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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement



Contents

Santamoly

Santamoly indefinitely topic banned. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (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 Santamoly

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 3 August POV edit against consensus
  2. 18 August Shows the attitude
  3. 18 September POV edit, against consensus
  4. 19 september POV, edit-warring against consensus
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
[1]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Background: Crimea is a territory which was annexed in 2014 by Russia. The annexation, as described in this article, is recognized by a small minority of countries and not recognized by a large majority of countries and all international organizations. There is a de-facto consensus that in articles related to all aspects in modern Crimea we mention that it is administered by Russia but is internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. I am sure there was a discussion on that, I can not easily find it now, but it is sufficient to state that this has been implemented in all articles in 2014 and still stands. In particular, Crimean Bridge (Crimea) connects Crimea with mainland Russia, and the article mentions that from POV of Russia, it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international.

In February 2018, administrator Acroterion placed a DS EE notice on Santamoly's talk page adding that "As your editing emphasis at Talk:Sukhoi Su-25 is closely related to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) and the related, documented attempts at manipulation of Wikipedia using falsified sources..." On 28 February the user was blocked by Drmies for harassment.

On 3 August, Santamoly removed info about Ukraine from the article [2]. I reverted them, citing de-facto consensus. They reverted me [3] saying the text has noting to do with the bridge, and were eventually reverted by another user. They were unhappy and went to the talk page discussion but failed to gain consensus. On 18 August, they went to my talk page and essentially said that Ukrainians are not capable of building bridges. I replied that with this attitude they should not edit articles related to Ukraine. They continued to support their view at talk pages. However, recently they edited the articles again, introducing POV edits [4], [5] and again removing mention of Ukraine [6] saying in the summary that my edits are "ideologically driven". Note that this is factually incorrect. I am here to enforce consensus, and not to introduce POV, and I am accused on a regular basis by pro-Russian, pro-Ukrainian, anti-Russian, and anti-Ukrainian editors in edits advocating POV opposite to their views.

Given the behavior of Santamoly, I believe they are not able to constructively edit articles related to Ukraine and should be, well, topic-banned from editing these articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[7]


Discussion concerning Santamoly

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 Santamoly

Service ceiling of an airplane:

An unlikely topic that seems to concern some editors is the matter of the "service ceiling" of an airplane [[8]]. The incorrect term was used, and many other aeronautical engineering types jumped in on the discussion [[9]], as one can see, and the discussion was EXTENSIVE. It seems that there is a political side to the topic of aircraft performance which, to me as an engineer, seems a bit over the top. I haven't edited this page for months after it appeared there were three active partisans with an agenda lurking nearby. Upon checking, I haven't edited this Talk Page since May 2018; it is now the end of September. One engineering-type editor (not I) remarked,"It appears that consensus among those same (politically-driven editors) is to keep deleting talk page comments presenting reliable data and lock the talk page." It's apparent that the Talk Page comments are being edited and manipulated to someone's outside agenda, and I haven't been there for months simply because it's too difficult to engage in this type of pointless partisan discussion.

The point I made on march 25 is,". . . we shouldn't be reluctant to discuss it in a polite and civil manner. The entire point to be made is that what is shown as the Service Ceiling ought likely to be explained as the Practical ceiling."

On March 29, I asked,"Can you please sign your comments? It keeps the discussions at a polite and civil level. Thanks!"

Shortly after, I suggested,"I feel like we're making progress on this topic. BilCat holds that we can only accept Reliable Sources in this matter, and that manufacturer's certification data is in the realm of "original research". Fair enough. So can we then focus on which sources are acceptable as Reliable Sources? After a brief search, I have found two sources offering detailed technical data on aircraft of the world, published 15 to 20 years ago, long before the Su-25/39 became politicized, and I can offer them to this group for discussion . . ."

As you can see, I was looking for some level of consensus, but the partisans didn't want this.

Although I have edited thousands of Wikipedia articles over the last 10 years, I don't have the heft to engage in active Wiki-combat with powerful admin-type partisans who are able to block me or ban me from editing. As you can see from the SukhoiSu-25 Talk Page, they continue to aggressively menace other editors, not just myself.

Crimean Bridge (Crimea):

I can appreciate that some partisans feel an imperative to interfere with some of the details of articles that touch on their concerns, but the edits I made are simple, technical items concerning engineering topics. The Crimean Bridge (Crimea) article is about a significant engineering achievement. It's not about the political status of the adjacent territories. Those will be sorted out in the fullness of time. In this example, I worded the change of administration of Crimes from "annexation" to "accession" which is the term used in the statutory documents here:[[10]]. What's interesting to me as an editor is that the same active partisan types that appeared in the Sukhoi Su-25 page, objected to this change.

