Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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



Wickey

Indef-blocked for ban evasion via socking; master account Wickey-nl blocked six months. Sandstein 15:35, 14 October 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 Wickey

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 12:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Wickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 12 October 2018 Participating in ARBPIA conflict in noticeboard while only exception is talk page particiaption
  2. 9 October 2018 Turning this article to I/P conflict article while writing on "Zionist propaganda" and "pro-Israel attitude" and writing about Gaza Conflict
  3. 6 -9 October Creating the article about anti-Zionist newspaper
  4. 4 October 2018 Editing article about Anti-Zionism
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  • n/a
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 July 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • The user has less then 500 edits so he cannot edit I/P articles but its not main problem with this account.And he is well aware of the restriction see his edit summary in this [1]
  • This account have the similar name and what most important he have similar POV with topic banned[2] Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).He ignored my question if he is the same account [3].
  • I find comment by AGK are not consistent with ARBCOM decision the only requirement to enforce the sanction it so to be aware of it.The user obligation is to read the decision if he want to edit such contagious topic.--Shrike (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
  • [4]
  • I find view of AGK not consistent with part AE discussions.
  • @AGK: He was notified specifically [5]. :Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC).
  • @Sandstein: What about calling other editors a " pack of mad dogs" in his response bellow?--Shrike (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Wickey

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 Wickey

This is a bad faith action for which requester should get a firm warning. I am not aware of any misdoing. I found the Noticeboard while looking who is the guy who is hounding me since 15 July 2018, without some clear explanation.

As you can see, I have mainly been editing in the area of history, including Zionism. You may check the nature of them. In such an absurd broad interpretation you should also include all articles about Israel, Palestine, Judaism, Islam, Arabs, Arab countries en US and many history articles to censor.

User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs.Wickey (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

@AGK: I too have suspicions regarding wicky-nl. I alerted the user to the existence and applicability of the 500/30 restriction to their edits. See diff on their talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

In regards to the rather bizarre hounding claim above, I interacted with Wickey on a single article as may be seen in the editor interaction tool (2 boards, 1 article he edited a year after I touched it, and 1 article with interaction). I will note that content related to the 2014 Gaza conflict, which Wickey edited, is very clearly ARBPIA. An editor that views his fellow editors as "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." - should not be editing the topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wickey

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction is patchily notified to users, and I find sufficient doubt in this case that Wickey was aware of it. (A) The complainant says Wickey was "well aware of the restriction" per this edit, but that falls after all the other diffs cited here. (B) Wickey was previously alerted to ARBPIA's standard discretionary sanctions, but this alert is for an entirely separate remedy to the one being enforced here. (C) Finally, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the other articles submitted as being edited by Wickey in breach of the 30/500 general restriction are, as far as I can tell, lacking any edit notice or other notice that this general restriction applies.

