This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement



Snooganssnoogans

Rajulbat (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 12:47, 12 January 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 Snooganssnoogans

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Rajulbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Snooganssnoogans (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#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff)


Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans: Contains many diffs following a similar pattern of conduct as the one complained of here. Previous AE brought by User:TParis and resulting in the following sanction implemented by User:Dennis Brown on 24 May 2017: Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017)
  2. 12/1/2018 - Inserted ", a pseudoscience," after "Creationism" in violation of WP:SYNTH;
  3. Edit-warred over biased content 12/2/2018 - Edit warred over biased content.
  4. 12/2/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV phrasing improved by another editor.
  5. 12/11/2018 - Edit-warred over removing opinion framed in Wikipedia's voice, saying "No need to attribute."
  6. 12/2/2018 - Introduced blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice.
  7. 12/3/2018 - Agressive instance of WP:OWN.
  8. 12/3/2018 - Reverted sourced information added to article with the justification of "...cant access the book but it doesn look like a rs]
  9. 12/3/2018 - Insists on non-NPOV language like "X falsely claimed that...." in violation of WP:SYNTH
  10. 12/18/2018 - Edit-warred over "white supremacy" language.
  11. 12/9/2018 - Inserted non-NPOV language in violation of WP:SYNTH ("falsely claimed...")
  12. 12/26/2018 - Edit-warred over clearly non-NPOV language -- calling org "amateur website" as opposed to "fact-checking organization." See article history generally, exercised WP:OWNership.
  13. 12/4/2018 - Introduced patently non-NPOV language "alleged reports" -> falsehoods; "reporting false stories"; "false claim"... in violation of WP:SYNTH.
  14. 12/6/2018 - Reverted another user's improvement to an article because the sources cited "are by clowns."
  15. 12/4/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
  16. 12/8-12/10/2018 - Edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
  17. 12/8/2018 - Introduced 'falsely claimed' in violation of WP:SYNTH
  18. 12/9/2018 - Edit-warred, called other user's addition "self-serving nonsense."
  19. 12/17-12/17/2018 - Edit-warring over POV.
  20. 12/17-12/18/2018 - Edit-warring.


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

Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.

  • @Salvio giuliano: As a means of showing it's not a content dispute, I'm perfectly happy to accept a ban on interacting with this user. His edits are an issue. I'm not going to comb through 11,000 diffs to point out which ones, especially because someone before me had already done that. The issue has been raised. If no one else sees an issue, then I'll just crawl back into my little corner and edit Wikipedia here and there when I get the chance. School's starting back up anyway. I was just horrified by what I saw as a drawn out attack on Wikipedia's neutrality in this particular domain.--Rajulbat (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
    • I'm fine with you guys closing this. @Beyond My Ken: Um, that's not true. Congress is bicameral. But this is not the place to talk about it.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
      • @Black Kite: I share your opinion regarding time wasted.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
        • Under protest, I have provided 20 or so diffs. His anti-neutral editing practices are readily discernible from his list of contributions, but I'm jumping through the hoops here in the hopes that someone takes action. As for "open[ing] up proceedings investigating [my] edits," @Drmies, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide.--Rajulbat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
          • On the punitive measures you guys are considering (short- to mid-term topic ban or warning on vexatious complaints), my input is that all three would have the same effect. My takeaway from this experience is that you don't consider Snoo's civil POV-pushing a problem here. I thought for sure it would be. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia for a temporary topic ban to have any effect. You see, I will have no time to edit (except for correcting a typo here and there or rescuing a dead link) during the semester that starts on Monday and ends in May. I think Snoo is civilly wiki-campaigning (the opposite of NPOV) on a schedule that outpaces a 40-hr workweek; he seems to think that's OK; I think it's antithetical to the noble purpose and lofty pillars of Wikipedia; you guys seem to think it's OK, or at least, "not sanctionable."--Rajulbat (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[1]


Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans

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 Snooganssnoogans

I'd just like to point out that in #14, I'm defending Tim Scott, the sole African-American Republican Senator, from poorly sourced attacks on his intellect and competence.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the editor Rajulbat should be sanctioned. His/Her history of contributions look like valuable contributions to the project before the editor ventured into American politics a couple of days ago. The editor just seems to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Editing in American politics, and understanding how Wikipedia policy is applied on controversial, contested and high-profile topics, is complicated and confusing (which is something that I've experienced myself - I was rightly sanctioned by admins for violations of Wikipedia policy when I was inexperienced). Provided that the editor demonstrates an understanding of NPOV and RS (i.e. why saying "false" in a Wikipedia article is OK when reliable sources say it), as well as a promise to not stalk me, I would suggest the admins just warn him/her. A few days ago, I asked the editor to show me reliable sources that contradicted content that I added to the Mitch McConnell page - I would like that the editor be allowed to send me those reliable sources if and when he/she finds them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

No evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note by Beyond My Ken

@Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ummm,...yes, it is true. Congress does indeed have two houses, but Senators are never referred to as "Congressmen" or "Congresswomen". Let me repeat that: NEVER
And, yes, this is the place to talk about it, because the fact that you don't know this is a strong indication that you really don't know much of anything about American politics, and that this report is, indeed, simply an attempt to squash an adversary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And what's this malarkey about providing diffs "under protest"? You expected people to make a decision about another editor's behavior based on your say-so alone? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would concur with Sandstein's comment that a topic ban from American politics for Rajulbat would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We are all responsible for our own actions, no matter who gave us what advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So, if the OP is going to be so busy that any kind of temporary topic ban in American politics isn't going to have any effect on them, the obvious answer is to make it an indef topic ban, and the OP can come around knocking when they have the time and interest to edit in that area again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen 328

Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The diffs provided since my initial comment do not include any evidence of misconduct so this complaint is without merit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RandomGnome

I can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be reigned reined in from pushing POV, and the appropriate policy is applied consistently, no matter where the editor's apparent political sympathies may lie. RandomGnome (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Before invoking the boomerang, I would ask admins to take into account that an administrator, TP, commented on the ANI that Perhaps a new AE case is warranted. While I obviously cannot comment on the merits of the theoretical AE case TP had in mind, or if they would ever have filed it, the comment could be seen as good faith counseling from a senior editor. I think this needs to be taken into account before handing down overly-prohibitive sanctions to a relatively new user. RandomGnome (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

The filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hah, does the OP define "non-NPOV" as anything that he personally thinks isn't neutral?...that would explain a lot; this not understanding that NPOV cannot be defined without looking at the sources would justify a WP:TBAN from AmPol. Diff 11 refers to a vile, oft-repeated conspiracy theory/smear that definitely should be referred to as "false" and considering "falsely claimed" to be SYNTH says more about Rajulbat than Snoogansnoogans - it'd be nice if people actually read policies when referring to them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Lack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.--MONGO (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles under DS is fraught with varieties of discomfort. A place where some admins fear to tread. (OK, just too intelligent to partake.) Abuses of the drama boards over content disputes, IMHO, need be taken seriously. If I understand correctly, Awilley has suggested a one week TBan and Sandstein three month. I’d suggest something in between, on the side of Awilley’s direction due to the small number of edits; but taking into account the damage of bringing editors to AE for content disagreements. A geometric mean would be 25 days. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The diffs presented do not indicate any problem rising to the level of sanctions. In fat in several cases a barnstar would be a more appropriate response. When sources call people alt-right, white supremacists or whatever, so do we. The fact that some folks don't like it is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

TParis How we represent sources is a matter of editorial judgment, but to state that a Wikipedian is engaging in BLP violations when they cite entirely mainstream sources for a characterisation that partisans dislike is simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

  • OP shouldn't be sanctioned for acting on my opinion. I wish they'd have taken more time to do this properly, though.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @JzG: It depends on the source. Some sources are very prone to make a huge stretch to cast wide nets.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

There's nothing here. Snoogans is an editor who clearly is not a Trump supporter, which if you squint hard enough could be an NPOV concern; we might not have any editors left with that test. I also strongly dislike content additions like [3]; Varney did not address Gohmert's slurs, which were characterized as anti-Semitic, moving the segment on. seems to be implying more than it should about Stuart Varney. None of that is going to result in any action here.