Again, I registered a mild complaint, and in turn was threatened with a lifetime ban. A bit aggressive, it appears to me. When I'm totally retired from academia, I may return to organize a bit of sensible discussion on some of these partisan details. But I'm there yet. It's a lot of work responding to emotional remarks such as the complainant's unsourced statement that "it is an internal bridge, whereas most of the international community recognized the bridge as international". Where is the source for such an aggressive statement?

The question that stays with me, then, is,"Why this sudden urge to ban me from a couple of fringe, esoteric, topics?" I may persist for a short while in order to see if there's any consensus. I always provide sources for discussion, and request feedback. My edits are always sensible and well-sourced. Further to this question is that, below, a comment by "AGK" says,"Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing." I'm not sure what constitutes a "Pointed change to prolific articles" but I always provide sources to support my edits, so my edits can hardly be described as "disruptive". In summary, even though various political partisans may be briefly shocked by a different point of view, I'm not sure what the problem is. This is just normal academic discussion. "AGK" suggests an indefinite topic ban, but what would that look like? Any topic concerning airplanes? Or bridges? There may be 50,000 articles under each topic!

And lastly,at the end of this page, there appears to be some remarks in Hebrew, but I'm not sure what this is about and cannot comment.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Santamoly

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice. Sandstein 18:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with @Sandstein with respect to II (18 August).

    (A) However, I also consider tendentious editing to be evidenced by some aspects of III (18 September). Pointed changes made to prolific articles, without context, amount to disruptive editing. Consequently, I disagree with my colleague and consider this type of edit to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions.

    (B) The repeated restoration of content as in IV (19 September) appears to be a sustained failure to seek consensus. Reference is unhelpfully made in the edit summary to the prior version being against consensus, but the relevant talk page activity is at best a spill-over of existing tensions. As normal in this type of topic, the dispute is protracted and consensus has been elusive. Editors are expected to genuinely build consensus, and tolerate The Wrong Version where needed.

    (C) Finally, I would otherwise regard I (3 August) as an unactionable content position. It is not for uninvolved administrators to make comment on those. However, when read in the context of the other conduct, the diff also begins to appear part of the same pattern of behaviour demonstrated elsewhere.

    I will pause for a short time to allow comment by the respondent (offline since this enforcement request was filed). However, given the conduct in evidence, I am minded to impose an indefinite topic ban. AGK [•] 17:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

    • Decided: I am topic banning Santamoly from Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted. AGK [•] 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with AGK, especially after reading Santalmoy's response which, imo, is a classic non-response (and is, at 800+words, way too long anyway). I support an indef topic ban from Eastern European articles. --regentspark (comment) 23:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

יניב הורון

יניב הורון is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sandstein 07:09, 20 September 2018 (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 יניב הורון

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions_motion_(2011) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 22:36, 17 September 2018 Falsifying sources
  2. 22:10, 19 September 2018‎ Falsifying sources while seeing see talk, where his one single comment is this
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Blocked for 1 week
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.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
The first diff shows the use restoring the following passage

In addition, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Many Arab leaders encouraged and even ordered Palestinians to evacuate the battle zone in order to make it easier for the Arab armies and fedayeen to demolish the newly found Jewish state and Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion.

Supposedly sourced to this NYTimes article. The article contains nothing of the sort, and even a cursory reading of 1948 Palestinian exodus would quickly disabuse you of the notion that saying in Wikipedia's narrative voice that the Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary is um not in keeping with the NPOV policy. Regardless the user claims in the edit summary that the material is supported by reliable sources and attributed when it is in fact neither attributed or sourced in any way. The user was alerted to the fact that the material is not in the source and asked to self-revert. There was no response. I wrote on the user's talk page that reverting without reading the sources while lying about what was in them would bring a report here. The response was seemingly saying that the user is not responsible for the content they revert. Which was then followed by the user again inserting into the article the same sentence that is not in the cited source. While making a singular comment on the talk page that does not in any way even attempt to engage in good faith collaborative editing. Regardless, the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited.
Icewhiz that is a. not the source cited, b. not attributed, and c. not even what Karsh says. nableezy - 05:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Icewhiz, I directly say Yaniv is lying about sources and about having read them. Exactly as he did here when directed another user to "read the damn sources". Here Yaniv seemingly acknowledged that the material that they repeatedly reverted to insert was not reliably sourced, saying they would find other sources for the material. You know what never happened? That. Yaniv routinely lies about material being sourced, for the simple fact that he is reverting without actually checking the sources. And the users who have checked them, and removed the material that was sourced, shouldnt have to deal with such mindless reverting. Or your attempts to retain a revert on your side for that matter. nableezy - 06:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz, it is very kind of you to play lawyer for Yaniv, however when a user reverts an edit they are taking responsibility for the content of that edit. When Yaniv includes a passage, attributed to no one, and cited to the NYTimes, and that source does not contain that material, and despite having been told about this on both the article talk page and his user talk page, and then they do it again, they are taking responsibility for that content. And again, the Karsh cite doesnt even contain the, again, ludicrous NPOV violation that you are trying to hand wave around, making that entire argument moot. nableezy - 06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified


Discussion concerning יניב הורון

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 יניב הורון

On a second look NYT might be an accidental miss-citation, but Karsh is cited at the end of the passage and definitely supports it. In any case, there's currently a discussion in the talk page of that article involving several editors from both sides. All the complains, arguments and whining belong there, not here. I would appreciate that next time someone fills a spurious report based on "I don't like his edits" instead of specific violations of Wikipedia policy, be sanctioned per WP:Boomerang. The problem is that garbage reports to censor someone you don't like have no consequences for reporters, which leads to more nonsense reports by people who don't think twice before wasting everybody's time, including the administrators'. I recognize I have made mistakes in the past, for which I have paid and learned, but this report is simply rubbish. Also Nableezy has been threatening me on my personal talk page, as well as other editors who don't agree with his viewpoint (see WP:OWN). This user's lack of basic WP:Civility is astonishing, but even more surprising is the fact that he hasn't been sanctioned for it so far.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

This editor continually engages in edit-warring towards a strong nationalist POV, with knee-jerk reverts and false claims about consensus being specialties. Admins who have previously issued warnings include: NeilN and Black Kite. User:Black Kite closed this AE case with "יניב_הורון is warned to be extremely careful with their reverts. Any future violations may result in more severe sanctions than usual given the editor's past history in this area." But, if it is possible, his behavior is worse than before.

Perusal of his talk page shows an exceptional number of complaints from other editors. "Hello, first of all could you please stop being so trigger happy with reverts" and so on and on.

Here we see a typical Yaniv edit. The edit summary says "(per Hebrew, see talk page)" but the sources don't support the text and the talk page shows a strong consensus against the edit. Problems like this are so common with Yaniv's edits that every one has to be reviewed closely at the cost of good editors' time.

Here is another perfectly typical Yaniv edit. Claiming to "restore source" he puts back a dead link to an article than doesn't mention the subject.

The worst recent revert was this one with the summary "see talk page, no consensus for this". The revert put back dead links, sources that don't contain the material cited to them, a copyvio, and lots of similar trash which had been exposed on the talk page. Needless to say, and true to form, Yaniv had not contributed to the talk page discussion at all. Zerotalk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I hardly started but I have to run. Probably I'll revise the above later. Zerotalk 04:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Yet another spurious complaint against Yaniv. The stmt is attributed to Efraim Karsh - a well known historian. While it does seem that there is an errant citation to NYT mid-passage, Karsh clearly says this (in this, clearly cited at the end of the passage) -

Far from being the hapless victims of a predatory Zionist assault, the Palestinians were themselves the aggressors in the 1948-49 war, and it was they who attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to "cleanse" a neighbouring ethnic community. ...... The desertion of the elites had a stampede effect on the middle classes and the peasantry. But huge numbers of Palestinians were also driven out of their homes by their own leaders and/or by Arab military forces, whether out of military considerations or, more actively, to prevent them from becoming citizens of the Jewish state. In the largest and best-known example of such a forced exodus, tens of thousands of Arabs were ordered or bullied into leaving the city of Haifa against their wishes and almost certainly on the instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, despite sustained Jewish efforts to convince them to stay. Only days earlier, thousands of Arabs in Tiberias had been similarly forced out by their own leaders. In Jaffa, the largest Arab community of mandatory Palestine, the municipality organized the transfer of thousands of residents by land and sea. And then there were the tens of thousands of rural villagers who were likewise forced out of their homes by order of the AHC, local Arab militias, or the armies of the Arab states.

I will further note that Karsh isn't saying anything extraordinary - Arab evacuation orders are well documented in some cases, the implication of evac orders is a long standing claim, and this is attributed to Karsh regardless.