    I am unwilling to enforce the expectation that editors ought to understand the 30/500 restriction without a notice being clearly delivered to them to that effect. That notice can be delivered by an eye-catching page notice, a clear notice sent to their user talk page, etc. I do not find that delivery took place here, and accordingly I would dismiss this complaint on the condition that someone make Wickey expressly aware of the 30/500 General Prohibition. AGK ■ 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Shrike: I noticed that too, but I do not consider the sentence appended to the discretionary sanctions alert to have clearly enough made Wickey aware of the second restriction (the 30/500). It read like a helpful postscript, and was some months prior to these edits. What new editor would know what WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED or WP:ARBPIAINTRO meant? I am not splitting hairs here. We write standardised, eye-catching alert templates for a reason – they unambigiously communicate a message to the recipient, in plain English that new users can parse. I do not think you can formally warn a new user about one remedy, throw in a single line at the end to an entirely different remedy, and be assured that the user has understood both the very different things that you are telling them not to do. My view took that diff into account and remains unchanged. AGK ■ 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction does not necessarily need notification, but in my view the more important issue is whether Wickey is an alternate account of Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) used to evade scrutiny or sanctions. Based on username and behavior, I believe this to be likely. Both accounts are focused on related topic areas (the I-P conflict for Wickey-nl, Judaism / Zionism for Wickey), edit with the same POV (anti-Israel) and are not native English speakers. If other admins concur with this assessment, I'll consider a non-AE indef-block of the Wickey account for ban evasion. Sandstein 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Speaking only to the issue of socking and not the merits of this case, I see two accounts with only a handful of edits in the same time period, and no overlap within those articles. That doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the block log [6] of the (alleged) first account. If these are the same people, then notification is moot as they would have plenty of experience to know about 500/30 and about sanctions, seeing they have been sanctioned twice in this area of editing. Looking at the edits of these two accounts, my opinion is that it is very likely they are the same person, and the second account was created before the block, but used to bypass the block. That they avoided the topic area for the 3 month duration of the block is meaningless. At a minimum, an indefinite TBAN of the entire ARBPIA topic area is due and justified for bypassing and ignoring the restrictions previously. Even though the socking started a long time ago, it would seem reasonable to consider action there as well, as a non-AE action, per Sandstein, to include some kind of block to the original account as well. As the previous block was 3 months and was socked around, that seems to be the minimum to consider here now. Dennis Brown - 14:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Sandstein and Dennis Brown: Wearing my WP:SPI hat, the technical connection is  Stale but, in terms of behavioural evidence, I am not convinced the accounts are related. AGK ■ 17:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • If other admins aren't convinced that this is a case of socking and ban evasion, then I'd close this with a warning to obey the 30/500 restriction. Sandstein 11:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is obviously the same editor as User:Wickey-nl; nl is an abbreviation for Netherlands, and they are active on the Dutch Wikpedia as Wickey. There is clear crossover between the current Wickey accounts on both en.wiki and nl.wiki (for instance, both editing the Gertrude Bell articles in mid-August [7][8]). Wickey on nl.wiki and Wickey-nl on en.wiki also have clear crossovers; both were both created in early 2008 and both accounts were writing about Chinese radical characters at the same time (Dutch wiki, 23 March 2008, English wiki, 24 March 2008).
Given that they've lied above about the accounts being linked and they were clearly aware of the topic restrictions, this should either be an indef block or an indef topic ban. Number 57 14:23, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional research, which is conclusive in my view. As the admin who topic-banned the original Wickey-nl account, I feel responsible for taking this one up. Wickey is indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action for socking to evade their topic ban. Wickey-nl is blocked for six months as an AE action for the same. Sandstein 15:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

VanEman

Topic banned; 1 year. AGK ■ 14:02, 14 October 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 VanEman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
VanEman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA3 :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [9] Undid an ARBPIA-related edit after 9 minutes instead of waiting at least 24 hours. Straightforward ARBPIA3 violation.
  2. [10] Edit against consensus, or at least with clear lack of consensus, per Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jewish_Voice_for_Peace
  3. [11] Another revert the edit history shows goes against consensus, or at least a clear lack of consensus.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Three weeks old WP:ARBPIA alert template
  • Five minute old detailed reminder
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I have noticed that this editor is prone to edit warring in other areas as well: June 2016 notification of my report on WP:3RR.

In addition I find it especially worrying that he should violate the restriction just five minutes after I wrote him a nice and detailed paragraph about it on his talkpage.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Notified


Discussion concerning VanEman

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 Govindaharihari

This report is totally meritless, users portraying the Jewish Voice for Peace as pro palestinian are to blame for those edits - our own page doesn't do that. Not long ago, just above here in a recent report Sandstein said, We should consider sanctioning Debresser for trying to use AE to further their position in what are clearly normal content disputes.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

JVP is described in the source supporting the content as The controversial pro-Palestinian advocacy group Jewish Voice For Peace has launched a campaign to ... [12]. Nor is JVP shy of this stance - it is stated rather clearly on their website. There was significant editor support for the label (3 v 1) at [13].Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo

@Govindaharihari: there's clearly an I/P 1RR violation here (re-revert 9 minutes after reversion, not 24 hours). So the report isn't meritless. The whole reason we have that restriction is to prevent edit warring and move content disputes to the talk page. While I personally consider that section to be a bit confusing, which may factor into a final decision, the report of a 1RR violation certainly isn't frivolous. Bellezzasolo Discuss 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