A boomerang may not be necessary (as I doubt Rajulbat knew what they were getting into), but a short one (as either an AP2 TBAN or a ban on filing administrative complaints) wouldn't be harmful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There is going to be no action here unless you provide evidence, in the forms of diffs to sanctionable conduct. Otherwise, this is casting aspersions and bordering on boomerang territory. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with GoldenRing; if no evidence is provided within the next 24 hours, I'll be closing this AE with no action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Now that diffs have been provided, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing sanctionable in there. I don't support a topic ban on OP, however: personally, I'd rather start off with a warning. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur. Sandstein 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see here, the filer opened a complaint at WP:ANI during which at least six admins commented that their editing was more of an issue than Snoogans ... so he then opens an AE with no evidence on the same subject? The phrase "complete waste of everyone's time" springs to mind here. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What Black Kite says. Plus, I'm waiting for someone to open up proceedings investigating their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I object to the phrase "including but not limited to". Drmies (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've got as far as diff six of the laundry list the OP has posted. My approach to many of those issues have have been slightly different, but I have yet to find anything sanctionable. Diff 1 is the old AE request. Snoogan's edit summary in diff 2 actually points to a discussion where a relevant consensus is evident. Diff 3 involved a reinstatement of sourced content removed by a newbie who didn't discuss the relevant content either before or after their removal; as such, the revert was appropriate. Diff 4 involves two reverts over 36 hours; not nearly enough, by itself, to concern me. Diff 5 concerns a removal of attribution, but that isn't actually prohibited, per YESPOV; the question is only about the degree of support for a given view in reliable sources. The content introduced in diff 6 is explicitly supported by the source. And really that's as far down the list as I'm willing to go, because this is entering WP:BOOMERANG territory, and I for one would be willing to consider a topic-ban on the OP. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    I would be amenable to an American Politics t-ban for the OP here, per Black Kite. If that doesn't have support, we definitely need a logged warning about forum-shopping and frivolous requests. Vanamonde (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding diffs (which in many cases aren't even diffs) hasn't improved the complaint. Looking at the first few items, I too see a mixture of content disputes and insufficiently substantiated allegations of edit-warring. You can't prove edit-warring with a single diff; you'd need several showing repeated reverts. Examining one diff at random in more detail, this edit is alleged by Rajulbat to "introduce blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice." However, I see nothing objectionable (at least from a conduct perspective) with this edit. One could perhaps quibble about whether the persons mentioned there should properly be described as "white nationalists" (as they are in the cited CNN source) rather than "white supremacists", but this seems to be a content rather than conduct issue to me, and certainly not non-neutral editing to a degree that would warrant sanctions. This complaint is abusive. I am in favor of a American politics topic ban of Rajulbat for three months. Sandstein 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this some sort of joke? These "diffs" mostly don't show any issues apart from being "edits the OP didn't like". Some of the "edit-warring" is actually fixing issues introduced by others (in one case by a sock). Also, the OP needs to go and read what WP:SYNTH actually means - hint, it doesn't mean "describing something or someone in a way I don't like". Examples: Inserting the wording "was false", "falsely" or similar in an article is absolutely fine when the sources show that thing was false. Or go and read the Young Earth creationism article and see what it says about pseudoscientific beliefs. Sigh ... I think we need a sanction here. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: - hence the suggestion of a topic ban from American politics. Stops the problems, lets them carry on editing elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all familiar with the OP but I skimmed the AN/I discussion that led to this and I don't think this request was intended to be the forum shopping that it appears to be, and the initial lack of diffs could be written off as unfamiliarity with AE. I do think a warning about frivolous requests would be appropriate, perhaps even something with set consequences like User:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#Auto-boomerang_sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Awilley. And to respond to @Rajulbat:'s latest comment, the problem is not that we don't think civil POV-pushing is a problem (it is) it is that you haven't demonstrated that this is what is happening. GoldenRing (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, there is substantial concern about Rajulbat's competence in editing in the American politics topic area, i.e., not being able to distinguish between non-neutral and other editing. Rajulbat is accordingly topic-banned for three monts. Sandstein 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross

No action. Filer blocked for socking. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 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 Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Alextiffin88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Philip Cross (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
[Philip Cross topic banned ruling] :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 08/01/19 It was well known that Riley had entered the political debate prior to this editing. As you can see from the page now there is a significant amount on politics.
  2. 08/01/19
  3. 23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place.
  4. 29 November 2018 Explanation: Editing Monica Sims BBC Radio producer, Controller of Radio 4, Editor of Woman's Hour.
  5. 2 December 2018 Editing The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear BBC documentary by a British documentary film-maker. The Wikipedia article contains: "...where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority."
  6. 31 December 2018 Editing Geeta Guru-Murthy Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months in May 2018 see link above.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months in August 2018.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link

Riley News Article

A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.

I have added new information links above which I ask be looked at too. May I specifically bring your attention to #23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place. Is this not something that should be considered
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Explained on Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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


Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

Statement by (Alextiffin88)

Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles.

Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case.

The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.