Conversely - stating on the article talk page that a user was 19:22, 19 September 2018 (Nableezy) - I will be reverting your edit shortly. The next person to introduce bullshit into this article with lies that it is sourced will be reported., 01:25, 20 September 2018 (Zero0000) -- "Restoring discredited lies...", and by Nableezy in the AE complaint - "the user has repeatedly blindly reverted to include straight up lies that do not appear in the sources cited."(Nableezy), - would seem to be accusing an editor of being a liar (as noted above, this assertion seems to be incorrect, as the content is supported by Karsh) - which would be a WP:PA vs. Yaniv, and a WP:BLP violation towards Karsh. I will note that in 15:30, 18 September 2018 Nableezy directly accuses Yaniv of "lying" - If you continue to make reverts that blatantly misrepresent the sources cited and continue to claim that the material is reliably sourced I will ask that you be banned for repeated disruptive editing and lying about sources. You can certainly continue reverting once a day, apparently nobody wants to stop that tendentious editing, but if you do so while blatantly making things up about sources you clearly have not read I will ask for a topic ban. - which beyond being quite personal, certainly discourages civil discourse in response.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It would seem that NYT was inserted into this decade+ old passage in 22:00, 26 January 2008 to support "Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion" - subsequent modifications - 01:42, 21 June 2009 left the citation dangling in the middle of the passage. Instead of axing a very established and notable position outright (and furthermore stating that it is "lies"/"lying") - a better course of editing would be to rectify the citation usage.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

Let's start from the main point: Karsh does not say that the Palestinian flight was "predominantly voluntary", or anything even remotely like this. Indeed, I doubt you can find a single serious historian who would make such a ludicrous claim. Here's what Karsh actually says:

Why did such vast numbers of Palestinians take to the road? There were the obvious reasons commonly associated with war: fear, disorientation, economic privation. But to these must be added the local Palestinians’ disillusionment with their own leadership.

The edit by Yaniv is deficient in multiple respects. First, it is not supported by the reference provided (NYTimes article). Let's WP:AGF for the moment and assume that Yaniv meant to cite Karsh instead of the NYT source. Even then, the edit is deficient because firstly, Karsh doesn't say anything like that, and secondly, the edit doesn't attribute the claims to Karsh, but presents it as a matter-of-fact view -- which is completely backwards. Karsh is, in that article, arguing against the general view -- namely the "New Historians" view.

I don't know how Yaniv edits in general, so I have no comment on what action to take. Kingsindian   06:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning יניב הורון

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The request has merit. The contested text is not supported by the cited New York Times article. The text primarily reflects the position of one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict ("Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary") and, as such, if it is to be reproduced in Wikipedia's voice as it was here, rather than attributed to somebody, it would need excellent sourcing. That is not the case here. By repeatedly restoring this text without appropriate sourcing and/or with misleading sourcing, יניב הורון has violated the core policies WP:V and WP:NPOV in their conduct aspect ("Attribute all quotations and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"; "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another".). In determining the appropriate sanction, significant aggravating factors are the prior warnings by NeilN as cited by Zero0000, the very recent block by RegentsPark for similar problems, and the exceedingly confrontative response by יניב הורון to this complaint, in which יניב הורון does not address their own conduct but levies accusations at others. I conclude that under these circumstances, יניב הורון's editing in this topic area is a risk to the quality and neutrality of Wikipedia. Accordingly, I am topic-banning יניב הורון from the topic area. Sandstein 07:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


GHcool

GHcool is urged to be more careful next time. No further action is deemed necessary at this time. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (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 GHcool

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Veritycheck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
GHcool (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_3 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 23:38, 6 July 2017 GHcool is the original author
  2. 20:22, 7 September 2018 GHcool's restores his edit
  3. 19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert
  4. 22:44, 20 September 2018 After the revert, GHcool restores his edit less than 3 hours later
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 19:31, 2 June 2016 Blocked: 1RR violation at Tourism in the Palestinian territories
  2. 20:26, 9 June 2016 Blocked: Contentious edits
  3. 14:48, 10 January 2011 Blocked: 1RR violation at at Hezbollah
  4. 21:35, 13 August 2009 Blocked: 3RR block at Kafr Saba
  5. 23:23, 2 April 2009 Blocked: 3RR on Israeli–Palestinian conflict
  6. 01:13, 24 April 2008 Blocked: 3RR on Camp David Accords
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.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

GHcool has a history of blocks, no less than six now, in the area of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Apparently, blocks are meaningless to him as is shown with his complete disregard of respecting Active Arbitration Remedies that spans a decade.

His userpage includes an almost 4000 word article, including 14 sections, that expounds his strong, unashamedly POV, views on Israel. The very style and format may violate WP:FAKEARTICLE as it resembles an article with section headings, links and sources. What is certain is the overwhelming bias he has that is so clearly written in his words concerning the conflict.

These views combined with half a dozen blocks, all in the same area, show that he is unsuitable for participating in this topic.

