’s false accusation) but the point is that FR is clearly breaking his IBAN by commenting on GCB and making it clear their comment refers to GCB by linking to their talk page Volunteer Marek 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

“Bob not Snob” account, the least you can do is remove the absurd “uninvolved” from your comment heading. Volunteer Marek 04:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

User:JzG Item #1 is most certainly NOT covered by WP:BANEX. FR was NOT "reverting vandalism". FR was NOT "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum". There was nothing "legitimate" or "necessary" about FR's comment. If he hadn't made it, nothing would've happened. If he had made it but left GCB out of it, nothing would've happened. He could've also made it without all the personal attacks against several users. FR's comment has nothing to do with the I-Ban and it's in a forum where the subject of discussion is sourcing restrictions and NOT any I-BANS. To claim this qualifies under BANEX is frankly absurd (otoh, this request by GCB clearly DOES qualify under BANEX, contrary to Random Canadian's assertion, since it involves "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user").

As far as the IPN article goes, FR might have edited it before GCB, but the difference is that GCB's edits were to different parts of the article and did not revert or edit anything FR put in. However, FR DID revert (with some rewording) GCB's edits. Editors under an I-Ban are in fact allowed to edit and comment on the same article as long as they don't revert or edit each other's text. FR violated that.

And frankly Bob not snob's "evidence", which is stuff they already posted to the ARCA page where it was rightfully ignored, is just an attempt to deflect the discussion from Francois Robere's very obvious violation at ARCA to "other stuff". Volunteer Marek 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There was absolutely no reason for FR to mention GCB or link to GCB's edits or talk page on the ARCA discussion. NONE. It had nothing to do with the discussion. It had nothing to do with the proposal. It was just gratuitous sniping at an editor FR doesn't like. That he's under an IBAN with, for a good reason. BANEX simply does not apply. Not even remotely. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@User:RandomCanadian - these are not technicalities. This is a user under an IBAN bringing up (even attacking) the user he's not supposed to mention or interact with on a Misplaced Pages page. WP:IBAN explicitly says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Misplaced Pages, directly or indirectly It's a pretty straight up violation honestly. The only Wikilawyering here is by the editors who want to pretend that it isn't by invoking WP:BANEX without bothering to explain why FR's comment was "necessary" or how it "referenced the IBAN itself" (because it wasn't, and it wasn't). IBANs are made for a reason. In this case it was imposed after a long history of warnings to FR to stop bothering GCB. Since FR hasn't bothered to heed these warnings, the part of the notification about IBANS that they received, the part that says "If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions." should be put into force. Volunteer Marek 15:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:François Robere - you say: "Diff 1 complies with WP:BANEX, as well as the imposing admin's instruction that the ban isn't retroactive"