I'll add that I added the reference to the tweet in the belief that it was relevant. She used "Ayran" which is highly inappropriate.
The "stepping into the political arena" was an appropriate phrase which has now been resolved in talk. My bad I'm new.
If I was trying to disruptively edit her page, I wouldn't have requested it be protected as, I'd then be blocked from editing myself as I'm not an admin.
Instead I got a warning template for reverting what I believed to be a fair interpretation of the facts.
Indeed she is now attending Parliament with the home secretary next week and is in the political arena.
This was a genuine arbitration request due to the George Galloway connection. I'd rather her page be protected as soon as possible.
I even said to PC on his talk this is to clarify things.
Her page has turned into edit wars between certain users. You ask a question you get snapped at.

I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless.

Statement by Icewhiz

At the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits (combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll further note that the filer's edits to Rachel Riley may merit attention - diff - using twitter to suggest - "show that although fighting antisemitism she inadvertently or not used an antsemitic trope. Then included reference to 2012 tweet showing use of Ayran." (on what was quite obviously said ironically - an ironic self-use), as well as the somewhat unsourced assertion she "stepped into the political arena in 2019" in the lede - reverted twice - diff, diff (first added by an IP diff - 20 minuts prior). Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Note - I sent a message to the Arbcom mailing list with private evidence pertaining to this filing. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The new diffs, above, besides being stale are on a radio producer/children programming person, US necon / Islamism, and a journalist/actress (who covered the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal in the 90s) - these are not related to post 1978 UK politics. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by NSH001

Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Arbcom case, inter alia, was about Cross adding negative material to the wiki bios of people he disapproved of, while adding favourable material to the bios of those whom he approved, among which Kamm was prominent. I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that this is a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", which clearly applies to this diff. The second remedy states that he is banned from "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". I suppose that a lot depends how one interprets "broadly construed", but I contend that posting a quote from Kamm falls into that category, especially when the article linked to unequivocally is about British politics. I agree with Vannamonde's point that it is really not possible to separate news media and journalists from politics, when that is what they're discussing. Cross should, at the least, be warned against testing the boundaries in this way. --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm the 2017 Complainant from the original Philip Cross arbitration case and the earlier, ignored complaint over Luke Harding's page. This particular breach, the link to the Oliver Kamm article, is the most egregious. It is a conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Philip Cross) and also an attempt to put on record at Wikipedia an article from Cross's special friend, Oliver Kamm, attacking those who had complained about Philip Cross and calling them conspiracy theorists. Yes, attacking the very same people that Philip Cross obsessively worked against over years, turning their pages into attack pages which, very eventually, led to his topic ban. Kamm's attacks on his political enemies over the Philip Cross case are 100% post-1978 British politics. I note that Cross has already been found to have broken his ban and yet here he is again, seemingly unable to help himself. And why would he worry? There are plenty of people here to say, “Nothing to see here, move along please.” Wikipedia, if it once again does nothing for such a blatant breach, or simply punishes the complainant, will add to the public disrepute that the mishandling of the case has already brought on it. 121.72.171.202 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

BU Rob13, re your block of Alex Tiffin, this does not look to me like the behaviour of a typical sockpuppet, but rather an innocent mistake by a relatively inexperienced user. See the discussion on my talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, I finally got round to looking at Rachel Riley's twitter feed. Here's one of her posts on 8 January: "For months now, I’ve been speaking out to highlight the growing problem of AS in the UK." Her tweets are full of abuse aimed at alleged antisemitism in the Labour Party, including calling "antisemites" many people who really aren't. This is part of a campaign which is attempting to use (in my opinion obviously bogus) claims of antisemitism in order to discredit Jeremy Corbyn. This had been going on for months before Cross edited the Rachel Riley article, and Cross, without doubt, would have been fully aware of this. The fact that her article had nothing of this when Cross edited it is irrelevant; anyone aware of the vast propaganda campaign against Corbyn would have been aware of her tweets. Her twitter feed contains stuff like "Fuck off George Galloway", and libellous material I won't repeat here. So I don't accept the claims below that the first diff doesn't relate to "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed", it obviously does. --NSH001 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

[posting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics]
The diffs presented by Alextiffin88 are not violations. The single diff provided by NSH001 is closer to a violation but the edit is only tangentially about British politics (Kamm is someone who is not a politician but is known for strong views about British politics, but this story is not about politics or their political views) on a page that is not about British politics and it is also stale (getting on for 3 months old). We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed, not violations of unwritten restrictions based on what we think the case was actually about (regardless of whether our thoughts are right or wrong). In this case that means Cross is banned from the topic of Post-1978 British Politics, not from "adding positive material to bios of people he approves of or adding negative material to bios of people he disapproves of" - and it's also worth noting that the edit in question was not to a biography.
In summary I would advise Cross not to get any closer to his topic ban than this, but absent a clear pattern of boundary-pushing or crossing I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other editor}