@AGK: The reverts 3 minutes apart that you indicate, namely this one at 17:03 and this one at 17:06, are consecutive edits without intervening edits by another user. Therefore they do not count as two separate reverts by our usual rules for counting reverts. Zerotalk 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this revert broke the "original author" rule according to one of the common interpretations of that rule. According to another common interpretation of that rule, VanEman didn't break it because he/she was not the original author (the same text having been in and out before due to other editors). Which interpretation is correct, I have no idea. However, I do have an idea about one thing: the usual penalty for an editor with a clean record who breaks a revert rule for the first time is something like 24 or 48 hours. It seems to me grossly excessive to consider a 1 year ban. Zerotalk 06:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not clear if Shrike's alleged example of an older 1RR violation really is, since the second version is very different from the first, and finding a word in common doesn't make enough difference. Zerotalk 09:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

I usually try to stay well clear of Israel-Palestine stuff, but Zero0000 is correct. WP:1RR says The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". If we take WP:1RR as meaning just what it says, then the provision at WP:3RR stating A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert applies equally to WP:1RR. As a result, the two reverts three minutes apart count as a one, and do not constitute a technical violation of 1RR. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

I agree with Zero and Shock Brigade; those two diffs cited by AGK are not violations because they are consecutive edits. However, the revert 9 minutes later cited by Debresser is a clear violation 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." Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

  • Actually the report was not frivolous as the user broke the original clause restriction as pointed by Galobtter --Shrike (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The user have history of violation 1RR. Example from the last month [14] and [15] --Shrike (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Zero0000: In both version he introduced the phrase " terrorist organization in 1994'" in the same context ---Shrike (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning VanEman

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The two reverts cited[16][17] are more than 24 hours apart. However, this edit, summary provide detail of criticism, was in fact a revert of an earlier removal. In conjunction with another revert 3 minutes beforehand, VanEman has consequently breached the general ARBPIA 1RR restriction. I am consequently minded to impose a 1-year topic ban from the topic area, and will pause for comment before taking action to that effect. AGK ■ 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Concur with the above. Clear violation, reasonable sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with the assessment by AGK. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you to the other editors who have made submissions about whether the second edit was technically part of the first one. In my judgment, the reverts I mentioned yesterday are sanctionable misconduct. This article is part of a protracted edit war, and there is scope for enforcement under general ARBPIA discretionary sanctions – whether or not the general 1RR restriction applies. Decided: VanEman is topic-banned for 1 year from content relating to the Arab–Israeli conflict. AGK ■ 14:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Enforcing administrator discussion – Debresser

Statement by AGK

I am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by Debresser.

  1. In #VanEman, immediately above, Debresser cited two diffs that were around 27 hours apart – and requested enforcement of a 1RR (one revert per 24 hours) general sanction. To be clear, I have recommended enforcement action in that case – but only as a result of different diffs of user conduct which I came across during a review of the request.
  2. In #Nableezy, above, a meritless request for enforcement was submitted.
  3. Nishidani, enforcement requested August 2018, was again closed without action.

I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests. AGK ■ 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

