Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive269

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe : Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. Consensus required restriction introduced on 9 July at the war in Donbass article by Ymblanter
2. 10 July – Heptor removes content that had been added to the article as a consequence of the RM result at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War.
3. 10 July – I revert his removal. Additional sources for the relevant sentence had previously been added below on 8 July.
4. 10 July – Heptor ignores the restriction, and once again removes the phrase. He then proceeds to remove sourced content related to Russia's involvement, while leaving the citations intact, skewing the article's portrayal of what the relevant sources say.

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

• Heptor was originally alerted 18 August 2018, but has retained the alert on his talk page in spite of the archival of all other old talk page threads.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Heptor has long pattern of edits intended to whitewash Russia's involvement in the Ukrainian crisis. A notable recent edit was his creation of the "2014 Ukrainian coup d'etat" redirect. In this most recent dispute, Heptor has repeatedly attempted to remove sourced information about Russia's involvement in the war in Donbass from the article, which I have tried to revert. I even added many additional sources to try and placate Heptor, but to no avail. Heptor has continually ignored the consensus found in the RM at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War, and has attempted to overturn it to no avail. This dispute led to the 9 July implementation of a 'consensus required' restriction under ARBEE by Ymblanter. As shown above, Heptor has shown no hesitation to violate the restriction, and continues to remove sourced content, or otherwise twist it in his favour. Discussion on the talk page has, unfortunately, been nothing more than a sparring match between him and myself. Ukrainian-crisis related articles have become a backwater, with few watchers...a place POV pushers and sockpuppets roam free. Attempts to provide sources, with page numbers, do not convince Heptor to stop...and he continues to cherrypick lines that he thinks supports broad conclusions about the 'indigenous' nature of the war, when they don't do any such thing, and otherwise introduce a WP:FALSEBALANCE between Russian claims and the scholarly consensus. I admit that I haven't been very civil in the relevant discourse, and if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so. My behaviour is basically the result of having worked in this topic area since the outbreak of the relevant unrest, and being subject to a constant stream of sockpuppet attacks, PoV pushing, &c., on both sides. That's not an excuse, but I know bad faith when I see it. I recently discovered a whole sock farm in the topic area (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolyn), that seemed to have an anti-Russian angle, and reported it...! If that doesn't indicate my neutrality, I suppose nothing will. But, I digress. Please, I beg of you, do something about this Heptor...and if you want, feel free to sanction me. All I care about is the integrity of the encylopaedia, and nothing more. RGloucester — ☎ 17:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: You are taking Heptor's edit summary as fact without bothering to check the diffs I provided. The present wording was introduced 1 July, following an RM at the other page. It was stable at the time of the introduction of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If 1 July is not long-standing (in terms of the restriction), and the version at the time of the implementation is not considered the starting point, then the restriction is pointless, and simply a way to game the system. If you think facilitating this sort of behaviour is in any way helping the encylopaedia, your are wrong. By this logic of an unfixed 'versison', and a restriction that applies retroactively, all of Heptor's changes, which changed a version that had been stable for years, have been in violation of the restriction RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C I am not the person who inserted the information into the article, so I don't see how you can hold me responsible for that. I agree that the 'onus' is on the person requesting inclusion, but this has been satisfied by an RM supporting the decision to classify these events as such, and reliable sources cited in the article. The onus, at this point, falls on Heptor to conjure a consensus to challenge the existing one, and such a burden has not been met. But, that's fine...again, if you can't see the difference between my edit's and Heptor's, it's 万事休す. Get this over with and topic ban me, as any good administrator would! RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I will do no such thing. I demand a topic ban from all things related to Eastern Europe. It's what you want, so it's what you'll get. RGloucester — ☎ 19:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Guerillero: An RfC will not resolve this problem, as it is not a content issue, but a behavioural issue. If you can't see the difference between my edits and Heptor's, I'm sorry. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Heptor: This edit is not a violation of the restriction. I was reverting your bold change for the first time following the implementation of restriction at that point. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit, revert, restriction violation. Heptor (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not supposed to comment in other people's sections, Heptor. In any case, no, the relevant edit was made long before the restriction was made, and went unchallenged for days. You're the one that made the bold edit, post-implementation of the restriction. RGloucester — ☎ 19:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified 18:45 10 July 2020

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.

The phrasing in question, "The War in Donbass is [a] part of the broader Russo-Ukrainian War", was introduced on July 1st without establishing consensus. There is no consensus to mention the page move on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian_War#Requested_move_9_June_2020 in the first sentence in the lead in War in Donbass. In addition, the consensus to move "Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) → Russo-Ukrainian War" is at best shaky. Three editors (me and two others) have criticized it as wrong and tendentious, so perhaps the MR was closed too early. I'm not going to wikilawyer, but it was RGloucester who violated the "consensus required" restriction with this edit, as he reintroduced this phrasing without establishing consensus. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With minor and unrelated exceptions, I do not edit Wikipedia with other user names then the one I sign presently.

Indeed, RGloucester had shown a thorough disregard for civility throughout this discourse. My first interaction with him was on February 22nd, when he reverted several hours of my edits with the summary "What a mess you've made...a load of WP:POV and coatrack rubbish". He showed no interest in participating in the discussion when I pinged him on the talk page of the article (section link) on February 25. His very first comment on the talk page (setion link) was "Your edits have been entirely unacceptable, and I've reverted them", quickly followed up by "Past engagement with you has made clear that constructive discussion is impossible". Repeated requests for citations for his ipsi dixit statements on the talk page were met with "I really have no energy to stoop to your level," and a liberal use of the exclamation mark.

When he raises this RfE and attempts to present himself as a victim, saying that "if you want to toss me out the window or otherwise execute me publicly, feel free to do so [...] not an excuse, but", I do not see that he in any way justified or apologized for his behavior.

The diff presented by RGloucester is not a violation of the "Consensus Required" restriction, and please do something about his lack of WP:CIVILITY and obviously WP:AGF. Heptor (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment that my involvement in this accident started wheh Heptor asked me to have a look at the article talk page [1]. I had a look, saw that it was previously actively edited by a sockfarm, and applied extended confirmed protection under arbitration enforcement. Then, following JzG, I thought it was useful to add a "consensus required" sanction. I also advised both usewrs to discuss the issue at the talk page. I never added the article to the watchlist (because, tbh, I am fed up by tendentious editing from both sides of the conflict - in general, not specifically applying it to this accident). Today, RGloucester asked me whether I am going to apply sanctions to Heptor for violation of the arbitration enforcement sanction I applied. I suggested them to go here. Whereas I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (and I am not currently willing to look at it, for a number of reasons), this episode is localized as a long talk page discussion between two users with two well articulated positions, so it should be straightforward for any administrator to have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, can you name the socks or is there a privacy issue? Heptor (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• RGloucester your version does not appear to be the longstanding version, so I'm not sure Heptor has violated the restriction. Rather you might have. Anyway, I think this can be solved by a 3rd opinion or an RfC, as opposed to going through the AE procedure here. El_C 17:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RGloucester, July 1 is not longstanding. It is new. El_C 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RGloucester, you need to observe WP:ONUS. El_C 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RGloucester, please maintain decorum and avoid innuendo. Your failure to do so is not to your credit. El_C 19:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RGloucester, your response reveals underlying issues with civility and good faith. You need to correct these, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 19:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA.

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

1. Violates WP:1RR on 1 July: 1) makes a few edits failing WP:OR, WP:RS,[2] 2) then reinstates the problematic edit without edit summary,[3] 3) then doubles down with the problematic edits once again.[4]
2. Claims he will use "scholarly sources",[5] and resorts to using same unreliable sources again while claiming on edit summary that "Scholarly sources added, new details on strength and units."
3. 4 July Falsely alleges editor of being biased: "Please do not carry your own bias into this."
4. 5 July: Gaming WP:1RR by reinstating his edits,[6] then restoring them after being reverted.[7]
5. 5 July: Alleges me of vandalism contrary to WP:NOTVAND.[8]
6. 5 July: Refuses to self-revert and falsely claims that "Indian government sources" are being used on article.[9] Upon seeing rejection of such problematic view, still doubles down with his use of Chinese mouthpieces.[10]

He is aware of what constitutes "vandalism" per this message written by him so I am confident that his reference to my edits as vandalism was deliberate.

A report on WP:ANEW against this user with regards to edit warring on 2020 China–India skirmishes is still located on the noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:YuukiHirohiko reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ))Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[11]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

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.

Logically speaking a page would use as many sources as possible. I have read the Japanese, Chinese wiki pages of the same incident. Both voices are heard, Indian figures and Chinese sources are given on all other language pages respectively. Attempts to do the same on the English site were either reverted without reasoning or deleted on the claim of "using communist mouthpiece".

I have not removed the Indian scholarly sources stated in the talk section nor have I moved it. It remains in its original section and I just added my sources.

It's more than unusual to use Indian government sources as an official casualty figure of the standing article, more unusual that the objection that I face of doing the same thing for the Chinese side. Indian government statements are well known to be inaccurate and sometimes self contradictory.^[1][2][3]

So proclaimed "scholarly sources" in the article, backing up Indian government claims, are all written by one person, a professor at an Indian university, which according to the talk section sourced his death figures from "Bidanda Chengappa, working for an Indian think tank". I'd like to question the NPOV of this scholarly source.

And

"On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or otherwise degrading."

I see you removing my edits as vandalism as I was given 0 prior warning, 0 indication. You didn't show positive willingness to discuss this, I laid out my logic in my talk page regarding how China still has Cho La in its LAC despite the article stating the opposite, you didn't reply or rebut with solid evidence. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I cannot tell if YuukiHirohiko's sources are reliable and if they cite government sources. The status of this or that source which is not in English should have been discussed, and resolution arrived in that respect, on the article talk page first — before making key changes to the article based on these. YuukiHirohiko seems to be a new user who is currently SPAing. I'd be willing to go with, say, a week partial block from the article, or even just a warning, if they commit to the needed correction, which includes reading what vandalism is not. Very important. El_C 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBIPA :

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

Personal attacks 17–19 June

1. 20:27, 17 June 2020 Says: "it is quite hypocritical for you to posture about consensus"
2. 23:19, 17 June 2020 Says: 'You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings,"'
3. 00:25, 18 June 2020 Says: "Or, you could keep being a hypocrite"
4. 15:28, 18 June 2020 Says: "Regardless of your blatant hypocrisy, you are muddying the waters on what the dispute is."
5. 00:21, 19 June 2020 Says: "You have once again demonstrated that you are discussing in very bad faith, with your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting."

Personal attacks 7–9 July

1. 13:44, 7 July 2020 In response to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and work to resolve disputes, they say: "I repeat what I wrote to you on 19 June 2020: pointing out your repeated acts of dishonesty, hypocrisy, and gaslighting does not get us any further to a resolution.".
2. 15:45, 7 July 2020 When warned of WP:NPA, they say: "Pointing out that you have repeatedly been dishonest, that you have repeatedly been hypocritical, and that you have repeatedly gaslighted me is not an attack on you"
3. 19:56, 7 July 2020‎ Reinstates a contested edit; "it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV"
4. 20:15, 7 July 2020‎ Opens a talk page section titled "Hypocrisy".
5. 20:40, 7 July 2020 Says: "Ah, so at long last, your true colo(u)rs are shown" (in response to stating that there are contending interpretations).

WP:CIR

1. 15:18, 8 July 2020‎ No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV: "If you want to argue that... is not in Raghavan or Hoffmann or any other reliable source of your choosing, then that's just another example of your many instances of dishonesty and gaslighting.".
2. Talk:Dhola Post#Map violates WP:NOR: They hold that reproducing a sourced map via OSM Location map constitutes WP:OR.
3. ‎15:52, 7 July 2020 Says "why not use that map?" for a ma published in a book. When it is pointed out that it would be WP:COPYVIO, "Would you care to cite the portion of WP:COPYVIO that you believe is violated..."
4. Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#OSM_Location_maps: Filibusters WP:NORN, including input from Diannaa.

WP:Edit warring

1. ANEW report, 17–18 June: 6 reverts in 24 hours
2. 19:56, 7 July 2020: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV"
3. 15:48, 8 July 2020‎: Reinstates contested edit. Edit summary: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18:37, 17 June 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

(350 words)

In February this year, I got interested in writing a page on the Dhola Post, an Indian Army post set up in 1962 near the China border, which turns out to be an important topic in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Having found a two-line stub called Dhola, Tibet, which was apparently a reference to this very post, I retitled it to Dhola Post and started expanding it. On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example. When I pointed out that expanding stubs is normal day-to-day activity, his reponse was "don't gaslight me". After seeing that there was no way to reach agreement, I set the page back to what it was earlier and started a new page on Dhola Post.

The user immediately came over to the new page and started modifying it too. Between the two pages, they made 6 reverts in 24 hours, as documented in this ANEW report. The admins did not sanction the editor. So I set it aside for a while to let things cool.

