Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Motions

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Enacted Maxim_(talk) 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Primefac (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
2. SoWhy 09:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Normally done on the Arb-Wiki as it's an internal motion, but I have no concerns here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
5. This is standard procedure in advance of the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Maxim_(talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
7. Katie^talk 12:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
8. – bradv^🍁 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
9. BDD (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
10. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
12. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
13. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Arbitrator discussion

Community discussion

Requests for enforcement

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

74 observer

74 observer is cautioned to avoid tendentious editing, and specifically to respect the consensus of both other editors and of the best available sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:32, 7 November 2021 (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 74 observer User who is submitting this request for enforcement FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 74 observer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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/The Troubles#Amendment (February 2019) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 18:45, 30 April 2021 Removes the Irish name from the Provisional Irish Republican Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) aticle 18:55, 30 April 2021 At the same article, amends the sentence In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed Óglaigh na hÉireann, which became active in 2009 to read In 2005/6 some Provisional IRA members defected and formed the Real IRA splinter group, which became active in 2009. This is a nonsensical change, since the Real IRA are also a splinter group from the Provisional IRA that formed in 1997 19:14, 30 April 2021 At the Bojayá massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article adds WP:SYNTHESIS, using references that don't mention that incident 21:34, 23 September 2021 At same article reverts without explanation despite their edit being challenged as synthesis 19:06, 28 October 2021 At the Proxy bomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article amends a sentence from In December 2013, Óglaigh na hÉireann, a Real IRA splinter group to read In December 2013 a Real IRA splinter group, despite the organisation's only name being Óglaigh na hÉireann. 19:35, 28 October 2021 At the Óglaigh na hÉireann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article reverts to reinstate challenged edit, claiming This was put in to chronological order despite the section they have moved to the bottom stating The name has also been used by several other paramilitary groups calling themselves the Irish Republican Army since 1920. It is a strange kind of chronological order where 1922 and 1924 come before 1920. 17:13, 2 May 2021 At Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Provisional IRA and other subversives calling themselves Oglaigh na hEireann (the entire discussion is probably worth reading) says of Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group) thatg ZIf this group requires a name then 'Real IRA Splinter Group 2005' abbreviated 'R-IRA-SG-2005' is more than sufficient which is clearly absurd. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 4 May 2021 Blocked for edit warring at The Troubles in Rosslea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (article since deleted) 20 June 2021 Second block for edit warring over the same content at the above article If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Notified Additional comments by editor filing complaint 74 observer appears to have a bee in their bonnet about the use of the term Óglaigh na hÉireann (abbreviated as ONH), despite the fact that in relation to the group formed in 2005 it's their actual name (and the ONH abbreviartion is used by the media), and made their absurd suggestion in the seventh diff their name should be 'Real IRA Splinter Group 2005' abbreviated 'R-IRA-SG-2005'. There was zero support for their idea or article change at the talk page discussion, with the most telling reply being this stating Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name of any organisation that calls itself Óglaigh na hÉireann, just as Engelbert Humperdinck's name is Engelbert Humperdinck, even though he apropriated it from a 19th-century German composer. The fact that an individual thinks such an organisation is evil does not take from that simple fact. Wikipedia is not the place for righting great wrongs. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning 74 observer 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 74 observer As background, Óglaigh na hÉireann is the name of Ireland's national army - during and since the War of Independence (1920-1921), into the Civil War (1922-1923) etc. Whilst formally legislated for in 1924 that does not mean the name attached to them then (that would be a very biased conclusion). However, since the 1923 Civil War end subversive and armed terrorist groupings in Ireland have tried to self-legitimise by calling themselves 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' instead. An issue to this day. Unfortunately, as was always going to be the case, there are editors on Wikipedia highly motivated to legitimise that terrorism and whitewash the violence. FDW777 is one of these - check the number of articles edited, his contentious and aggressive approach including the initiation of user bans and arbitration, his time spent on this platform - this is the work of an activist. As I have said, using the name Óglaigh na hÉireann by Irish terrorist organisations is part of their legitimisation process. They seek to normalise that usage in all aspects in society including on Wikipedia (very much so). There is a political agenda behind this and such activity is extremly against the WP:NPOV ethos of Wikipedia. The few edits I've made have diminished the normalised usage of 'Óglaigh na hÉireann' for subversive/terrorism purposes and this has triggered FDW777. Regarding FDW777's 'points': The Irish language term (Gaeilge) for the Provisional IRA is actually 'An IRA Sealadach'. As above they are not Óglaigh na hÉireann and there is a discussion on the relevant talk page. The Real IRA splinter group description is adequate here - it is linked text. Not related to the term Óglaigh na hÉireann here so why include?? Nevertheless, the text was legitimate information and supported by the reference: "Colombia rebels used IRA technology, says ex-FARC leader". Irish Times. FDW777 takes a deliberately narrow view to exclude it. See 3. See 2. I placed the chronological order correctly. The "since 1920" in the IRA section should be replaced with just "since" as 1920 is wrong. The Defence Forces section should clarify it was Óglaigh na hÉireann pre 1924 to avoid confusion. [UPDATE1: 1924 also wrong. Talk page updated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann#It_is_important_to_get_the_ordering_and_section_titles_correct. 74 observer (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)] The whole naming approach to these gangs like they are armies is absurd, that was part of the point (missed by FDW777). Regarding previous sanctions, these were initiated by FDW777 (quelle surpise) in relation to my making full and complete the list of Provisional IRA murders in a small rural locality (killing of a single mother of 3 etc.) - I was less aware of editing and dispute rules at the time and would not have been sanctioned if I had. The update was ultimately prevented by FDW777 getting the topic deleted. FDW777 is operating to engineer encyclopedic information on Wikipedia to legitimise terrorism and that is the real issue. The Óglaigh na hÉireann issue here is just one narrow aspect of that. 74 observer (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC) UPDATE 2: FDW777 has effectively reverted the topic in question placing the Defence Forces at the bottom. This was done (1) whilst this arbitration is ongoing, (2) IMMEDIATELY on creation of the talk issue and (3) ignoring the facts of the talk issue. 'Talk page update at 09:40 to 09:52: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann&oldid=1053002068#It_is_important_to_get_the_ordering_and_section_titles_correct.' 'FDW777 Article revert diff at 9:50 to 9:55: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%93glaigh_na_h%C3%89ireann&type=revision&diff=1053002435&oldid=1052367823' This behaviour substantiates my statement re FDW777 above. 74 observer (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Comment by GoodDay It would help matters, to use the English language version of the disputed topic, rather then the Irish language version. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning 74 observer This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Looking through the pattern of edits, and the statement here, there does seem to be rather a pattern of tendentiousness. I'm not sure I'd issue a sanction here yet, especially given the age of many of these edits, but I certainly would caution 74 observer at least informally if not by formal logged warning that we follow, not second-guess or "correct", the consensus of reliable sources on a matter, including a name. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC) As there seems to be no further appetite to take any action here, unless another uninvolved admin weighs in within the next day or so, I will close this with an informal warning for tendentious behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Dtobias

No action needed, though Dtobias has been reminded to moderate his tone when communicating with other editors. clpo13(talk) 22:01, 5 November 2021 (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 Dtobias User who is submitting this request for enforcement Ezlev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Relevant diffs in chronological order, which are also included in the below explanation, are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The conduct I take issue with starts on October 1 with Dtobias' creation of a new section with the comment that The terminology "Assigned Female/Male At Birth" embeds the ideology this book is criticizing in the article about it. It is nonsense as an "objective" statement of fact; biological sex is not "assigned" by anybody (doctor or Sorting Hat), it is observed, often well before birth. The only exception is for extremely rare intersex conditions