I would only like to say that in my point of view, both Nishidani and Nableezy have behavioral problems, and are moderately disruptive from time to time. The fact that this forum has decided that there were no grounds for action, does not mean that there were no grounds for my reports. Just like in real life, not all court cases end in convictions.
I noticed that AGK is worried about "reprisal". May I remind you that it is me, who was reported here a week ago in a clear attempt at reprisal. I myself do not have such inclinations. In addition, please feel free to research the issue, and you shall see that there simply was nothing that could have provoked me to seek reprisal. Specifically regarding VanEman, I hadn't seen him in over a year, and even that was not in the IP-conflict area. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Most, if not all, ArbCom restrictions, like ARBPIA, include a clause about proper behavior in the spirit of community editing, not to mention decorum. Most of my reports were not about straightforward violations (like my last report regarding VanEman, which was accepted). They were specifically about editors' behavior, as in long-time patterns: editors using derogatory language (Nishidani and Nableezy), editors being pushy and ignoring the opinions of other editors (Nableezy). And in all my reports there have been admins (and certainly non-admins) who have said that there is some truth about the issues I reported, just that it is not actionable. Please check that.
So a warning about what? Not to report edits that are not actionable? How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not? Especially since were are talking about discretionary actions.
By ruling time and again that there were no violations, ArbCom has effectively decided to ignore Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#Tendentious editing, which reads "Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles". However, it would be completely unfair to propose to sanction the editor, who tries in good faith to uphold the rule that this forum has itself instituted. Or does ArbCom want to remove that point from its decision now? Debresser (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
In reply to Huldra's comment In that WP:ANI discussion too, all commenting editors agreed that Huldra's edits were problematic, just that the closing editor decided it is a content issues, and not actionable at WP:ANI. How using misleading edit summaries is a content issue, I don't understand till this day. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
In reply to Kurtis' mention of a January report of mine I can't believe you really try to hold that report against me. We all know that trying to game the system by waiting a little over 24 hours is actionable! I was sanctioned not long before that for an edit I made after 1d3h. In view of that fact, you have to admit that at least the report wasn't unreasonable. (Especially galling was that the very same admin who sanctioned me for my revert after 1d3h refused to see as a violation Nishidani's edit after 1d5h. IMHO that was a biased decision, and not one of ArbCom's better moments.) Debresser (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I've reviewed Debresser's reports to AE over the past two years. Apart from the ones mentioned by AGK, there's also (in reverse chronological order): Nishidani (January 2018), El_C (June 2017), Nishidani again (May 2017), and finally Nishidani (October 2016). Of these, the only one that resulted in a sanction for the reported party was the 2017 AE submission concerning Nishidani, with Sandstein implementing a one-month topic ban from Israel/Palestine articles – and even then, several commenters felt that the diffs provided were not actionable. There does seem to be a pattern here, albeit a sporadic one. The question is, does it warrant a sanction at this time? Or would a final warning be sufficient? Kurtis (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Debresser: "How can an editor know beforehand what ArbCom will deem actionable or not?" – To tell you the honest truth, a lot of it just boils down to common sense. It's inevitable that some AE reports are going to end up as borderline cases, and the decision is usually determined by factoring in things like the editor's past history, the seriousness of the violation, whether they're making a good-faith effort to learn from their mistakes, etc. But there's also an expectation that the filing party will use good judgment in submitting a report. To give an example, in January of this year you reported Nishidani for violating a 1RR restriction. The two reverts you cited were, by your own description, over 24 hours apart. At the time, the two of you were engaged in a content dispute. Bringing the situation here made it look as though you were attempting to gain the upper hand. Whether you realize it or not, this is a common thread for many of the reports you've made to AE and ANI over the past few years.

Your idea of what constitutes a violation is much, much broader than that of most people. Going forward, I think it would be a good idea for you to avoid making any AE reports that aren't clear-cut cases (e.g. an editor makes multiple reverts to a 1RR article in a single day), as well as ones in which you're an involved party. I also recommend that you get into the habit of using other avenues for dispute resolution rather than escalating tensions by immediately pursuing sanctions against other editors. You'll probably find it a lot easier to get things done when you begin to think of them as collaborators rather than antagonists. Kurtis (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Just a note: Debresser doesn't only report editors to AE, he also reports you to AN/I, last time he reported me there was in July 2017. (It was closed without any sanction), Huldra (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Nope. As I said at the time: I misread "2nd century BCE" for "2nd century CE". And Debresser, without giving me any opportunity to explain, took it straight to AN/I. As I said back then, drama much? (Also, it isn't the first time Debresser have dragged me to AN/I, with no result), Huldra (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

This page is not the right place for this discussion. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

These sanctions are set up as a destructive way to end disruption that has not been reasonably taken care of by other means. When sanctions are placed the situation is generally, "enough is enough". If this is becoming a game that is in itself highly disruptive. Everyone here is a volunteer, from editor to admin but we don't have a shortage of editors. The opinion however has been bumped around a time or two that we have a shortage of admins. Admins time aside we also don't want to run off good editors. If -insert any editors name- is coming here for retaliation or any nonsense then the appropriate action should be taken, what ever that may be. A warning, the stated purpose of this noticeboard, or some punitive action. Case by case due to the facts of the situation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved admins