  • @Icewhiz: I added a diff to help follow events clearly. The complaint was not modified. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Your claim of canvassing is false and has already been responded to here. My answer was complete. Anyone interested can see for themselves. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have a different interpretation of, “If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit”, and specifically the word, “FIRST”.

FIRST means (my reverting his content earlier today - the 'first revert' within "24 hours"). It seems that at least one other editor here, Kingsindian, confirms my interpretation. If the interpretation is incorrect, then I withdraw the complaint. But I expect that is not the case.

The word 'First' does not mean the first revert to an edit ever in the history of an article. That would be virtually impossible for wiki editors to determine, and is not the correct interpretation. A couple of editors, here, have used this fallacy to defend GHcool. I do believe strongly that there has been an infringement, and accordingly, I expect sanctions to go ahead taking into full consideration the blocks and history already mentioned. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Your clarification on the meaning of "first" in this context would be most welcome. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

He has been notified.

Discussion concerning GHcool

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 GHcool

I appreciate what Icewhiz, Shrike, Kingsindian, and Sir Joseph said on my behalf. I have nothing to add at this time, but am available to answer any questions if clarification is needed. --GHcool (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Spurious report - "original author" a year+ back. This provision applies to the first revert of content. This has been previously removed - e.g. by Veritycheck on 7 Sep - making the set of diffs (removal+revert) from 20 Sep moot.

I would point out the filer has been using edit summaries to convey aggressive messages - [11] or make conduct remarks - [12]. Formulating a RfC question in a non-neutral manner and canvassing (namely 15 users on their talk pages + "bumps") at [13] is also instructive. Veritycheck also GAMEed 1RR reverting 24 hours + 4 minutes apart on Israel - 16:42, 12 September 201816:46, 13 September 2018.Icewhiz (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please also note that the text at WP:ARBPIA3 (to which Veritycheck links) is out of date (and misplaced - the motion (link) should have been on WP:ARBPIA where 1RR resides and to which the motion refers to) - it reflects a 19 May 2017 motion, however there is a 4 January 2018 motion that supersedes this - here - Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. which explicitly spells out "first revert made to their edit" - this has been updated in WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction, but the out of date and misplaced provision in ARBPIA3 remains.Icewhiz (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite:, GHCool reverted once on 20 Sep - the other diff is by Veritycheck (The one titled 19:48, 20 September 2018 Most recent revert is Veritycheck). Note Veritycheck modified his complaint after I posted here. Veritycheck is claiming an original author vio of the 20 Sep revert in relation to originally authoring this in July 2017. Beyond being vexatious (a 1+ year diff) - Veritycheck reverted the same content on 7 Sep - so this content has already been reverted once.Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
The latest motion on this provision ih [14]. The rule was intended to prevent - editor A inserts new content, editor B reverts, editor A reverts => new content remains in the article for 24 hours, self revert by A, or editor C coming along. Therefore the motion uses the term "original author", and first revert. And in any event filing an "original author" complaint on content older than a year is .... quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Black Kite: There are no two reverts by Ghcool one of the reverts is by Veritycheck.Please check this. The only relevant revert is the 20 september but its not a violation as it not first restoration of his edit.So it doesn't violate the rule. --Shrike (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

The purpose of the remedy is to make the editor wait 24 hours after the other guy reverts. The revert violates the remedy, clearly.

But it is an extremely stupid remedy, because nowhere except in ARBPIA does one find this interpretation of 1RR. I warned ArbCom at the time that this would happen (and Icewhiz didn't believe me). Perhaps I should collect all these absurd cases and open an ARCA request.

I suggest no sanctions. GHCool should be warned to discuss the matter on the talk page in this section. I see no real discussion by them, except simply saying that their edit is self-evidently correct. Discussion doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The WP:ONUS is on the person adding the content, not the person removing it. Kingsindian   12:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I see that absolutely nobody understands the remedy, which is not surprising. The 2017 edit is irrelevant. The edit on 7 September (diff2) is the reason why the revert on 20 Sep (diff4) is a violation. The first revert made to diff2 was on 20 Sep (diff3). Obviously, I do not support any action based on this stupid remedy, but it was clearly violated. Kingsindian   15:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't see anything actionable here. VC is claiming that a 2017 edit should be the original edit and then hides in the list of reverts that the revert was done by VC and not GHcool. I see this as a bad faith request. Using this logic, nobody would ever be able to revert. VC made an edit and GHcool reverted, that is what happened here and that is allowed. Using his months back prior editing is ludicrous. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning GHcool