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [13]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

Returning to the page now, after a month's gap, I find the same WP:BATTLEGROUND editing from the user. No appreciation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, not even WP:COPYVIO, but plenty of pomposity, snide remarks, and blatant personal attacks. Sino-Indian border disputes are filled with plenty of subtleties and complications. Without a good faith effort to resolve the disputes, it is practically impossible to get anywhere.

I have twice proposed taking it to WP:DRN, 21:27, 18 June 2020, 11:41, 7 July 2020, to which I received no response. Erik-the-red's strategy is to reinstate a contested edit, argue for a day or two and, without resolving anything, and make more contestable edits, thereby presenting a series of fait accomplis. I don't believe they will seriously seek CONSENSUS unless forced to do so. Just like we saw yesterday as to whether something is a "personal attack" or not, the arguments can essentially go on forever, unless somebody with power and authority is able to put a stop to it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

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.

I would like to respond to Kautilya3's comments. Because of the 500 word limit, I cannot respond to all the claims, so I will show that Kautilya3's first and last claims do not accurately describe the events and use quotes taken out-of-context.

Kautilya3 claim:

On 17 June, Erik-the-red came by that page and started bitterly complaining that I had modified the old page, this post being an example.

My response: I created the first section on the talk page and wrote the following:

@Kautilya3: You wrote that "there is no evidence that it has been incorporated in Tibet." However, paragraph 29(f) on page 53 and paragraph 35 on page 54 of the Part I of the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat Report acknowledge that "Dhola Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line."

Paragraph 29(f) on page 53: "This, in effect, meant that the post was actually NORTH of the McMAHON Line as then marked on the map."

Paragraph 35 on page 54: "DHOLA Post was established NORTH of the McMAHON Line as shown on maps prior to October/November 1962 edition."

Therefore, by India's own claim, the assertion that "there is no evidence that [Dhola] has been incorporated in Tibet" is false.

Erik-the-red (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how any reasonable person could construe the above statements to be "bitterly complaining that [Kautilya3] had modified the old page" as claimed by Kautilya3.

Kautilya3 claim:

During the debates, the user started calling me "extremely hypocritical" [14]. The supposed "hypocrisy" is that I called this place to be disputed territory rather than declare it to be part of Tibet, which is their preference.

My response: This claim by Kautilya3 is easily shown to be false by examining the link he/she provided. The context of my words were:

You are extremely hypocritical if you think it's acceptable for you to offhandedly imply that I am motivated by "certain nationalistic posturings," but it's a "cheap shot" for me to flip it back at you by pointing out that the Henderson Brooks-Bhagat report was commissioned by the Government of India.

That is, in context, I did not mention Tibet at all. Kautilya3 has thus taken two of my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I am motivated by nationalistic bias.

I hope that my preceding reply has demonstrated that Kautilya3

• accuses me of "bitterly complaining" when I merely quoted a source and stated one conclusion.
• takes my words completely out of context to fit a story implying that I have a nationalistic bias.

and therefore that Kautilya3 has not discussed with me in good faith.Erik-the-red (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Posted for Erik-the-red who is currently blocked. El_C 12:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note that have blocked Erik-the-red for 72 hours for personal attacks as a normal admin action. A topic ban or other AE sanctions may still be considered, however. El_C 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure there's IPA concerns beyond this one article. Why don't both of you turn to a dispute resolution request, like an RfC, and let others weigh in on the dispute? Limit interaction to the utmost in the interim. El_C 14:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Kautilya3, I wouldn't rely on DRN too much as it involves rather intensive interaction. A more standard dispute resolution request, like WP:3O or WP:RFC, are probably more suited for this dispute. El_C 15:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with El C. While Erik-the-red needs to be warned that their tone is not constructive, and sanctions may become necessary if they continue in the same vein, the rest of their editing does not appear to require sanctions. Dispute resolution is the best way to go on this. --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Please try to resolve this through an RfC --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 1 July 2020 Egregious violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
2. 2 July 2020 Reinstates essentially the same edit with the same issues.
3. 11 July 2020 Creates this nonsense, which I don't think requires any explanation.
4. 22 June 2020 Creates this draft, which violates, among other things, WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV (sorry, admins only).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but a lengthy list of warnings on their talk page.

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

• Alerted in March by Doug Weller.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have only linked the most egregious examples; their recent editing history with respect to political articles has nothing positive in it. My attempt to discuss some of these edits ([15]) did not go well. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: apologies, link fixed; I was trying to link to a preview, which isn't possible. Incidentally, Italawar has been blocked for three days by JBW. I'm not withdrawing this report, because I think a 3-day block isn't sufficient (in JBW's defense, I suspect they only looked at the deleted creations). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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.

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

• Vanamonde93, you mislinked the draft. I tried to find it and encountered multiple deleted articles and drafts, which is not a good sign. El_C 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend indefinite IPA topic ban for egregious misconduct. El_C 16:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A topic ban seems warranted here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned above, I have blocked the account for three days. When I did that I did not know of this discussion. I regarded 3 days as a fairly minimal block in view of the editor's intransigent attitude and grossly unacceptable editing, and I do not in any way regard that block as a final statement; some kind of longer-term restriction would make sense. If a consensus emerges here for some other outcome, I shall be perfectly happy for my block to be removed and replaced by something else, without being consulted further. JBW (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked the user indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia, as a regular admin action (i. e. not per DS). Bishonen | tålk 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE : War in Donbass consensus-required restriction

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

1. 17 July I revert the addition of content added by Heptor
2. 17 July JzG reinstates the content without gaining consensus

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

• JzG himself is the person who requested that this page restriction be imposed on 8 July.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There must be some irony here. JzG himself requested this restriction be imposed on the article, and then violates it...perhaps this proves that such restrictions do not work. The administrator who imposed it refuses to have anything to do with it. Are we going to actually enforce this, or just forget about it? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is customary", I am told, but where exactly is this custom documented? Very funny, indeed. Thank you though, JzG, for having the kindness to self-revert. I withdraw the request. RGloucester — ☎ 17:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a comment to the effect that I think it is Kafkaesque to expect people to know what is 'customary' about specific kinds of obscure DS sanctions when no such information is provided anywhere in an easily accessible and digestible format. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: That somewhat negates the purpose of the restriction all-together, does it not? I can't be expected to understand the ways of the Arbitration Committee, but all this restriction seems to do is make a mess. 1RR is much easier to enforce, and indeed, understand... RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with everything Aquillion said...and would support replacing the current restriction with something along those lines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notice

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.

It was nice of RGloucester to raise this through a polite note on my talk page reminding me of the restriction, since Twinkle doesn't show the edit notice.

Oh, wait, he didn't do that. I self-reverted. I suggest a trout for RGloucester for needless escalation. Guy (help!) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dispute resolution's section WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. It might be worth repeating at WP:AC/DS, or the instructions at the top of this page, or both. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a weird bastard of a restriction. Most concensus required restrictions that I remember go like You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article per WP:CRP. Anyhow at this point with the self revert I do not see any issue for AE at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the Consensus Required restriction was being phased out due to the way it leads to stonewalling. On Donald Trump, for instance (probably the highest-profile and most controversial article where it was used) it was replaced with a 24-hour BRD cycle restriction stating If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts. This encourages everyone to try and find a solution, whereas restrictions like this one place such a hefty burden on anyone who wants to make a change that it encourages anyone who prefers the article's current state to just drag their heels and make only token efforts to engage beyond the bare minimum necessary to block a consensus. Obviously it's not ideal for disputes to be resolved by exhaustion or filibuster, and consensus ultimately has to be reached in order to include contested material, but making the "default outcome" too one-sided actually discourages discussion - WP:BRD forces everyone to stay at the table and continue workshopping ideas, whereas consensus-required rewards one side in a dispute for just rejecting every proposal out of hand. Guiding people to reach a consensus is a balancing act - we get there by encouraging discussion (which requires that both sides have an incentive to participate properly or establish clear consensus for their preferred version), rather than supercharging WP:ONUS to the point where only one side in a dispute has any incentive to seriously engage in discussions at all. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not actionable. JzG has self-reverted. Indeed, it is customary that a request on the user's talk page to self-revert precede filings here. El_C 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Very funny, indeed — huh? I have no idea where this custom is documented, or if it is documented at all. El_C 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, I see. I do not disagree. But now you know, so no harm done. El_C 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I try not to comment here unless I'm pinged, but I have spent a bit of time lately thinking about the wording of various page-level restrictions, and it's worth pointing out that restoring someone else's edits is not technically a violation of the restriction posted at Talk:War in Donbass. – bradv🍁 18:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Aquillion, this isn't the consensus required sanction as usually worded, and it's also usually accompanied by 1RR which helps to resolve some of these issues. But if you want to know why I've been thinking about this lately, there is a very lengthy discussion about it on my talk page if you're interested. – bradv🍁 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Nocturnalnow is topic banned from American Politics after 1932

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

1. 15 July 2020 Discussing Tucker Carlson
2. 11 July 2020 Discussing Trump
3. 10 July 2020 Discussing Trump (and Trump's niece)
4. 29 May 2020 Section "Will Trump's executive order impact Wikipedia?"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 January 2020 Nocturnalnow was routinely violating his topic ban, was reminded of this, and excaped being blocked by acknowledging this and promising a change]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Since the January ANI discussion, Nocturnalnow has made no edits to any namespace but user talk, almost all of them to User talk:Jimbo Wales, and almost all of them to discuss current events in the USA (BLM protests and the like). Many of these edits clearly skirt or breach the topic ban. And these are not occasional outbursts, but the only edits they make to enwiki anymore... Fram (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

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

• I indefed them as a mixed AE block and standard admin block. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience #Discretionary sanctions

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

20 July 2020 Siddsg commented on another user's RfC !vote by stating

1st link does not describe Ayurveda, 2nd link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience"

However the first link, the Oxford University Press, states "These pseudoscientific theories may ... confuse metaphysical with empirical claims (e.g. acupuncture, cellular memory, reiki, therapeutic touch, Ayurvedic medicine)"

The second link, the MIT Press, states "Ayurveda, a traditional Indian medicine, is the subject of more than a dozen, with some of the "scholarly" journals devoted to Ayurveda alone ... others to Ayurveda and some other pseudoscience"

It is clear from the contents of the links that Siddsg has deliberately made patently untrue statements in an effort to discredit the support !vote.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There is a contentious RfC taking place at Talk:Ayurveda #RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence and it is now generating increasingly strong argument. Ayurveda has been marked as a page subject to discretionary sanctions and there is a requirement that all editors strictly adhere to the highest standards of behaviour: WP:ACDS #guide.expect. It is a sanctionable offence for an editor to "severely .. disrupt debate". I have drawn Siddsg's attention to their behaviour in stating a clear untruth and have given them the opportunity to strike it. They have edited since my request and failed to withdraw their comment. I believe that Siddsg's behaviour has crossed the line into a severe violation of the expected standards of civilised debate in an area subject to discretionary sanctions, and that we should not fail to address that so that we ensure the RfC is able to function properly.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

@Bishonen: I thought of pointing out to RexxS about his involvement in the subject as an involved editor and decided I will reply about the rest on article's talk page once I am back because it belonged there. Now that he didn't wait and instead went ahead to report here I can clarify here. But frankly saying, as the person who had nominated RexxS for adminship,[16] your involvement with the RexxS is clearly not that of an uninvolved admin.

First link does do not describe Ayurveda as "pseudoscience". There is a lack of any description and there is only a single passing mention of "Ayurvedic medicine" in the entire book. Anybody can agree that it is nowhere near the definition of "describe" which means "a detailed account in words of".

Second link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience". RexxS claims that the wording from the source "Ayurveda and some other pseudoscience" contradicts me, but that is not exactly correct. It is common in such instances that the author is not putting the latter into the same category as the former. Some other examples are: "Trump and some other European leaders"[17] (Trump is not a European), "dinner with President Obama and some other tech bigwigs"[18] (Obama is not a "tech bigwig"), where it is similarly clear that by saying "xxxx and some other" the author isn't giving same categorical treatment to both subjects.