  • Yes, we do see Debresser quite a lot here with, as far as I can recall, often non-actionable requests. I wouldn't object to a restriction against making new AE requests. Sandstein 11:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether it is retaliatory or not, there is a clear pattern of poor/inappropriate reports to this noticeboard. I would prefer a strong warning however, with a restriction on AE requests if the problem continues. WJBscribe (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Muffizainu

Topic banned; indefinite. AGK ■ 17:53, 15 October 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 Muffizainu

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Muffizainu (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: "all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed".
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

I'm asking that Muffizainu be topic-banned from anything to do with female genital mutilation. On 14 October 2018 he created Khafd, an article about FGM named after an Arabic term for it. The Khafd page had been a redirect to Religious views on female genital mutilation. The new article is a poorly sourced POV fork of Female genital mutilation, a featured article. On 8 March 2018, I warned Muffizainu explicitly against creating a POV fork (diff), after he created Talk:Khafd; see his first version of that talk page.

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

I alerted Muffizainu to the DS regarding FGM on 7 March 2018 (diff).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

A major interest of Muffizainu's on Wikipedia is the Dawoodi Bohra, an Islamic sect living mainly in India that practises FGM. They are thought to practise Type I FGM, which involves cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris and the clitoral hood. They perform it on girls around the age of 6–9, most of it done by traditioner circumcisers without medical training and using crude tools. There are no authoritative studies on the type and extent of the cutting among the Dawoodi Bohra, only anecdotal reports. See Dawoodi Bohra#Female genital mutilation (permalink). Also see Batha, Emma (5 February 2018). "'Heartwrenching' study shows FGM prevalent among India's Bohra sect". Reuters.

Muffizainu insists that the Dawoodi Bohra (and perhaps others) practise Type Ia FGM, which is removal of the clitoral hood only; that it is harmless; and that it should be called "female circumcision", not FGM. The WHO, UNICEF, and UNFPA defined FGM in 1997 as "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons". [18] There are four types, Types I–IV, and several sub-types. It is not known to what extent Type Ia FGM is actually practised, especially outside medical facilities; when non-medical people use crude tools to cut the clitoral hoods of children, there is imprecise cutting. Therefore, much of what purports to be Type Ia is actually Type Ib (cutting/removing the visible part of the clitoris). See WHO (2018): "Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)" (bold added).

Examples of problems with the fork

The new article (permalink) is problematic in its entirety, so these are just examples:

  • The premise of the article is that khafd consists of Type Ia FGM. But the WHO says Type Ia is performed only "in very rare cases". A 2008 USAID paper, "De-linking Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting from Islam", defines khafd (which they write as khifaadh) as female genital mutilation/cutting; see p. 3.
  • Muffizainu has sourced a description of Type I FGM to a non-MEDRS source from 1863. "In male circumcision the foreskin covering the penis is removed, and in female circumcision the foreskin above the clitoris is circumcised or removed" is sourced to Lane, Edward William (1863). Arabic-English Lexicon. London: Willams & Norgate.
  • What khafd consists of is sourced to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, but it doesn't clearly support the edit. It describes khafd as "excision". [19] Excision is the removal of the visible part of the clitoris and of the labia minora (WHO 2018). But Muffizainu summarized this as: "Although the classical Islamic texts aren't explicit in their description of the procedure, these texts limit the procedure of khafd to the prepuce only."
  • Non-medical, non-English sources are used, e.g. al- ahuti, Mansur Ibn Yunus In Idris, (1983). Kashshaf al- Qina’ an Matn al- Iqtinaa. Beirut: Aalam al- Kutub. p. 80.
  • One source is https://femalecircumcision.org/the-practice-of-female-circumcision/. I can't see who runs this site, which is registered in the Cayman Islands. [20]
Other examples of problematic edits
  • In July 2016 Muffizainu added to Khitan (circumcision) (the Arabic term for male circumcision): "Female circumcision is carried out on the prepuce, the foreskin over the clitoris. ... It ranges from a symbolic touch to a tiny excision." He also changed the heading "Female genital mutilation" to "Female Circumcision" (diff).
  • His first edits to FGM were on 5 August 2017 (diff), when he created a new section called "Lack of evidence of complications or harm for Type 1a". Using sources such as Newsin.Asia, The Hindu, and Breitbart News, he wrote that Type 1a was harmless, "similar to ear piercing". He tried again in October 2017 (diff), where he changed that "[FGM] is praised in several hadith ... as noble but not required" to "Type 1a female circumcision is praised in several hadith ... as noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory)", sourced to islamonline.net.
  • He removed from FGM (diff): "In 2007 the Al-Azhar Supreme Council of Islamic Research in Cairo ruled that FGM had 'no basis in core Islamic law or any of its partial provisions'."
  • Other similar edits to FGM followed: 10 October 2017; 4 March 2018; 6 March 2018; 6 March 2018; 28 August 2018.
  • See almost the entirety of Talk:Female genital mutilation/Archive 16, where Muffizainu and Md iet, another Dawoodi Bohra editor, argued at length that FGM Type Ia is practised and should be called "female circumcision".
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
  • [21]
Length