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Icewhiz: Can you clarify something here? If I'm parsing what you say correctly, you are saying that the two (unambiguous) reverts within 3 hours on 20 September - which under any other circumstances would have been a violation - somehow don't count because that particular edit has been reverted more than 24 hours previously (i.e. in this case, on 7 September?). In that case, are you saying that the restriction says anyone can edit-war on an ARBPIA page as much as they like, as long as there had been a previous edit and reversion more than 24 hours ago? Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz and Shrike: Ah, gotcha. I looked at the history, saw GHCool's two edits and didn't link them to the ones here correctly. Yeah, there's not a violation here. I did think that would have been a ludicrous idea and I'd just misread something, and I was right. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Kingsindian:. So - there actually is a violation here. But FFS, I'm generally considered to be a pretty intelligent person and this remedy is - as Kingsindian says - stupid. If anyone wants to sanction GHCool for it, I won't object, but I'm certainly not going to do it myself. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is just to note that I will not take action here because I find anything involving xRR too complicated to understand and apply with a reasonable amount of time and effort. I leave this to smarter admins and editors. Sandstein 13:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Sandstein, I am totally with you, and I appreciate Black Kite looking into this. Or how about this: GHcool, don't do it again. I will close this, with a kind request to ArbCom (historically a fine body of editors with the occasional nogoodnik) to consider our considerations, and the comment by Kingsindian. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Santamoly

Declined. No evidence of involvement has been presented. --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
Appeal of Censorship ban
Administrator imposing the sanction 
AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
@AGK: Notifying you of this appeal in lieu of the appellant. Sandstein 07:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Santamoly

I have been "topic banned" from all topics by an involved administrator. I'm not sure that it's proper for involved admins to be securing permanent topic bans against occasional editors.

It was always my understanding that admins should not get involved in consensus-seeking discussions on talk pages, so it's indeed disappointing to find that discussions on Talk Pages should be subject to such draconian censorship by active political admins. The involved admins appear to be focused on any article related to Ukraine, even though I am not directly commenting on Ukraine.

The censorship imposed on me is not only "topic" related, but the partisan complainer has actually secured a "broadly interpreted" level of censorship. I've heard of this happening on Wikipedia, and feel in my heart that I should object to this sort of blanket censorship.

During the discussions, I emphasised that I was looking for "consensus" which seems to be manipulated by involved admins. In the discussions I note that those in favour of looking for consensus were in the majority, but I was overwhelmed by the three involved admins. The involved admins appear on any Talk Page I was editing.

I'm not sure how to proceed with an appeal against "involved admins", but I suppose I could start here. I note that my response to the notice was attacked by one of the involved admins for having too many words. Is this a serious offense in Wikipedia Appeals? Is this the quickest way of defeating an appeal (too many words)? What other errors am I making? Even though I have been a helpful contributor to Wikipedia since the first days, I am new to the topic of Wikipedia political censorship, so I'd like some consideration. The involved admins seem to be very experienced at securing bans against those they disagree with, so some guidance would be appreciated.

Most of all, I'd like to clarify if an indefinite topic ban, "broadly interpreted" means a total, permanent ban from editing articles on Wikipedia since it appears that the involved admins (for example, AGK, Ahunt, Acroterion, Ymblanter) appear to be following me from one article to another. Is it likely they will always be on my various Talk Pages, "broadly interpreting" the topic ban? For instance, my specialty is aircraft engineering - does that mean I'm banned from aerodynamics discussions from all east Europe aircraft? Only ONE "east Europe" airplane has appeared in the discussions, and it's not even an "east Europe" airplane, it (Sukhoi Su-25) is a Georgian airplane, made in Georgia SSR. Can this airplane be "broadly interpreted" as being "east European"?

I'm particularly concerned that I have been topic-banned, even though I'm not involved in this discussion since early in the year (March 2018). In essence, I was staying out of the topic due to respect for Wikipedia decorum. It seems to me that the active admins are seeking out anyone who was ever involved in a discussion and requesting immediate topic bans. In other words, it looks like unwarranted political censorship.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talkcontribs)

Nobody's arguing over whether it's "Russian or Georgian" -it's not a valid question, I'm just uncertain of how the topic ban is applied, and that's simply an example of how I'm banned from a discussion even though the topic is not banned. I hadn't participated in the original discussion since last March which shows I was respecting Wikipedia protocols, so I'm not sure of how to respect the ban, especially if activist admins are digging through my edits from the past. Santamoly (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Santamoly

I have no opinion on the aircraft, but arguing over whether it's Russian or Georgian certainly would be in the scope of the ban. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Santamoly