• Can you explain how your comment at ARCA (Diff 1) was "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"? Because that's what it takes for BANEX to apply. Did your comment even refer to the IBAN itself? Was it made in an "appropriate forum"?
• Can you also explain what you mean by "retroactive"? Usually "retroactive" means you cannot get sanctioned for edits you've made before the ban was imposed. Are you saying your comment was actually made before August 10, 2020, even though the date says "April 18th 2021"? This is a strange claim to say the least. Volunteer Marek 12:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:François Robere - in addition to explaining how your comment concerning GCB at ARCA supposedly falls under "BANEX", can you explain why you are claiming that GCB removing text inserted by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT editor (indef banned Icewhiz) is supposed to be an iban violation with YOU? I know there's lots of Icewhiz socks around, but I'm pretty sure you are NOT one. So why are you claiming that a revert of Icewhiz, is an IBAN vio with you? You also didn't mention Szarek on the IPN article page until AFTER GCB's March 5 edit (your first mention of Szarek was March 23 ). It seems you're trying to flip or confuse the timeline here so let's get this one clear - Icewhiz adds stuff on Szarek before he was banned in 2019. In early March 2021 GCB removes it. In late March 2021 you bring up Szarek on talk. If there's an IBAN vio here (and personally I'd give this one a pass) it's you violating the ban not the other way around. Volunteer Marek 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Nsk92 and User:JzG - I don't know why you're bringing up a completely irrelevant AfD here, but it seems quite ridiculous to argue that someone should be sanctioned for disagreeing with you on an AfD. I voted to delete that article as well. Why? Because the subject is not notable!!! The article was started by indef banned Icewhiz, it's on a topic that was reported in the news briefly at the time but then hardly ever again and one which simply does not meet notability criteria. Trying to drag an AfD disagreement into this AE is... I'm not sure how to put this politely, but "bad faithed" and "disruptive" come to mind. Especially since this Whataboutism, as unbecoming as it is, is also combined with this bending over backwards to pretend that Francois' very clear and straight forward topic ban violation at ARCA qualifies under "BANEX". Neither of you, nor FR< has actually bothered to address how BANEX would apply here - what portion of FR's comment "addressed the IBAN itself"? What portion was "necessary"? You're just slinging Misplaced Pages acronyms around in a fairly transparently biased manner (you like one editor so they get a pass for harassing another). It's kind of depressing to see actual Misplaced Pages policies get thrown out the window so quickly under flimsiest pretexts. Volunteer Marek 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, I think that removing the IBAN is a bad idea. It was put in place after years of User:François Robere bothering and following around GCB as noted in the AE request which led to it. At one point FR even stated that he was "policing" GCB's edits for which he got, rightfully, reprimanded by admins (this was before the IBAN). Furthermore, removing the IBAN would also reward FR for violating it, just creating the wrong incentives (it would encourage the bothering to resume). Note that FR hasn't even managed to acknowledge that they violated the ban, but rather has tried to WP:WIKILAWYER it by claiming absurdly that their edits are okay under "BANEX" (they're not). That kind of shows that they haven't learned anything from this experience or from the fact the ban was imposed in the first place. Volunteer Marek 14:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Bob not snob

The indirect reference at ARCA falls under WP:BANEX, legitimate and necessary dispute resolution.

The second part of GCB's report is disingenuous, as GCB is the one who is in clear violation of the IBAN on Institute of National Remembrance:

GCB's complaint on Institute of National Remembrance is disingenuous, besides breaking the IBAN herself, she initially jumped into the article in March right after FR made a large a post challenging VM's edits, and has done the same now in April. She is complaining about Behr, but FR discussed Behr (points 18, 22) 2 hours before GCB jumped into the article.Bob not snob (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus

Whether there is a technical violation here or not, I don't have a strong opinion (as I don't feel like reviewing the diffs in detail). In general, I find such remedies to be producing more harm / noise than good, not to mention they can encourage battleground mentality (more diffs to save/report, sigh); vacating it may be a simple solution but I really don't have a strong feeling here. It would be interesting to hear from both parties (GCB and FR) whether they think the remedy was necessary and whether they think it still is. The main reason I am posting here, however, is to just comment than in one of the recent comment submitted as a diff here , FR incorrectly claimed I was blocked. I was not. Please WP:REFACTOR this. TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC) PS. The above error has now been fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I had the time to look at the diffs and read the comments here and I certainly think the i-ban should be removed. It does nothing but encourages battleground mentality on both sides. As for any new restrictions, there is no evidence that any party here is disruptive; their edits seem fine (not particularly controversial or edit warred by others) - the only problem is that they both share similar interests and occasionally overlap. It's really hard to judge whether it's intentional or not, reverting stuff from years ago, or making an edit in an article another one commented on not that long ago or whatever. I say unmuzzle both of them and see what happens, if they start edit warring and fighting, then we will have evidence to consider more restrictions. For now let's AGF and hope they can behave themselves, after the lesson of how annoying it is to operate under various half-way bans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I certainly agree that if the i-ban were to be removed, François Robere should confirm they no longer are planning to "police GCB". My point is that this entire report seems to be making mountains out of molehills. Yes, he skirted the i-ban, maybe violated it once or twice (no, I don't think BANEX applies to his recent edit, there was no need to mention GCB, it's as simple as that) but I'd rather see a warning than any block. I never liked the use of excessive force to drive some point, American-police-style, although I do know that I am in a minority when it comes to this. That said, this would be helped if François acknowledged they got a bit zealous recently and apologized, instead of trying to counterattack. Blocks should not be needed if one acknowledges their mistake and promises to be better (yes, I know, another notion that is not very popular here). Call me naive, but I still believe that forviness, and building bridges, rather than blowing them up, would be a better mindset, given we want to reduce any WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Thinking about this a bit more, if there is no support for removing the i-ban (I don't think anyone else here besides me expressed support for this), how about this: perhaps a better remedy would be to change the full i-ban into a simple ban for both from reporting one another to AE/AN(I)? My point is that they should not be prevented from regular interaction with one another in the mainspace, particularly as when they edit the same articles, sometimes months apart, and perhaps innocently change content that another one added before, this creates a very technical i-ban violation that is really not a violation of the spirit (being arguably accidental, not intentional, but that's hard to verify). On the other hand, the existence of the i-ban encourages both to collects diffs on the other, and encourages borderline violations such as reports here, or worse, the usage of meatpuppets or worse (see Bob's section, now indef blocked). Also the "first mover" advantage, which i-bans encouage, is ridcolous. One edits an article, the other one is banned from it for life? And they are supposed to check edit history to make sure that sections they edit were not, by any chance, added by the other one? That's a nightmare. The fewer bear traps, aka "remedies", we have, the better for everyone. If our main concern is that those editors were making too much noise at AE/ANI about one another few years back, just prevent this from happening, no need to also prevent them from commenting in the same discussion or make them look for "gotcha's" in obsure edit history ("I edited this first 5 years ago, he violated the i-ban fixing a typo there now"). Love and peace, guys.