where the sex is ambiguous. After several replies by other users, Dtobias commented that "observed" should be used instead of "assigned" because it would make more sense. But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. At this point, I replied and noted that Dtobias had been involved in previous discussion of the same issue on the same talk page and had even used the same reference to the Sorting Hat, a clear appeal to ridicule. I asked them to stop repeating the same argument and accusing unnamed editors of having an ideological objective. However, Dtobias continued to make comments that used the talk page as a forum while adding nothing constructive to the discussion, and in one comment that was relevant to the discussion put scare quotes around the term gender identity. Around this time I left a message on Dtobias' talk page asking for a change in behavior, and after Dtobias commented a couple of days later that Anybody who uses biased terms like "TERF" and "transphobic dog whistle" has absolutely no business judging what constitutes NPOV on this subject I left another message pointing out that Dtobias' behavior was uncivil and an assumption of bad faith. Dtobias replied accusing me of applying double standards, so I explained why I didn't think a double standard was being applied, and asked a question to which they did not reply. I was subequently asked by another user to message Dtobias again, at which point Dtobias commented on my talk page and expressed an intent to stop participating in these discussions. However, just yesterday Dtobias made another comment on the article talk page, this time linking to a self-written and tangentially relevant essay (Wikipedia:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander) and commenting that Incidentally, the thing that distinguishes a goose from a gander is, of course, biological sex, but it's a "transphobic dogwhistle" to say so! This user's WP:NOTFORUM violations, assumptions of bad faith, and general conduct at Talk:Irreversible Damage makes me doubt their ability to contribute constructively on the talk page in question and within the gender topic area as a whole. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see diff. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I am opening this AE request after being advised to do so at ANI. The explanation above is an edited version of my original comment at that thread. This is my first time opening an AE request; I apologize for my lack of concision and hope any mistakes on my part will be explained so that I can correct them. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks to Dtobias for noting below that the edits in question took place at Talk:Irreversible Damage. That got lost in the move from ANI. I object to the implication that I am attempting to "remove an 'opponent' from a subject" – I do not think of and have never thought of Wikipedia as a battleground. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff Discussion concerning Dtobias 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 Dtobias Since the opener of this request didn't indicate the page where the edits in question took place, I'll state for reference that it is Talk:Irreversible Damage, the talk page for the article on the book Irreversible Damage. This request seems overblown. I'm accused of "offenses" like putting "scare quotes" around a concept, and for saying that I believe some terminology is inaccurate and ideologically loaded. I'm not accused of doing any questionable edits to main article space, but merely of not writing in the talk page in the manner the complainants like. I'll admit that the tone of some of my comments went a little bit on the snarky side, so I apologize for this and will try to do better. I don't and won't apologize for holding viewpoints on the issues being debated that don't always agree with those of other editors, and I pledge to do my best to keep such views from causing me to violate WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia policies in my edits. Another recent enforcement request involved people who have been editing this same article and its talk page (though that request pertained to their activity on a different article), and concluded with no action needed and an admin comment that it appeared, in part, to be 'a standard attempt to remove an "opponent" from a subject'. Perhaps this request deserves to be resolved in the same vein. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) (NOTE: I struck out part of my notes on the past case as inappropriate to this one; I should have assumed good faith here, and not implied that the originator here is culture-warring when that doesn't actually seem to be the case.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Bilov: There would be a lot for me to disagree with in their comments, such as using scare quotes around such things as "ideology" (just the sort of thing I was criticized for in this request), and implying that it's my rude style that is problematic and makes people uncomfortable when this topic is such that even very polite statements (e.g., by J. K. Rowling) that take the disfavored side get met with a strong reaction of distaste. But all of this is beside the point; Bilov is right about describing my attitude being inappropriate for Wikipedia, which is not supposed to be a venue for culture warring. The stuff that gets "likes" on Twitter or "upvotes" on Reddit is often totally wrong for discussion here. So I was wrong in that regard. Hence, I pledge a high standard of conduct where I will stick to facts and logic and not sarcastic quips and the like. I definitely do not make any claim to be "free of personal opinion" myself, but I will stick scrupulously to WP:NPOV in any editing I do to this or other articles. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Sideswipe9th Just to make it clear, I'm both the editor that Dtobias directed the comment about dog whistles to, which was based on this talk page contribution, and the user who asked ezlev to speak to Dtobias again. As I hope the contribution makes clear, I was commenting on proposed content, and not the editor proposing it. With respect to Dtobias' latest contribution, I have tried to make clear that the term "biological sex" it is only contextually a transphobic dog whistle, and I am fairly certain Dtobias was aware of that as they commented on the same thread a couple of hours later. Otherwise, I agree with ezlev's analysis with respect to civility and lack of assumption of good faith.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sideswipe9th (talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bilorv It was literally yesterday that I last wrote at AE, in reference to the topic area of gender and sexuality: Referring ceaselessly to past discussions and endlessly accusing others of attempting to "right great wrongs", as though they are free from personal opinion themselves, is not the way to [engage in a discussion positively]. You'll notice many others in this AE and the broader topic area do both of these ceaselessly. Dtobias says above that they are willing to pledge to try to avoid overt rude sarcasm, which is not helpful. I should have assumed good faith here, and not implied that the originator here is culture-warring when that doesn't actually seem to be the case is a little bit better. I would go further and say: it will never help to accuse anyone of "culture-warring", because if they are then it should be very easy to disagree with them based on facts and references, not personal attacks, and if they aren't then all you're doing is creating a toxic environment. Dtobias's comments on gender make me quite uncomfortable, so I can only assume they make people with gender dysphoria very uncomfortable. (And this is, of course, an article in the topic area of gender dysphoria.) They may not mean to be referring to transgender people when they rudely dismiss a "movement", side of a "culture war" or "ideology", but their comments come across very much as attacks on people with gender dysphoria and other transgender people. However, I gather that they are unaware of this, and this AE is really the first time it is being pointed out in so many words. I hope Dtobias will make a commitment, in their own words, to a much higher standard of conduct. Otherwise, a topic ban from the article Irreversible Damage and its talk page should be the minimum action to prevent continued disruption to the encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Crossroads At this point, the user has apologized and promised to do better and be more careful in the future when commenting on such topics, so I think this can be closed as moot. Crossroads -talk- 05:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Dtobias This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Dtobias has admitted that he has a problem with tone and snark, apologized and promised to communicate in a more appropriate manner going forward. I don't see any reason to doubt his sincerity. Barring any new evidence, I don't see an issue with cautioning the user to be mindful of how he communicates and closing this request with no further action. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC) Taking a contrary opinion is not an offense. The snark is not appropriate but falls short of an actionable offense. Please be reminded that verbal jousting more often than not prevents people from considering your point of view rather than the intended effect of having it considered. Assuming this advice is taken at face value then I recommend closing without action. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Dtobias has already agreed to moderate the snark and other rudeness, so I think an informal caution to remember to do that is sufficient here. Hopefully that will happen and be the end of it. I agree with HighInBC that we should not be considering sanctions simply because someone raises a contrary point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Philip Cross

There is not a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" to overturn this action, nor is there a significant likelihood that one will form. This appeal is declined. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:39, 9 November 2021 (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 administrators" 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 Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed One-month block for violating topic ban from post-1978 British politics. Topic ban was an arbitration remedy (remedy 2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles). Block logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021#BLP issues on British politics articles. See also: ANI discussion (permanent link) Administrator imposing the sanction HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. I am aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by Philip Cross Richard Desmond's career was as a publisher of magazines (mainly pornographic) and later of a newspaper group, not as a politician or as someone directly involved in politics. I have not edited the passages in the article referring to the donations he has made to certain British organisations, or the changes in affiliation of one of his newspapers from one to another of those organisations, as the diffs will demonstrate. I cited a reference to migration in a passage (the one which also mentions the weather and Diana, Princess of Wales), but that was entirely in general terms not as it applies to a specific country, and the original sources are non-specific as well. Philip Cross (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC) copied verbatim from Philip's talk page per his request that the appeal be heard at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by HJ Mitchell It is my opinion that editing the Richard Desmond article (a biography of a living, controversial, figure involved with British politics) is a clear breach of Philip's topic ban from post-1978 British politics and almost exactly the same conduct that resulted in him being sanctioned by ArbCom given the subject's current and well-publicised dispute with Wikipedia (in the previous case, he was editing the article on a politician while in dispute with that politician elsewhere on the Internet). I note that Philip did not respond to the concerns raised at ANI about his editing, and continued to edit in the manner which prompted the concern while the ANI thread was ongoing. In my opinion, this shows a disregard for the ban and the community's concerns, which is why I felt a block of considerable duration was necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Philip Cross Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Iffy I continue to be of the opinion that the off-wiki smear campaign launched against Philip Cross should not have been 'rewarded' with anything more than a warning, but as he has not appealed his topic ban, that matter is sadly irrelevant to the merits of whether this enforcement is appropriate. I plan on coming back to this when I have time to analyse the diffs that led to the blocking. Iffy★Chat -- 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC) @Barkeep49: Which David Miller are you referring to? You linked to the disambiguation page instead of the diffs your comment is based on. Iffy★Chat -- 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Statement by JPxG This is confusing to me, as my understanding is that the AN/I thread was based on Philip's edits on David Miller (sociologist) (which seems, to me, like a much more solid instance of a deliberate topic ban violation). That said, Richard Desmond does seem to have engaged in some political activism through his newspaper ownership (and his article does have a section called "Political activity"). Moreover, some of Philip's edits on the article sem rather politically oriented, like this one about the newspaper's coverage of immigration, and this one which introduces the claim (in the voice of the encyclopedia, not as a quote or attributed opinion) that "According to Desmond, all Germans are Nazis". It seems to me that this is, at the very least, quite close to a topic ban violation. Anyway, so long as people are getting worked up about this on Twitter (and are probably reading these comments), I may as well mention this: the theories online about Philip Cross being a state actor, or a company paid to edit Wikipedia, are absurd, and if you believe them you are not thinking very hard. The conjecture tends to center on his high edit count as res ipsa loquitur proof of malfeasance. Really, it's not that big of a deal: he makes about a thousand edits a month and he's been doing so for several years. I am just some guy who edits Wikipedia for fun, and I made about two thousand edits in October of this year. Fixing typos and using scripts adds up quickly. Moreover, while there are shady characters trying to influence Wikipedia articles, they generally do not put up huge neon glow-in-the-dark signs by using one extremely visible account to do so in a dramatic fashion (cf. some of the entries here to see what it actually looks like). Statement by House of Change Bringing this here from the original topic ban discussion: PC's topic ban should be expanded from post-1978 UK politics to include politics in general, based on items detailed above and a BLP violation that put his talk page on my watchlist: "The Anti-Defamation League described Escobar as a "anti-Israeli journalist". Escobar was among those attending the New Horizon Conference in Tehran, Iran in Fall 2014 along with others the ADL described as antisemites and Holocaust deniers." The only reference PC gave for this contentious SYNTH material was a press release whose title was "Iranian Hatefest Promotes Anti-Semitism, Draws Holocaust Deniers and U.S. Anti-Israel Activists." (He was quite unrepentant when I approached him.) HouseOfChange (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC) He has also been active on the BLP Max Blumenthal, another critic of Israel whose bio PC has salted with opinion pieces denouncing him as a friend to antisemitism: adding material based on opinion piece "Mikics," multiply cited in article [11] Another anti-Blumenthal tirade, which is now together with "Mikics" at the top of description of one of Blumenthal's books: [12] PC has made more than 60% of all edits to the article. He has also made many good edits, but his passionate feelings about politics make him a bad editor of BLPs related to politics. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Result of the appeal by Philip Cross This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I had noticed Cross' edits to Desmond and so I looked into them. From my non-UK viewpoint I did not see Desmond as inherently covered by British politics broadly construed, and the specific edits made avoided content that would have been with-in scope from my assessment. So if that were all this was I would actually be inclined to accept the appeal. However, I find Cross' edits to David Miller, which I was unaware of when I considered and declined to sanction for Desmond, to clearly be a violation of his topic ban so in the larger sense I think the block is appropriate. I have no opinion about whether the length of time blocked is appropriate or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Iffy thanks for pointing it out. David Miller (sociologist) is the Miller in question. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Looking mainly at the David Miller and Richard Desmond articles (both BLP), the first thing I notice is that neither are obviously political on the surface, and the talk page show no wikiproject that is related to politics staking a claim. Cutting to the chase (and editing out the three paragraphs I had prepared), I see a problem case. Some people consider these articles "obviously" under the topic ban, others do not. I see them as maybe mildly covered, but what do I know. This edit that ties loosely to Israel is probably covered somewhat cleanly, but it isn't the reason he was blocked. I'm a bit on the fence, although leaning to keep the block solely based on that one diff I provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Further comments kind of reinforce my initial feeling, that Brits and yanks would see this somewhat differently. It's just a cultural difference, not a matter of wrong vs. right. I think we all see there was a problem, it's just a matter of degrees. Would be nice to see another couple of opinions, although we all know where this is likely heading. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC) As a British person this falls under broadly construed for me. Desmond is the proprietor of an intensely anti-eu newspaper and is accused by private eye over the years of regularly interfering in the editorial. He gave over a million quid to ukip. He is clearly in a political nexus - to the point where a tory minister changed the rules to save him £40m. This was definitely a violation in my mind. Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) The relationship of Desmond to politics is rather tangential, and I think we're stretching "broadly construed" a bit far to include the entire biography under that designation, as it does not appear politics is Desmond's primary occupation or focus. I would be more inclined to say that any portions of Desmond's article that relate to British politics are off limits, but not the whole thing. That said, David Miller (sociologist) certainly has a heavy interest and participation in British politics, so edits to that article were a clear violation of the topic ban. Given that, I would decline the appeal. I would also strongly advise Philip Cross to quit trying to tiptoe right up to the line of the topic ban, and instead to find some things completely unrelated to British politics to edit about—we have millions of articles, about everything from types of rocks to Russian poets, so that should not be difficult to do. If you keep dancing along the line, you will inevitably slip over it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC) I am going to close this in about 24 hours unless there is an objection, someone else does it, or a significant change of opinion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 04:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC) To me, as a politically aware British person, there is no question the Richard Desmond is very closely associated with British politics as the former, actively involved, editor of a very politically vocal newspaper, his donations to the Conservative party, and the scandal regarding Robert Jenrick. It is inconceivable to me that someone as keenly aware of British politics as Philip Cross is would consider Desmond an apolitical figure. I am less familiar with David Miller, but as Cullen328 said in the ANI discussion, almost every portion of that BLP is drenched with contemporary British politics. and Cross' edits there include ones that are unquestionably political. I'm seeing no justification for granting this appeal - indeed I think the sanction is, if anything, on the lenient side. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC) (@Cullen328: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Some of these edits were probably OK under the topic ban, but I think it was violated. UK newspaper owners have substantial political influence and are often seen as driving political debates. Some of the edits made to the article related to the Daily Express and specifically how it has covered political subjects, e.g. [13] adds a quote saying the newspaper is obsessed with immigration (definitely a political issue). David Miller (sociologist) falls more unambiguously into politics. I second the suggestion to find a topic which isn't closely related to British politics. Hut 8.5 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)