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would decline the appeal. Santamoly's principal argument is that the sanctioning admin is "involved", but Santamoly does not provide any evidence in the form of diffs for this argument, which means that we have to dismiss it. Also, Santamoly does not address their own conduct that was the reason for the sanction. However, that conduct is the only thing that matters in this appeal, and a statement of appeal that does not address it cannot be taken seriously. – Any questions about how to interpret the ban are outside the scope of an appeal discussion; please direct them to the sanctioning admin. Sandstein 07:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by פֿינצטערניש

Declined. The editor appears to be assuming that the ban is because of a bias against certain content but provides no evidence that the admin concerned exhibits these purported biases or is involved in any way. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
פֿינצטערניש (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict: [en.wikipedia.org]
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
[15]

Statement by פֿינצטערניש

Since the ban was applied, I tried to bring to the attention of a number of other editors information that was lacking in the article on Dareen Tatour. Much of this came from the Hebrew Wikipedia, was well-sourced, and contradicted many claims in the article. Since then, none of these errors in the article have been corrected, none of this extra information has been applied, and the article continues to assert, contrary to the information I brought to the attention of other editors, that she is merely a self-published author who has only appeared on Facebook and Youtube, rather than having appeared in an English-language anthology of Palestinian writers as well as having published a print book in 2010.

What's more, when I tried to bring this new information to the attention of other editors, I was banned from editing even my talk page, as though I were the one who was harming the project. Punitive measures are one thing, but it's ridiculous to leave information out of an encyclopedia for punitive reasons.

I am not sure what to conclude from this, other than that the only purpose of this ban is to keep information out of articles on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Regardless of anything I might have done, the sanction is being used as a form of intellectual dishonesty; otherwise, this new information would have been discussed and added to the article. On this basis, I have to appeal the ban as unjust and contrary to the goals of Wikipedia, and being used expressly to harm the project. Granted, I would be entirely satisfied if people would simply make a less intellectually dishonest article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Other information that has not been added: statements in favor of Tatour by winners of the Israel Prize, protests across Israel, condemnation from a number of leading Israeli writers, academics, and intellectuals... and further information (which needs further vetting) that a professional translator gave a translation of the work of Tatour and that their testimony was dismissed as "bias," as well as literature professors testifying that Jews had not been so harshly punished for writing much more inciteful things under both Tsarist Russia and British Palestine. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

If this ban had anything to do with my conduct, it would not be being used to keep information out of the article. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) Since no one else seems willing to add relevant information to the article, and everyone else seems to want to ignore relevant information, the ban is obviously not being applied for any reason other than political censorship. פֿינצטערניש (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As the sanctioning admin, I recommend that this appeal is declined, because the appellant does not address the reasons for the sanction and their own conduct as a result of which the sanction was imposed. Sandstein 13:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by פֿינצטערניש

Result of the appeal by פֿינצטערניש

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

Appeal against topic ban

Malformed request and a violation of WP:NOTTHEM. Declined. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I do believe that the topic ban against me editing anything to do with East Europe is clumsy and over-done. I was only one editor of many who were looking for some sort of consensus in the Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft discussion. This discussion that seems to have excited the involved administrators included the following from another editor:

It seems that the lowering of the article's service ceiling neither has consensus nor has had consensus for years. Consensus seems artificially maintained through Talk Page comment removal and (threats of) administrative sanctions for disagreement. Given this last point the numbers of those in favour of the original specs vs those in favour of the lowered specs should be seen as a lower bound for the former, since it seems reasonable that some editors won't risk getting their accounts blocked for expressing disagreement with the latter. 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH 17:
Regarding the claims of documented efforts to adjust Wikipedia content to maintain a narrative relating to MH-17:[70] A total of 4 editors have framed their arguments in terms of maintaining a narrative relating to MH-17, 3 of which[71][72][73] expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a government conspiracy is responsible for the original specs because of MH-17, and 1 one of which[74] expressed effort to maintain the narrative that a Su-25 plane can not fly at the altitude of MH-17, a narrative which the editor in question (not Santamoly) was apparently promoting on a different forum. The latter editor's efforts include quickly repeated edits to the article's specs[75][76][77][78][79] and requesting the page to be locked[80] (which was granted[81]). 2A02:A03F:4E02:B900:28A3:A8F6:46B3:2AE (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can see that I was not alone in trying to sort out the political interference in this highly technical article. It was clearly unfair for the activist admins to single me out for a ban as they have apparently singled out other engineers who have sought to correct the enforced errors in speed calibration. I'm appealing the topic ban because I had apparently stumbled into a long-standing dispute (and a quite reasonable dispute), and was picked off by the political-activist admins because I was an easy target. If the ban is lifted I can promise that I will never stick my nose into this particular political dispute over this airplane's Service Ceiling value, ever again. Hopefully other editors can take the heat on this article instead of just me alone. Santamoly (talk) 06:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You've misunderstood the role of administrators acting within arbitration enforcement. I am not a political-activist admin, and indeed the rules are very clear that such users cannot enforce arbitration decisions. I am not following [you] from one article to another; indeed I think I had never heard of you until someone brought your conduct to this noticeboard earlier this week.