Statement by JzG (GCB/FR)

Item 1 is clearly covered by WP:BANEX.

Item 2 invites us to look at Institute of National Remembrance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the context of an IBAN enacted on 9 August 2020. FR edited that article before GCB did, FR was also the first of the two to edit the article after the IBAN. GCB's first edit to the Talk page was both after the IBAN and after prior comments by FR. If an IBAN violation exists here, it is GCB. This looks like an attempt to abuse of Misplaced Pages process to remove an opponent, and is, at the very least, a vexatious filing.

As to the content matter, GCB's edits seem to me to be tendentious, adding WP:MISSION statements and uncritical discussion of figures identified by RS as controversial. Taken along with this vexatious filing I would argue that a TBAN may be indicated. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is reinforced by the prior TBAN, thanks Nsk92, whic I had forgotten. This is textbook recidivism. The ban should be reinstated. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

Regarding JzG's TBAN comment, GCB was under a Poland-related TBAN in the past, but it was lifted here at AE in December 2020, see the relevant thread at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by GizzyCatBella. The closing statement for that appeal request reads: "The appeal has been accepted, with the understanding that if the user resumes problematic editing, more severe sanctions will be swiftly imposed." Nsk92 (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This AfD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) (which somebody should really close by now, as it has been resisted three times already and has been open since March 7) may also be tangentially relevant here. The AfD, where CGB is the nominator, concerns a page about a Holocaust conference in France in 2019 that was disrupted by an anti-semitic attack by a group of Polish nationalists. Apart from !voting twice (as the nominator, and then again as a participant), there is nothing overtly disruptive about GCB's participation in this AfD but the choice of the topic is indicative and it does overlap with the topic of GCB's prior TBAN . The Institute of National Remembrance was one of the bodies that criticized the conference. The page New Polish School of Holocaust Scholarship (conference) and its talk page had been actively edited by François Robere; the first edit by GCB appears to be the AfD nomination itself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Err, sorry, Guerillero, but I don't think it's an acceptable approach for the AE admins to declare that they have "no appetite" for enforcing WP:ACDS in an entire area for which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. And I don't think I've seen AE wash its hands off from dealing with an entire area of discretionary sanctions before, no matter how unpleasant. Develop some appetite. If necessary make a post at WP:AN and ask for extra admin participation. But do something. Nsk92 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BMK

How very exciting to see all the same names once again! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

The comment by FR on ARCA (diff #1) seems to be an obvious IBAN violation by the letter. The comment was made when FR was already under the editing restriction, and this is not "a legitimate concern about the ban itself". However, I do not think his comments were such a big deal to deserve filing this AE request. I would suggest a closing without action or a warning. No need in Arbcom or anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning François Robere

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

• I suggest that the people involved here take this to arbcom, because I don't see that there is much appetite among AE admins to get involved in this area --In actu (Guerillero) 17:18, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nsk92: Admins are volunteers and work on what they want. This has been open for more than a week and no other AE admins have commented on this issue despite a number of other threads getting a wide variety of comments. --In actu (Guerillero) 18:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Maudslay II