Result concerning Philip Cross

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I see no violation here. While the restriction is broadly construed, it is not a ban from editing any biography of anyone who has ever made a public comment on politics. Unless something much more substantial comes up in the next few hours, I'll close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As an aside, while the edits of Alextiffin88 are perhaps not the most wonderful ever, they do appear to be engaging on talk and co-operating with others. And since this is not an area under discretionary sanctions, there is not so much we can do here, even if we thought action was needed. The committee will deal with any private evidence as they see fit without our help. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing a violation here. None of the new diffs are either edits about UK politics or edits to pages primarily about UK politics. I am therefore going to close this. GoldenRing (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have undone my close because NSH001 has asked me to. I still don't think the edit linked is a violation of the ban, though I do think it is not a million miles away from a violation. If any other admin feels inclined to act on it, they are welcome. I will not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
In other words, I agree with Thryduulf. GoldenRing (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not too happy about some of these diffs, but I wouldn't be willing to apply a sanction here. All but the first and last diff are to pages and content falling outside the scope of the sanction. The first diff is to a page that later came under the scope of the topic ban. It can be argued that PC should have known that when he edited it, but I can't see anything to suggest the connection was obvious. The link to the news story was a bad idea; it's not related to parliamentary politics, but certainly related to the broader scope of British politics. For that, I would consider a warning at most; but really what we need here is for Philip Cross to realize that continued editing of topics relating to British news media is equivalent to testing the boundaries of his ban, whether he intends it that way or not; it's nearly impossible to separate the news media from the politics of any country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The request is meritless. These edits and pages are not about British politics. I would take no action. Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the filer because he was abusing multiple accounts, for what that's worth. ~ Rob13Talk 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Closing accordingly. Sandstein 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

AndInFirstPlace

Blocked 36 h and topic-banned for six months by GoldenRing.
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 AndInFirstPlace

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
David O. Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
AndInFirstPlace (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
[4] (Discretionary sanctions 1932 cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
  2. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list
  3. 1/17/19 Re-adding Andrew Yang to major candidates list

User has gone against 1RR three different times, reverting each specified time outlined above. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 01/15/19 Blocked for disruptive editing
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[5]

Discussion concerning AndInFirstPlace

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 AndInFirstPlace

Statement by Beyond My Ken

For the record, in their 5 day editing career AndInFirstPlace has

  • Gotten in disputes with multiple editors on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries
  • Taken one of those editors to EWN [6] (closed without action)
  • Had a Post-1932 American Politics DS notice placed on their talk page [7]
  • Filed an AN/I report against an editor who was simply trying to explain how admins worked on Wikipedia [8]
  • Filed an RfA -- apparently copied from someone else's RfA -- deleted by an admin per NOTNOW [9]
  • Was handed down a short block for disruption [10]
  • Filed another AN/I against the admin who deleted the RfA claiming that the admin called them "autistic", but it turned out that the "autistic" reference was in the material they had copied from when they filed their RfA [11]
  • Is the subject of an AN/I due to messages they left on another editor's talk page [12]
  • Is the subject of this AE report.

That's all within a five day period, which might be a record of some kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • To be clear, Acoterion's block of AndInFirst place was not a DS block, it was for "disruptive editing." I really think this is an AN/I matter and not an AE one -- and not for the adding of Andrew Yang to the list (a content dispute), but for their overall behavior. It's quite possible, given AIFP's inability or unwillingness to slow down and listen to the advice they've been given, that this may, in time, become an AE issue, but I don't think it is at this point. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I could be wrong. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries is under 1RR, and AIFP has made many edits to the article within 24-hour blocks, so it's quite possible that they violated the 1RR sanction, but I don't think David O. Johnson's "diffs" show that clearly. Someone (not me) needs to go through AIFP's contributions from the last few days to see if they violated 1RR; or someone could simply issue a "final warning" to AIFP not to violate 1RR with an explanation as to exactly what that means, and the clock can start ticking again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AndInFirstPlace

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'll take no action unless it is promptly explained how this violates any conduct policy or guideline and therefore warrants sanctions. Sandstein 06:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Very clear 1rr violation and generally problematic. I'm on mobile now but when I reach my desk I intend to block for 36 hours and tban for a period of months. GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)