Please stop making statements like these, because it will appear to administrators like you are assuming bad faith and you shall quickly find yourself in bother. I have no desire to see that happen. Some topics are now off-limits to you; please select one of the very many others and contribute there. AGK [•] 11:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Santamoly

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user 
Santamoly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed 
Appeal against the topic ban of "eastern Europe, broadly interpreted"
Administrator imposing the sanction 
AGK (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator 
@AGK: Notifying you of this appeal in lieu of the appellant. Sandstein 10:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Santamoly

I would like to appeal against the topic ban imposed as it's clearly overly broad and unjustified. It seems more than a bit extreme since it appears to be "topic ban" but it's actually a permanent total ban. The advice notes under [en.wikipedia.org] are good advice except they don't mention a permanent total ban portrayed as a "topic ban", so it's a bit of a challenge to figure out how to appeal the ban. I've clearly been unsuccessful so far as my requests have been turned down twice.

The advice notes appear to advise that I should amend my offensive behaviour and carry on, but in this inatance I have offended nobody. The offense was a political offense of discussing a verboten topic (a Ukrainian airplane, I believe) against the advice of an activist admin who had been advising other editors also to stay away from the topic. Nobody was offended, and nobody was insulted. Therefore, a total edit ban is a bit extreme (the ban was against editing anything to do with "eastern Europe"). Eastern Europe is half the civilized world. Is it possible to have the "eastern Europe" topic ban mitigated to a "Sukhoi Su-25 ban"?

I'd be pleased if someone could actually point out the reason for such an extreme ban. One of the judges said my response to the ban was too long (800 words). This might be a good reason to impose an appeal ban, but a civilization-wide topic ban against me for an editing error on an airplane's performance where I was trying to get an indication of consensus seems unbelievably extreme. There was no bad behaviour that anyone has pointed out, just inadvertantly straying into a political argument that appears to have been going on for some time.

Please forgive me for persisting with this appeal, but it genuinely appears to be unfair. I sincerely apologize for exceeding the word count in my first appeal. But I'm genuinely puzzled by the reason given by judge Sandstein: "This is mostly content disputes and as such not actionable. However, the diff of 18 August 2018 leads me to believe that Santamoly should in fact not be editing in this topic area [Sukhoi Su25?] because it appears they are guided by nationalist prejudice." In other words, I had stumbled onto a politically sensitive Talk Page. Am I correct? Or in error?

A reasonable defense against me being somewhere that I ought not to be would be a ban from editing anything about Sukhoi airplanes, not "eastern Europe, broadly interpreted".

Thanks for hearing me out. Santamoly (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by AGK

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Santamoly

  • What on earth do you mean by your assertion above that "Eastern Europe is half the civilized world"? Try as I may, I am struggling to discern a non-racist meaning to this; please explain and reassure me that such was not your intention. RolandR (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think he should not be denied the right to appeal here at WP:AE but he should wait at least 6 month to appeal again --Shrike (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Santamoly

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is the third appeal by Santamoly at WP:AE against the same sanction. I recommend that we keep this open a bit longer than the previous two to obtain a clear consensus of AE admins. The appeal indicates that Santamoly still does not understand what a topic ban is, why it was imposed, and how Wikipedia and WP:NPOV work in general. And I don't think teaching them all this via an appeals discussion would be workable or a good use of our time. I would decline the appeal and additionally ban Santamoly from appealing this ban in any other venue than WP:ARCA, to be enforced by blocks if necessary. Sandstein 10:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. This appeal fails to show that Santamoly understands what was wrong with his editing and, again, runs counter to our policies and best practices concerning appeals. Santamoly, as I have already pointed out to you, if you want to have a sanction lifted, you have to concentrate on your own conduct; casting aspersions, making personal attacks, and assuming bad faith are not going to get you what you want. Describing your 'offense' as the "political offense of discussing a verboten topic" and calling the administrator who sanctioned you an activist are enough to justify declining this appeal as well without further review. Also, Eastern Europe is most definitely not "half the civilized world", you're overstating the breadth of your topic ban there. My personal advice to get the topic ban lifted would be to edit outside of that topic area for a while, showing you can follow policy and edit constructively and in a collegial fashion. In conclusion, I also support Sandstein's proposal for a ban on further appeals. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)