I see that I'm about 300 words over the limit. I'd like to request permission to leave the extra words, given the complexity. SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Winged Blades of Godric: WP:NONENG (part of WP:V) says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." There is a vast English-language literature on FGM, so there's no need to use sources outside it. Using Arabic sources means we don't know whether they're primary or secondary, religious or secular, high or poor quality, mainstream or fringe, or exactly what they say. There have been several editors wanting to use Arabic texts to show that Islam requires FGM, either because they think that's a good thing or because they dislike Islam and want to associate it with this practice. SarahSV (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Muffizainu

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 Muffizainu

Firstly, the page clear defines an Arabic term, namely khafd. I have mentioned this in the talk pages as well. In order to define a word, one must turn to Lexicons to show it’s usage throughout history. And that is exactly what i’ve done. This isn’t a medical article, neither does it claim to be, and the term “khafd” was used 100s of years prior to the coining of the term FGM. Wikipedia is full of articles describing Arabic and other language terms, including the male form of circumcision (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khitan_(circumcision), hence this article isn’t anything new. Neither does she explain how the article is “poorly sourced” when it has relied on sources such as Britanica and the Encyclopedia of Islam. I have never stated that Dawoodi Bohras practise FGM. Whereas, on the other hand Sarah based her statements on anecdotal non reliable sources. I have also brought to her attention that a case in Australia categorically stated that the practice is not “mutilation”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation#NSW_Australia_case


Next, she says “What Khafd consists of is sourced to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, but it doesn't clearly support the edit. It describes Khafd as "excision". [28] Excision is the removal of the visible part of the clitoris and of the labia minora (WHO 2018).” This is incorrect. It does support the edit, because that’s exactly what is written in the source. Here’s the text from that article: “minimal practice comprised excision of the prepuce of the clitoris”. She has just focussed on the word “excision” and ignored what was written in the source, namely “excision of the prepuce” . Also, by simply focusing on the word “excision”, she has overreached the her definition by directly jumping to the WHO’s usage of the word “excision” when describing Type 2. It’s clear that the Encycopeadia is using the word “excision” in its normal usage to mean “the partial removal of an organ” and isn’t referring to the WHO’s terminology. This is confirmed because the source mentions the “prepuce” and not the Labia. It’s clear that she is over reaching her allegations by playing on words.

My changes “ as noble but not required" to “noble, sunnah (tradition), or waajib (mandatory)" is also factually correct. I already explained that in the summary, because the text that was being cited did not have the words “noble but not required”, and I inserted the actual words. Is there any harm in being factually correct on Wikipedia?

About the 2007 Azhar ruling. I have stated it many times, that that is just 1 ruling. If one were to be fair on Wikipedia, then they must also be able to post the multiple rulings in favour of female circumcision. Why is that not being allowed? In order to be neutral, both sides of the arguments must be presented.

Referring to my edits on the khitaan page. I provided reference from Arabic lexicons, that the word “khitaan” is used in Arabic, for both male and female circumcision. But even this was unacceptable to her.

Since she wants to rely on the “Encyclopaedia of Islam” article cited by me, the first sentence clearly states that Khitaan or Khafd are referred to as “circumcision”. So why doesn’t she cite that instead? Further, the term “female circumcision” is also used by the Encyclopedia of Britannica, when defining the word “Khafd”. https://www.britannica.com/topic/khafd The question arises as to, if a reputed source like Britanica can define the word, why can’t Wikipedia. It seems that Sarrah is only focused on her POV and is against any other academic dialogue on this subject.

