Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive272

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

Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Springee (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

User has been repeatedly edit warring on pages subject to discretionary sanctions. Generally these are three reverts in a matter of hours.

• At Tucker Carlson

1. 14:16 14 September
2. 15:52 14 September
3. 16:08 14 September

• At Turning Point USA

1. 4:54 September 11
2. 5:00 September 11
3. 5:13 September 11

• At Dave Rubin

1. 14:00 5 August
2. 18:41 5 August
3. 22:09 5 August

• At Dave Rubin, again

1. 00:20 28 July
2. 00:22 28 July
3. 00:29 28 July

• At Turning Point USA, again

1. 22:35 29 July
2. 23:25 29 July

• At Tucker Carlson Tonight

1. 10:34 18 July
2. 15:47 18 July

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Month-long 1RR sanction issued in November 2015 [2]

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

• DS notice for this particular topic given in July. Also has a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As you can see, Springee's modus operandi is to repeatedly revert, but he is careful to avoid breaking the 3RR rule. (He is also aware of 1RR restrictions per this comment from 7 September, but I don't believe any of the pages I linked to fall under that category.) In many of the above cases, there are talk page discussions but they generally involve stone walling and moving the goal post. A recent thread at Carlson's talk page is a good example of the sort of discussion that follows. Springee's opening comment "arguably the material had consensus when you restored it by weight of numbers (2:1) but per ONUS you should have addressed my concerns prior to restoring the text" is illustrative of the problem. Another discussion of note takes place in several sections at talk:Steve Bannon.

This is my first time here, so apologies in advance if my formatting is incorrect or I missed something. -- Calidum 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Springee below, I was aware of the ongoing discussion (though not the subsequent RFC) at the time I made this edit [3] that was then reverted at Tucker Carlson. In my opinion, however, the consensus from the discussion that begin in August (linked above) was clearly in favor of inclusion at that point. Also, much to Springee's chagrin, opening a talk page discussion as he did does not place an injunction that only he can lift. If Springee thinks that is what WP:ONUS means, he is mistaken. -- Calidum 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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 agree, the multiple reverts is not the best thing. But there is another issue that was recently discussed by others here [[5]], namely that there is often a problem when a number of editors show up on both sides of a debate and then fail to follow policies like NOCON, ONUS etc. For the most part this wouldn't be an issue if both sides were more willing to be patient, talk first, get consensus, then restore (or not). Restoring disputed content while no consensus exists at the talk page is just asking for edit warring. Calidum failed in this regard when they restored disputed Tucker Carlson material earlier today.[[6]].

As mentioned above, Calidum restored disputed Tucker Carlson text earlier today. That material was added on 27 Aug. I reverted with a comment explaining my revert. Another editor restored, another reverted. At that point I opened a talk page discussion [[7]]. With the talk page discussion open I would have hoped that we could have reached a consensus on the talk page before anyone would restore the text. However, a few editors who were not initially talk page participants restored the material. Several editors including myself reverted the additions per NOCONSENSUS and ONUS. Since the discussion was active no editors should have restored the material until some sort of consensus/compromise was reached. I only made additional reverts of the disputed content when editors ignored the discussion and it's lack of consensus. That is specifically what triggered the 3 reverts today including one by Calidum who made it clear they were aware of the discussion via their comment here [[8]] made at the same time as their restoration.

At Turning Point USA three editors including myself opposed the edits made by a single editor. The disputed edit was made on 11 Sept, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, then I reverted the disputed material (my first revert). The same editor then added a tag which I disputed and removed. It was restored, again by the same editor, I removed it again. Calidum restored the disputed tag (another editor reverted it later). Nothing after the first revert should have been on the article page as the editor who reverted the disputed edit started a talk page discussion. I think Calidum's concern would have more merit if they also chastised the other editor for failing to follow BRD/restoring disputed content 3 times after it was initially reverted. While the edit warring was an issue, I also felt there was clear space for a compromise options so I opened a discussion to try to work out the article lead disagreements on the talk page vs via back and forth edits.[[9]]

Replies

Nomoskedasticity is failing to mention they are involved with me via a recent content dispute with a large number of editors on both sides.

Calidum's update with a quote of mine needs context[[11]]. New material was added, I reverted. A second editor just reverted rather than going to the talk page. My comment about 2:1 is when adding new content I don't see 2:1 is a true consensus. All else equal, I see consensus at super-majority (ie, over 2/3rd). I also see long standing as something like a slight consensus in favor of the stable version. Thus 2:1 for a change is not quite consensus in my view (I've expressed this in the past) but I'm sure my view is not universal.

Drmies, I agree it was not ideal and I have to admit, and I hate to be admonished by you because I've found you generally fair. Thus if I'm getting admonished by you that means I probably did screw up. However, I would hope you can see the issue with the involved editor who restored the disputed content twice, back to back despite being involved with the talk page discussion as well as Calidum restoring it even though they were aware of the talk page discussion. As I've said, if more editors would follow BRD I think we would have more collaboration even on pages where there is a disagreement. Springee (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Since the question seems to come down to reverting too much, I will suggest a self imposed 1RR restriction on all AP2 topics until after the election. Hopefully that will address concerns with regards to my editing. With this I would ask that admins not impose 1RR on any of the other involved editors, only to nudged them to please follow BRD when consensus is not agreed upon on the talk page. Springee (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I will agree to the 6 months 1RR AP2 self imposed limit. I would again ask that the editors who were being scrutinized not be officially warned (or asked to self limit) but they are notified so they will not make the same mistakes in the future. If they can generally behave as if they also have a 1RR limit I suspect it will be much easier for us to reach actual consensus on talk pages. Springee (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, for the sake of levity can we agree to April fools day (1 Apr 2021)? Springee (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Tucker C. stuff go by yesterday and was wondering if that was a matter for ARE--well, here we are. That flurry of reverts on Springee's part was bad. CRYBLP does not help there. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• PackMecEng, I don't follow what you are trying to say; I'm just saying that invoking the BLP does not work here, and that the content doesn't match the source? When I looked, the content (one single sentence) did match the many sources that I saw. (Problem here is you are being vague, as if the discussion and the content never evolved.) "I am curious why" reminds me of the comments one sees on Instagram--like under a news story about the fires in the American West someone says "what about the fires in the Middle East". I have no idea why you'd expect me to know everything or pay attention to everything. If Springee is harassed, then let someone know. Or they can let someone know. Bringing this up here, in what is clearly the wrong forum, is a distraction, but I think you know that. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your response is a bit sad and certainly doesn't help Springee. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Springee, I'm sorry, but the entirety of that talk page reminds me very much of stonewalling. I do not believe consensus was on your side there, and that therefore it was unwise to claim the opposite and act like it was. I really don't want to look at the other pages because, well, I don't want to see more bad stuff. Plus, I don't really get what the urgency was in the Carlson article. I will fight tooth and nail for a BLP, and I don't care who it is, but for that kind of content, something that was so widely reported in an article already so full of factoids plucked from the news cycle, an article on someone who lives on the news cycle and on riling people up, no I don't get that. Sorry. Maybe you would benefit from the Drmies treatment for self-care and lowering blood pressure: writing on something where NOTNEWS etc. will likely never be an issue--Neanderthal fossils, for instance. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Awilley, a bunch of 1Rs would not be a bad idea. I see what you mean--JimKaatFan is (rather foolishly) inserting the material they started an RfC over. But if you or anyone else is looking at that RfC, note the callous "that caused some people to get their knickers in a bunch" by another editor. I'm not about to start another thread here, but I do want to note that DS are intended also to maintain a positive editing atmosphere, and whatever Springee may have done wrong here, they certainly are not callous or dismissive. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been argued about repeatedly. I note that "7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring." of the DS seems to means that 4rr over any time period is edit warring. I count 4 reverts at Tucker Carlson starting 1/9/2020 (3 in one day).Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that those who want to add negative material to a BLP would file a complaint against an editor who prevents it because it is noncompliant with policy. From my perspective in evaluating the diffs:

• Tucker Carlson - there appears to be some confusion about ONUS, and it is not Springee;
• Turning Point USA - same song, second verse - El C had to come in and add a 1RR consensus required restriction, and I believe it was because of the ONUS failure and relentless restoration of noncompliant material;
• Dave Rubin - a bit stale but riddled with vandalism here and there, and again ONUS - it’s a BLP issue.

That's all I have to say at this point in time. I hope this complaint doesn't waste too much of our admin's valuable time ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in mind that, typically, when BRD and Consensus required has been imposed, the opposition's next resort is to call a foul and accuse the opposition of STONEWALLING - same song, second verse - and it further substantiates why DS fails. There is no behavioral disruption here - this is a content issue disguised as behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It's about content, so why not place that same 1RR on the article itself which would serve better to prevent disruption, rather than restricting only a few editors? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Springee's MO, evident over an extended period, amounts to a significant impediment to efforts to develop our encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:ONUS, a quick nose-count in the section discussing the topic from the most recent round of reverts (all comments in that section that I can see, are from before when the most recent round of reverts took place) shows editors supporting adding the contested material by a roughly two-to-one majority, something Springee was aware of and conceded in their comment linked above. Obviously consensus isn't a vote, but it shouldn't be about total intransigence, either, especially when discussions are so lopsided - those numbers would be a reason to slow down and not aggressively revert-war against inclusion. ONUS doesn't, after all, mean "every contested addition requires an RFC", nor does consensus require unanimity. And, more importantly, believing that consensus is on your side - or refusing to accept an emerging consensus you disagree with, in this case - is, of course, not a valid reason to edit-war. Also, I am not understanding what Springee meant by admitting there was a 2:1 majority against them but insisting that their objections had to be answered - this is not what WP:ONUS says at all. Obviously discussion is good, but if there's a consensus against your position then your arguments have been rejected; insisting people continue to answer them is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT / WP:STONEWALLING. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Atsme said. Springee was making a good faith effort to observe WP:ONUS and work on the talk page for consensus. It's true that he tends to hold a minority opinion on these topics, but he has been pretty effective at adversarial collaboration, as I think you can see here, for example. So I think it's not true that he has generally been obstructive, and he has made a real contribution to the project. Also, it's worth noting as well that these are extremely contentious articles, and that means it's not easy--and can be quite frustrating--to work on them, especially from the position of the minority viewpoint, and I think he keeps his cool and makes reasonable proposals. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s been a dose of harassment and PAs also. On the Andy Ngo article, I asked a simple question: Was there ever a police report on this attack?[12] Springee first gave me a source, The Post Millennial. [13] According to our article on the source: It has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections. Further, Andy Ngo, who the article is about, was an editor at the source, making it an obvious COI, even if it didn’t have ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets. Springee followed this with numerous edits to the ATP and then my UTP demanding to know why I asked the question, twice accusing me of ranting, and continuing to insist I should accept this source. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23].

I decided not to take this to AN/I and let it die. But, there does seem to be a general pattern of bludgeoning to prevent negative material from articles about those on the political right, the three in the filing and Andy Ngo. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Just a comment. Some people might look at multiple editors adding text and one editor reverting the multiple editors as edit warring by the one. Others may accuse the multiple editors of tag-teaming. O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the evidence on multiple articles, I think the suggestion of a general 1RR restriction for Springee would be useful. Possibly also applied to others with reasonable evidence. Article-wide 1RR restrictions are really painful to deal with, although needed in some articles IMHO. Where one editor has a pattern of warring, such a restriction may result in quicker consensus on the TP. And, it would still allow them to participate on the TP, where they should. O3000 (talk)

@Drmies: The cry BLP argument is kind of lame given the discussion has pretty determined at this point it was a BLP issue since what was writen does not match the sources. I am curious why you did not mention the harassment Springee has received at the article, specifically stuff like this. Which is far from okay but no one really seemed to mind.

You can find similar stories at all the articles listed. Things like accusations of whitewashing, stone walling, and just general failure to assume good faith. Then if you look at the edits he is reverting, generally amounting to news of the day being inserted with no context and largely undue to all those BLPs. From what I can tell they are largely legitimate reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I suppose that is the problem. You admittedly do not follow what is happening at these pages but then decide you know enough to comment with vague accusations. As you would say, it reminds me of someone on Twitter ranting about something they do not understand. That ends up being the problem a lot with pages like that, random indignation about The Truth™ and what should MUST to be in the article. I am just so sick of it. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be thorough which is why so far I looked only at the first article/situation listed. IMO the wording in question does not even match the sources (or quote) much less have the strong sourcing required for wp:BLP. Something that came from talk would probably not be as problematic and IMO Springee insisting that it first come from talk is a good thing. In the recent sequence people put it in 3 times and Springee took it out 3 times over a few days. I don't consider "tag teaming" to be an offense, but spreading the same edit addition amongst the three should not make the difference of one side getting in trouble and the other not. Of course the same edit in and out so many times without it coming from talk is not a good thing. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Springee, could you trim your statement? It’s at 853 words by the count of the first word counter on Google, and AE is limited to 500 word statements. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Digging into the edit histories and talk pages a little bit I'm finding nearly equal fault with a couple of the people Springee was edit warring with. Whatever sanction might be applied to Springee as a result of this report, I think it would be reasonable to apply the same to JimKaatFan (talk · contribs) at a minimum. (See the edit history at Tucker Carlson and this.) At the moment I'm inclined to slap personal 1RR restrictions on a few editors. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Awilley: I think that would be a decent way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee: I'm on board with an informal voluntary 1RR. I figure if it's on your honor you're more likely to follow it, and if you do make a mistake we won't have to deal with the administrative overhead of AE reports, blocks, etc. But I would want a minimum of 6 months. (I was initially considering a year.) It's not just about the election, I want you to form a long-term habit. ~Awilley (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee:, OK, thank you. I won't do any formal warning or sanctioning of the other users here, but I may approach some of them on their talk pages and give them a choice, with one of the options being something similar to what you just agreed to. I appreciate that you aren't looking to drag others into this, but it's been an ongoing problem spread across many articles and I was already considering what to do about it. ~Awilley (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee:, yes, April 1 works :-)

  @Atsme:, it wouldn't just be 1 article needing the 1RR sanction...there's edit warring on many articles in the topic area, 4 of them listed here. Why place a restriction on 4 articles affecting hundreds of editors when one could place the same restriction on say 4 editors and get a comparable reduction in edit warring but across a wider range of articles? ~Awilley (talk) 15:51, 15 September 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

Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

FDW777 (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

[[24]] :

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

1. [25] Here he has removed critical information (deaths) from this article without any kind of explanation, and then claimed they were unsourced, which is simply not true, they were sourced.
2. [26] Removed a sourced death toll of 31, without any kind of real explanation (again claimed they were unsourced, but once again that is not true, a list of sources is provided).
3. [27] The same story, removing deaths and information from the article without any kind of explanation. He seems to edit in this strange way on purpose, small edits at a time, in order to make it more difficult to deal with him.
4. [28] Added a false death figure which is several months outdated, as opposed to the one which is accurate, not sure what he gains from doing this.
5. [29] Yet more of this persistent editing from him, where he randomly removes information or changes it. Here he deletes half of an article's infobox, and provides no reason as to why he did so.
6. [30]] Changes the death toll in the article (you can see this is a particular interest of his) to remove deaths which are clearly mentioned in the article, and sourced, and claims that somehow the death toll is unsourced. Sources are, I stress, very clearly in the article. For example, look at this article, the death toll is given, and then sourced below with a complete tally which explains everything.
7. [31] I attempted to talk to him about reporting me, for what appears to be a conflict started by him, and he deletes it from his talk page.
8. [32] [33] [34] The reactions from four other editors to his edits can sum it up quite well, none of his edits make any rational sense, they are all deleting random pieces of information, and on top that he claims that it is the other person's burden to find reason to keep this unsourced information in the article, when the information is clearly sourced. So once again he goes along the whole unsourced information when all information is clearly sourced, and all he is doing is deleting random bits of information/sources from the article and creating a new death toll which is inaccurate and wrong (for example, using a source from June for the death toll, when 31 deaths is clearly sourced in the article).
9. [35] This also shows what he is doing quite well. When I give him a full list of sources and detailed explanation behind each event, he simply claims he will not bother reading it. What kind of an attitude is that? He wants sources, but refuses to read them, and will then delete sources already in the article (not added by me or him), change information and accuse me of edit warring/not having enough sources.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure what this editor's issue is, he keeps appearing on random articles which I edit, and starts removing massive amounts of information, including my edits, and claiming they are unsourced, when they clearly are. The first issue is clearly deleting and vandalising Wikipedia articles, second is accusing me of edit warring (he deletes my edits, and critical information in the article, without any information, so it seems quite clear he is the one who is edit warring). He also fails to ever give any kind of explanation as to why he is deleting my edits.

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.

Diff #1 is removing off-topic information from Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, with an edit summary of removed some incidents that did not verifiably occur during a George Floyd protest, the burden of evidence is on anyone restoring them to provide references proving they did. So the claim of that I removed them without any kind of explanation, and then claimed they were unsourced, which is not true, they were sourced is false, and deliberately so. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month. The killing of Michael Reinoehl did not happen during a George Floyd protest, and the reference doesn't say it was.

Diff #2 is removing As of September 3, 2020, at least 31 people have died during the protests, with 26 due to gunshot wounds.^{[citation needed]} Could someone explain how that is a sourced death toll of 31 as claimed?

Diff #3 is removing the death of a policeman with a supposed reference that doesn't mention George Floyd. I cannot find one reference that says Tamarris Bohannon was killed during a George Floyd protest. My edit summary said unreferenced as anything to do with George Floyd protests, so the claim that I was removing deaths and information from the article without any kind of explanation is once again demonstrably false.

Diff #4 is adding a referenced figure, instead of the unreferenced total of 31 that's obtained by including as many deaths as possible with references that don't mention George Floyd.

Diff #5 was removing a lengthy list of belligerents that weren't mentioned in the article text, just like I explained at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Infobox 2. I mentioned MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE specifically, which says keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. I cannot be held accountable for people not understanding the meaning of "supplant".

Diff #6 is amending the George Floyd protests total to a referenced one, instead of the unreferenced one Alexiod Palaiologos is intent on edit warring into multiple articles. The deaths are not clearly mentioned in the article, and sourced, anyone looking at the references will see time and again that George Floyd protests aren't mentioned (although protests relating to the deaths/shooting of other people will be).

Diff #7 is me removing a templated warning and personal attacks (What an annoying, miserable person you must be, which is not attempted to talk to me.

There's so many inaccuracies in the report it should be seen for what it is, battleground behaviour in retaliation for the report detailing many policy violating edits by Alexiod Palaiologos. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #8 is nothing in particular. Diff #9 claims When I give him a full list of sources and detailed explanation behind each event, he simply claims he will not bother reading it. This is another completely false claim. At 14:47, 14 September 2020 Alexiod Palaiologos simply copies text from a previous version of another Wikipedia article. There are no references provided. I replied at 14:53, 14 September 2020 saying Again, the content of another article is not a reference and I will not even waste time discussing it. There were no references provided, and I refuse, and rightly so, to discuss a copy and paste of the text from another Wikipedia article that's being claimed to be a full list of sources when it's nothing of the sort. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The filer has canvassed a very new account with a grudge against FDW777 [36]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of Alexiod Palaiologos, he did not violate any wikipedia guidlines.

FDW777 accuses Alexiod Palaiologos of making unreferenced edits. That is flase. The edits made by Alexiod Palaiologos on 2020 United States racial unrest were all referenced by sources on Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests.

We discussed this all on Talk:2020 United States racial unrest under FDW777 discussion (Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed) wherein this has already been settled. FDW777 couldn't prove that the edits by Alexiod Palaiologos were unreferenced on any of the discussions so now he's here trying to ban Alexiod Palaiologos because he couldn't prove his edits were unreferenced. Therefore this complaint is unjustified.

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

• The canvasing puts a bad taste in my mouth --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Alexiod Palaiologos has been indefed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Alexiod Palaiologos (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

1. 16:56, 14 September 2020 Reverts to replace referenced total with unreferenced total
2. 16:51, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore information with no verifiable connection to George Floyd protests. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
3. 14:55, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40
4. 13:30, 14 September 2020. Reverts to remove addition of " with a slave kneeling to him"
5. 08:05, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore "perceived" to the lead, removed in this edit
6. 07:02, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40, claiming amending to a referenced total is blatant revisionism
7. 09:29, 13 September 2020 Reverts to restore weasel wording, removed in this edit
8. 20:52, 12 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim regarding number of deaths
9. 13:59, 10 September 2020 Adds weasel wording to lead
10. 12:58, 14 September 2020 At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest in response to requests for references alleges but the actual number is correct without providing references
11. 13:21, 14 September 2020 In response to a further request for references links to a Wikipedia article
12. 14:47, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references copies and pastes from a previous version (since Secoriea Turner and Michael Forest Reinoehl are included it's definitely not from the version of the article at the time of posting, since they were removed at 22:44, 13 September 2020) of the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article.
13. 14:58, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references alleges The citations are clearly in THIS article, if that was the case there should have been no problem providing them, or adding them to the infobox when restoring the disputed, unreferenced, content
14. 19:00, 9 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim of 31 deaths to infobox at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, despite the 31 claim being tagged as unreferenced in the article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270#Alexiod_Palaiologos. Technically was supposed to have been warned regarding referencing as a result of that complaint, however nothing appeared to have been done. That doesn't change the fact they were clearly aware their editing has been identified as problematic.

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:16, 27 August 2020 .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The claim in 2020 United States racial unrest that 30 people have died during the George Floyd protest, and 40 people in total have died is unreferenced, so I removed one claim and tagged the other in this edit, explained on the talk page, both the edit summary and the talk page post explicity mentioning WP:BURDEN. Following an unjustified reversion by another editor in violation of WP:BURDEN, I amended the George Floyd total to a referenced figure here. They ignored this and reverted, can be seen above at diff dated 07:02, 14 September 2020. At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed they constantly refuse to provide references while continuing to edit war their unreferenced total into the article. Objections to the total have been made by @Aquillion: here, @Slatersteven: here, @Dlthewave: here and here. We never get any references, instead we get directed to other articles (where the inclusion of certain incidents is disputed to begin with, or told to check references in the article, despite the fact that many references (small sample, others available) don't even mention George Floyd so can't be used to claim those deaths were part of the George Floyd protests, as Aquillion states Whether an individual death qualifies as part of this unrest is obviously a judgment call involving interpretation and analysis, so editors cannot simply add up what they personally consider deaths related to the topic and then list the total as a fact - it is original research. That was said before Alexiod Palaiologos even posted in the section, yet has been repeatedly ignored. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest anyone believing the figure of 31 is a referenced total for deaths during George Floyd protests looks at the references provided at 2020 United States racial unrest and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, and see just how many of them don't mention George Floyd (answer: LOTS). I suggest they also read Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed and the repeated failure to list the references that would confirm all 31 deaths were during George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiod Palaiologos: that you are still attempting to use Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests as a reference demonstrates you don't get it, and probably never will. You cannot use policy violating content from one article to prop up content in another article, especially when you and other disruptive editors continually edit war to add back policy violating content to the first article. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 15 September 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.

Seems to be just a problem with the death toll. The death toll, of the George Floyd protests, is very clearly listed as 31, in the article Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. The user in question who is trying to report me, is simply going onto that article, deleting information, then claiming that my edits (on 2020 United States racial unrest) are unsourced, (which they aren't, there is VERY clear sourcing in the article, 2020 United States racial unrest, which gives a complete breakdown of every death]]. The user in question has simply kept on removing my edits, claiming they are unsourced (which they are not, as I explained), and then wants me banned for edit warring? To be honest I am very confused, he seems to not understand that by reverting my edits, he is the one starting an edit war, not me.
I would like to add that this involves the death toll of the 2020 United States racial unrest, of which the George Floyd protests are a part of, so any deaths in the George Floyd protests are naturally included in the 2020 United States unrest, hence why it is so crucial to note that he is editing the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests with false information (claiming the death toll is 19, when it is clearly 31, another user there has cleared that one up) then using that as basis to claim my edits are incorrect. But a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_racial_unrest#Deaths will show all the sources you need, meaning that the claim that my edits are unsourced, simply doesn't hold up. -User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will stay in my section. User:Guerillero not a single bit of evidence as to why any kind of ban is needed, has been provided. If you actually look at the edits he's trying to get me banned over, it's simply me reverting edits where he randomly deletes stuff without explanation ([37] other users agree with me), or worse, where he randomly deletes my edits, then when I revert my own edits he accuses me of edit warring, which just makes no sense. This user is harassing me, constantly deleting my edits, refuses to talk in the talk section and is now trying to get me banned.

Also the only reason behind deleting my edits, that he ever gives, is there is not enough sources, which is completely false because all the sources are in the article, and have been provided by me. So I really fail to understand this user at all. On top of this, I can see that none of the people providing statements here are actually looking at the edits, just supporting banning me without any reason. If you look at the history of the 2020 United States racial unrest [38] you will see that at least half of the work in the article has been written by me. What exactly do you want to ban me over? This is getting ridiculous. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also he mentions me removing an edit about the slave kneeling statue. In the very next edit after that I changed it from simply, statue with a slave kneeling, to the actual name of the statue (Emancipation Memorial). So that is a very misleading summary by him. [39], which of course this user fails to mention. So as far as I can tell, none of his lists of edits are legitimate concerns, except for the death toll, which I have explained with citations, and he simply replies with I'm not going to read that. Yes, the [[40]] does list 31 deaths, he removed the 31 deaths but another user added them back, so once again it's the same story of him randomly deleting information from an article and then wanting to get me banned over it. 31 deaths is clearly listed in the [[41]] article, as such 31 people have died, and the death toll is 31. SO WHAT DOES HE WANT ME BANNED OVER? He has gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users over this very same issue, can't he realise that he is clearly in the wrong? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this also applies to deciding to add deaths that RS do not say are part of the protests.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socking at an AE should be an indef.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the problem is more about how this editor handles conflict in general than the WP:OR issue itself. I've interacted with Alexiod Palaiologos several times over the past few days in the 2020 protests topic area and their responses to legitimate concerns often devolve into personal attacks. In the death toll discussion mentioned above (permalink), they refuse to engage with the argument that we can't do our own calculations to arrive at the total. Instead, they state with apparently increasing frustration that "the citations are there" (none of the citations mention a total of 31) along with a personal attack Please learn to read before going on Wikipedia and deciding your own opinion dictates fact.

Just before this disagreement, I had warned them about uncivil comments at Talk:Kenosha protests. A few examples:

1. [42] - Sarcastic comment about protesters, accuses editor of political bias
2. [43] - Comparison to the Holocaust
3. [44] - Accusation of "rewriting history", another Holocaust comparison
4. [45] - Accusation of edit warring, going against consensus, spinning words and ignoring facts with no evidence whatsoever
5. [46] - Accusation of using "own personal opinion" as consensus, along with yet another Holocaust comparison
6. [47][48][49] - !Votes three times in the same discussion

Taken as a whole, we're looking at a pattern of refusal to engage in collaborative discussion along with a massive failure to assume good faith. This editor continues to demonstrate an inability to work with others in this topic area after multiple warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, put quite simply, I was countering your stance sounded by giving comparisons, as to how it is not a useful one. You suggested a random map of Kenosha as a useful image, and it was clearly opposed by several editors. There is no failure to assume good faith there, not a single bit, let alone this massive failure as you claim. And on another note, a talk section has no relation to edits I make on a separate article. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiod Palaiologos: You've mistaken someone else's suggestion for mine; I was not the one who proposed the map nor have I voiced an opinion on it. Regardless, if you think that invoking Nazi Germany is in any way useful here, I rest my case. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Alright, my bad in that case. The comparison to Nazi Germany was not chosen specifically, but as a look how ridiculous this guy's arguments are type of thing. And here the discussion here is not about a talk page but about edits in an article, where I can quite safely say that the user (who is reporting me) has no actual reason to report me and is simply deleting stuff from Wikipedia and getting mad at me for reverting it, then making false accusations against me (claiming that I have no sources when they are clearly stated, replacing actual sources with outdated sources which are no longer relevant). User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the edits and talk section, I don't understand what the need is to ban the other user. Have a discussion on the talk section, and if you find that 5 other people are going against what you say, you are probably wrong in what you are trying to do. Note that Wikipedia policy does not require you to provide evidence for deleting unsourced material, but in this case material was clearly sourced. From what I can tell, attempts to ban user Alexiod, are due to user FDW777 being angry that he could not provide ground for deleting information from an article. Alexiod also seems to have a poor attitude when it comes to discussion, so my solution is to reach a consensus with other users on the talk page, not trying to ban each other.

• User:Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr is CU-blocked as a sock of Alexiod Palaiologos. Guerillero, I think we're in indef-territory here, if you combine blatant socking with edit warring, a battleground attitude, a failure to write material based on reliable sources, and non-neutral editing. If the latter two claims are found credible, an indef-block, rather than a topic ban, is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Alexiod Palaiologos: Please only edit your section. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking we are in topic ban territory here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies: I blocked them --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:28, 15 September 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

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

73.75.115.5 (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 :

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

1. 19 September Commonting on a contributor (me), no on the substance (and making a false statement)
2. 19 September Casting aspersions
3. 19 September Casting aspersions, making an irrelevant argument
4. 19 Septembe Casting aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 September 3 weeks block from Talk:Kyiv
2. 31 August 1 month block from Talk:Kyiv, later lifted

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

two AE blocks, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After being partially blocked by Barkeep from Talk:Kyiv for massive disruption, the user continued disrupting discussions on talk pages, without making relevant argument and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me. This is currently a hot topic now, with a long of strong opinions from both sides, but contributions of this IP are really outstanding in this respect. I have provided only four diffs, mainly related to me, but most of the user's recent contribution are similar. I apologize for coming to AE twice in two days, usually I try to not overburden fellow admins with these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

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.

My only statement is diff--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Upon further thought, I think I will add this: I guess f an admin says the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation), did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names and Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page, because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter says and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me - I guess he means my comments on Talk:Odessa, Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia and Talk:Kievan Rus' - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to Wikipedia:WIKISTALK you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of discussing content, and not the contributor, and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out). I also see how my comments might have cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize, and, again, will strike them out.

pps. I think emotions might have been flying around on many sides after the tumultuous Kyiv/Kiev RM that I initiated couple of months ago, and as a result of those emotions, Ymblanter, you might have inadvertently also cast some unfounded aspersions against me that are blatantly not true (and honestly I wish you did not cast them), specifically I am referring to where you said stop making assumptions about my motives and views, including my political views. diff and therefore accused me of casting some aspersions about your political views - I have never said anything about your political views anywhere (because I myself find that totally inappropriate, i.e., everyone is entitled to their own political views and I never look down (or comment) on people for just being democrat/republican etc.). If you have a proof that I discussed your political views anywhere - please provide diffs. Otherwise, please strike those accusations out (I have already stricken my comments that you felt were casting aspersions against you, see diff, diff, diff, diff, because, as I said above, I do not want you Ymblanter to feel that i am wikistalking you or have any animosity whatsoever against you (because i do not)+.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--73.75.115.5 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The IP has been CU blocked for editing while logged out to avoid sanctions and scrutiny --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cjbaiget (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 :

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

1. 12 March 2020 Example of an incorrect statement at the talk page of the article, see below
2. 13 March 2020 After being shown that the above statement is incorrect based on a RS, stated that the source is wrong, see below.
3. 18 September 2020 Addition of doubtful material based on a blog
4. 18 September 2020 Restoration of the above material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 September 2020 partial block from Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) for personal attacks in the course of discussion of New Chronology

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

Ds alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cjbaiget is a user with less than 100 edits at the time of filing this request. All these edits are related to New chronology (Fomenko), which is a fringe pseudoscientific theory. All their edits try to promote the theory, to show that its adepts have academic credentials, and its critics were cited incorrectly and in fact did not claim what the article states they did, or at least that the New chronology is not universally rejected by the academic community, but only by some scholars (this is a very indicative edit). They started by posting wall of texts at the talk page; currently the whole talk page is filled by these walls of texts. Where other users could check them, these walls of texts contained incorrect statements, for example this edit said they believe that Fomenko never claimed that Rome was founded in 1380. In 15 minutes, I was able to provide a reliable secondary source saying Fomenko claimed this [51]. Then they said they believe [52] that the date was taken by the source from Wikipedia. Most of the walls of text remain unanswered, because other users can not be expected to read all of them. Tho days ago, the user was partially blocked by Doug Weller from the talk page for (I believe) this personal attack. Having bludgeoned the talk page, they started to bludgeon the article. When today they added a material added on a blog [53] "to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication", I removed the addition citing WP:RS. After they have readded it [54] I felt we need a break from this user, hence we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[55]

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.

Hello all, please excuse my brevity.

I am not directed at promoting Fomenko in any way. This wikipedia article is just the first place I came to learn about it in the first place, about three years ago.

Anyway, and having great interest in the application of Astronomy, Computing, and Mathematics to chronological questions, and after having read almost the whole opus, I became aware of several, blatant mistakes that this article contains from the point of view of these sciences, which I am able to discuss in the talk page, a thing that I tried with my best dedication, but failed to open any rational scientific debate.

As contender says, I have very few contributions, but more in the talk page than in the article, whose structure I have never tried to change.

Beign so few, my only defence are my contributions to both article and talk page, which I beg to be read an placed to scientific and objective examination.

I have been sanctioned two times: the first as a newcomer, I committed the blunder of naming another editor as responsible for deep errors that I understood as lies. The second, yesterday, after a veiled, non-offensive response to a demonstration of contempt to a length and elaborated explanation I tried to make in the talk page to another editor. Please check also.

I'm available at any time to answer about any and every of my conscious words placed in this encyclopedia, on which I log on with my real initials and surname. Cjbaiget (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About 'incorrect' statement about Rome foundation please understand that both dates can be taken as correct: As Rome (according Fomenko) was founded in 1380, on a *previously existing city*, which of course, had a previous date. Which date refers to "foundation of the city of Rome?", to resolve ambiguity will be necessary a longer explanation which was not going to be welcome in any way. (This same remark was made in the talk page then, but ignored.)

Regarding first concern made by Doug Weller about "the sauce issue": When I reduced Sheikos' claim to singular, I had previously *checked* than he was the only author in his source. When I allowed plural to Martin, I had previously *checked* that he represented the view of two other "dendro-dissidents", as is quite obvious from his article.

Regarding first concern made by Eggishorn: Please don't attribute your perception of my actions to my own *already stated* motivation, clearly expressed in the edit summary: Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly.

Btw, Mr Eggishorn has accused me in another thread of "intellectual dishonesty". I have never been accused of any kind of dishonesty by a pseudonym, so I'm not going to answer there. I feel that it IS intellectual dishonesty to grab some cryptic recommendation about valid sources to actually propose from a pseudonym the CENSORSHIP of relevant information to the reader.

About my role in Wikipedia I'm forced to explain that: Negative feelings about my contributions can be traced back to *my very first non anonymous edit* "First Edit".. , which I had to make after having "*anonymously tried*". "not Spain, but Greece". to finally reflect the *previously unknown HISTORICAL FACT to editors* that war *was in Greece, not in Spain* , and that *I had to explain that thoroughly*, so them can be called later "walls of text" *to editor Doug_Weller in the talk page*: ""Simple Explanation"". . and later *this FACT was forced by evidence* to make its path into the article, being my edit immediately obfuscated by him, but retaining the core word: Greece instead of *WRONG* Spain. Talk page testifies also the fact that, after this fact was explained, Doug Weller suggested it could make sense to omit it from the article.

Bwt, what is the difference between a "text wall" and a fruitful scientific debate? Just that the former has remained ignored by some irresponsible editor.

This error had been present for more than 8 years in the article, and several 'serious critiques' outside wikipedia have replicated it. Is only thanks to yours truly, accussed of being some kind of "Fomenko Pusher" now at the stake, that this is not the case anymore. Wikipedia has a responsibility. All errors residing in this article *have been already documented outside wikipedia*, but I was not going to betray this project I still believe by not trying to raise awareness of them at the same time.

This is just the tip of the Iceberg. This article is unmaintained and tries too hard to explain *a parody* of an actual serious research, which can be true or false, but doesn't compare in anyway with what the article draws. I want to insist that, *this is not a controversy regarding historical matters*, but *a controversy regarding scientific matters*. This article needs urgent scientific supervision. My points are already explained in the talk page. This article contradicts several *scientific critiques of topic "New_Chronology:Fomenko"*. I'm not even interested in editing the article, something that I'm trying to do from a sense of scientific duty.

Having said that, I've to call the attention again to *urgent mature scientific supervision* to force *another systematically rejected edition of mine* which irremediably will have to be made in the end, the sooner the better *for Wikipedia*: ""Robert Newton had NOT explained"". Cjbaiget (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Testamentary reflections on Salvio's resolution:

1. My *very first contribution* is a counterexample to both accusations made to me: First perceived as tendentious, heavily opposed, then accepted as fact, after a now considered "NOTHERE" explanation on the talk page. Result: Wikipedia can correctly inform now to the world, after at least 8 years, the fact that war was in Greece, not in Spain. Contributions should be checked against facts prior them being accused of tendentious, to avoid themselves being tendentious.

2. How many savage indefinite blocks after NOTHERE considerations come after more than a year of supposed misbehaving? After admin Doug Weller knowing I was a newcomer from the beginning, why I didn't receive almost a warning when I was at time to avoid it? Isn't this part of his duties?. NOTHERE accusations come from the fact that contributions remained ignored, not for being irrelevant or abusive. Lack of previous warning is just symptom of me having swallowed a hooked bait.

3. Insistence of accusing me of tendentious edition should give a detailed list of those tagged as that (or perhaps a shortest list of those no tagged as that), so I can use them in the future to appeal the resolution of this trial. Also, as I only have 100 of contributions, list length is exactly the percentage of such editions, which is also informative to this end.

Cjbaiget (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issue with this edit[56] is not that it is a blog (by an expert however), but that it is written in a way that appears to support Fomenko, or at least a missing 200 years which is, according to the source, used by amateurs to prove that the Roman Empire fell 200 years later than is claimed by mainstream historians and archaeologists. In fact the article specifically states "A common idea about why this should be so is that the Church of Rome added a couple of centuries to its age to gain legitimacy: in other words, a conspiracy of early historians." And "a conspiracy of early historians" links to our article on the Phantom time hypothesis, not a million miles from Fomenko's arguments.

Also, he wrote :"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science".^[1]" Note the use of the plural in the same edit, "some relevant figures from both the professional and academic circles..." But then Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." It's hard not to immediately wonder why the sauce for the goose isn't good for the gander. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here due to discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_chronology_(Fomenko) and repeating some of what I said there. The Rundkvist quote was presented dishonestly in that Cjbaiget is using a only part of it to say something that is almost the exact opposite of what the original author meant. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing." The "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The rest of the blog post makes this difference even clearer: I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals’ opinion, all the latter can reply is “We know we’re right but we can’t show you how we know”. And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue.. Cjbaiget used this source to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in the original quoted statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. There is no conceivable way that this truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of Cjbaiget. This use of a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have to say I'm not sure AE was necessary here... In my opinion, what I'm seeing (basically, tendentious editing) is enough to justify a standard indefinite block per NOTHERE without the need for discretionary sanctions. Salvio 08:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Salvio. This looks like a bog standard POV-pushing WP:SPA. Block, or partial block, and move on. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 22 September 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

Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shenqijing (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/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :

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

1. 22 September 2020 Attempt to remove mention of pseudoscience from lead
2. 22 September 2020 First revert to push through removal
3. 22 September 2020 Second revert to push through removal
4. 22 September 2020 Addition of unsourced OR / POV editorialising
5. 22 September 2020 Third revert to reinsert OR/ / POV editorialising
6. 22 September 2020 Fourth revert to reinsert a link (this is quite minor, but still a technical breech of 3RR)
7. 22 September 2020 Indication that they have 'other editors coming to look at the page', suggestive of off-wiki canvassing.
8. 23 September 2020 Moving conflict to another article with the addition of the same unsourced POV editorialising.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26June 2020 Partial block by RexxS from Brumby for edit warring.

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

• Previously advised of DS sanctions in this area 22 September 2020 by Girth Summit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Worth also looking at the discussion on my talk page, and at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the edit warring against two other editors has started up again today at Traditional Chinese medicine. I believe this user is attempting to understand our processes, but their long, repetitive and difficult-to-parse talk page contributions (I suspect a language barrier), their apparent inability/reluctance to respond meaningfully to other people's talk page comments, their kneejerk willingness to revert, and what I suspect is a strong POV, mean that they should not be editing in this area. I would favour a topic ban from TCM (or perhaps alt med in general), and if they learn how to edit constructively elsewhere this could be appealed in six months. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Newslinger - in case you are waiting for a response to your question (which echoes one I asked them several times), please note that Shenqijing has been blocked 72 hours for further edit warring at Traditional Chinese medicine - I think they'd reached 5RR today by the time they were blocked. They did however provide an answer to the question on my talk page in this diff, I interpret as saying that they only meant that they hoped to get other editors' interest by posting on the talk page, not by off-wiki canvassing. My position outlined above remains unchanged. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of 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.

Hello, I am trying to get a impartial opinion and seeing how to get someone with experience to come and mediate this page, before I do this I am looking at Wikipedia process to make sure that it is within the guidelines. I feel that there is a narrative on this page that needs to be balanced that is all. At no stage have I deleted the inclusion of the statement from Nature Magazine only included it's subject and why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06782-7 Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddits including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". As you can see that the only thing that I am guilty of is pointing out how the article had three links to Pseudoscience enforcing a unbalanced narrative 2. requesting that the Critique section be moved to a more appropriate position rather than being in pole position in reference. 3, also adding a link for Chinese food therapy that was counted as a revert, 4 recording major edditing on the talk page, sumerising the article that I have supplied a link to, 4, telling the truth and being told that I have a extreme view and what I had to say was not well written, If you look at the history of the page one revert is actually the addition of the link to the Chinese food therapy wiki page. There was also another editor coming on to the page and rivirting the page without talking on the page. Have a look at the Talk on the page. . I would like to say that it is not hard in this case to look biased in this case and that I am not, as to bring Ballance back to this article I need to lean heavily to the opposite side to straighten it up to make it True. Amituofo🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Noticed this editor at Functional medicine pushing for inclusion of TCM material (huh?).

The filing shows a strong pattern of disruptive editing which appears not to be abating. So yes, a WP:NOTHERE block or maybe a TBAN from TCM if it's thought they might be productive in other areas? Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC); Amended 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC) after experiencing a bit more of this editor: I think there's no hope.[reply]

The POV pushing in the 4th diff is so blatant and extreme that it calls the editor's acceptance of the neutral point of view into question. This was not a one time slip as the POV pushing continued. Editors who will not or cannot accept our core content policies must be restricted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shenqijing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), says this on his user page:[57] "Buddhist Monk,Dharma Teacher, Hong Kong trained and Qualified, TCM and Acupuncture Practioner[sic] and Health provider. Western Medicaly[sic] Qualification. Quantum, Mechanical and Field phisics[sic]. Teacher and Educator". There is no evidence that he has an actual medical training or a degree in physics. It appears that he thinks that whatever training he received in order to practice traditional Chinese medicine counts as being an actual doctor and physicist.

Shenqijing has been furiously working to push pseudoscience, edit warring when anyone oppses him. A few examples::

• In [58] he removed the sourced statement "The existence of qi as a measurable form of energy as discussed in traditional Chinese medicine has no basis in the scientific understanding of physics, medicine, biology or human physiology." from Chinese martial arts.
• In [59], he removed the sourced "It has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action"
• In [60] he changed "...has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action." to "has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action by many Occidental Eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters. by many Occidental Eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters."

(He edit warred over ever one of the above changes)

But what most strikes me is that, no matter how many people disagree with him, he pretty much picks an argument with each one of them, both on the artifice talk page and on their user talk pages.[61][62][63][64] At no time does he actually address the objections the other editor have. The WP:IDHT is strong in this one.

In my opinion, Shenqijing will never be able to edit collaboratively. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ― Upton Sinclair

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Shenqijing, could you please clarify what you mean by "we have more eddtitors comming to have a look at this page" in Special:Diff/979815273? Who are these editors, how are you related to them, and how do you know that they are coming "to have a look at this page"? — Newslinger talk 08:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Shenqijing responded on my talk page in Special:Diff/980049379:

  The statement was about trying to get another editor to look at the page as I felt that it was unbalanced, I was just looking at arbitration and luckily it was done by the other party involved so we can make sense of what is happening on page.. I have added two other topics on talk including a similar page on Ayurvedic as this is a similar natuural Medical page, and a link to another Nature Magazine article that on the topic of TCM being added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation including their reasons. if you have time can you swing by and have a look please, that would be great. Shenqijing (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  Regardless, Shenqijing's edit warring and removal of reliably sourced information leads me to support the proposed indefinite block. Shenqijing is able to apply for an unblock in 6 months if they can show a much improved understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Newslinger talk 15:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The socking, partial block from Brumby, and now this leas me to believe that we really need a WP:NOTHERE block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The user has been blocked for 72h for edit-warring today diff, and I think we should cloed this discussion with an indefinite block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 24 September 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

Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SPECIFICO (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:ARBAPDS

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

1. 08:55, 24 September 2020 Jack Upland removed longstanding material.
2. 17:04, 24 September 2020 I challenged this edit through reversion.
3. 17:34, 24 September 2020 SPECIFICO reinstated the challenged edit without first gaining consensus.
4. 19:16, 24 September 2020 I notified SPECIFICO of the violation of the "consensus required" restrictions, and requested that SPECIFICO self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22 April 2017 AP2 enforcement: You are restricted to only using WP:AE or an uninvolved administrator's talk page to request discretionary sanctions be levied against another editor.

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

• Brought a complaint at WP:AE for WP:ARBAPDS on 8 September 2020: [69]
• Given a logged warning in WP:ARBAPDS subject area as a result of this WP:AE request in April 2020: [70].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a straightforward violation of the following DS restriction, which is listed at the top of Talk:Julian Assange: Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

I informed SPECIFICO on their talk page that their revert was a violation of this restriction, and gave them the opportunity to self-revert: [71]. SPECIFICO ignored my warning, and has continued to edit Wikipedia since (e.g., [72]). SPECIFICO has not attempted to gain consensus for the edit they reinstated, and indeed has not even taken part in the discussion on the talk page about the material in question: [73]. It was simply a drive-by revert.

Finally, I'd like to bring attention to SPECIFICO's edit summary, which is concerning for a BLP: Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant ([74]).

@Dennis Brown: SPECIFICO did not cite any of the reasons you're giving. SPECIFICO's reason (given only in the edit summary, because SPECIFICO did not take part in any discussions) was that this is supposedly Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant. That in itself reflects a significant level of hostility towards the subject of the BLP, which is inappropriate for an editor to express in the first place. As I pointed out on the talk page, there is very good sourcing for Assange making the claim in question, and indeed for it being central to his response to the accusations in Sweden: [75]. This report is about a completely straightforward violation of DS, for which the offending editor was given plenty of grace time to either undo their edit or to explain their reasoning on the talk page. They did neither. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The section, "Result concerning SPECIFICO" is for uninvolved administrators. You and I have a history of conflicts in several different subject areas, as you recently acknowledged on your talk page ([76]). In our last content dispute, a few weeks ago, you said to me, It's hard to tell what came first, your arrogance or your POV. ([77]) From WP:INVOLVED, Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. Your comments belong in the section, "Statement by Drmies".

About BLP, you've got things exactly the wrong way around. Removing Assange's response to the accusations in Sweden was a serious BLP problem. Anyone who has vaguely followed the news about Assange over the years is familiar with the fact that Assange claimed the Swedish arrest warrant was a pretext to get him to a country from which he could be more easily extradited to the US. That was a major part of his legal battle against extradition to Sweden. After Jack Upland removed the "pretext" sentence, Burrobert pointed out that the body of the article included very similar claims by Assange, and provided three additional sources backing up the "pretext" statement: [78]. When Jack Upland pointed out that the two sources at the end of the removed sentence did not mention Assange's "pretext" statements, I provided four reliable sources that do so: [79]. SPECIFICO was not involved in any of these discussions, and their only statement on the matter - their edit summary - stated an entirely different reason for removing the material. Given that SPECIFICO's edit summary was actually vaguely insulting to the subject of the BLP (Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant: [80]), it's quite a reach to present SPECIFICO as the one abiding by WP:BLP here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: SPECIFICO did not claim that the statement was unsourced. Their only comment was the following edit summary: Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant ([81]). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng and Awilley: I agree. The BLP comments are predicated on the supposition that SPECIFICO reverted due to poor sourcing, when SPECIFICO claimed no such thing. I don't think that Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant is the kind of edit summary that an editor worried about WP:BLP would leave. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Ernie: Indeed, the claims that this falls under the BLP exception haven't made a bit of sense. An editor removes the response of a living person to serious accusations made against them. The editor insults that living person in their edit summary (Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant, [82]). This edit is then retroactively justified by others as somehow promoting BLP policy. The rationale given - that the removed material was supposedly unsourced - is completely different from the rationale given by the editor who made the edit. The removed material is widely known and three supporting sources had already been given on the talk page before its removal ([83]). Just in case the editor's motivations are unclear, they continue to gratuitously insult the living person on the talk page: Assange's self-serving conspiracy theorizing is widely noted ([84]). The argument that this editor was acting in defense of BLP policy is just a bizarre reversal of reality. -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 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 can confirm Thucydides recollection of the events. The text that was removed did not at the time appear in the body in that exact form. However, something similar was there and could have been used to modify the lead appropriately. The removal of the text distorted the narrative of events. When I later pointed out this distortion to Jack Upland he amended the lead to attempt to fill the gap that was created. I also found the editor's edit summary to be unnecessarily aggressive. Burrobert (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether SPECIFICO is right or wrong on the BLP question, the edit summary Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant represents a blatant failure to leave personal POV out of it, and I think we should be particularly strict about that in DS areas. I am not surprised to see that from SPECIFICO, regrettably. These things should not be binary debates about whose behavior was worse – yes, it's really ok to sanction both editors in a dispute if both have earned sanctions – and being right on BLP, even if SPECIFICO was, should not earn forgiveness for being so wrong on a different fundamental editing principle. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but the edit summary ... represents a blatant failure to leave personal POV out of it, and I think we should be particularly strict about that in DS areas is dead-on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411 provided a link[85] on the talk page to a Nytimes article with this quote:

Mr. Assange and his supporters have long maintained that the accusations were attempts to discredit him and said that the efforts to extradite him to Sweden were a pretext to send him to the United States.[86] Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I agree with Awilley here. I am not seeing a BLP violation. When the source says A warrant for his arrest is still in place in the UK. Mr Assange fears that if he goes to Sweden, he will be sent to the US to answer charges of espionage relating to Wikileaks' publication of secret US documents. I think that could reasonably support and said they were a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents. CRYBLP does not help there. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant is a personal attack against Assange and thus a BLP violation. The mainspace edit said they were a pretext for him to be extradited from Sweden to the United States because of his role in publishing secret American documents is not a BLP violation because it's true, not controversial, and widely reported (that is, the fact that he said it is true, not controversial, and widely reported; not the truth of his underlying accusation), it's something Assange has repeatedly said publicly, and it takes seconds to verify. If that statement appears unsourced, it's a de minimis BLP violation. But the edit summary is not, it's a personal attack against a BLP subject. And it's quite ironic to leave a BLP vio edit summary in an edit claiming to be enforcing BLP. I'm sure Mr. Assange would be super happy about Specifico's edit because it protected him as a BLP subject, right? Lev!vich 05:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alerting another editor to the same type of DS violation they refuse to discuss here is somewhat ironic behavior from SPECICIFO. Let's not beat around the bush here - SPECIFICO knows the restriction well and also knows there won't be anything done about it. The DS is intended to prevent the type of disruption and time sinks we have here now at AE and the discussion at the talk page where editors can now stonewall with cries of "no consensus!" Editors have been begging admins to enforce these sanctions for some time now, but if there are no consequences for clear cut violations like the one identified here then just remove the DS as ineffective. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little closer at this, SPECIFICO told us again explicitly why they removed it against the DS, and it had nothing to do with BLP. There has not been consensus for this since Jack first spotted it sitting inexplicably in the lead and did us all the service of removing it. That's why I removed it the first time it was reinstated, and that is why it needs to come out now. from this diff. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think it might be time for a creative solution here: TBAN everyone with more than ten edits to talk:Julian Assange within the last month, for a period of three months. It is a classic example of endlessly repeated and unchanging arguments by the same partisans over a period of years. I think everyone will be happier if they do something else for a while. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited articles with SPECIFICO previously and found that he was quick to warn and criticize others for alleged BLP violations, including templates (WP:DTTR), wherever there was a disagreement. I found this hostile and unproductive. I see that pattern repeating itself here. I think that SPECIFICO should have consulted an admin before breaking the DS on that page rather than assuming that the exemption applies. Some admins have suggested that BLP is a wide net. This undermines the purpose of DS. If all one needs to do is claim that a content relates to BLP to edit-war over DS restrictions, no matter how dubious, then what is the point of the restrictions? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary seems to be a clear violation, regardless of BLP. SPECIFICO is not a new editor and is indeed one of the ones who lets others know of all the DS rules and regulations and is oftentimes the first to suggest sanctions on others. It's very frustrating to have to continue editing the AE/AN/AI scorecard by affiliation and disposition. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As for the part removed in this BLP, the citation doesn't support the claim made. No where in that article was it claimed that Assange was claiming the charges were a pretext, or similar. It might be considered exempt under WP:BLP. Probably not good form for SPECIFICO to do it without further explanation, but in the end, WP:BLP trumps DS, so I don't see a sanction as justified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Dennis here. The talk page discussion is enlightening, and suggests that this issue is over and done with, handled in the usual manner of talk page discussion and article improvement. This is mustard after the meal, as the Dutch might say. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thucydides411, I don't really understand what you are trying to do here. Yes, you can argue that Specifico (never understood why it's in all-caps--must be a K-pop thing) committed a DS violation, but what I see is Jack Upland noting that there is a seriously unverified piece of material in a BLP at 8:55, and they explain that on the talk page at 9:04, and you revert that at 17:04. In other words, you restore unverified material in a BLP without a valid edit summary ("it has been in there" is not a good reason) and without giving a reason on the talk page other than "it was widely reported"--which doesn't address the fact that it was unverified. So I really don't think you want to push this point, because you are essentially reporting yourself for a BLP violation. Just saying. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the "vaguely insulting" edit summary, I wouldn't call that a BLP violation: if the statement isn't in those references that were there at the time, Specifico can hardly be said to have claimed that Assange promoted a conspiracy theory; it is more likely to apply that comment to the editor who reinserted it (which, by the way, can in that sense claimed to be insulting, but that's another matter). And saying that Specifico should have commented on the process on the talk page is a bit disingenuous since they removed an improperly verified statement, and it's not up to them to improve the article to make the claim stick. But if I am to be disregarded as involved, there isn't much point in me continuing to argue the point, which I think was already made well enough by Dennis Brown, and I'll gladly bow out. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I am with Dennis and Drmies here. This edit by Thucydides411 is not supported by either of the sources (the BBC source merely says "Mr Assange fears that if he goes to Sweden, he will be sent to the US to answer charges of espionage" and the Guardian source doesn't mention the USA at all). Therefore, Thucydides411 should not have restored it at all, and whilst Specifico's revert was technically a violation of the DS, no admin is ever going to agree to a sanction for reverting an edit that introduced unsourced claims into a BLP. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)I personally don't see the WP:BLP issue that Dennis sees. The bit about Assange claiming the charges were a pretext for extradition were at least partially supported in the cited BBC source (see the sentence beginning "Mr Assange fears that if he goes to Sweden, he will be sent to the US to answer charges of espionage"). Also, it's not particularly contentious, doesn't reflect negatively on Asssange, and is easily verified in other sources (example: WaPo). In any case, someone claiming a BLP exemption to a revert rule is supposed to mention the exemption in the edit summary.
  As for the violation of the DS rule, this is about as clear-cut as it gets. I'm surprised SPECIFICO didn't self-revert when asked. They're usually more communicative than this. That said, I'll avoid weighing in on whether/how this should be enforced, as my long opposition to this particular DS restriction is common knowledge. I'll ping User:JzG to see if he's interested in enforcing the restriction he placed. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe Specifico did claim a BLP exemption, they merely claimed (correctly) that it was not properly sourced. I would expect that if you're going to make a blanket revert on a BLP that you should at least ensure that the sources are good enough - the Guardian one is completely irrelevant. Incidentally, it took me around 15 seconds to find a BBC source that actually backs up the claim made ([87]). If Thucydides411 had restored the text with a source like that, then this would be clear-cut. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Awilley and others that this was not a BLP violation and, as such, Specifico's edit was not exempted from the restriction. And even if it was, reverting with the edit summary Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant would still be problematic. As far as I'm concerned, Specifico's edit did in fact violate the restriction; that said, I'm not going to block him, because I see that some of my colleagues in this section disagree. Salvio 07:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP is a very wide net. Sometimes I think it's too wide, but as it is, it covers this. It doesn't matter what the edit summary or justification or motivation was. DS is peculiar also, because it tends to get interpreted technically also. As I see it, just as an admin, what Specifico did falls sufficiently under the blp exemption, and it is not a DS violation, the way things things currently work. (My opinion of DS related matters is known, but I'm commenting about not what sanctions should be like, but as the rules are currently used). I don't want to close this definitively as no violation, because it might seem like an arb overruling other admins, in a situation where arbs do not usually do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I write to request the removal or limitation of restrictions currently imposed on User:BrownHairedGirl.

Per the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Remedies issues on 29 January 2020, BrownHairedGirl is prohibited from "engaging in discussions about portals anywhere on Wikipedia", and from "interacting with or commenting about Northamerica1000 anywhere on Wikipedia", both subject to appeal "in six months". BrownHairedGirl has studiously observed these restrictions for over eight months now, and has continued to contribute excellent work to the encyclopedia since then. Another editor and I are therefore preparing to renominate her for adminship. It is possible that either of the aforementioned issues will be raised by participants in the discussion, and I therefore request that the specified restrictions be lifted, either in their entirety, or at least to the extent needed for the purpose of fully engaging any issues that may arise during the course of the RfA.

I am also informing User:Northamerica1000 of this request. BD2412 T 17:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the incorrect venue for such an appeal. That restriction was placed by the Arbitration Committee, and it may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. Appeals at this noticeboard are only for restrictions imposed by administrators as arbitration enforcement actions, not for remedies imposed directly by the Committee. Additionally, appeals are generally only considered when filed by the user under sanction, not by a third party. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will file there. I believe that this presents a sufficient circumstance to allow an exception to the general practice. BD2412 T 18:18, 10 October 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

ItsPugle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Peregrine Fisher (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/Enforcement/Archive262#Peregrine Fisher: indefinite topic-ban from race and intelligence

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

1. Special:Diff/981587198: disputing the inclusion of white supremacy on Proud Boys despite reliable sources
2. Special:Diff/981579424, Special:Diff/981586873, Special:Diff/981584062, Special:Diff/981581234, Special:Diff/981580770: disputing the inclusion of far-right and on Proud Boys despite reliable sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/952615929: 72h block for talk page activity in a review for a race and intelligence page

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Special:Diff/952615929 by AmandaNP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive262#Statement by Peregrine Fisher

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While the talk discussion was not particularly malicious, Proud Boys is currently protected after the slew of vandalism and NPOV issues, primarily trying to remove the mention of white supremacy and neo-fascism. In their comments, Peregrine Fisher also exhibited general incivility, often making stark and blanket assertions that other editors are wrong.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/981911385

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 raised AE restrictions with the editor in question, here, after their query to the Proud Boys talk page with pertinence to white supremacy. Also, Proud Boys wiki-links to Race and Intelligence per this (although I'm not sure how, I can't find the link; if someone can find it that would be great). Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Proud Boys have been designated as a racist hate group by the SPLC, often marketing themselves as "western chauvinists", with an "anti-white guilt" and "western superiority" agenda. ADL has called them Islamophobic and anti-Semitic with significant members sharing "white supremacist and anti-Semitic ideologies and/or engage with white supremacist groups". They're commonly called a white supremacy group by reliable sources, too (see the 11 sources provided in response to Peregrine Fisher's dispute). By all regards, the Proud Boys are a racist, white supremacist, violent political militia. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Peregrine often doesn't edit for days (or sometimes weeks) at a time, probably best to leave this open for a week or so, in case they want to provide input. Nfitz (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• What is the intersection between the Proud Boys and R&I --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @ItsPugle: The DS are on "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" not White Supremacy. Unless someone can offer a compelling argument to link the Proud Boys to the exact topic under sanctions, I think there is nothing we can do here per Newslinger --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While the Proud Boys are covered by the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, I do not believe they are covered by the race and intelligence discretionary sanctions. The topic of race and intelligence (defined in the arbitration remedy as "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed") is more of an academic subject than a political one. If a group is "far-right" or "affiliated with white supremacists" (as stated in the Proud Boys article), this by itself is not sufficient to link the group to the topic of race and intelligence.

  Peregrine Fisher received a discretionary sanctions alert for post-1932 American politics on 4 October. Peregrine Fisher has not yet edited after receiving the alert, so I recommend this request be closed with no action. A future enforcement request can be filed under the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions, if needed. — Newslinger talk 10:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As a note, the list of pages that link to "Race and intelligence" includes the Proud Boys article because the article contains the {{White nationalism}} template, which lists both Race and intelligence and the Proud Boys. — Newslinger talk 10:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Proud Boys content does not inherently fall under R+I (though some elements may) and so there is no tban violation for those edits. I also agree that it does fall under AP2 but would need to see evidence of disruption after the template was placed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 10 October 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

Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Coffeeandcrumbs (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

Andy Ngo is subject to 1RR as a DS under AP2 [[89]] The notice is on the top of Talk:Andy_Ngo

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

1. 23:01, 30 September 2020 The descriptor "journalist" was recently (last two days) edit warred by several IP addresses. The term has been part of the intro sentence since January and has been discussed in the talk archives [[90]]. It was prat of the long standing version of the lead.
2. 13:01, 1 October 2020 Adding "provocateur" can be seen as continuing the IP edit war that was trying to add the similar "propagandist". I will grant this is not a clear cut revert.
3. 15:12, 1 October 2020, 16:19, 1 October 2020 One edit to remove "journalist" a second time. An hour later, after additional user and talk page discussion, the disputed label "provocateur" was restored. In the interim the editor replied to comments on their own talk page and on the article talk page. They even opened a RfC related to the label "journalist" but felt it was OK to keep "provocateur" in the lead.

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

Editor is aware of both BLP and AP2 DSs [[91]]

Dorsetonian and myself asked CC to self revert before the second set of edits were made [[92]] A talk page discussion related to CC's edits was also made prior to the second pair of edits [[93]] While the first two diffs could be seen as a single revert and the addition of new content, the second two reverts are clear. The second two don't have any reverts in between but given the discussions between the two reverts this seems like a questionable action on the editor's part. Even if they claim good faith in removing "journalist" they can't make the same claim for pushing "provocateur". Springee (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Several editors seem to be focused on the content dispute aspect. That is for the talk page. This is here because the editor violated 1RR. Springee (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As the editor who opened this discussion, I would be fine with an informal notice/warning that C&C was violating the 1RR rule. So long as they understand the violation and agree to be careful to avoid violations in the future, any additional sanction would be punitive rather than protective. Springee (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• "provocateur" is significantly different than "propagandist". In these two edits, I tried to establish a neutral point from which editors can start a discussion to decide whether to include "journalist". As has been shown in previous discussions, the claim that he is a "journalist" is contentious and requires consensus for inclusion for WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Each edit I made was significantly different, and the last edit (after self-reverting on the bases of the claim of "provocateur" is not supported by RS) adds citations establishing that "provocateur" is based on reliable sources.
• I have in good faith started a RfC on the question of "journalist", which the OP ignores and tries to game the system by coming here to complain. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim below by Wikieditor1992 ("they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources") is a complete falsehood. When I added "provocateur" the first time, the sources for that already existed in the § Career section. I self-reverted only on the basis of the claim by OP that it required additional sources. I self-reverted the self-revert adding sources in the lead. If a self-revert of a self-revert is a violation of 1RR, we are living in a bazaar world.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Another falsehood, I opened the RfC a full hour before this opened. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP is a double-edged sword. Not only does it require secondary sources for negative contentious claims, it also requires secondary sources for positive contentious claims. "Journalist" has a positive connotation, implying expertise, fairness, and fact checking. Multiple RS have established that Ngo does not meet that standard. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I start the RfC about the "journalist" because that is the root cause of the POV issue. I added "provocateur" for WP:PARITY. I would have advocated for either removing both "journalist" and "provocateur" as I had done in my very first edit, or keeping both per NPOV. OP ignored the warning WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and restored the challenged claim, as if I am acting in bad-faith. I have also cited WP:3RRNO in my edit summaries. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• At the end of the day, if I did violate the 1RR, I apologize and will stay away from the article. I simply wanted "long-standing" to not be a justification for keeping a claim that is no longer supported by more recent RS, or consensus. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The words "new consensus" appear nowhere in my statement. I have added a comma to the above. A good faith challenge to a claim from IP or experienced user, indicates that it is "no longer supported by ... consensus". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• OP's edit was itself in violation of BLP and so were Dorsetonian edits yesterday to restore "journalist" based only on "long-standing" consensus not supported by an inline citation. At the time, the article did not include citations to support "journalist" and the body in fact challenged that assertion calling him a "right-wing provocateur". AFAIK, it is not edit warring to remove claims on a BLP not supported by sources or to try a different word like "provocateur" instead of "propagandist" (which I never wrote). Editing is not reverting. Unlike Dorsetonian's edits yesterday, there is not a single diff presented that shows me reverting to a version the same as before (except the self-revert, which I restored with sources). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the reported user violating the DS at that page by breaking 1RR, they are adding contentious labels to the opening sentence without sources, and without even a nod to talk page discussion. I have spent some time at this article and this kind of disruptive editing gets in the way of positive changes and potential for consensus. CoffeeCrumbs suggests that it is "contentious" to call the subject a journalist, which is the language used by the New York Times, but defies common sense by stating that "provocateur" is not contentious label to which WP:LABEL applies, and which the highest quality sources on the subject, namely the WaPo and NYT, do not use. The editor clearly broke the DS at the relevant page and their reasoning here reverses the very meaning of BLP.

Update: It is baffling that C&C now opens an RfC "in good faith" and accuses Springee of "coming here to complain" only after they violated the pages discretionary sanctions. Springee was right to bring this report, and the RfC should've proceeded C&C's addition to the article, let alone edit-warring it back in over 1RR. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Contentious labels require citations, even in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE. And I will note that C&C's RfC does not address the most contentious of their changes, namely adding "provocateur" to the lead, and only asks about "journalist," a label that the NYT used to describe the subject. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't want to go over my limit here, but I am continually astounded by the justifications offered here. C&C suggests that BLP is a "double edged sword" which also applies to "positive" characterizations. I guess we are assuming "journalist" to be a positive label, but first, this is nowhere reflected in policy. BLP requires that material be accurate and well sourced and is particularly stringent when it comes to contentious material. The New York Times (see above) calls the subject a "journalist," so that is an open-and-shut matter. "Provocateur" is more consistently attributed to opinion columns and other non-secondary sources, yet C&C seems to suggest the two are on the same level—or that somehow the latter is appropriate but the former is not? I do not see this at all reflected in the sources or policy. None of this makes much sense to me, and I don't see it as offering any hint of justification for violating the DS at this page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I appreciate the new sentiment by C&C that they will respect DS, but I have no idea what they are referring to by "new consensus" and "no longer supported by sources." The NYT piece supporting the label "journalist" was published in 2019. If there was such a "new consensus" for C&C's changes, then why are they just now opening an RfC? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion This was not acted on and is now basically a moot issue. However, I would encourage any reviewing admin to consider imposing a "consensus required" DS on the Andy Ngo page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should state that I reverted what I judged to be a reversion of a legitimate edit. I am aware of the continued efforts over the past few days by new editors to label Ngo a "propagandist", which is negative not based on reliable sources, but I thought "provocateur" was an appropriate descriptor. I was unaware of any conflict between these specific editors on this or other articles or talk pages. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like Liz, I also reverted propagandist. Like Liz, I also think provocateur is an appropriate descriptor. The two have very different meanings and provocateur and the like can be well sourced. Speaking of provocateur, I find some of the comments here and attempts to mess with the RfC provocative. I do see a technical 1RR vio. I say technical because it follows an IP edit war in the same wording and might be considered part of a cleanup. I suggest trout dinner all around (with social distancing) and using the RfC for agreement. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yesterday the article in question was suffering a sustained attack from vandals repeatedly changing "journalist" to "propagandist". As an obvious BLP violation, this had to be promptly reverted and doing so was exempt from 1RR/3RR restrictions.
2. Most of this vandalism came from IPs. Exceptions were Vautrinjr who twice restored "propagandist" ([94], [95]) - claiming on the second edit to have added a reference to support it (though did not) - and C&C who initially removed "journalist" and then subsequently added and re-added "provocateur" ([96], [97]).
3. IMO, C&C was being a bit WP:POINTy in demanding a reference for "journalist" when it is patently clear from the existing references (a dozen of so of which describe him as a journalist in their quoted titles), and from the referenced career section ("Ngo was a writer and sub-editor at Quillette") that he is a journalist. Nevertheless, the fact was validly challenged and there are references now in place. I am not quite sure why C&C is still pursuing a campaign to remove "journalist" from the article, but that is not the issue here.
4. I do not regard "provocateur" in anything like the same league as "propagandist". The latter is clearly intended to disparage the subject; the former merely describes someone who provokes controversy. Adding the term with references was not vandalism in the way that replacing "journalist" with "propagandist" was.
5. Technically, Vautrinjr and C&C did exceed 1RR which applies to this article. However, I AGF that neither editor saw that this sanction was in place and do not support the use of any sanctions against them. The ongoing content dispute can play out on the article talk page. Dorsetonian (talk) 21:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the link provided by Springee, the matter of whether 'journalist' should be in the lead was off and on under debate from August 2019 to January 2020. Now C&C wades in and raises the tired issue yet again, and violates 1RR in the process. This is not complex. If C&C can't follow 1RR, Andy Ngo is not the right article for C&C to be editing. We don't need to continue the long discussion of the issue of the word 'journalist' at AE; 1RR is either a bright line to be enforced here or it isn't. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not going to comment here as I've just protected the article and no doubt someone would inevitably accuse me of being involved, just posting to note that the article is currently locked. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not impressed by the use of BLP as a club here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Couldn't this have just stayed at article talk? There's no one ill-intentioned here. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Borderline case. Being that there has already been administrative action, ie: article protection by Black Kite, and since Coffeeandcrumbs hasn't edited since the protection has expired, I'm hesitant to take strong administrative action. It's a small flare up and it probably needs to go to the talk page. I would warn C&C that future edits that use BLP to bypass DS need better rationales and should be backed up by immediate discussion on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: I had to full protect the article again to keep it from spiraling into another edit war. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Then maybe it needs to stay locked down until they have an RFC, which is easier to enforce. The problem is obviously bigger than C&C, who hasn't participated in this latest edit fest. Not sure what other tools we have here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]