Now since it is clear that this is just a mere disagreement over the interpretation of the source, then such a content dispute should be better solved on talk page or other WP:DRs than AE. Siddsg (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I am not going to repeat what I have already said but I would still like to know that per WP:INVOLVED, why you are commenting on the uninvolved admins section given your involvement in recent content dispute with me? [19] Siddsg (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The first link only made a passing mention and the second link does not describe Ayurveda as a pseudoscience either. How any of this meets WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Now if you are claiming that the people must not dispute problematic sourcing on talk page and if this is your remedy then there should be no WP:DRs and AE has to be the place to sort content disputes. Siddsg (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like lawyering to me. In 10+ years here I have never seen anyone link to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS - not saying the info there is wrong or ill-advised or whatever but that sort of link is pretty typical of someone who is lawyering, drilling down to a very small part of a whole in order to make a point. Or perhaps I have just been living in a cave for the last decade? - Sitush (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disclaimer: I commented in the RfC some days ago and favoured mentioning pseudoscience. - Sitush (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Siddsg's unresponsive response to RexxS here is troubling. Nor did they return to the RfC and strike out the erroneous statements, or change them in any way. If it hadn't been for that, one might have AGF'd that Siddsg simply made a couple of mistakes and missed "Ayurvedic medicine" in the OUP source and "pseudoscience" in the MIT source. But as it is, no. I think there should be a sanction. Not a big T-banhammer, but something. Perhaps a quite short T-ban, or at least a logged warning? Bishonen | tålk 22:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• Added after Siddsg's replies above: Siddsg seems to specialize in involvement accusations, which I guess is why we are here (RexxS brought it because Siddsg charged him with involvement over a few uncontentious edits to the article). Now apparently Vanamonde is involved because of this exchange, which Siddsg calls a "dispute", and I'm involved because I nominated RexxS for adminship! So, I'm changing my mind, not so much over the involvement allegations, though they're battleground-y enough, as over the CIR/wikilawyering defence of their use of sources above, right here on this page. I agree with Johnuniq that the subject area doesn't need those aggressive and misguided debating tactics. I support an indefinite topic ban from pseudoscience, with a ban appeal no sooner than in six months' time. Bishonen | tålk 08:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• I've only had time to look through this briefly, but at the very least, Siddsg's arguments above are bordering on exhibiting a CIR issue. The examples they give are of a clearly distinct sentence construction, and the source is patently referring to Ayurveda (I have no position on whether the use of it in this context constitutes due weight). Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record; in the diff Siddsg links above, I have questioned the reliability of a source they used, and have not taken a position on the underlying content; and I went there in the first place after checking on Siddsg's contributions during their last trip to AE, although I did not end up commenting on the report itself. I do not believe this makes me involved. If other uninvolved admins disagree, I'm happy to move my comment. As things stand, I support an indefinite pseudoscience topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, that topic ban needs to explicitly include Ayurveda and other alternative medicine practices that are currently considered pseudoscientific; and if there is a debate about their scientific nature, my understanding is that we have jurisdiction to implement a TBAN from discussions of whether any given practice is pseudoscientific. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A pseudoscience topic ban is needed. The RfC question is "should there be mention of the word pseudoscience (or pseudoscientific) in the opening sentence?" of Ayurveda. Siddsg's comment ('1st link does not describe Ayurveda, 2nd link does not refer Ayurveda as "pseudoscience"') is indefensible. The first link very plainly describes several sets of ideas, including Ayurveda, as pseudoscience and an unwillingess to agree with that is either a WP:CIR problem or battle-ground behavior in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Debating tactics about the meaning of describe enforces those points, particularly since whether or not the source offered a description is irrelevant. A wikilawyer can claim that the second link does not directly state that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, but wikilawyers should not be active in a DS topic (hint: the source did not intend "might as well be studying the tooth fairy" as praise). A guiding principle is WP:PARITY because academics will not write scholarly articles on whether a "tooth fairy" topic should be described as pseudoscience. Compare Siddsg's comment stridently objecting to an RfC oppose with their earlier support where no reasons for a support were provided (diff) other than a cover-all "below". Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on the tendentious conduct in this very report, I also recommend an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBPS, to be appealed in no less than six months. El_C 13:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would go with an indefinite topic ban that can be appealed in 6 months --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A topic ban appears to be the consensus. Implementing. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist#Remedies (DrL):

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

1. 2020-07-16 Aggressive demand for separate article on CTMU
2. 2020-07-16 More of same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

From remedies:

1. Asmodeus is indefinitely banned from editing Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism. He may make suggestions on talk pages if he is not disruptive.
2. All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

DrL is the wife of Christopher Langan, inventor and sole proponent of the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe", a fringe theory. DrL is a single-purpose account who has no significant history on Wikipedia other htan promoting Christopher Langan.

DrL was blocked indefinitely on 2020-03-03 due to personal attacks and unblocked on 2020-07-01 on the understanding that these would not resume.

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a redirect following an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, which was heavily canvassed. Offsite canvassing continues, according to the evidence of thee Talk page, with vociferous support for restoring a standalone article from DrL and some other WP:SPAs. The redirect target is a short section of just over 100 words. The sources are either by or about Langan, not CTMU. There is one source which meets RS and has some discussion of CTMU on its own merits (there are also a few mere namechecks). Most sources proposed are unreliable.

DrL's most recent statements at Talk are:

• This solution is woefully inadequate. Not only does your redirect point to an insignificant mention of what has become an increasingly important theory, but the section is conflated with violations of WP:BPL - using remarks allegedly made by Langan on social media to denigrate him and the CTMU. This discussion is by no means over. The extensive mention by this Oxford publication (as cited by Langan above), in addition to other mentions in RS (both popular and academic) is more than enough to justify a separate entry for the CTMU. (emphasis added)
• There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique. Let's open this up to have a real discussion and wait for some less involved admins and editors to weigh in.

This assumption of bad faith and promise to continue demanding until she gets the answer she wants is disruptive, and violates the ban. Further, since mid 2007, DrL has done nothing here other than promote Chris Langan and attack those who do not accept CTMU. Indeed, for most of that time she has been inactive (https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/DrL).

I advocate a full topic ban form articles connected to Langan and CTMU, broadly construed. There is enough off-wiki coordinated nonsense with this topic already. Notably, Christopher Langan himself has been able to resist any such aggression. His argumentation is prolix, but calm and polite.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADrL&type=revision&diff=968162087&oldid=965447026

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.

I was very surprised to receive this notice. I'm merely weighing in on a talk page as I'm allowed to do (at least to the best of my understanding). When the CTMU article was deleted in 2006, there were several administrators who seemed very invested in getting it removed. When I stumbled upon this debate about the redirect and saw what I thought might have been one or two of those admins, I became concerned lest the topic of the article again be unfairly criticized as it was in 2006, when it was misclassified as "intelligent design creationism". But of course, you're right - I should assume good faith no matter how bad it might look. Your advice is appreciated. DrL (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see how we can do anything here with that case. I guess we could use NEWBLPBAN or the Pseudoscience DS, but they have not been notified. I suggest you bring this to ArbCom. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, I doubt they'd be interested: one COI user who's already banned from the article and under a non-disruption restriction at the talk page seems like the kind of thing we ought to be able to fix ourselves. Guy (help!) 18:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @JzG: I don't know what hook we have at this time --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The most recent block of User:DrL was an indef on 3 March by User:Bradv who is an arbitrator but I don't think he was invoking any Arbcom sanctions. He stated that his block of DrL was for personal attacks and outing. Per the thread at User talk:DrL#UTRS 31095, after a UTRS appeal, User:Johnuniq lifted the indef block. I think this was a 'community' unblock, not an Arbcom unblock, so to speak. So if there is new evidence since Johnuniq's unblock which suggests the unblock should be reversed, an administrator could reapply the conventional indef block. Neither an AE report nor a return visit to Arbcom seems to be required, in my opinion. Any administrator who is considering a new block should weigh DrL's behavior since 1 July and ask if they are living up to the promises in their last unblock request. Their only edits since 1 July are a series of posts at Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe. A typical comment:

Yes. There is obviously no comparison between the amount of material covering the CTMU in 2020 as compared to 2006; yet, in 2006 we were able to discuss the merits of the entry without being summarily shut down by a coordinated clique bent on minimizing the reality of the situation by redirecting to a defamatory section of Langan's bio.

I can see this might set off the personal-attack alarm ('coordinated clique', and so forth). But a longer discussion here before a reblock might be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I blocked DrL twice, both times for repeatedly outing other editors despite numerous warnings. Both blocks were regular administrator blocks, and the latter was lifted once DrL was able to assure the unblocking administrator that they wouldn't do it again.

Regarding the matter at hand, I don't see how this violates the 2006 restriction, but recent events might suggest that the current restriction isn't strong enough. – bradv🍁 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv, also: what the actual fuck is this? Guy (help!) 18:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the above from Guy: I realize it isn't recent, but I still revdeleted that copyvio. El_C 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This report does not appear to be actionable. Recommend WP:DR. Will close soon. accordingly El_C 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know the status of that text but have no objection to the removal, particularly since it was not an appropriate use of a talk page. However, for the record, it started with "I am studying the Tractatus and decided to leave a copy here ... It is in the public domain." If that last bit is correct, the post was not a copyvio. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus#External links links to several versions of the text, including Gutenberg with the claim "Public domain in the USA." Re the issue: I haven't yet examined the matter but agree that SPAs promoting fringe topics are very undesirable. There is an RfC which is susceptible to Wikipedia's open process. I see that User:Chris Langan had an impersonation block a couple of days ago with a notice that shows what has to happen for the block to be removed. There might need to be a community discussion on how to handle the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. Undeleted. El_C 23:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are fast! I just visited that talk page to remove an inappropriate question from an IP and was really confused by seeing that text after my ponderous earlier comment. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh, yeah, swift should be my middle name! El_C 00:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA :

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

1. 7 June - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS by incorrectly accusing established editors of being sock/meat of each other: "I see the finding was WP:DUCK. I started an RfC there to get views over the matter from uninvolved and neutral editors but I see it was also flooded with comments opposing it by the same involved editors who actually indulged in this edit dispute with me except one or two. Same like that case WP:DUCK#Usage WP:MEATPUPPET."
2. 9 June - "don't like it owing to their ultra-nationalist sentiments. Consensus is also not canvassing or meatpuppetry"
3. 2 July - Violates WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS again: "meat puppetry was done to influence the RfC in democratic style which is against Wikipedia policies. Anyhow RfC is not a binding thing, I seek other way of dispute resolution in this regard."
4. 2 June - Misrepresents sources by claiming that the subject "became the face of Kashmir independence movement and was widely compared with Bhagat Singh" and used the sources,[20][21][22] when none of them talks about any "independence" or a "movement".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 9 June 2020 for edit warring on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965, where he was just edit warring to enforce his own WP:OR as his one of the edit undoubtedly indicates.[23]

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

[24]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

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.

The whole point of conflict is the edit dispute on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 which the editor called original research. Why ain’t it be determined, I’ve presented sources [26], he's refuting them [27], why not someone decide on that and end this dispute once and for all. As to my conduct, I’m being dragged into all this. I didn’t mean it and is unintentional out of frustration since I’m not much experienced editor knowing just some necessary editing policies only.

• The 1st and 3rd point where I alleged them to be meatpuppets, if you see the full comment [28], I said canvassing in either way meatpuppetry. My point on both the instances was not specifically directed but in general sense as I observed them all editing on pages concerning India Pakistan Military history pushing Indian POV. The same I saw on Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 page that they came one after one reverting my edit [29] most lately User:Trojanishere and when I started RfC [30], they came one after one commenting against it even being involved previously in the dispute and then pushing it as consensus to not include that. This was the point for which I alleged them for canvassing and meatpuppetry in some way. I don’t think it is that much personal attack since editors here even open investigations against other editors for sockpuppetry where they don’t come out to be a sock.
• As to the 2nd point it’s subsequent to the 1st and 3rd points which I answered above that one after one they were appearing and reverting my edit while discussion was ongoing and trying to push the consensus formed by their own votes, so I said that generally in edit summary.
• The 4th point is just the choice of words, the sources are mentioning it as Kashmir unrest, Kashmir militancy, Kashmir agitation, Kashmir problem which is part of Kashmir conflict to which the Kashmir independence movement is a redirect [31]. It’s the choice of a neutral words since it’s obvious that Indian media will mention it as militancy as per their government narrative while for Kashmiris and Pakistanis it is freedom struggle, any other neutral word if there can also be used but Burhan Wani definitely took up arms for Kashmir independence movement as per the article.

I was blocked for this edit dispute over edit warring for reason that they were stonewalling my edits, my changes were being reverted one after one by four of the editors involved in edit dispute and I was reverting their reverts, so the editor went on to get me blocked even though the edit reversion was started by them and I reverted them as many times they reverted me or even less but I came into admin’s radar somehow and got blocked. Now the said editor came here with some loopholes in my conduct but in all this edit dispute why only my conduct is being scrutinized, why not theirs, WP:Stonewalling, WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:CANVAS, and may be WP:MEATPUPPET as well. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) Requesting administrator to allow this update, it may exceeds word limit of statement. (Continues from 1st and 2nd points of my statement...) User:Aman.kumar.goel himself falsely accused other editors of sockpuppetry at many instances. [32] [33] [34] [35] while a filing is also there against him where clerk endorsed him for sockpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry.[36] So he should also be tried for WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS for falsely accusing other editors of sockpuppetry and also for WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:DUCK#Usage, WP:CANVAS as well as WP:EDITWAR, WP:DISRUPT, WP:Stonewalling. USaamo ^(t@lk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update Since the case has been unarchived and admin Guerillero is accusing me of edit warring which is not true. That RfC was closed by Legobot on 10 June [37] to which the said admin just recently concluded. The RfC was about adding Pakistan's edge and victory as per sources [38] which I alleged was canvassed and meat puppetry was done to stonewall proposed changes. After my edit yesterday[39] on the basis of new and verified sources provided in a new discussion on talk[40] which was added to article following a discussion to which no further reply came from them for a week. It was reverted by User:Kautilya3 for RfC being not ended.[41] While just after that the said admin came in to conclude the RfC that the whole material be not added which is strange. It's oky to not add victory till dispute is settled but how come verified sources be stopped from adding to the article... I see the element of biasness here from him and seems to me motivated moves. Moreover an indefinitely blocked sock' s comment is still there in that RfC while it's closed and now concluded as well. [42] So I request admins here before passing any judgement do look into that edit dispute and also scrutinize the conduct of persons involved. USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem with it getting unarchived, rather I was surprised over it getting archived without result. As to that RfC, it is canvassed and there are comments by meatpuppetry and sockery, the one of User:Trojanishere is example which is still there and one comment has been previously removed as well for sockery. The manner of comments done there is also doubtful. Moreover your conclusion of RfC is ambigous, you have written it as that the whole material be not added which seems like that those sources should also not be added along with edge and victory while the question in RfC was only about adding edge and victory, other than that verified independent sources cannot be stopped from inclusion when the article has accounts from primary sources even. USaamo ^(t@lk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't claim it without evidence, a comment in this RfC previously has been removed for a sock and the other of Trojanishere who is banned for sockery is still there. Moreover four of the editors who commented in this RfC were party to this dispute and I'm afraid that they too are counted as votes, as per it I should also have a comment in there as I saw a similar situation on another RfC recently. Also the last two comments in that RfC were done one after one in hours time. So such a flawed RfC can't be taken into account. The comments were asked from neutral and uninvolved editors(neither Indians nor Pakistanis) after failing consensus in previous discussion but the same involved editors came there to comment as well. The only such comment was of User:Cthomas3 who voted for no in lead but yes to include in body below. And as to WP:VNOTSUFF you're refferring for your close, it's strange that sourced information can be stopped from inclusion because most of editors don't want it to be included, it's against the very essence of an encyclopedia. Tomorrow I come up with a dozen of editors to vote for removing some information from an article even though it is sourced, so will that be removed because it was consensus, I believe no. As per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY voting is not a mode of decisions making and I'm not sure whether RfC too is a binding thing and that too a flawed one. The said article has accounts from primary Indian military sources, this is surprising that independent, third party sources cannot be included to that article because most of Indian editors don't agree. And you're accusing me of WP:BATTLE, why don't the same parameters be used for other editors in this dispute who are stonewalling these changes because it's going against their country narrative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since AE ain't a place for content dispute, rather conduct which is knowingly or unknowingly because of this dispute may be going wrong, so I be allowed the pursuit to settle this dispute as I'm thinking of taking it to DRN and until then I will not change the result from infobox but I believe the RfC close of the above admin isn't just and independent sources cannot be stopped because of a consensus pushed through a flawed RfC. He needs to consider the points I raised about RfC and reconsider his close since the RfC was only about inclusion of edge and victory, there's nothing I think that stops inclusion of those sources in body without changing the result in lead. I agree to not change result in infobox until dispute gets settled but the sources merits inclusion in the body. Rest you people are admins, as you wish! USaamo ^(t@lk) 20:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Kautilya3 during the whole dispute was hell bent on calling the sources I presented rhetoric, impressionistic statements based on the cooked-up facts presented by Pakistanis themselves.[43] and hardly neutral, so called neutral, verifiable, bad mouth like words and also that I copied it from a fashion designer write up on Pakistani military mouth piece even though none of the source I presented there was from that article they referred as I mentioned them from original sources and none of them was Pakistani either.[44] So it was already on nationalistic lines by User:Kautilya3 and User:Aman.kumar.goel. In response to those sources he presented the above source which is the book of a retired Indian Air Force officer which obviously is Indian author and was ironic of him to quote since he's not ready to accept independent sources I presented about the article but citing an Indian author in response. He himself needs to have understanding of WP:RS first, the way he's pushing against other's sources.
• As to the comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's wrongfully alleging me and the other editor involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that.[45] I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side and tending to stonewall sourced content which has clear sources just on nationalistic lines since it might be coming against his country narrative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I made assurances to admins here in a comment above, on talkpage and here again regarding my behaviour as per his proposal that I'm gonna respect the process but I be allowed the pursuit to seek resolution of this edit dispute. His proposal on my talkpage then asked me further to refrain from editing the article and related article in discussion which was fine till this but he also required me to stop seeking consensus on talk page and dispute resolution as well which I believe is not fair. I have said this before that I've nothing much interest in these Indo-Pak war related articles, I just came across some facts and went on to improve the article as normal contributor and had no intention of any edit warring or POV pushing but the way it was stonewalled somehow frustrated me due to which I may have some unintended behavioural mistakes in the process. But I believe the other parties of the dispute should also have been scrutnized for their conduct the same way I am which I didn't see here. That's all I have to say lastly, rest as I said you people are admins, you can, so as you wish! USaamo ^(t@lk) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the editor pinged me while I gave this report a pass. Now that I am here, suffice to say that the editor's disruptive behaviour continues, with comments like, "You're presenting an Indian author's view for your claim against my third party sources and calling them hardly neutral, the same way bharat-rakshak.com an Indian military site can be a source for article but the credible third party sources can't be.., irony died a hundred times here." The "Indian author" in question is this one:

• Kainikara, Sanu (2018), "Indian Air Power", in John Andreas Olsen (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Air Power, Taylor & Francis, pp. 327–, ISBN 978-1-351-80273-4

Clearly, the editor refuses to obtain any understanding of WP:RS and is only prepared to argue on nationalistic lines.

The editor also showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Erik-the-red, my apologies if it appeared as if I suggested he had done something here. But, a lot of behind-the-scenes canvassing happens in this space of which the regular editors are aware. There is nothing in USaamo's contributions history to suggest that he is even remotely interested in the subject covered in the RfC. His appearance there is entirely inexplicable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reply to this because I opened the RfC in question. On the allegation of WP:VOTESTACK, the definition is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. However, Kautilya3 provided no evidence that USaamo was notified about the RfC, and therefore I do not see how Kautilya3's allegation of WP:VOTESTACK has any merit.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that Kautilya3 responded to the supposedly "entirely superficial" comment on the talk page without any accusation or allegation of WP:VOTESTACK. That Kautilya3 disagrees with USaamo's response doesn't make the response "entirely superficial" and certainly, a simple disagreement does not warrant an unfounded accusation of WP:VOTESTACK. Erik-the-red (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about Diffs [1] to [3].

But I think the complaint about Diff [4] above is unjust. USaamo's edit was not perfect, but sources Source [2] and Source [3] supported it. Source [1] may originally have had content that I cannot access.

[Diff 4]: 2 June - Misrepresents sources by claiming that the subject "became the face of Kashmir independence movement and was widely compared with Bhagat Singh" and used the sources,[1][2][3] when none of them talks about any "independence" or a "movement".

• Source [1] Has some large white spaces. These are also present in a web archive version. The text suggests that there may originally have been images that are blocked or are no longer available and have been replaced by white spaces. I do not think it is possible to make judgements about what this source supported.
• Source [2] calls Wani the "poster boy of Kashmir militancy" and "the face of local militancy", these statements mean the same thing as "the face of Kashmir independence movement"
• Source [2] says that some in the Pakistani media compared Wani to Bhagat Singh
• Source [3] supports the statement that Wani was compared with Bhagat Singh by Muzaffar Wani (Wani's father). By publishing the article with its headline, Dawn (newspaper) is also making the comparison.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Seems actionable. Yes, USaamo needs to take it down a notch. They cannot be interacting with other editors in this manner. That is not conducive to a collegial, collaborative volunteer project. At the very least, there will be a logged warning. And otherwise, sanctions are on the table pending further investigation. El_C 08:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess this report slipped through the cracks. It deserves being closed properly. El_C 15:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The rather minimal sanction advanced by Ed works for me. El_C 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur with El C. The comments above are needlessly incendiary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The edit warring has continued. I close the disputed RfC on the talk page, but I don't think that it is going to solve the problem. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @USaamo: Histrionics are unhelpful. I have no position in this dispute. I was alerted that this AE thread was archived before being closed. When I was reviewing the article and talk page I came across the RfC and closed it. (Legobot does not close RfCs, uninvolved editors do.) The close was fairly simple; the RfC was near unanimous. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @USaamo: Per WP:VNOTSUFF "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." An RfC to not include some information that is verifiable or to not include information in Wikipedia's voice is valid.

  The consensus of the RfC was not to include content about "Pakistan's edge and victory in the aerial warfare." The consensus was clear after I discounted the input from Trojanishere. I stand by my close.

  The more you claim that people who disagree with you are meatpuppets or canvased without evidence, the more apparent it becomes that you need to be topic banned. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with El C in about the sanctions that Ed proposed below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For reference, here is the AN3 case, closed by me on 9 June with a 48 hour block of USaamo. The page in dispute was Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965. USaamo is very determined that Pakistan should be recorded in the infobox as the winner of this air war. This is the first of two reverts that USaamo made in the month of July since the AN3 was closed. He changed the result of the war in the infobox from 'stalemate' to 'Pakistani victory'. It looks to me that he isn't going to put down the stick. I recommend that he be topic banned from the domain of WP:ARBIPA for three months. Perhaps during this AE he will make some other assurance about his future behavior that could make us confident that warring in this area won't continue. If he is willing to do that, the AE might be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this further on User:USaamo's talk page but without a satisfactory result. So I will be going ahead with the topic ban within 24 hours unless another admin disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion at ther user's talk page I am proceeding with an indefinite topic ban of USaamo from all wars between India and Pakistan. This ban includes any page anywhere in Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards. Evidently the ban covers Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 and its talk page, which is where the dispute originated. The ban can be appealed after six months of trouble-free editing in other areas. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

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

The following edits are all topic ban violations:

1. 5 July 2020: Various changes on It's okay to be white article, including a page move and a change from "The slogan was spread by Fox News host Tucker Carlson and white supremacists including neo-Nazis." to "The slogan has been spread by white supremacists including neo-Nazis. Fox News host Tucker Carlson defended the slogan, stating that 'being white [...] is not something you can control'."
2. 11 July 2020: Minor change in Chuck Norris § Political views
3. 11 July 2020: Addition of "Paul in 2007" image caption to Ron Paul article
4. 12 July 2020: Addition of "Bush in 2003" image caption to George W. Bush article
5. 13 July 2020: Addition of {{Citation needed}} tag to Donald Trump Jr. article
6. 13–14 July 2020 (#1, #2–4): Minor changes in Donald Trump Jr. article
7. 14 July 2020: Removal of "when she was twenty-five years old" and "who was forty years old. He was" from Phyllis Schlafly article
8. 14 July 2020: Minor change on Kellyanne Conway article
9. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Clinton in 1993" image caption to Bill Clinton article
10. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Bush c. 1989" image caption to George H. W. Bush article
11. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Ford in 1974" image caption to Gerald Ford article
12. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Johnson in 1964" image caption to Lyndon B. Johnson article
13. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Eisenhower in 1959" image caption to Dwight D. Eisenhower article
14. 14 July 2020: Addition of "Wallace in 1940" image caption to Henry A. Wallace article
15. 21 July 2020: Minor changes in Phil Davison article
16. 23 July 2020: Removal of Category:Conservatism in the United States and Category:American conservative websites from InfoWars article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 30 June 2020: Indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, issued as a result of the arbitration enforcement request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268 § Urgal
2. 1 June 2020: 2-week block extension for block evasion and sockpuppetry using Machr123 (talk · contribs) and SmooveMike (talk · contribs)
3. 31 May 2020: 72-hour block for edit warring on InfoWars article
4. 30 May 2020: 31-hour block for 1RR violation on Donald Trump article

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 30 June 2020 by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The inital topic ban notice was removed by Urgal on 30 June 2020 with the edit summary "Lol".

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/969233247

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.

It looks like the pre-ban edit war at InfoWars was to claim that it's a news site. Not just a fake news site, but a news site. Now, they weren't removing the "Fake news" label, but I must admit that whenever I see a new user questioning why we call InfoWars "fake news," I might give them a single warning shot before indefinitely blocking them under WP:CIR. Oh, wait, here they are arguing that the fake news was in the past and that they shouldn't be called a fake news site. Their actions in the above report show that they won't respect the their ban, and frankly the only reason I can imagine for not indeffing them are their prolific editing combined with their history of sockpuppetry: by letting them continue to edit in other topics, we're (hopefully) reducing the risk of producing an LTA case. I'm only saying I can see that reason, not saying I agree with it. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear pattern of flaunting the rules here, so Urgal is probably about to be indef blocked. This is probably worth looking into as well: [46] - MrX 🖋 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that I have filed an SPI: WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WhatsUpWorld. - MrX 🖋 13:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Newslinger's revert this morning on Infowars which referenced the topic ban, and started to do an investigation of their last few weeks of edits since being banned, but I see it's here already; thanks for doing the work, Newslinger. I only got as far back as a series of boundary-pushing edits to Clint Eastwood (e.g. this edit about Eastwood's political positions, though Urgal later self-reverted). My analysis was an indef partial block from InfoWars was in order, and was on my way to their talk page to begin the process when I saw the note there referring to this discussion. Given Newslinger's evidence of multiple ongoing violations and evidently no willingness to abide by the sanction, a sitewide block is clearly in order, the only question is for how long. Taking everything here into account and including the recent abuse of multiple accounts, I suggest the answer is indefinite. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• We cannot impose indefinite blocks as an AE action. We are limited to one year. I have blocked Urgal for that duration. Unless there are objections, I will close this report shortly. El_C 13:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Symphony Regalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 00:33, 26 July 2020 Removal of well-sourced descriptor from Men Going Their Own Way
2. 01:33, 26 July 2020 Revert #1 to above
3. 01:49, 26 July 2020 Revert #2 to above
4. 01:31, 26 July 2020‎ Talk page post to Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, where the editor tries to pass off a self-published book titled Men Going Their Own Way: The Red Pill Anti-Feminism Survival Guide as a reliable source to contradict the "misogynist" descriptor
5. 01:50, 26 July 2020 Again tries to describe the above book as a reliable source, also claims The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity and The Manipulated Man, two other shoddy sources, are somehow reliable and contradict the well-sourced claim.
6. 02:47, 26 July 2020 Removal of quotes around "female privilege" with the edit summary "not necessary"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• March 5, 2020: 31 hour block by QEDK for 3RR violation, trying to edit war "China virus" into Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Block notice; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive404#User:Symphony Regalia reported by User:Dekimasu (Result: Blocked 31 hours); Talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2/Archive 6#Repeated addition of "China Virus"
• May 1, 2020: 1 week block by User:EdJohnston for "Disruptive editing: Filing improper complaints at WP:AN3 and exhausting the patience of others": Block notice; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive407#User:CaradhrasAiguo reported by User:Symphony Regalia (Result: Filer blocked)

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 the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has provided three poor-quality sources to try to claim that reliable sources do not agree that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I didn't even know that members of MGTOW themselves disputed that MGTOW is a misogynist movement—after all, the core belief is that women are so terrible they must be avoided completely. They have yet to provide any quotes from these sources that actually refute the descriptor, and continue to maintain the sources are somehow usable without providing any evidence the authors are "field experts" as they claim. For clarity, the sources they have produced are:

• Men Going Their Own Way: The Red Pill Anti-Feminism Survival Guide self-published by Charles Rivers, a self-described "Relationship Communication Expert" with no actual credentials I could find, who doesn't appear to have been published by reliable sources (per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."). Book description includes, "I came to view feminism as little more than a new form of indentured servitude for men with the tacit approval of the governments in the countries where it had been allowed to fester and grow. That’s when I decided to no longer help women enslave men but to reveal all their secrets, which I had learned during my two decades of counseling."
• The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity by Carrie Gress. Published by a traditional Catholic publisher, TAN Books. Appears to be an extremely religious book that compares feminists to the anti-Christ. No indication that I can find that it mentions MGTOW at all, or contradicts it being misogynist.
• The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar. Published by a small publisher that seems to mostly publish about pregnancy topics: Pinter and Martin. Pull quote on the cover reads "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves." Same as Gress's book, I can see no indication this book mentions MGTOW at all. Given that it was published in 1971, and MGTOW emerged sometime in the early 2000s, I somewhat doubt it does.

A topic ban from the subject area strikes me as appropriate, as well as a reminder that not every "book" you can find on Amazon is a reliable source.

They have stopped replying to the talk page discussion (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic) and have moved on to POV-pushing elsewhere in the article: just now they've removed the quotes around "female privilege" in the sentence Finally, the ideology holds that the women will divorce their husbands, and that courts favor the women in divorce proceedings due to "female privilege"., which inaccurately implies that the sources are themselves describing the phenomenon as "female privilege" rather than the MGTOW men.

It appears based on their talk page that this user has also been troublesome in other topic areas, including pushing for COVID-19 to be called the "Chinese virus" or "Wuhan virus".

Note that SR's claim that they were "restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her" is referring to a week-old edit that was, by the editor's own admission, original research: to me the overarching aspects of MGTOW dosent seem misogynist though just like feminism certain sects can practice it. Therefor it dosent seem appropriate to me to label the whole movement as such. As for the accusation that this report is based in "ideological disagreements", I'm not sure if we disagree ideologically or not. But we certainly disagree over whether is MGTOW is misogynist, and only one of us seems to be basing our opinion in what the reliable sourcing has to say. Regarding "female privilege" being jargon, it is not a widely-recognized concept like male privilege—in fact, you'll see female privilege redirects to men's rights movement because it is really only that group that believes it to be an actual phenomenon. Removing the quotes or attribution is misleading and contrary to sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all SR has taken away from the concerns I have raised with the sourcing is that one of the publishers is Catholic, I'm not sure if this is a bad-faith editing problem or a competence problem. Either way, it's clear they can't edit productively here. I don't think the username discussion is particularly useful, the behavior speaks for itself anyway. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not including the previous sanctions in this report, I think I forgot to fill out that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

GorillaWarfare is directly involved and what you are witnessing is an attempt by her to weaponize sanctions against someone she holds ideological disagreements with. I haven't violated any sanctions, there is currently no ongoing conflict, and I've engaged on the talk page every step of the way. Her diff explanations are also misleading. Diff 1 was not a removal, it was me restoring the contribution of another editor who is also currently in disagreement with her. In the spirit of collaboration my edit summary also suggested using a qualifier, but this was of course left out of her account of the events. Diffs 4 and 5 are talk page edits. Diff 6 isn't related to any of the other diffs. The quotes in diff 6 were removed to remain consistent with the rest of the article, as the term is not jargon, and because they are completely redundant in a sentence that begins with the ideology holds. This arbitrary quotation usage is sometimes used by editors to push inappropriate POVs.

A quick look at the edit history for the article will directly demonstrate the clear WP:OWNBEHAVIOR that GorillaWarfare consistently engages in. This report appears to be backlash for violating that sense of ownership. You will also notice that she is the one who requested sources that were not self-published, so I gave her two published by reliable independent publications, and stopped editing the line. Now she is attempting to improperly weaponize sanctions against me because she apparently does not personally like that one publisher has Catholic affiliations, which I did not know, and of course should not matter anyhow. I have nothing more to say and will not be engaging with any of the ad hominems from her acquaintances, or her new attempt to modify the original report to "refute" this statement. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty open-and-shut. Symphony Regalia has been rolling deep in "I didn't hear that" territory and edit warring to delete sourced writing. A topic ban feels like the right path.--Jorm (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth their username comes from an obscure Japanese anime in which the main rebel faction is called nudist beach, for which Regalia is a member. It seems likely given their username and area of interest that they are here to push a POV and annoy everyone and not build the encyclopedia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC) @Ian.thomson:, I am content with your disagreement. With your crudity, and pedantry about anime, I suspect we would disagree about much. I see little difference between choosing a name after the character or after an article of clothing the character wears. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:, I don't see any value in continuing your derailing of this report. If you want to ignore the sexualization in Kill la Kill and the sexualization and questionable racial choices in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt due to some higher purpose that is your business. I don't think noting the junction between sexualized anime and sexism is out of line.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I locked the Men Going Their Own Way article, I wasn't gonna comment but @AlmostFrancis: your reasoning is... Honestly awful. Like, really, really bad. I'm saying this as someone who thinks GorillaWarfare has built a solid case that Symphony Regalia needs to be topic banned from gender-related disputes (and opened the door for a case regarding politics) and as someone who has not watched Kill la Kill. The show is not obscure (it was on Adult Swim and so pretty popular with the western anime fandom and there's still plenty of merch floating around here in Japan), and there are fans of the series on every part of the political spectrum (whether they get that the series's creators intended it to be anti-fascist or ignore that to interpret it as libertarian individualism, whether they think the message is troubled by the sexualization of its female character or that Hiroyuki Imaishi is satirizing fan service as he did in Panty & Stocking with Garterbelt, or whether they just pretend that media couldn't possibly have deeper meanings). And Symphony Regalia isn't even a character, it's an article of clothing worn by a character. And I really hate myself for being this pedantic about an anime I've never even watched right now but my God, your argument is so bad that it risks derailing the case against Symphony Regalia (possibly with the help of childless single men who masturbate to anime) with a red herring of "why does Wikipedia hate anime fans?" Your argument is ignorant and unhelpful, please strike it and do not make similar ones in the future. (The links are not meant to imply that anyone currently present is a member of the alt-right but there's no informed and good-faith argument that an alt-right editor would not want to take a particular side on this case). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlmostFrancis: Your argument boils down to "they like anime and so must be WP:NOTHERE," which is not an attitude compatible with WP:AGF. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlmostFrancis: Again, your argument boils down to "they like anime and so must be WP:NOTHERE," which goes against WP:AGF. Stop grabbing into tangents and ignoring the main point. Your ignorant and highly dubious initial argument that liking anime means someone is here in bad faith is what derailed the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think we ought to stop the digression into discussing anime; that is...unhelpful, to put it mildly. Many editors have chosen user names based on fictional characters (my own is based on a mythological one), and that is not cause for sanction. It is the edits that are cause for concern, and I agree that the edit warring and apparent inability to discern the reliability of sourcing is a substantial cause for such concern. Given that the editor apparently sees no problem with their edits, I think they may need to be restricted from this topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I'd rather not see anime or usernames discussed further. Looking at their edits and behavior, I think a topic ban is called for. Doug Weller talk 13:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend topic ban, probably of an indefinite duration, with an appeal in no less than six months. El_C 13:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur that a topic ban is necessary here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a topic ban. User:Symphony Regalia was previously blocked one week on 1 May per the AN3 noticeboard. This was their second block since March. In the closure I stated:

User:Symphony Regalia is blocked one week for abuse of process and wasting others' time. He has been blocked previously for edit warring. On 7 March he filed an unjustified 3RR complaint against another editor and was warned.

As another editor said in response to Symphony Regalia's AN3 complaint, "this is nonsense". As an alternative to a topic ban, an indefinite block might considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that a topic ban is warranted here --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Erik-the-red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

ARBIPA :

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

WP:3RR

1. 19:47, 7 July 2020 1
2. 15:40, 8 July 2020 +3=4 reverts of the same article in less than 24 hours after being warned on 20:01, 7 July 2020.

WP:BULLY

1. In an AE report, Kautilya3 accused the reported user of WP:VOTESTACK without evidence, which is WP:BULLY#False accusations.
2. In a follow-up to the same AE report, Kautilya3 again provided no evidence of WP:VOTESTACK and instead claimed that a lot of behind-the-scenes canvassing happens in this space of which the regular editors are aware, which is WP:ASPERSIONS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 11:57, 29 July 2016 "Placed on a 'casting aspersions' restriction...to all articles in the India-Pakistan area, broadly construed."

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

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe the WP:BULLY diffs above best demonstrates the problems with engaging in WP:DR (such as RfC) with Kautilya3, and why I am requesting WP:ACDS. At 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. Subsequently,

• At 12:52, 20 July 2020, USaamo provided a survey response to the RfC.

• At 17:48, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 commented on an AE report filed against USaamo and alleged that USaamo

  showed up at an RfC on Dhola Post with an entirely superficial comment, which can't count as anything but WP:Vote stacking.

• However, Kautilya3 provided no evidence to substantiate the allegation of WP:VOTESTACK, and a few hours earlier at 13:32, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 even responded to USaamo's comment at the RfC by politely asking for clarification.

• At 20:08, 20 July 2020, Kautilya3 clarified that they were not suggesting that I had done something, but they continued to speculate that behind-the-scenes canvassing had taken place and maintained that USaamo's appearance there is entirely inexplicable.

How can RfC work with an editor who doesn't accept other survey responses as valid?

@Bishonen:

Is this report your idea of dispute resolution, User:Erik-the-red?

No, as I wrote in this report, my idea of dispute resolution was to open an RfC at 18:17, 13 July 2020 following the suggestion from a closed AE report which Kautilya3 filed against me. I filed this AE report when I saw that Kautilya3 was attempting to invalidate another editor's RfC survey response based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing". Erik-the-red (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: @Kautilya3: Apparently my "+3" reference in the report was not clear. I am referring to Kautilya3's own description of their reverts at 15:40, 8 July 2020: (Reverted 3 edits by Erik-the-red (talk): Unsourced WP:OR and WP:POV edits, no WP:CONSENSUS for them (TW))

As for the "quite a related" ANI, did we read the same ANI? An admin remarked that it really looks like you are preventing article improvement for the sake of process (or because you just don't like it, or you just don't like Mark) without argument. I appreciate your edits on India articles but this is looks like the warnings from Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling. Incidentally, I share the filing editor's opinion that it's fascinating trying to discuss WP:ARBIPA topics with a sanctioned editor who dismisses a British historian as "racist" and then relies upon the same British historian at an RfC. Erik-the-red (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diff @SerChevalerie: As I stated in this report, I followed the admins' suggestion and at 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC.

I only filed this AE report when I saw that Kautilya3 was attempting to invalidate another editor's RfC survey response based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing". Or to put it more directly, my concern is that dispute resolution doesn't work when an editor tries to invalidate RfC survey responses. Erik-the-red (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC) Erik-the-red (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero:

without any DR taking place

As I said in the report, at 18:17, 13 July 2020, I opened an RfC. As I understand it, an RfC is a type of DR.

If the RfC ends up with a majority of votes against what I voted for, while I would obviously personally disagree, I must accept it. However, if Kautilya3 is attempting to get certain votes invalidated based on allegations (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK and "behind-the-scenes canvassing", then I don't see how the RfC DR can work.

That's why I filed this report: I opened an RfC; I gave my RfC response; Kautilya3 gave their RfC response; and then 6 days later when a third user gave their RfC response, Kautilya3 accused the third user (without evidence) of WP:VOTESTACK. Erik-the-red (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: So apparently all of you are going to keep ignoring that I opened an RfC, keep ignoring that Kautilya3 made a false accusation with no evidence of WP:VOTESTACK, and keep lying that I did not make any attempt to follow the WP:DR process. This experience has taught me that the problem with Wikipedia is not that "anyone can edit," as may be commonly believed. The problem is that admins like you three play favo(u)rites and don't enforce the rules even handedly.

Oh well, enjoy your ARBIPA articles dominated by a person who thinks that "the McMahon Line" and "McMahon's line" don't mean the same thing because of an apostrophe and capitalization. Apparently your only response to tendentious editing like that is "hurr go to durr." Erik-the-red (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff Erik-the-red (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thanks to Number 57 for checking the reverts made. I actually count two reverts in 24 hours, not even three.

As for the allegation of "BULLY", obviously evidence is presented to admins when a case is made against an editor. Whether those allegations make sense or not is for the admins to assess. I find it hard to see how this can count as "BULLY".

As to "how can the RfC work?", the answer is that an independent closer assesses the input provided by various users.

Meanwhile, I would like the admins to consider if this editor is being given too much WP:ROPE. I brought a genuine 3RR violation report, for which no sanction was applied. In response to this substantive ARE report, the user was let off with a light sanction. Is this emboldening the user (and perhaps others) to try more extreme measures to take out the "opposition"? Notice also this very long ANI report on quite a related topic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This ARE looks like an extension of the content dispute that the editors are having. The diffs provided prove the same. K3 has been invaluable in India-related articles; I hardly think sanctions are necessary. As has been previously pointed out by the admins, a dispute resolution would be ideal before entertaining stricter requests such as this ARE. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to User:Kautilya3's allegation against my comment which he stated in his statement in my case above, I'm posting it here again to clarify my position.

"As to my comment on Dhola Post RfC, he's(Kautilya3) wrongfully alleged me and the other editor(Erik-the-red) involved. I commented in that RfC with having a background over McMahon Line since the history of India Pakistan before of 1947 was common history under British India and the said discussion is of a 1914 event which is taught to us in history. I came across this discussion while looking through different RfCs and here I commented on another I found during that[47] and I came across this as well and as I have read the case involving User:Erik-the-red below(my case) so having a background on it I went on to comment in that RfC. And my comment there is backed by sources and is not merely a comment. He is just showing up the same attitude he is showing on other side (In edit dispute with me) and tending to stonewall sourced content."

An admin here didn't understood my comment in that RfC at all interestingly. Perhaps I have a very bad grip on language's syntax. I tried clarifying it for him as well in this respnose I added there. [48] Hope it clears my stance. Also I wanted to know whether a user can be questioned for his response to RfC like that or not? USaamo ^(t@lk) 22:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just popped in after seeing the RfC going on for Talk:Ayurveda, where I noticed that one of the users in that discussion, User:Siddsg has been both blocked and indefinitely topic banned on the topic of pseudoscience. I scrolled up and happened to notice that User:Kautilya3 was the subject of arbitration enforcement. This very much surprised me, because I had come to know Kautilya3 while being involved with the Indigenous Aryans RfC. I remember Kautilya3 being a level-headed voice of reason during these typically emotion-ridden debates.

Looking the differences in Dhola Post, it seems to me that Kautilya3 made the right decision to revert; it seems like a case of POV pushing to me. One might as well change the map on the Arunachal Pradesh article to be a map of China and say that it's southern portion is claimed by India. These kinds of major changes require a consensus to be achieved first, which User:Erik-the-red did not achieve.

I would like to point out the language in one of Erik-the-red's edit summaries: "Believe it or not, it is possible for someone other than you to write in a way that abides by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR." That sounds pretty passive-aggressive to me; not something one would expect out of a collaborative project. Also, Erik-the-red accuses Khautilya3 of "blatant hypocrisy" in the Dhola Post content dispute.

Finally, I would hope that there is more discussion on Talk:Dhola Post from disinterested parties. BirdValiant (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment As a starting point, it doesn't look like Kautilya3 broke 3RR on this article. Their reverts were 10:47, 7 July 2020, 20:47, 7 July 2020‎, 16:40, 8 July 2020‎ and 12:23, 9 July 2020‎. Only three are within 24 hours of each other. Number 57 20:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This report, with its scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel diffs supposedly illustrating WP:BULLY and WP:ASPERSIONS, looks like a not very successful "duel" with another report still on this page, above.[49] Most of the admins commenting in that earlier report recommended dispute resolution. Is this report your idea of dispute resolution, User:Erik-the-red? The diffs against Kautilya that you present may not show him at his most polite, but they are both minor problems, if problems at all, and I'm certainly not prepared to invoke discretionary sanctions against them. If anything, I'd suggest a boomerang.

As for Usaamoo's post here, which Kautilya characterised as "vote-stacking", my problem isn't so much that it's superficial, as that I can't understand it. Can somebody explain what "Yes, most of the sources presented asserts on a map along with exchange of notes in 1914 Simla Conference" means? Perhaps I'd get it if I read the whole talkpage it appears on, but life is short. Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• The return to AE after being asked to solve this via dispute resolution, without any DR taking place, makes me thing that topic ban or two may be in order --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with your suggestion, RegentsPark. While, RtR claims to have retired, I would rather this be around for their return --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Bishonen and Guerillero that some sort of topic ban is necessary. We have to discourage this tendency to drag Kautilya3 to AE or ANI in lieu of following the DR process. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Erik-the-red:, AE doesn't handle content disputes so your bringing up apostrophes is not helpful (I'll ignore your hurr durr slur(r) for the moment). The more useful question is "why are you here"? In your initial statement, you bring up a vote stacking accusation that Kautilya apologized for before you brought this complaint. So, all we're left with is apparently that you take umbrage at Kautilya's statement about "behind the scenes canvassing". Not only is that a general enough statement that I don't see as rising to the level of requiring enforcement, it is also something that we, sadly, see all to often in heavily disputed areas on Wikipedia. So, all we're left with is that you were advised to resort to DR, did open an RfC, but, convinced as you are about the "rightness" of your position, would rather just see your content opposition removed from the scene and therefore have opened this, rather meagre, complaint. That, unfortunately, is not a tenable way to edit on Wikipedia. I'm proposing now that you be banned from any pages that relate to India's borders, broadly construed. Will wait a bit for comments from other admins (too much? too little?) before implementing the ban. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rab V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. [50] 3RR violations on the trans woman article
2. [51] more 3RR violations
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]
8. [57]
9. [58] WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM derogatory references to trans women in the talk page
10. [59] more WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTFORUM violations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [60] Temporary ban for 3RR violation where admin suggested also seeking topic ban.

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 [61].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[62]

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.

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

• There is a procedural problem with this request. All the diffs are from before the editor was blocked for the edits aforementioned. I am a bit wary of sanctioning someone twice. Unless there are new violations, I would not go beyond a warning at this time. El_C 14:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would close this with no action per El C --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Talk page notice of the topic ban, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive236#GizzyCatBella ARBENF topic ban :

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

1. 2020-07-05T04:23:09 Soviet civilians included the half of Poland annexed in 1939. The article specifically refers to Kortelisy.
2. 2020-07-19T14:42:12 Second World War in Poland in this and previous paragraph.
3. 2020-07-19T14:55:30 The article topic encompasses WW2 in Poland, as that's when and where a large portion of this Genocide happened. (Search for Poland in the article.) Also see previous diff.
4. 2020-07-29T08:41:43 "Poor" is mainly WWII in Poland, described in the previous paragraph.
5. 2020-07-29T22:31:06 The Slovak uprising was connected to the Russian attack on the Germans from Poland, and as planned should have enabled a direct terrestrial connection between Slovak forces and the Ally forces in Poland: see the Battle of the Dukla Pass, a battle on the border between Poland and Slovakia; the Soviet Air Force and the liberated Slovak air force flew from/to Poland; and 1944 Slovakia included parts of Poland.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2018-04-26T14:44:53 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision with edits on the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article.
2. 2019-05-18T09:50:45 Blocked for violating an arbitration decision and for violating their topic ban.
3. 2020-06-26T23:21:16 Blocked for both again.

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

• Not applicable, I think.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The previous enforcement request: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella.

I'd like to note that AFAIK GizzyCatBella has also been been warned on their talk page many times for violations without a sanction happening, including in April 2020 by El C. The many discussions on GizzyCatBella in the Arbitration Enforcement Archives are also relevant.

I fail to see what the proposed sanctions against me or François Robere are supposed to accomplish except making GizzyCatBella's ban effectively void. That's not the motivation, right? Notrium (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: that was not my point. If you sanction anybody who audits somebody's (GCB's in this case) behavior, then any other potential "auditors" will not dare to do something similar again. Thus their TBAN would be effectively void. Notrium (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: what is the rationale for giving me an IBAN? Surely it is not standard practice to sanction someone after their first non-actionable Enforcement request?

In case it's not clear, it seems to me that you are trying to punish me simply for starting this legitimate enforcement process. Have I done anything that should be a cause of concern? Notrium (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to respond to the proposals of sanctioning me for raising this case: my behavior is and wasn't of a "battleground" nature, this AE case was not "malicious" or "weaponized" - it was done in good faith; I absolutely thought that GizzyCatBella was violating her TBAN with her edits. However I would like to note that, although it obviously flared up a bit now, the conflict between me and GizzyCatBella, as even Piotrus basically says, is quite small, from both sides, and I thus have an optimistic perspective on our future ability to functionally collaborate without an IBAN. I apologize for making the admins expend their time on what turned out to be non-actionable, and for my overly curt misinterpretable comment above ("fail to see what the proposed sanctions"), I assure you that neither was my intention.

I hope that you can while deliberating also note that this is only my second AE case and that I am in general inexperienced in the Wikipedia ways. Notrium (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should probably say this explicitly: because the problem that led you to consider an IBAN is related to just this AE case I raised, it would be unfair and unnecessary to sanction a general IBAN that would prevent us from editing in the same topics. Notrium (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small note: A procedural error seems to have happened regarding GizzyCatBella's TBAN: it is not listed on WP:RESTRICT. I am mentioning this because the admins here are presumably best placed to take any needed action if necessary. Notrium (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Piotrus' comment, I want to say that it seems inconsistent with his recent previous position, as he emailed me a seemingly supportive message after my first AE; but now he turns 180°, even accusing me of "Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia" and proposing sanctioning me. Notrium (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry for emailing you, Seraphimblade. Some questions for the admins, then: do you want me to elaborate on the background to this AE case? I wasn't asked anything explicitly, but some admins are suspicious of something, so I think maybe I should tell more. Notrium (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2020-07-31T03:04:54

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.

Unbelievable battleground attitude! I can't believe it!! This is a continuation of this! [63] And this report [64] already reported by Notrium earlier following my prior disagreement with that user. There is no word "Poland" or any subject related to Poland from my edits presented above. They just can't stop until they get their way. See this discussion too [65] on RexxS talk page. I'm carefully avoiding any word POLAND in WW2. Article about Roma people?! Because of what?! Because some Roma communities lived in Poland during WW2 and Poland is mentioned somewhere else in the article!? What an ill-disposed report! This is absurd. I even state it clearly in the edits summary when I'm correcting ANYTHING where there was a mention of Poland somewhere else in the article, like here [[66]] when I was repairing Slovakia section. Notrium please get it over with and move on. I have nothing to do with your latest block [67] Just move on. I can't take it anymore. Dear administrators, PLEASE. Please, remove or alter my topic ban, so this kind of malicious reports don't happen anymore. I understand what I have done that resulted in my topic ban OVER two years ago already. [68] I know that I have to be careful with references, and I'm already. VERY CAREFUL. The topic ban doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever anymore, causes me significant distress and only attracts battleground oriented editors. They file insanely bad faithed reports and use it as a weapon to get back at me for God to know what. GizzyCatBella🍁 05:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrium OMG. Pushing for diff [69], which is very clearly related to pre-war Germany (the Romani situation in Nazi Germany) and trying to pass them off as topic ban violations when they're not, just further shows how bad-faithed this report is.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

or this one about Roma community they presented [70] it’s about communist governments policies against Roma community way after the war. I can’t believe they have the nerve to continue claiming a TP violation.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Also, please note because this is VERY interesting. All the diffs the user Notrium presented above are related to the Roma community, Germany, Soviet Union and Slovakia. User Notrium, however, advocates for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - widen the scope of the topic ban to encompass, e.g., Eastern Europe in the 20th century and Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former. WHY Jewish History? There is nothing about Jewish history in the above diffs. I wonder if this report has anything to do with a now permanently banned user Icewhiz [71] because of whos complain the sanctions were imposed in the first place.[72], who charged against me on later occasions [73] [74]. His sockpuppets were involved in a recent slander campaign against me and other editors (TonyBallioni is aware of that) Tony could you please take a look at it when you get a chance? Can user Notrium please explain the "Jewish history" thing? GizzyCatBella🍁 11:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrium please reply to the question above, thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I'm just noting that Notrium failed to answer the question of why they advocated for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - ..Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.

They now removed that text from his original filing [75] with an edit summary make room. Also, it's correct that I hardly interacted with Notrium and that they filed only two AE reports, both against me in short intervals. Frist on June 26th [76] (in the first one Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic) and this one on July 31st [77] Please note that both include mention of Jewish history but Notrium never edited the same topic area as I did and my disagreement with them was never about the Jewish history.[78] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @RexxS and El_C

User François Robere who was a close friend of Icewhiz ,supposed to stay away from me following this discussion [79] but arrived here to comment. He also breached the interaction promise earlier here [80] and here [81] and here restoring my edit [82]. He pushed for sanctions together with Notrium here [83] on RexxS' talk page also. François Robere do you have anything to do with producing this report?GizzyCatBella🍁 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You see guys; I'm not the kind of person looking for fights, I simply want to edit in peace. For example, François Robere commented directly to me this discussion [84] despite the earlier pledge of staying away. [85] I reminded him about the "stay away promise" [86], but all I have heard in return is a suggestion about me being paranoid. So I left the discussion and moved on. I could have reported him to RexxS but I believed that FR would eventually stop. But these constant attempts by FR to get me sanctions are causing me too much stress and takes away the enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. I'll welcome anything that will prevent this mad block shopping. Lifting the Topic Ban would be ideal, again I understand my previous mistake from 2 years ago, I'll not repeat it, I promise. But if you still think this long-standing Topic Ban is necessary, then please do something else that will shelter me from situations like this one. I'm really stressed out.GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FR, you are presenting some old diffs claiming that I'm "hounding and following you around." We may have naturally ended up in the same article but before the April 4th agreement. [87] After that, you presented one diff [88] claiming that my edit [89] was an interaction with your edit. False, I just changed 500 to 600 and inserted the reference and then added another reference with a little text here [90] Didn't touch your revision what so ever. I would not dare to do that. Then I joined related discussion but never responded to you [91] I would not dare to do that. You said you have 15 diffs proving me braking my promise to stay away from you. You showed faulty two. Please present 13 more you claim you have, but the real ones were I directly started interacting with you, reverted you or commented on you. They don't exist.

Meantime on May 28, YOU joined this discussion and on May 29 directly challenged me [92] by saying GizzyBella: The IP hasn't been blocked, so your striking of their comment may be a violation of your T-ban then you said Stop being paranoid, Bella - it's a public forum, you're hardly the only one who comments here. Instead of charging, try to WP and imagine how this looks. Cheers. Then on June 3, I made this edit [93], and on June 16, you challenged my edit making an edit to the same substance [94]. Then on July 18 you changed my edit from traditional to conservative here [95] with the edit summary call it what it is Then on June 18, again, you restored this edit of mine [96] right here [97] with the edit summary Restoring some PiS mentions - state-sanctioned homophobia is noteworthy here I never challenged you and didn't complain to RexxS. I just moved on and stopped editing that article exactly because I did’t want to breach the interaction promise. Then you advocated for sanction against me on RexxS' talk page, and later today, you arrived here. I never did what you did; it is you who ignored the agreement. I don't care about what you do on Wikipedia, and I don't follow you. If I cared, I would complain about the breach of promise a long time ago, but I didn't, I just moved on to avoid unnecessary stress. This is how it is FR, not the way you are presenting. GizzyCatBella🍁 21:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• or here just the other day [98] I voted AGREE, you arrived next day to vote OPPOSE. I don’t think I would dare to vote seeing you there voting first, not sure but probably I would not..anyway, I’m really tired, this is my last comment, I have to rest now.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, François Robere, because I'm getting genuinely exhausted by all of this:

Let's get one fact straight here - Our agreement that is a consequence of YOU filing THIS [99] AE report against me on March 24th and states - I'll quote RexxS here - I don't know whether it's any help in reaching a decision, but I've spent time over the last few days talking to both GizzyCatBella and François Robere. As you can see ...each of them have given assurances that they will disengage and avoid each other going forward... [100] Then YOU, despite the pledge, arrived at the very same AE board yet AGAIN advocation for sanctions against me. IS THIS CORRECT François Robere? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Administrative Team - I'm not sure if this will help, but I gathered all AE cases filled upon me below. I observe striking similarities in the requests' structure and composition, but I might be biased at this point, so I will leave it for you to assess.

[101] - Icewhiz April 26th, 2018

[102] - Icewhiz May 9th, 2018

[103] - Icewhiz June 24th, 2018

[104] (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz February 26, 2019

[105] - (AE enforcement filed at admin. talk page) Icewhiz May 18, 2019

Icewhiz Banned

[106] François Robere block shopping on admin. talk page January 1, 2020

[107] - François Robere March 24th, 2020

François Robere pledged to disengage from GCB

Notrium first ever AE filing

[108] - Notrium June 26, 2020

Notrium second AE filing (current case)

[109] - Notrium July 31st, 2020 - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional note:

Sorry but, this matter gives me no rest and I can’t sleep. Here is the link to François Robere block for suggesting that I'm conducting ethnic prejudice and ethnically-motivated vandalism (anti-Semitism). [110] François Robere was also warned on other occasions for the same [111], [112],[113],[114] I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the fact why Notrium suggested that my edit is being racially motivated at diff #3 on their first-ever filing [115] quote - Deleted the only mention in Solzhenitsyn's article of Solzhenitsyn's sympathies for Hitler and Nazi Germany regarding WW2 (against the USSR). Note that Solzhenitsyn, too, is considered by some to be anti-Semitic. And on this filing Notrium was advocating for the expansion of sanctions to include - quote - ..Jewish history and individuals in the 20th century; in addition to writers, historians and other persons connected to the former.[116] Notrium never edited any of those articles before, I never interacted with them before, but once here [117] and on History of Poland article. They don't know me, and I don't know them. Why this ethnic argument out of the blue? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Here are just four clear examples from 2020 only were François Robere arrives at the article they never edited before and indicates in edit summary whom they are reverting. I am only showing this because they claimed that was me who follow them around:

[118] February 19, 2020

[119] March 25, 2020

[120] also March 25, 2020

[121] March 29, 2020

I didn't bring other instances were the revert is not clear and those from before 2020 but only articles they never edited before, with a clear editing summary who is reverted, so there are no arguments.GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• O yea, now I can see it, so the above, among other instances listed there, resulted in me asking François_Robere to stop following me - here: "hounding"_accusations #87 collapsed conversation March 29, 2020. François Robere answer was - quote - I'm not hounding you, I'm reviewing your edits... and quote - ...if that's "misleading", go sue the admins. I’m only reviewing edits? Go sue admins? What kind of disrespectful answer is this? Please read the entire conversation to draw your conclusions.- GizzyCatBella🍁 07:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Notrium - look, you're clearly inexperienced with the WP:AE board as per the conversation here [122] and your own admission in your priors statements. Maybe please consider coming forward and declare if you were guided to this board by some third party. I think honesty may only help. Thanks.GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• An idea for the administrative team members

@El_C, Seraphimblade, RexxS, Guerillero | Parlez Moi I have an idea, why instead of keeping me Topic Banned for another 4.5 months until appeal, conditionally lift the ban for 4.5 months instead and see if I run into problems in WW2 Poland related articles. In 4.5 months, I myself will arrive here with a request to review my conduct. I'll remember about it, so you don't have to. This procedure will prevent further abuse of this board and allow me additionally to prove further what I have learned from my 2-year-old ban in real-time. If the evaluation fails, the Topic Ban will be reinstated. (?) - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Something is fishy. Or at least doesn't look pretty. Do correct me if I am wrong, but Notrium has never edited Polish history articles much, nor interacted with GCB. In June they got into a minor disagreement at Talk:History_of_Poland#Human_activity_in_Poland_in_antiquity, then took care to investigate GCB's topic ban which concerns topics Notrium never edit themselves, presented well formatted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive268#GizzyCatBella last month (their first AE report ever) and now they are filing one again (this time really scraping the barrel, the presented evidence - fixing a few typos here and there - is really weak IMHO). It is interesting that Notrium has never edited the articles he reports GCB for; he is clearly not interested in this topic area and instead is just looking for any and all technicalities to 'stick it' to someone who dared to disagree with him. This seems to me to be awfully far from WP:AGF and in turn too close to WP:NOTHERE, and given that Icewhiz is still active behind the scenes (for example he is actively harassing me in real life, which led to his recent site/SanFran-level ban), I have to wonder if he isn't sending diffs/pre-formatted AE's to some people hoping to see 'if they'll stick'. Frankly, WP:BOOMERANG for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior would be, IMHO, worth considering here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the topic ban on her is one of the two last vestiges of the "Icewhiz era" I can recall (the other being a similar topic ban on Volunteer Marek), removing it and returning to the state from before (i.e ~10 years of peaceful, good faithed editing with no AE reports and such) would be my preference. As noted by others below, her edits are helpful, and it is unlikely they'll become disruptive - and if they do, well, we can always reimpose it or harsher sanctions. But so far all I see coming from her TBan is the discussed 'weaponization of policies', where clearly constructive and innocent edits, even fixing of misspellings or such, are being stretched to see if something will stick. I can only applaud GCB for continuing to try to follow our policies, how many other editors in similar circumstances would abandon their account and start socking? An interaction ban (or bans, given multiple parties) might be helpful, but it could still be used just like the t-ban, so it is my distant second preference (and if it is imposed I'd suggest it holds only as long as a t-ban, and if/when the t-ban is revoked we should automatically revoke the i-ban as related and unnecessary when the other one is gone). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:26, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: "Finally I don't think it's useful for editors to claim "Icewhiz!" for justification anymore - that was a while ago and it is time to move on." Please familiarize yourself with the case first. First, it is public knowledge that Icewhiz has been socking (latest confirmed sockpuppets in May): Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Icewhiz. But in case two and a half months are 'a while ago' for you, then I can confirm Icewhiz has been harassing me and several other individuals, including impersonating one, on and off-wiki, as recently as last month. Which is why he got the site/SanFran ban in late June ([123]). If anyone thinks such an individual has given up and/or wouldn't try some form of WP:MINION (to use a recently created redirect by Francois himself...), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you for a very good price. I am sorry to say "Icewhiz justification" is going to be valid for at least a few more months, and I fully expect we will catch more his socks soon (he is probably training them doing random Twinkle edits or such to get auto-confirmed, just like he did with a bunch earlier this year). Be on a lookout for new accounts (from this year) with few hundred edits who suddenly become interested in Polish-Jewish topics and will happen to share his POV. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff #1: The rename from "German war crimes against Soviet civilians" to "World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union" could be construed to include about half of Poland that was occupied by the Soviets; and would certainly include hundreds of thousands of Polish refugees and exiles on Soviet soil, as well as border counties that were split from Poland and annexed to the Soviet Ukraine.
• Diff #3: The Romani genocide, insofar as it was perpetrated on Polish soil, falls within the extent the T-ban.
• Diff #4: Direct reference to wartime events...

@Piotrus: You don't have to be close friends with someone to report them (you probably shouldn't if you are :-P). Her T-ban appeal drew comments from several editors who follow the TA but don't interact with her personally.[124] You shouldn't be surprised that other editors notice her as well. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: How exactly did I not "follow RexxS's advice"? I've avoided her contribs, avoided commenting on her AE appeal (which was denied), and even avoided filing here despite having concrete evidence that she's hounding me, something she gave her word she'll stop.[125] That's >15 diffs that I kept to myself, and four months of avoiding her while knowing that she's still following me. And now, when I make a very narrow, focused comment in a TA that I have some knowledge in, you make this suggestion? François Robere (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: See below.

1. Before April 2020:
   1. GCB comments on unpublished content in my "sandbox".[126][127]
   2. Follows me to two articles on Israeli current affairs, which is a TA she rarely touched at the time.[128][129]
   3. Edits an article I started on architect Joseph Berlin,[130] which is TA she never touches.
   4. Follows me to Sandstein's TP.[131][132]
   5. Follows me to WP:ANI.
   6. Follows me to two articles within the TA that she never edited before, and rarely since.[133][134]
2. April 2020 onwards:
   1. GCB claims that I'm "hounding" her and that it's distressing.[135][136][137] I denied it, but accepted RexxS's resolution (the alternative was an indef block, despite my relatively clean "sheet").
   2. Note that while my discussion with RexxS was ongoing, I was forced to engage with no less than four other editors (all from this TA, all backing one another) in 5-6 other discussions across two talk pages. Two editors who came to my defence were summarily excused. The whole thing lasted about a week, and was quite draining.
   3. She gives her word to two admins that she'll avoid contact with me.[138]
3. The following June she makes her first edit to History of Poland less than a day after I edit it, with content that is a direct response to my changes.[139][140] She then joins the discussion that I started,[141] broke her T-ban,[142] and even went to WP:ANI to attack another editor (the OP).[143] That's not the behavior of an editor distressed by "hounding".

Regarding GCB's T-ban:

1. Two and a half months ago she appealed her T-ban; her appeal was rejected and ban was prolonged by two more years.[144] Several editors who rarely interact with her commented, including admins Sandstein and Ealdgyth. I made it a point of not commenting.
   1. I suggest going through that discussion before making a decision here, as the comments made there directly address her comments above.
2. Several admins asked that GCB display productive and error free editing in other TAs before she asks for the ban to be repealed. This hasn't happened.
   1. On June 3rd she added "cherry-picked" quote to LGBT ideology-free zone,[145] which was removed by Trasz.[146] The full source text is actually much darker, with claims of censorship and an attack on "ideas and practices that undermine human dignity and contribute to the depravity of children".
   2. On June 21st she added a couple of references to History of Poland.[147][148] One of the references was broken, and failed verification; more importantly, though - the other pointed to a 1985 book by the "Veritas Foundation",[149] which is not an RS.

There are some issues that can be raised here, but again - I'm not looking to make this messier. I doubt others will see it the same way, though.

As for GCB's claims:

1. "Close friend of Icewhiz"? Lady, I don't even know his name, and I'd appreciate if stopped making these insinuations. You don't see me going around suggesting you're intimate with Tatzref, do you?
2. On "staying away": as I stated above, I kept my word and "stayed away" from her contribs, and in general tried to engage her as little as possible. Her following me into discussions and attacking other users (see "hounding" above), suggests my presence is not as distressing as she claims.
   1. She claims this was a violation of the agreement, but that edit actually precedes the agreement by two days (April 3rd vs. April 5th).[150]
   2. She claims these [151][152] were violation, but there was nothing in the agreement about editing articles I'm already involved in.[153][154]
   3. This is a violation?? Asking for protection from someone who's hounding me is a violation??
   4. Here she erased someone else's comment.[155] They weren't accused of anything, there was no admin involved, it was just her decision. I didn't file on it, I simply voted and left a message.[156][157] Again, there's nothing in the agreement about interacting in a public forum on a public vote.
   5. So it's a total of three encounters over four months: one in a public forum after she erased someone else's comment, one in an article I'm already heavily involved in, and one in me asking for help from an admin. That's not "hounding". Trying to get someone sanctioned for asking for help with hounding... that's hounding. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Later claims:

1. She misrepresented several of my claims here, eg. "I only changed the numbers" etc. which is clearly not true (See "The following June..." above) - she very much followed me to that article and edited my revision, and now she's attacking me for asking RexxS for help.
2. Much of the rest concerns the nature of the agreement, which I already explained: my sole commitment was to avoiding her contribs; RexxS accepted that, and explicitly said that he won't try to enforce an I-ban. I held up to my end of the bargain, GCB didn't.
3. She claims that she stopped editing LGBT ideology-free zone after I reverted her on June 18th, because she "didn’t want to breach the interaction promise". What is she doing commenting on the TP five times over the following week, then?[158][159][160][161][162]
4. She claims this vote was "against her", and she "wouldn't dare to vote seeing me first". Funny, because that vote directly follows from this thread, which I started, which itself follows from three other discussions in which either her or me participated.[163][164][165] In other words - she knows I'm involved in this page, she knows my stance - she herself participates there freely and frequently - and now she's trying to present it as if she's apprehensive and wary? That's disingenuous at best. François Robere (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: I filed, you got warned,[166] then you and your friends stormed my TP and RexxS's.[167] RexxS then threatened to indef block me because of two diffs (!) that ended up being wrong, and despite my relatively "clean sheet" (two blocks in >7 years), and I was forced to agree to avoid your friend's contribs list.[168] RexxS explicitly stated that he will not try to enforce an I-ban.[169] I was straight up about everything, explained exactly what I did and why, and kept my word.

Meanwhile, you had your ban prolonged by two years (which had nothing to do with me),[170] then got blocked for breaking it (which again had nothing to do with me).[171] You then promised RexxS that you'll "try to avoid anything that has "Poland" in the text" for six months,[172] then ten days later you're back to editing Polish articles and following me,[173][174][175][176][177][178] and you still deny any wrongdoing. Is that accurate? François Robere (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can keep on replying to GCB's older diffs (Ełk riots was created by Icewhiz, and GCB and others followed him there;[179] GCB shouldn't have removed Lithuania's national poet from List of Lithuanians; Prosto z mostu was actually mentioned at her AE appeal, so I'm clearly not the only one to have noticed it... etc.), but the bottom line remains that I was completely truthful and upfront about everything, and once I gave my word, I kept it. It's unfortunate that others haven't done the same. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Why an I-ban? None of her examples hold up (see right above this message). The fact is I neither "hound" her nor harass her in any way whatsoever, while she still follows me. I kept my end of the bargain, so why would you do that? François Robere (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It's been two days since Notrium posted their defense. Unless there's some interest in exploring it (or Piotrus WP:DGF by releasing the email of his own volition), I suggest that this case is closed with a warning and we can all carry on with our merry lives. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth's mention of "newspapers" refers to discussions like these,[180][181][182][183][184] where editors repeatedly pushed for treating dailies as RS, despite the presence of special sourcing restrictions. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved in this topic area, and have given all of the offered diffs posted by François Robere a close looking through. I must admit I'm perplexed to see sanctions proposed against FR, when the diffs clearly paint a much different picture to me than what the admins see. El_C in fact requested such a thorough analysis, and after looking through it I do not see any justification for a sanction against FR with a reduction to a sanction for GizzyCatBella. At the very least this is equal behavior, and that's at the VERY least. I do not have any additional input on the diffs presented by Notrium. Finally I don't think it's useful for editors to claim "Icewhiz!" for justification anymore - that was a while ago and it is time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

François Robere is one of the few editors willing to spend the time to patiently push back against editors with a certain point of view, a point of view that has caused multiple arbcom preceedings. Allowing editors to be slowly picked off who disagree with that point of view would be catastrophic for Wikipedia, especially in light of a recognized holocaust experts making note of issues with POV being pushed into Polish topics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of things that are fishy,@Piotrus: what exactly do you feel needs to be eyes only with GizzyCatBella. With your history that seems an odd request, and I wonder if you were canvassed off wiki to join this report.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone "a close friend" of a Wikipedia banned user is a blatant aspersion. It GizzyCatBella is going to keep attacking people they disagree with, their topic ban should be extended to the complete topic of Poland. That seems to be the real issue here.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the topic area hasn't improved ... and frankly, it still is a morass of badly sourced stuff with plenty of POV pushing. And until the ArbCom sourcing restrictions are actually enforced, I have no great desire to edit in the area ... as long as newspapers are still considered to fit the ArbCom's sourcing restrictions, the area is never going to improve. --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the latest comment by Piotrus is another example of why would anyone want to step foot in this topic area? If you start editing, even as an established editor, you're likely to be accused of meatpuppetry for Icewhize. No thanks, I can find other ways of having an unfun time. Icewhiz socks likely ARE around, but the constant search for them is driving established editors away. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Actually, from those diffs, I'm seeing GizzyCatBella being quite careful not to contravene her sanction. Is it ideal she's flying this close to the sun? Probably not, but that remains her prerogative. El_C 03:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, Notrium, I have read WP:TBAN, having imposed and enforced it on multiple occasions. El_C 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, to say the USSR-related diff constitutes a topic ban violation is a bit of a stretch. Like Notrium, this approach widens WP:BROADLY beyond its conventional usage in determining WP:TBAN violations. To reiterate, this report should be closed as not actionable due to there being No violation. El_C 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• GizzyCatBella, I agree that François Robere has not been following the advise of RexxS. Perhaps formalizing that advise as a one-way WP:IBAN sanction toward François Robere is due. Or at least a final warning that it is imminent. I would welcome further input on that question. El_C 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur on the weirdness cited by Piotrus, Guerillero. Perhaps a imposing a WP:TBAN from WP:ARBEE or a one-way WP:IBAN (with GizzyCatBella) sanction on Notrium will deescalate matters. Per that, though Notrium has not received a DS alert, I already consider them WP:AWARE due to their filing of the current as well as the previous AE request concerning GizzyCatBella. El_C 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Notrium, I doubt you and François Robere are the alpha and omega of the auditing of GizzyCatBella's adherence to the terms and scope of her topic ban. If you both fail to convince admins your own auditing of GizzyCatBella's edits is a productive undertaking which is in the interest of the project, then expect to be given a DS directive to cease. It's not complicated. El_C 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RexxS, I agree with your assessment. I am not opposed to testing the waters by vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. Maybe that is the path of least resistance here. El_C 15:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, I can only make a recommendation or take action according to the available evidence that is before me. You may choose to compile pertinent evidence to verify your assertion as you see fit. Now would be the time — this would be the forum. El_C 16:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, okay, I won't deny your evidence contains compelling components. And I realize her last appeal was declined —I am the one who closed it— but I still think vacating her ban should be on the table. Truthfully, I'm not sure she would be, at present, any more disruptive to the topic area than the other regulars, yourself included. And so, I don't know if her ban continues to be of benefit to the project — especially in the sense of her having to put up with weaponized AE reports such as this. El_C 19:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Guerillero, fair enough. An IBAN also works for me. I will, however, amend my previous 2-year wait recommendation to GizzyCatBella about the timing of her next appeal. I now would welcome her appealing in ~4 months (for ~6 months wait from the last appeal). I have now changed my mind about that. El_C 19:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• François Robere, I don't know yet that I would with you, but I definitely support an IBAN on Notrium. That I am unlikely to change my mind about. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Seraphimblade, I approach a one-way IBAN pretty much like a do a 2-way IBAN, with the exception that only one party is noted as having been sanctioned. Maybe that's outside convention, but that has been my modus operandi. El_C 23:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree Piotrus that something is weird here. My first thought was also Icewhiz related. I also agree with El_C that this isn't a topic ban violation and an I-Ban might be helpful here. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we extended GizzyCatBella's topic ban only in May, I would be opposed to lifting it. Lets try the I-Ban --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also concerned about this report. GizzyCatBella was topic-banned two years ago for causing problems with articles about the history of Poland in WWII. Since then she hasn't caused problems with any articles that I'm aware of and has generally successfully skirted around the TB, even though her principal interest is in Eastern European topics, where she is clearly an asset to the encyclopedia. She does sometimes make mistakes and I reluctantly gave her a short block recently for a violation of her TB.
  Nevertheless, none of the diffs above would raise any concerns were it not for the TB: they are absolutely harmless and it takes a considerable stretch to make an association between them and Poland in WWII. It's like playing seven degrees of separation and I am now suspicious about how Notrium came across them.
  I gain the impression that this report resembles an attempt to weaponise AE, and I'm not keen to see a repeat. I can only see two ways of avoiding this issue coming back here: either a broad I-Ban between the principle players or vacating GizzyCatBella's topic ban. It's a pity in some ways that she didn't take up Sandstein's concession to hear an appeal after six months, but I can understand that she may have felt the TB protected her from editing in an area where she had become too involved. I'd like to hear from other AE admins if they agree with my assessment. --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not agree to the sanctions being lifted without an actual appeal taking place, but believe the IBAN (between both; never been a fan of one-way IBANs) is the way to proceed here. It's clear there's some animus here against GCB by the filer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Notrium, no, I will not read any emails which you have sent me. I very deliberately discard any off-wiki communication regarding an AE request unread as attempts to backchannel with them are entirely inappropriate. If you have something public to say then say it here; if it needs to be handled privately you may contact the arbitration committee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not post private correspondence here (or anywhere on Wikipedia) without the express consent of everyone involved in the discussion. If you feel that some background information would be helpful (and it doesn't violate anyone's privacy, of course), then it is fine to provide that, but please keep it brief. We don't need a blow-by-blow of every tangentially related thing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]