I wouldn’t go to the extent of requesting a counter topic ban on Sarrah, however, I would request Wikipedia to monitor her extensive use of force and bullying to shutdown any academic dialogue on the subject.Muffizainu (talk) 06:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

ADDED: Here's an example of In between fair discussion, sudden inclusion of Topic ban seems giving a threat. When discussion is on Azhar university stand naming particular sect also looks like diverting the issue. All the stands taken by any one of Azhar to be taken care of and let the viewer decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/Archive_16#Azhar_University_Disagreement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Female_genital_mutilation&diff=806453049&oldid=806279917

Further, there are a few comments from Admins about gender issues and sexuality. The Muslims who practice female circumcision do it because they believe Islam encourages Gender equality, that is why both male and females circumsised. Further, it's not an issue about sexuality, because neither do the original Arabic texts state that it's do do anything with sexuality. If there is an avenue to discuss all this, I would be glad to contribute. However, every time it's even hinted, Sarrah comes in with threats. This isn't a conducive environment for any academic discussion, nor the values of Wikipedia.Muffizainu (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I strongly support a topic ban of Muffizainu from any and all pages relating to female genital mutilation, broadly construed. Sourcing issues aside, the absolute last thing we need is an article that gives even the slightest trace of legitimacy to this "procedure". Kurtis (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

The sole problem with the report is that it has arrived over here, quite late.This pathetic edit ought be enough for a (POVpushing+CIR) Tban. Incidentally, Sarah, does there exist any active prohibition on using non-English high-quality sources, in the area, shall they exist?WBGconverse 13:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Result concerning Muffizainu

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The cn-tags alone (in the lead, for the very definition) are worth a topic ban. Basing one on the GamerGate, while perhaps a stretch, isn't crazy given the scope, depth, and importance of the GG case and decision. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a stretch and would recommend a DS topic ban. I see they have been given a DS alert for gender related issues. Doug Weller talk 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand SlimVirgin's concerns, but this looks like a content dispute to me. Arbitration and AE do not resolve content disputes. If the article is problematic from a content point of view, such as regards neutrality, accuracy, content forking, etc., then the way to correct this is consensus-building on the talk page or, if needed, an AfD. Content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, but it normally takes a long history of problems or obvious, severe violations for them to rise to the level where AE action is needed, and I don't see this here. I'd therefore take no action. Sandstein 08:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I find Muffizainu's edits problematic, especially in terms of sourcing; however, I'm not sure that this is a "gender-related dispute or controversy". Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • On the procedural point, I think SV should be indulged on statement length - it is a clear statement of a somewhat complex problem. FGM is clearly a "gender-rated dispute or controversy" and I am surprised at the suggestion that it isn't. POV-pushing is a conduct issue and this appears to be an egregious example. To avoid rules lawyering about the scope of the restriction, I would support a topic ban from circumcision or female genital mutilation, broadly construed. WJBscribe (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • To me, FGM is more sexuality-related than gender-related. It's not a hill I intend to die on, since I agree that Muffizainu's edits are problematic, however. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I support a topic ban from circumcision and from female genital mutilation, both broadly construed. WJBscribe, I've copied your wording, except that I say "and from" instead of "or", to make sure it's understood that the ban applies to both subjects. Finicking, probably. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC).
  • I agree that sufficient evidence was presented of biasing content, selective sourcing, and other serious misconduct. I am indefinitely topic-banning (under ARBGG DS) Muffizainu from content relating to circumcision or to female genital mutilation (FGM). AGK ■ 17:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Soibangla

No action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:46, 15 October 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 Soibangla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Power~enwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Soibangla (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) : standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 2018/10/14 Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump. I don't see any way that a reasonable editor could view this as WP:DUE or WP:NPOV.
  2. 2018/10/11 Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story) at Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), and conspiracy theorizing on the talk page.
  3. 2018/10/14 Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing. The details of the bizarre QAnon allegations should not be included on Soros's page, and certainly not where multiple people had already objected in a discussion started by Soibangla.