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 Maudslay II

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Maudslay II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

]

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

1. 14:46, 22 April 2021 First revert of this
2. 18:15, 22 April 2021 Second revert of this in 24 hours
3. 13:03, 10 April 2021‎ Revert of this calling other WP:AGF edit a vandalism
4. 20:19, 11 April 2021 2nd revert in 24 hours
5. 21 April 2021 Putting a fake photo of Dier yassin masscare
6. 21 April 2021 WP:CANVASS user that voted to keep the article that he created to WP:RSN discussion

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 March 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was asked to self revert,, but refused and calling other user edits as vandalism.

Judging from the user contributions he seems here to WP:RGW and so its not suitable to edit such a topic --Shrike (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Maudslay II: Why do you call WP:AGF edits as vandalism? You were already warned about this? --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Maudslay II: Why after you self revert you continued to edit war ? --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Maudslay II

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 (username)

Statement by Huldra

Re diff 5: A lot of (fake) photos of the Deir Yassin massacre are circulating on the net. Off course, all "oldtimers" (I have been editing the Deir Yassin massacre-article since 2006) knows this. But I think it is unfair to punish a newbie for thinking any of these pictures actually are from the Deir Yassin massacre. (Just an example of how Maudslay II is a newbie: they refer to me as "Him", heh. Maudslay II: I'm female!), Ms. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Newslinger I have already asked for these pictures to be deleted on commons (link). And I do not know if it is correct to sanction anyone on en.wp., for what they have done on commons.wp? Anyway, as Maudslay II stated themselves: they did not edit-war with me when I removed the wrong picture from the Deir Yassin massacre-article. And these pictures are (unfortunately) all over the internet, illustrating the Deir Yassin massacre. If anything: this should teach Maudslay II not to trust the internet... Huldra (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Maudslay II

I actually reverted myself, ]. I'm not looking for edit wars or anything else. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Now Shrike is basically fishing. I added the Deir Yassin massacre photos, but another editor said that they are not related to the massacre and removed them. I did not revert his her edit. How is this being used against me? -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

More importantly he plays very loose and fast with RS to further an agenda. In one RS that said "Shiite Muslim bombed..." He created the article and wrote it as "Israel bombed...." Sir Joseph 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

Somewhat enthusiastic editing by a newish editor might be forgiven this once. With a reminder to exercise caution in future in this difficult area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Geshem Bracha

This isn't "enthusiastic editing", it is fabrication and prevarication:

1. In Iron Fist policy, he does this, But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
2. In Maarakeh massacre, he responsibility on Israel as a fact. But Washington Post and New York Times do not say this. This also describes this as Category:Zionist terrorism, which is inappropriate and sources do not say. Maudslay makes this out as an attack on a mosque, however a source he cites, Robert Fisk, says: "A bomb exploded on the roof of Jerardi's office on 4 March 1985. It killed almost all the resistance leaders: Jerardi, Sa'ad and ten other guerrillas were blown apart.", which paints a different picture than the article.
3. here he supposedly self-reverts, but he messes up the formatting so a bot reverts his edit 4 minutes later. Despite surely noticing this he does not correct this. He then reverts another editor while this discussion is open.

The talk page discussion with him is full with problems. He pushes unreliable sources. The good sources he presents, do not support what he is trying to say. He keeps on saying it "is obvious" it is Israel, but it isn't obvious enough for the sources he cites.

What is going on in Deir Yassin massacre is much worse. He placed a fake photograph on Misplaced Pages, and uploaded five other fakes:

1. , , and are from Lebanon in the 1980s.
2. is from a famous massacre in Korea ().
3. is from Nazi Germany (original, not fake.

Maudslay II actually uploaded a picture of a Nazi concentration camp and said this took place in Israel. This is bad.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Maudslay II

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

• Here are the six photo uploads mentioned by Geshem Bracha:
  1. File:Deir Yassin massacre 01.jpg
     • Originally from "الذكرى الـ 72 على مجزرة دير ياسين" in Felestin
     • Caption: "صورة أرشيفية"
  2. File:Deir Yassin massacre 2.jpg
     • Originally from "واحدٌ وسبعون عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين" in Arab48
     • Caption: "لم يُفرّق القتلة بين امرأة وشيخ وطفل (نشطاء -تويتر)"
  3. File:Deir Yassin massacre 3.jpg
     • Originally from "72 عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين.. تعرف على تفاصيلها " in Sama News
     • No caption
  4. File:Deir Yassin massacre 4.png
     • Originally from "شهادات من دير ياسين: القتلة أحرقوا جثامين الشهداء بإحدى ساحات القرية " in The New Arab
     • Caption: "سقطت في المجزة ما لا يقل عن 110 فلسطينيين(Getty)"
  5. File:Deir Yassin massacre 5.jpg
     • Originally from "أم المجازر في ملف كامل من 3 أجزاء: مجزرة الدوايمة المغمورة تضاهي دير ياسين وكفر قاسم" in Al Mayadeen
     • Caption: "لمجزرة الدوايمة خصوصية كونها أكثر المجازر التي وُظفت فيها كل الأساليب الوحشية البربرية"
  6. File:Deir Yassin massacre 6.jpg
     • Originally from "مجزرة دير ياسين هدفت لإرهاب الفلسطينيين ودفعهم للرحيل" in Rai al-Youm
     • No caption

Buidhe

CutePeach

Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Terjen

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 Terjen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Terjen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAP

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

1. 14 April Places a "disputed" tag on the wording far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, which wording was expressly included by consensus determined in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020
2. 20 April Again places the tag, after it was removed and the consensus was expressly explained to them
3. 25 April Once again places the tag, ignoring multiple editors explaining to him that the consensus existed
4. 25 April Yet again places the tag, after being explicitly warned that their editing was verging on tendentious

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, on 20 April

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a case of delayed one against many - in this case, Terjen rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo. Terjen apparently disagrees with the inclusion of far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, and expresses the opinion that the wording is "unreasonable." Unfortunately for Terjen, their opinion is expressly rejected by a formally-expressed community consensus as concluded in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020. That they individually "dispute" this formally-concluded consensus is, at this point, irrelevant - it is axiomatic that absent exceptional circumstances, a formally-expressed community consensus may only be overturned by another formally-expressed community consensus. Thus, as has been repeatedly explained to them on the article talk page, unilaterally tagging the section is unavailing. Whatever "dispute" there may have been about the far-right wording was formally resolved with the RfC. Terjen's option, if they disagree with the label, is to open a formal RfC. Attempting to permanently tag the section until they get the outcome they want is tendentious and disruptive editing behavior. As my request on their talk page was ignored, I was left with no other option but to file this request. My hope is that no formal sanctions are necessary - that this filing is enough to get them to stop their behavior and accept that they may not use tags in this manner. Pinging Bacondrum and GorillaWarfare as relevant to this request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Terjen

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 Terjen

Coming soon, please give me time to prepare a response. Terjen (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bacondrum

Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Terjen is blatantly POV pushing and tagging well sourced claims in a pointy manner, editing against consensus, edit warring. A firm warning to stop is warranted at this point, IMO. Bacondrum 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the edit history there's a real issue of edit warring against 1RR sanctions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017887609
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017893124
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1018979534
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019868082
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019886805
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019887084

Statement by GorillaWarfare (Terjen)

This should have been resolved the first time Terjen was told that a new formal RfC would be needed to override the previous one. Terjen could have just opened a new RfC, preferably with a good explanation of what has changed since the June/July 2020 RfC to warrant revisiting the topic, and that would have been that. Refusing to do this simple thing, and continuing to edit war the tag into the article despite clear explanations that there was a formal decision to include the wording, is tendentious. Evidently these multiple explanations have not gotten through to them, maybe AE intervention will. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nweil: The June/July RfC is not the "be-all-end-all". As has been explained repeatedly to Terjen, if the initial RfC was flawed or if sourcing has changed, a new RfC can be started to revisit the topic. It is not Terjen's opinion that "far-right" should be removed that is the issue here, it is their disruption around warring a tag into the article while also refusing to begin a new RfC like would be needed to overrule the previous one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nweil: You are correct that I started the June/July RfC. I don't believe the sourcing has substantially changed, which is why I have not begun and will not begin a new RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NWeil

A previous statement says the claim of "far-right" is very well cited but I would disagree. For example, CSIS, an accepted group of experts on the subject, does not classify the boogaloo movement as far-right. CSIS data was most recently used as the basis for a Washington Post interactive article on extremism. And holding a June/July 2020 RfC as the be-all-end-all for such a fast evolving situation seems unhelpful. It's worrying to me that the desire to keep "far-right" as a tag in the article seems to be overriding common sense. Nweil (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: correct me if I'm wrong but you initialized that June/July 2020 RfC. This is clearly a subject you are interested in and have sunk work into and as we see from this enforcement request, is fairly controversial. Do you believe the situation has remained static since June/July 2020? Why not initialize a new RfC yourself? Nweil (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Terjen)

I commend NBSB for a calm and patient exposition, assuming good faith. That assumption is, I venture to suggest, somewhere close to the Mary Poppins end of the scale. Terjen appears to have returned from a years-long absence to "correct" our "bias" against neo-Nazis. No thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

NWeil's statement that because CSIS doesn't label the Boogaloo movement as "far-right", that label isn't "very well-cited" is both absurd and irrelevant. There are many other expert organizations and news sources which do label them as "far-right", and that was sufficient for a consensus of editors at an RfC to accept the label as appropriate. And that is the point here, an RfC-generated consensus exists, so Tergen's option was to start a new RfC, but they have refused to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by InedibleHulk

A lot of the slurs associated with "far-right politics" really don't seem associated individually with this group by RS, even if the "far-right" blanket as a whole is. Absurd and troubling, RfC aside. Not a fight we're likely to win, but I'd like the label removed, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

@Nweil: - "fairly controversial" content is exactly what RfCs are for. There is no obligation for the nominator to revisit RfCs in less than a year just because content is "fairly controversial". RfCs are community processes and we wouldn't want to waste the time of the community of editors. That said, any editor is free to start a new RfC at this point if they feel strongly about the subject. starship.paint (exalt) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Terjen

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

• If someone doesn't like the tag, and there is a clear prior consensus, the onus is on them to start a new RFC on the matter. Adding the tag once is forgivable but once you know, and are pointed to an existing consensus, then we have issues with WP:BRD, WP:DE and eventually WP:TE (all still pointing to WP:DE for their authority). Are they far-right? Is there a valid reason to at least include verbiage indicating otherwise in the article? Don't know, don't care. The point is, the dispute should be handled with discussion if you disagree, not edit warring over a tag. The problem isn't content, it is behavior, and if someone can't edit in an area without exhibiting bad behavior, we should stop them from editing in that area. Or completely. Looking at unrelated edits by Terjen since they have returned, their overall behavior looks like it is edging on righting great wrongs. There is definitely a pattern here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, I'm counting 38 edits by Terjen since this WP:AE report was filed, and not a single response from them here. For someone who considers themselves a "policy wonk", two days after this started , this seems pretty foolish. Note they are also at AN3 over a 1RR violation. At this point, I would be supportive of any strong sanction, including a 1 year (minimum) AP topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

TopGun1066

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 TopGun1066

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

TopGun1066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case

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

1. 09:29, 16 November 2020 Adds unattributed claim that a living person is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST
2. 16:51, 24 November 2020 Claims that describing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Misplaced Pages's fair use policies, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. The whole discussion at Talk:Thomas McMahon (Irish republican)#Bias is worth reading
3. 08:58, 10 March 2021 While I would agree with the majority of the edit, they obscured the fact that two members of the Scots Guards were convicted of murder for this specific incident. In particular note the changing of the reference, this is changed to one that was before the trial took place making it much more difficult for editors/readers to obtain the fuller picture.
4. 09:20, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of my talk page post
5. 09:33, 26 April 2021 Unexplained removal of the murder conviction information, instead thinking Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride tells the full story
6. 07:40, 26 April 2021 Adds unattributed claim that someone is a terrorist, in violation of MOS:TERRORIST. Considering two soldiers are presently on trial for his murder (trial started today), I believe that's wholly inappropriate
7. 08:38, 26 April 2021 Repeat of previous edit (since self-reverted)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At User:TopGun1066 the editor admits to being a member of the British Armed Forces. The above edits are the totality of their edits in the Troubles area, there are no positive edits to mitigate the disruption.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning TopGun1066

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 TopGun1066

1. 09:29, 16 November 2020 FDW777 is incorrect and their bias towards showing IRA members in a positive light is blatant. Living people are described as Terrorists on Misplaced Pages: Ted Kaczynski.

2. 16:51, 24 November 2020 Desribing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Misplaced Pages's fair use policies, as per Ted Kaczynski and Murder_of_Lee_Rigby, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials. As stated, although McMahon was not convicted under any Terrorism Laws in the Republic of Ireland, the sources cited from the Guardian refer to him as a terrorist.

3. 08:58, 10 March 2021 The Scots Guards edit was tidying the text up. The fact that they were accused of murder was irrelevant as they were also re-admitted back into the Army.

4. 09:20, 26 April 2021 I didn’t remove this.

5. 09:33, 26 April 2021 The text describing the Scots Guards were involved in contentious shootings, including that of Peter McBride is an appropriate level of information to include. It doesn’t hide the incident.

6. 07:40, 26 April 2021 It is more inappropriate for FDW777 to slander people who have not been convicted of any crimes by describing them as ‘murderers’. Joe McCann was however, appointed commander of the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion. On 22 May 1971, the first British soldier to die at the hands of the Official IRA, Robert Bankier of the Royal Green Jackets was killed by a unit led by McCann. Describing McCann as a Terrorist is consistent with Misplaced Pages labelling other people (alive and dead) as terrorists. TopGun1066 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2009/nov/24/archive-thomas-mcmahon-ira-bomber

Statement by PaleoNeonate

This is not about the editors or this particular instance but I would like to mention that I opened a thread at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § Widely vs in text attribution. This is also the style guide, that sometimes can conflict with policies. This source for instance doesn't attribute it and it would be difficult to know who to attribute it to, yet it's obvious to that article's editor(s) and likely to many. —PaleoNeonate – 11:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TopGun1066

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

Race and Intelligence

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 Race and Intelligence

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users against whom enforcement is requested

Sockpuppets and single purpose accounts including:

• Nuclear Milkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Frog Tamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spork Wielder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive / Misplaced Pages:Long-term abuse/Mikemikev

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended)

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

1. 15:43, 17 March 2021 Personal attacks
2. 11:01, 28 April 2021 Personal attacks / trolling
3. 11:51, 16 April 2021 More attacks and trolling
4. I could go on for quite a while, just look at the talk page history and click on the red linked username or IP of your choice.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Mikemikev_site-banned_and_thereafter_topic-banned

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

• Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There has been a long history of sockpuppeting and trolling on Talk:Race and intelligence. It is long since time that a page restriction was applied to deal with this. I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page. I believe the level of disruption more than warrants this, and I find it highly unlikely that we would ever want a genuine new user to be cutting their teeth on such a contentious article.

• To reiterate, I am requesting extended confirmed protection for both Race and intelligence and Talk:Race and intelligence.
• I believe that can be done in this venue because discretionary sanctions are authorized, which may include page restrictions. Page protection is an allowed type of page restriction. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

article talk page notified. Users mentioned by name , ,

Discussion concerning Race and Intelligence

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 MjolnirPants

I wholeheartedly concur with this request, though I'm not sure this is the right place for it. This is an article that sits at the intersection of politics, pseudoscience, science, extremism and conspiracy theories. There is no legitimate reason for any new editor to even be involved in discussions on the talk page, let along permitted to actually edit the article itself. It takes a nuanced understanding of WP policy and significant experience implementing it to be able to do this article justice, and any new editor that has those is a sock, by definition (though to be fair: I've yet to meet a sock with a nuanced understanding of WP policy, for what should be obvious reasons). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Permanent Extended Confirmed protection is being requested for this particular article, due to the large number of brand new accounts and IP editors who routinely show up to make damaging edits to the article. It won't solve all the problems (for example, see Stonkament's comments below, which are somewhere between "gross misrepresentation of what happened" and "bald-faced lies about what the sources and other editors said", as you can still read for yourself at talk), but it will cut down on one of the biggest sources of headaches for editors of that article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative

I agree that extended-confirmed protection for this article and talk page is long overdue, though like MPants I'm unsure if AE is the right venue. A similar idea was floated recently on FTN by Hemiauchenia and endorsed by several others (including me) before RandomCanadian pointed out that WP:ARCA would be the proper forum for that. In any case, I would be happy to do some of the leg work of compiling diffs if that is helpful. An exhaustive list of disruption, even over the course of the past year, would be long indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Thanks for clearly explaining why this may be considered a proper venue for page protection requests. I am certainly no expert on such matters. Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by JzG

It's long past time to apply ECP to the article and its talk page. The game of whack-a-racist has gone on for way too long. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Stonkaments

I agree that extended-confirmed protection would be warranted due to the frequent disruptive editing on this article. That said, I think it's more complicated than that. It seems to me that a lot of the disruptive editing is coming in response to editors undertaking WP:OWNERSHIP of the article with a POV in the other direction. For example, most editors strongly opposed removing or modifying the following claim: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", despite this being a clear misrepresentation of the cited sources, as discussed here. In recent discussions, editors have misrepresented one of the sources as an editorial, falsely equated a partial hereditarian hypothesis to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism, and cast aspersions of racism. The admin who closed the noticeboard discussion failed to address any of the substantive arguments, has been uncivil, and has shown that they have a strong POV on this topic. See more recent criticism here. Thus, it seems to me that a lot of disruptive editing is coming as a backlash against POV-pushing in the article, so that needs to be addressed as well. Stonkaments (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Aquillion

For other socks and sockpuppeters that have plagued the page, see This is long-past needed. The article is infamous even off-wiki for its acerbic discussions and edit-wars; and it has seen an extremely persistent, long-term level of sockpuppetry which has compounded that problem. Many of the recurring issues on the page are recurring precisely because sockpuppets of banned SPA accounts frequently return and raise them again, often wasting huge amounts of time and effort before people realize they're talking to a banned sock. The persistent long-term sockpuppetry, in turn, poisons the atmosphere on talk, because when a new user appears and starts making the same arguments as one of the sockpuppets they are immediately treated with suspicion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:: WP:ECP. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Sockpuppetry, of course, is the issue here - the article is already semi-protected and it has proven ineffective at resolving the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by NightHeron

This is in response to Stonkaments' comment above. Per WP:FRINGE, it is false to claim that those of us who work to implement the consensus on the fringe nature of racial hereditarianism are POV-pushing. In addition to the problem of SPAs and socks, another time sink at the R&I talk-page has been civil POV-pushing by editors who have refused to accept the consensus of last year's RfC on Race and Intelligence (see ; the closure was endorsed in the closure review ). The outcome of the RfC was that the belief in genetic superiority in intelligence of one race over another one is a fringe viewpoint. Stonkaments is one of the editors who has tried in various forums to weaken the language that says this. The time sink is caused by SPAs, socks, IPs, and POV-pushing editors who refuse to accept consensus. The proposal to prevent SPAs and IPs from editing the talk-page would help a lot, although it would not eliminate bludgeoning by a few disgruntled editors such as Stonkaments. 23:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)NightHeron (talk)

Comment by Ferahgo the Assassin

I agree it would be useful to do something to reduce the amount of sockpuppetry on this article, but it's an excessively extreme solution to restrict the article and its talk page to users who have 500 edits or more. Over the years there have been a lot of good-faith, non-SPA editors on the article who have fewer than 500 edits, Gardenofaleph being the most recent example. Any restriction should be specific to addressing the problem of sockpuppetry, and not one that will also exclude good-faith editors.

Something that hasn't been tried yet is semi-protecting the race and intelligence article's talk page. That would have stopped the two most recent sockpuppets, which only edited the talk page (not the article), and were indef blocked before they had been registered for long enough to become able to edit semi-protected pages. Shouldn't semi-protecting the talk page be tried before resorting to EC protection? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Race and Intelligence

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

• Could someone please explain what exactly protection is being requested? I have difficulties understanding it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Talk:Race and intelligence is the target, EC protection is the request. (It was a little confusing until I saw his notes under the request.) After looking through the history, and being mild to moderately familiar with the history over the years, I would agree that EC is a good fit here. I would expect EC for a talk page to be a very rare thing, but this is a good example of when we should use it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I support EC on the main article page as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)