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Notification on 4 September 2018
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
Their edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out. I also note their reply regarding their addition at Donald Trump. Overall, I don't believe this editor understands Wikipedia's policies well enough to edit in the American Politics area, and request an indefinite topic ban. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't intend to withdraw this; the addition on Donald Trump isn't actionable on its own, but I see a pattern of behavior here. Virtually every edit I see has a clear POV; something like this is engaging in WP:SYNTH to suggest that Republicans are somehow wrong about the War on Poverty; this is both confusing and clearly undue. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
notification diff

Discussion concerning Soibangla

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 Soibangla

I am beginning my statement now, but it is not yet complete, I will provide notice when it is

Accusation: "Adds an excessive amount of non-neutral material to the lead of Donald Trump"

It was one paragraph, three sentences, supported by three reliable sources. If there had been a consensus reached that the lede had been somehow "locked down," I was not aware of it. The added paragraph was certainly relevant to Trump's BLP, whereas the two subsequent paragraphs, which had evidently reached consensus before this apparent "lock down," are more suitable for the Trump presidency article, not his BLP.

Accusation: "Poor referencing style (linking to a Tweet about a WSJ story)"

The WSJ uses a paywall for most stories, so linking directly to WSJ will not allow users to check the ref. However, WSJ chooses to bypass their paywall when they tweet an article, so I linked to those WSJ tweets so users can access the whole thing. This is just the way WSJ chooses to make their content available, I am doing nothing devious.

Accusation: "Adding suspicious denials to the lead section of George Soros while an RFC on the inclusion of that material was ongoing"

There was nothing suspicious about it, nor was it a denial. Another user had unilaterally declared that consensus had been reached, made an edit reflecting that perceived consensus, and then I made a subsequent edit that complied with that perceived consensus.

Accusation: "edits at QAnon, Hillary Clinton email controversy, and Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination are all vaguely concerning, though I have no specific diffs to call out"

"vaguely concerning" but "I have no specific diffs to call out"? What does that mean, exactly?

I have contributed an enormous amount of high-quality edits to WP and I find the call for me to be topic banned from American Politics to be outrageously egregious.

I will have more to say, pressed for time right now. soibangla (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by BullRangifer

This is an absurd filing. Lesser methods of DR should be used, and differences of opinion and complaints about a sourcing style don't belong here. Soibangla does much excellent work. I think you should reserve drastic measures like this for genuinely tendentious editors. Occasional mistakes are par for the course for any editor, even the best. We deal with them on the talk pages. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MelanieN

I am WP:INVOLVED in this situation. I was the one who removed Soibangla's full-paragraph addition to the lede in the Donald Trump article, and when I took it to the talk page, I said I thought that adding it without discussing it first was "highly inappropriate". In no way did I mean that to indicate any sort of violation of the DS. Soibangla made a bold edit, it was challenged, they have not restored it - where is the violation? I am hopeful that Power~enwiki will withdraw this referral, as is being suggested at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

This board should be a last resort not the first!, DR or ANI is thataway →. –Davey2010Talk 01:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Soibangla

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have to repeat what I said in response to the above request: This looks like a content dispute to me. Arbitration and AE do not resolve content disputes. If the edits are problematic from a content point of view, such as regards neutrality, accuracy, content forking, etc., then the way to correct this is consensus-building on the talk page. Content policies such as WP:NPOV do have a conduct aspect, but it normally takes a long history of problems or obvious, severe violations for them to rise to the level where AE action is needed, and I don't see this here. I'd therefore take no action. Sandstein 11:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I find myself agreeing with MelanieN. This topic area should be approached with caution and discussion is encouraged, however there may be room for bold edits in moderation. The reported conduct does not in my view rise to sanctionable conduct at this time, but may do if it becomes part of a longer term behavioural issue. WJBscribe (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with those above. The editor made a bold edit - apparently well backed up by sources :) - it was reverted and, hopefully, will be discussed somewhere or the other. Vague comments about edits in other articles are, um, vague, and I'm surprised that an editor of power-enwiki's caliber is resorting to this sort of thing. The latest example of WP:SYNTH, though it does look like synthesis, is best discussed as a content issue. AE should be resorted to when you have a well documented case for a violation of an arb ruling and this is nowhere near that. --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=864642906"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA