Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive309

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

ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Golden (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

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

1. 17 June 2022 - Golden removes Armenian name from the lead with insufficient explanation.
2. 8 July 2022 - Golden decides to reply to the solid arguments presented on talk just a mere 20 days later, despite editing numerous times during those days. The reply is an irrelevant search result that isn’t pertaining to the arguments of including the alternative name in the lead, and there is more disturbing context to it, see my elaboration in the additional comments below. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR
3. 9 July 2022 - Golden reinstates their own problematic edit less than 12 hours later with “rv per talk”, referring to their subpar talk reply and ignoring consensus on talk. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR
4. 17 June 2022; [1], [2] (18 June 2022) - Golden rewrote articles while adding unsourced “forcing the Azerbaijani population to flee”. After I asked them to clarify on Talk:Mərzili#Unsourced and addressed their latest argument, also asking them to stop doing same sentence additions until the discussion is over and we have some sort of consensus, they still continued doing so now with “forcing the Kurdish and Azerbaijani population to flee”, without a source and without engaging/explanation to my last comment. WP:OR, WP:ONUS, WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, WP:CIR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 April 2020 - Blocked for sockpuppetry for 3 days
2. 3 April 2021 - Blocked for sockpuppetry indefinitely
3. 22 October 2021 - Put under AA topic ban as an unblock condition
4. 23 April 2022 - AA topic ban lifted

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 9 May 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Golden was blocked for sockpuppeting and, on a condition to remove the block, put under an AA topic ban. Although the topic ban was appealed a few months ago on April 23rd, Golden has continued to display the same tendentious pattern that resulted in their block and topic ban, as much of their sockpuppeting focused on name changes for settlements in Azerbaijan. I did a courtesy warning about one of Golden's edits to their mentor, see User_talk:MJL#Monitoring_/_mentoring. Golden agreed to self-revert the tendentious edit per their mentor's advice. However, the problematic behavior of Golden in the AA area didn’t improve even after this.

They removed the Armenian name from the Zangilan lead with insufficient explanation, see the 1st diff. They were replied to with talk arguments that they didn’t address for 20 days. It gets very confusing and bad faith from here on; user Armatura who made the arguments was blocked on 8th of July (unrelated to Zangilan lead), only after which, hours later, Golden finally bothered to reply to a now blocked user. With what intentions when now Armatura can't reply back, I'm not sure. Golden’s reply itself was an irrelevant search result and didn't address the arguments of alternative name in the lead (wasn't a move discussion). But Golden didn't stop there; they restored their own edit less than 12 hours later after that 20 day delayed reply, with an edit summary "per talk". They reinstated their own edit based on that subpar talk comment when the opposing user has no means to reply. Even other opposing editors on talk (who formed consensus) didn’t have the chance to reply either (when I saw Golden’s reinstating edit, I reverted and commented myself).

In good faith, I asked about this on Golden’s talk first, wanting to understand their rationale. There should’ve been one I thought given how serious this is, given their recent tban, and given that I just notified about their tendentious edit after the tban - all of these should’ve been enough reflection for Golden and I expected a well justified rationale for their behavior. Yet all I received were elusive justifications and reassurances that amount to nothing at this point, User_talk:Golden#I_want_to_understand_your_rationale_first.

Other examples include Golden adding unsourced content in articles without addressing the arguments, see the diffs in 4th point. I think this user didn't learn anything and their tban should be reinstated, the length of their original probation wasn't enough to make them edit without tendentious pattern/behavior. Perhaps, an indef would be more suiting.

Tamzin Golden shows diff from June, claiming that "information was there" and they only expanded. In reality, it was added by Golden themselves, 23 April, after their tban appeal, with no source. The later expansion added more unsourced wording without addressing talk arguments.

The issue now isn’t whether a source for it actually exists or not, but that Golden was pushing it without having a source himself and that he omitted adding it in April. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read Golden's followup explanation regarding today's edit. I don't know what to say. This might be a WP:CIR issue because one should be more diligent

especially while they're being reported in AE. The current diffs in this case I presented are more concerning to me, and the behavior that followed up with them. Also the fact that a certain editor keeps defending Golden to the point of "even a formal warning is too much here" leaves me flabbergasted. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Administrator note: Struck; see below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin You’re correct, the discussion is about Golden. My apologies. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

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 explained my reasoning for the first three diffs (which are all part of the same dispute) here, and I don't have anything else to add at the moment. Regarding the last diff, I provided ZaniGiovanni with a reliable source for the change, which he did not find satisfactory and requested further detail from sources. I believe the source I've provided is sufficient enough and the level of detail he is expecting is unrealistic, which is why I haven't responded further. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: The following information was already in the article prior to my rewrite ([4]): The Azerbaijani and Kurdish population of the village fled during the First Nagorno-Karabakh when Armenian forces captured the village. So my expansion added no new information about this in particular. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: The only history of socking and AA topic bans I have is a sockpuppet block from 2020, where during the appeal I was unblocked with the condition of a topic ban until I could demonstrate my ability to edit constructively in other topics, which I did and successfully appealed. So I've only been blocked and topic banned once in AA. I don't doubt the fairness of any of these sanctions and they were deserved.

I have acknowledged that my revert of the blocked user so hastily (the first three diffs) was a mistake, and I have explained why in my talk page (see my first comment here). My reasoning for the fourth diff was also outlined in my earlier comments on this page. None of these, in my opinion, are serious enough to merit a full topic ban. I do concur that this topic area is a cesspool of POV, incivility, and edit warring, and I have made every effort to stay out of it. But have undoubtedly made some errors in the process, for which I have repeatedly accepted responsibility and apologized. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 19:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown, Tamzin: I don't have any objections to a logged warning. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit had sufficient explanation. These were not solid arguments and starts with a bold-face falsehood because Armatura pointed out Golden's revert 3 minutes after Golden had already self-reverted. This is the type of thing that made Armatura difficult to deal with, so understandably Golden decided to disengage for a while. Where Golden went wrong was re-instating their edits so soon after their reply (and waiting so long to reply in general). However, it is a stretch to say anything on that talk page was a "consensus" for either side. ZG claims there was, but that is doubtful with the amount of bad faith found in that thread.

Golden consistently expresses a willingness to listen to others and self-correct. ([5]) They have written content like Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan to GA status since the topic ban has been lifted. Golden has been almost entirely absent from the drama boards which I personally find incredibly commendable.

Does Golden still get into disputes? Of course, but they have kept their cool even during stressful situations. If most editors in AA2 were like Golden, then the project would be better off in my opinion.

That said, I am biased here. Golden is a wiki-friend of mine. The "mentor-mentee" aspect of our relationship is a bit overblown (it's mostly just me being supportive and pointing out any potential missteps as I see them). I was personally incredibly upset about these two edits since I was involved with Armatura's block and don't want anyone to think I did that to proxy for Golden or anything. Armatura's behavior had been bothering me for a while, but if I weighed in on the content dispute itself I would probably have taken his side.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: I'm not seeing a problem with the edit you mentioned except that it is uncited. I did a bit of digging, and I was able to confirm that, yes, Kurds were forced to flee their homes in the Lachlan District (including Minkend) in 1992 (Available from Academic Search Complete in EBSCOHost using WP:TWL). Golden's phrasing was honestly an incredibly neutral way to describe what happened considering my source says All, or almost all, Muslims were driven out or fled. A number were killed, and many more died before they reached the Azerbaijani lines or Iran. That's not from a partisan source for the record; it's the Central Asian Survey. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I highly disagree with your assessment here. Golden has very much improved their editing abilities, and they have clearly proven capable of contributing to this topic area in a NPOV manner (see GA status of Flag of Azerbaijan and Declaration of Independence of Azerbaijan as examples). Even a formal warning is too much here.

This topic area is a cesspool of bad actors and unsavory denizens, but Golden has navigated it to the best of their abilities despite it all.

Is Golden perfect? Absolutely not. I have expressed my displeasure with several edits on their part many times. However, if you look at where we used to be and where we are now, you will see an improvement from Golden as time passes. That's all that matters here when determining what should be sanctioned. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Really Zani? Golden reverts a user, explains the reasoning when prompted, hears your response, and apologizes; yet you are flabbergasted that I'm defending them? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @ZaniGiovanni: Your statement, including addendum, is currently at 752 words. Please shorten it to at most 500. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for trimming your statement, ZaniGIovanni.
  There's nothing wrong with waiting a while to respond to something, assuming you have no WP:MESS to clean up (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY / WP:VOLUNTEER). However, restoring the edit without waiting for discussion—noting that, while Armatura had been blocked by this point, Laurel Lodged had also commented agreeing with Armatura—was suboptimal, at the very least, and not the kind of behavior you want to see from someone fresh off of a TBAN. My greater concern, though, is with ZaniGiovanni's fourth point. Adding forcing the Kurdish and Azerbaijani population to flee to an article, without a citation, after being previously called out for usage of similar phrases, seems like poor judgment at best, and a provocation at worst. Golden, could you please comment on [6] in particular? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Acknowledging the pings I've gotten here; would like to hear other admins' perspectives before commenting further. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZaniGiovanni: I'll grant another 200 words for the matter you raised on my talk, if you want, but I don't think I can advise as to whether it's worth raising in the first place; that's something you have to decide for yourself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZaniGiovanni: This is AE, not AN/I. Please keep your comments on-topic and civil. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: A logged warning makes sense to me. If Golden really is trying to be coöperative in this topic area, then hopefully a warning will encourage them to slow down a bit and avoid behavior that could be misconstrued as tendentious editing. And if they are engaged in tendentious editing, well, a warning will be helpful for other reasons. Like you, I'd like to believe they really are trying—in no small part because I've seen how much effort a few editors whose judgment I quite respect have put into their rehabilitation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• My view is pretty much in line with Tamzin here. I'm on the cusp between a formal logged warning and an outright topic ban. If there wasn't the long history of socking and AA topic bans, it would be a formal logged warning. The topic area is a cesspool of POV, edit warring and petty bickering, to be honest. Golden's behavior IS a problem, and if they don't get a topic ban today, they are on the way if they continue down this path. I would support either path, but something needs to be done on a formal basis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm gonna go out on a limb and recommend a formal, logged warning (ie: done as a sanction but no restrictions), meaning that the next borderline issue will likely be met with a quick block from any admin passing buy. Golden is either doing a good job of fooling me, or genuinely gets it and is willing to modify their behavior, and I would like to give the benefit of the doubt. A logged warning is still justified, as a "last chance" before harder sanctions are applied. This of course is just my opinion at this stage, and is subject to change based on the input of others. If we go down this road, I would strongly suggest that Golden find interests outside the AA area, to occupy the bulk of their time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 29 July 2022 (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

ais523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Users against whom enforcement is requested

Mili977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Keshavv1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

There's been a large-scale edit war going on between Mili977 and Keshavv1234 on Durga recently. It's clearest from the page history, but a good sample is the same edit being reverted back and forth beyond WP:3RR by both editors in question:

By Mili977

1. 1 August 2022 Making the edit
2. 1 August 2022 Undoing revert 1
3. 1 August 2022 Undoing revert 2
4. 1 August 2022 Undoing revert 3
5. 1 August 2022 Undoing revert 4 (3RR violation)

By Keshavv1234

1. 1 August 2022 Revert 1 of the edit
2. 1 August 2022 Revert 2 of the edit
3. 1 August 2022 Revert 3 of the edit
4. 1 August 2022 Revert 4 of the edit (3RR violation)
5. 1 August 2022 Revert 5 of the edit

This is by far not the only edit being warred over – there are a number of other edit wars by the same two editors on the same page – but one example seems enough to show what has been going on on the page. The edit war as a whole is well over 20RR each by now.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• 16 July 2021 Mili977 was blocked for edit warring
• I'm not aware of any previous sanctions for Keshavv1234 (but have no prior involvement in this, so may have missed some)

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

• Both users were alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system logs linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm uninvolved in this, and filing it only because the edit war in question was brought to my attention by User:Fred Zepelin at the Teahouse – filing an AE request is complex enough, and reporting two users at once more complex, that I thought I'd do it myself (looking at the page history, the edit warring obviously needs reporting, and the page is subject to arbitration enforcement so it makes sense to report it here). I don't know what Fred Zepelin's relation to the article is, but they don't seem to have edited it recently.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I notified Mili977 and Keshavv1234. --ais523 01:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

User:Keshavv1234 has added many biased details on the Durga page. He has unnecessarily exalted the form of Durga and used common names addressing Mahadevi to other names of Goddess Durga. Some of them are common names used only by North Indians. For example, the word Devi Maa is a common North Indian name for the Goddess. Then it will not be wrong to apply the South Indian name as Amman. In many other pages belonging to Mahadevi, he mentions that the main form of Mahadevi is only as Durga.And some of the references he gives to his descriptions do not support his facts. Thank you.

Respected,

User Mili977 has continuously done such poor, disruptive and misleading edits resulting in total vandalism at the articles related to deities in Hinduism. Especially, he keeps adding and removing content with his personal believes, without any reason and sources. He was disturbing the article Durga currently. Few days back, he was trying to add/remove all general information from the Durga article and adding his own perceptions. Then, I quickly reverted all those edits. Then again he reverted/undo my edits and this kept going on and on. When at last the page was fully protected (administrative protection and access required) by Favonian. And just a day prior the administrative protection was automatically expired and the page was accessible again for all. Then, I restored the page to the original version and removed the misleading edits by Mili977. And again, he started his disruptive editing. I've seen many users warning him earlier also about his misleading edits related to goddesses especially. He's also seen disturbing articles like Mahadevi, Navadurgas, Tripura Sundari, Bhuvaneshwari and many others related to hindu goddesses regularly. Also I request that Durga article be permanent or for some long time semi protected (extended confirmed access required) as some other new editors also try to disturb the page.

I'm not devoted to any deity to be honest. I was just improving the page by keeping it's originality. But he keeps adding his personal stuff and removing all properly sourced as well as general information which is on the article from so long. Also Navaratri and Navadurgas pages are totally associated with Durga. And he tries to add Mahadevi only everywhere, by which he tries to prove that there's no need of independent pages of Durga and other goddesses. He replace Mahadevi or Adi Shakti with every goddesses. Adi Shakti is the energy lying among them but they are in separate aspects. As, Durga article is possibly viewed by a lot of people so I also continuously reverted his misleading edits. Also I've noticed that he continuously tries to promote Tripura Sundari and Bhuvaneshwari only as supreme goddesses and taking all other goddesses under them which is totally irrelevant. I've asked him many times that his misleading edits at Durga needs to be stopped otherwise the page will be disrupted or broken due to tons of edits. The current version of Durga page is the only best revision which all is fully sourced. The user mili977 also removed many information deliberately which spoiled even the grammatical structure of the article. I myself didn't added any information as per my believes till now. The information there without sourcing is already removed by me and the current is the best revision on the page. Check more details on this matter at Durga's talk page/consensus.

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

• Given that the two editors are still engaged in edit warring even while this request is open, I will very shortly be taking some action to bring this under control. My only question, at this point, is whether that will be an ARBIPA topic ban, or just a flat out indef as a normal admin action. Any input on that is welcome, otherwise I'll consider that and proceed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As an aside to ais523, just for information and by no way as criticism on you, the usual way of reporting multiple users to AE would be as a separate report for each, so that each one can be discussed and evaluated individually. But in this case, since the issue is an edit war between the two, I see no issue with handling the two together in this case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:17, 2 August 2022 (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

Gitz6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

My very best wishes (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:BLPDS and WP:ARBEE

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

Lyudmyla Denisova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On 24 June My very best wishes (MVBW) made this bold edit [7], which he then strenuously defended against any attempt to modify and revert it. He particularly resisted my attempts to remove the (at first sight trivial) information that former Ukrainian ombudsperson Denisova had shared a database on war crimes with other government officials and prosecutors. That information had been published by New York Times on 2 May but had later been called into question and denied by Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza and by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova.

• Contentious content:She shared this database with other government officials and prosecutors

1. Following my revert at 16:35, 8 July 2022, MVBW restores at 01:33, 22 July 2022 [8].
2. At 12:59, 22 July 2022 I open a section in the talk page "Communication with law enforcement" and revert at 13:01, 22 July 2022; MVBW restores at 15:24, 22 July 2022 [9].
3. Following my revert (mentioning WP:ONUS and BDR) at 15:46, 22 July 2022, MVBW restores at 21:19, 26 July 2022 [10].
4. MVBW restores at 19:44, 28 July 2022 [11].
5. MVBW restores at 20:06, 29 July 2022 [12].
6. MVBW restores at 03:49, 1 August 2022 [13]
7. MVBW restores at 00:06, 2 August 2022 [14].
8. MVBW restores at 09:59, 2 August 2022 [15].

I would like to know if MBVW violated WP:ONUS, WP:NOCON, WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPREMOVE by restoring eight times contentious materials.

• In the talk page discussion MVBW refuses to get the point and repeatedly says that this article confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said. To me this looks like WP:CPP. I would like to know if MVBW violated WP:CIV and WP:NPOV.
• MVBW repeatedly restores other contentious contents:

1. Denisova described as one of the leading voices of Ukraine’s suffering and outrage. Following my revert mentioning WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE at 17:51, 1 August 2022, MVBW restores at 00:06, 2 August 2022 [16] and again at 09:59, 2 August 2022 [17].
2. Allegation by Denisova that in many cases Russian soldiers called Ukrainian women "Nazi whores" and raped them “until they can’t give birth, or give birth to their children, etc. Following my revert at 22:17, 30 July 2022, MVBW restores at 10:32, 2 August 2022 [18].

• At the same time, MVBW removes any information about Denisova's allegations of sexual war crimes not being supported by "sufficient evidence" according to the open letter by 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists (The New Voice of Ukraine), her allegations being "unverifiable" according to Pavlo Frolov, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament regulatory committee (Deutsche Welle and Wall Street Journal) and her allegations being "exaggerated" (Denisova herself in EuroWeeklyNews and LB.ua). These criticisms of Denisova's allegations are notable because they were one of the reasons for her removal from office on 31 May.

As these information had been added to the article/edited/restored by multiple editors, I would like to know if their repeated removal was contrary to WP:CON as well as to WP:NPOV.

1. MVBW removes Pavlo Frolov's criticism of Denisova's "unverifiable" statements about sexual war crimes. Originally added/edited/restored by Mhorg, JustTheT, Gitz6666, Boynamedsue, Bobfrombrockley, the info is removed by MVBW at 23:04, 20 June 2022 [19], by Just Alabama at 12:34, 21 July 2022 and again by MVBW at 21:19, 26 July 2022 [20] because the opinion by Frolov is essentially a duplication (a duplication of the following info, which MVBW was also about to remove).
2. MVBW removes the analogous criticism made by 140 journalists and activists in an open letter. Originally added and edited by Boynamedsue and Gitz6666, the info is removed by MVBW at 17:20, 21 July 2022 [21] (with misleading edit summary: no mention of unverifiable allegations) and at 01:31, 22 July 2022 [22] (again with misleading edit summary).
3. MVBW removes the statement by Denisova about her reports on war crimes being "exaggerated" in order to help the military effort. Originally added, edit or restored by LilAhok, Gabel1960, Mhorg, Huldra, Gitz6666, and MVBW himself at 20:55, 15 June 2022 [23], the info is removed by MVBW multiple times: 22:49, 24 June 2022 [24], at 12:23, 27 July 2022 [25] and at 22:03, 30 July 2022 [26] (WP:POINTy edit as made clear by the edit summary since you appeal to "ONUS" in BLP).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. I don't know about any BLPDS sanctions. Previously sanctioned in WP:EEML; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys#Biophys. With the username Biophys (battlefiled mentality and edit warring in the EE area).

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 18 July 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@GizzyCatBella: Admittedly I have much to learn about WP policies and I appreciate this discussion also as an opportunity to understand what's permissible and what's a no-no here around. Note, however, that this dispute is not at all about content disagreement. In fact, I never tried to publish the info that Denisova did not share her database with law enforcement agencies (as reported by Meduza, UP, etc.). My arguments about the database were entirely based on policies (WP:V, WP:ONUS and WP:NPOV) as you can see from my edit summaries (e.g. [27], [28]) and from my OP [29]. I'm sure that such an experienced editor as MVBW was aware that per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:BLPREMOVE contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. He knew that this info had become both topical to Ukrainian politics and factually dubious following Denisova's removal from office and the news reports published from 31 May onwards, and yet he restored the info eight times. As the info on sharing a database is by itself of scarce interest, clearly the reason why he was so eager to have it is that he was playing some kind of politics game in Ukraine: he was defending Denisova's reputation and/or defending the reliability of her allegations of Russian war crimes (such as "infant girl of 6 months was raped with a teaspoon", " nine-month-old girl is raped with a candle", "four of them raped the toddlers in pairs, orally and anally, while the fifth soldier was holding the mother", etc. [30] [31]). In both cases, this kind of POV-pushing is disrespectful of our policies and shouldn't be allowed in the EE area. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes, in your statement you say, with regard to the letter from 140 journalists, All I did was moving this info to a more appropriate section [186], contrary to claim by Gitz666. You then share this diff [32], which also I had shared, but that diff shows that you removed the following text:

Among other demands, they requested that she should publish only information for which their was sufficient evidence and check facts before making allegations, consider her language with care and avoid sensationalism and respect the privacy of those affected by sexual violence.

Also your edit summary is inaccurate/incomplete. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown I agree that this is also a content dispute, but perhaps it is not exclusively about contents. Let me explain.

1. The database thing is not mainly about contents. We shouldn't publish what NYT (and Denisova) said at the beginning of May without also publishing what Ukrainskaia Pravda (and Venediktova) said at the end of May, otherwise it would be like playing politics in Ukraine. We'd be saying "we don't trust your newspapers and officials, NYT says Denisova is great and we stick with our Denisova". WP:NPOV requires that either we don't publish anything about the database (which IMHO would be the reasonable thing to do) or we publish everything RS tell us about it.
2. Restoring eight times might be less than satisfactory behaviour, but maintaining that this source confirms that Denisova shared the information with prosecutors, exactly as the article in NYT said [33] [34] [35] is worse. It's impossible to discuss with someone who doesn't want to WP:LISTEN.
3. It's true that all the rest is related to content. People can disagree on whether we should say that she was one of the leading voices of Ukraine's suffering, report her allegations (Nazi whores, etc.), say that some of her allegations were deemed unverified or exaggerated by 140 journalists, by politicians and apparently also by herself. But as one of my favourite essays says, there must be a way of dealing with "civil" POV pushers—editors who repeatedly disregard or manipulate Wikipedia's content policies but are superficially civil. I'm pretty sure that MVBW is a case of anti-Russian advocate, but there's no way for me to prove that apart from drawing your attention on the contents he promotes, which are always one-sided.

Anyway, if this request is unfounded I apologize for that. It was made in good faith. In the future I will avoid advancing others without first having asked the advice of an admin, as GizzyCatBella suggests me to do. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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.

Yes, we have content disagreements with Gitz6666 on page Denisova. We discussed them on article talk page, and all my edits have been fully explained there. There is also a related thread on RSNB started by Gitz6666, and I think the question he asked on RSNB boils down to this [37].

Speaking on the content I suggested to include, here is it: [38] and [39]. This is sourced to an article about Denisova published in New York Times [40]. Author is a regular and well established contributor to NYT [41], this is not an editorial. Note that the content I wanted to include is mostly a direct citation from the article. The article in NYT is not an advertisement. I did not use any potentially problematic sources, such as the article in Ukrainska Pravda or the posting in Meduza noted by Gitz666 (the latter does even have an author [42]). Please note that none of other RS contradicts information I tried to include from the article in NYT (two my diffs above), contrary to claims by Gitz6666. The only contributor who objected to including this material was Gitz6666. I do not think he provided any legitimate reasons for not including it; simply saying "WP:ONUS" is not a proper justification.

No, I did not object to including info about "open letter by 140 Ukrainian journalists and human rights activists", and this info is currently included to the page. All I did was moving this info to a more appropriate section [43], contrary to claim by Gitz666. As about "exaggerated", the exactly meaning of this word is not clear, and I tried to refine what she said using more direct citation: [44], although I think that such citation adds little to the page and ultimately better be removed to provide proper balance on the page [45]: the page includes a huge paragraph about her dismissal, but tells almost nothing about her actual work during the war (this is something I tried to include, but Gitz666 repeatedly removed "per WP:ONUS").

If it helps, I can voluntarily stop editing the page about Denisova for a couple of months. My very best wishes (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:. Thank you, I got your point. No more reverts. A consensus is needed for including this or any other content. OK. But the consensus building may take a lot of effort, depending on the subject and participants. If I feel it takes too much effort, I will simply edit something else. There is nothing so exceptional about this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be yet another content disagreement brought to AE.

Sorry Gitz6666, you would like to know if MBVW violated this.. and that and that.. and something else? (!?) If you don’t know what has been violated, what are you doing here? Perhaps you should study our rules first or ask elsewhere? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666 - I don’t believe this board has been set up to learn WP policies. The way you produced this claim appears to me like fishing for sanctions. You should deliver clear policy breach pieces of evidence, not ask questions. (This board is being abused too often in my humble opinion.)

@My very best wishes - Why should you voluntarily stop editing the page about Denisova for a couple of months? You folks should ask for input from additional users (RfC) and resolve your disagreements this way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "remove on sight" aspects of WP:BLP apply to negative material - stuff that is potentially defamatory or harmful. It's hard to see how this could harm the reputation of the subject or any other living person, so there's no good-faith BLP objection and WP:BLPDS doesn't apply. That doesn't mean it should necessarily stay, of course, or that it was a good idea to repeatedly restore a WP:BOLD addition, but it's not a matter for AE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yes, much of this is more a content dispute than anything. That said, My very best wishes' conduct is less than satisfactory, and Gitz6666's report is a bit weak in the area of deserving AE sanctions. Let me be clear: You should only report something at AE when it is a clear cut Arbitration violation that other venues can't handle. As an admin, if I had stumbled across that article while the reverting was going on, I would have full protected it and instructed the two of you (and others) go to the talk page and hash it out, as it is a pretty simple issue. I wouldn't have thought "I need to apply AE sanctions against someone", even though I'm fully authorized to do that outside of this board. MVBW, you are a bit too invested in this. Take it to the talk page, or take a break. Or break, then in a month take it to the talk page. But adding that information isn't an emergency, and AE/DS aside, when you get reverted, WP:BRD is pretty clear in that you are better off talking about it instead of edit warring over it. I think the deletion of it and claiming ONUS had a bit of grandstanding mixed in there, but still correct on a technical ground. In short, I see bad behavior, but I'm not inclined to block or tban anyone over it just yet, particularly since MVBW has offered to pull back from editing there for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no policy that says "if you use the New York Times, you must also use $x source" In fact, WP:V says "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance." So it's about neutrality, WP:DUE and balance, which are content issues, not behavioral issues. We can not, and will not, tell editors that they must use particular sources at WP:AE. As for publishing "everything", that isn't entirely accurate, at last in the general sense, as we often exclude minority opinions in articles. Regardless, the talk page (and maybe an RFC) is the solution, not admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:10, 5 August 2022 (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

NadVolum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (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

AP2

remedy the post-1992 American politics DS regime

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

1. 6 August 2022 I undid a recent edit removing a lot of text in Julian Assange which had been there for a very long time. In accord with the active sanctions on that page my undo should not be reverted straight away without consensus. SPECIFICO knows this - he quotes the active remedies in the edit comment! NadVolum (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date 17 August 2021. Is this what you mean, an example of them telling others about the discretionary sanctions?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Sorry I'm having problems with this form. The remedy instructions and exemptions says to report immediately here. SPECIFICO quite often reverts other peoples edits and then stop anyone putting in the change unless there's been extensive discussions or an RfC establishing clear consensus against them.

There's no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed it nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue. It has been there for a long time. NadVolum (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff showing 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.

Responding to request of Dennis Brown:

In case anyone is not aware, this complaint is the fourth concurrent open thread in which NadVolum has filed complaints against me, for whatever reasons. The others are, 1 2 3. All of these relate to the BLP articles in the Julian Assange orbit, where there have been ongoing BLP problems that I would say may be underlain by a few editors' insistent and unduly credulous acceptance of various narratives of Assange and his supporters -- even when acceptance conflict with WP content and sourcing policies. The community's lack of endorsement of any of those complaints does raise the possiblity that the current complaint is part of a campaign of forum shopping by OP to vent their personal frustration with me over content issues.

For those who are not familiar with OP, this is a Single Purpose Account that has made very few edits outside of pages on Assange or setting the table to support content on the Assange page.

There have been discusions on the article talk page for some time about the importance of trimming Assange's personal biography page so as to include only the significant details of his life (including those at Wikileaks) but not the actions of Wikileaks for which there is no content linking Assange to those action. Similar issues arise in many bio pages of public figures in politics and related fields. @Softlemonades: removed some such content, for which as far as I can tell no prior discussion that would privilege it as established consensus, and as I stated in my edit summary undoing OP's rapid reinsertion, I think there should have been talk page discussion prior to reinstating that content. It's evident that I think that's consistent with "consensus required" -- I would hardly cite own edit as a violation of the page restriction, as OP seems to claim. It is also evident (though not discussed in the past 6 months) that non-Assange but Wikileaks content creates BLP problems for this article. We should not be including every adventure and every scandal of Wikileaks as if it is Assange's hand at work or Assange's personal responsibility. OP has participated in at least one such discussion and is aware of various editors' BLP concerns One such discussion is here. This issue has come up many times. Softlemonades raised the issue on the talk page after she removed the content, which is what prompted my revert of OP's reinsertion.

We also have OP very carelessly posting clearcut BLP violations on several occasions, e.g. when he stated as fact that Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange with a drone, offering a sheepish retraction at the bottom of this thread, saying he really didn't check into it. This followed a long discussion of the issue at the David Leigh (journalist) page and OP's own posting of related thread at BLPN.

Finally, OP went straight to this AE complaint without even coming to my user talk page to voice his concern or warn me that such a complaint was imminent. I can't recall the last time a complaint was made on any editor no attempt at prior engagement. It wastes lots of editor and Admin resources.

@Dennis Brown: Could you explain "out of process by the number of reverts"? I am not understanding that. My reading of the sequence is that Softlemonades challenged the BLP/Wikilinks content and then NadVolum reinstated it instead of going to talk. Meanwhile, when Softlemonades opened the talk thread, I undid what I believe was the out of process reinstatement of challenged article content (with the associated BLP issues). As I said in my edit summary, I think the reinstatement of the challenged content violated the page restriction "consensus required". SPECIFICO talk 01:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks for the reply. I am aware of that essay. In fact I made several edits to it a couple of years ago. However, there have been many discussions among longtime editors and among Admins in which that simplified rubrik is disputed or rejected, just as we have ongoing disagreement among Admins as to the definition of "revert". As you may know, there's current ongoing discussion of WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON at WT:V concerning the status of "longstanding" content that has not been positively affirmed consensus even though it's been in the article for a while. There is also discussion at talk page of the Consensus required essay. I don't think it's correct to state in absolute terms that my removal of the disputed content pending talk page was violating a consensus. Obviously, per my edit summary, I didn't think so at the time of the edit, and I am fairly experienced editing pages that require differentiating established consensus -- documented by prior talk page discussion, editing activity, or agreement in principle -- vs. content that's stayed in the article a while without much notice and attention. The Assange page's ongoing BLP issue viz a viz Wikileaks had been identified and repeatedly discussed on the talk page in the presence of OP. Editors never agreed, in effect, to transclude all of Wikileaks' controversies and alleged misdeeds into Assange's personal bio. As you already know, I do not agree that this Wikileaks content was consensus and I have not seen that essay treated as an absolute bright line, regardless of the content or circumstances. Anyway, that's why I did not hesitate to undo OP's reinstatement of the challenged content. And as I said, if he had informed me of his concern, I see no reason to think we would have ended up here at AE. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks again for your reply. To be sure we are not talking past one another: No, I am not claiming there was consensus for anything. I said and still say there was no consensus for this BLP content that transcluded Wikileaks deeds and controversies onto the biography of Assange the man. Accordingly, when this was pointed out by Softlemonades and a discussion started on talk that it should have remained out. It's an ongoing problem that about half our editors would cite WP:ONUS to keep the problem text in the article as "implicit consensus" while half our editors would say to keep it out per ONUS. In this case, where there had been no affirmation of the content and the BLP problem had repeatedly been discussed and acknowledged, I felt that the immediate reinsertion without consensus in the talk page thread went against consensus required. Further, to be frank, it appears to have been another case of OP's long-voiced frustration and impatience with discussion and consensus-seeking on this page. SPECIFICO talk 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|Ealdgyth}} I think it's begging the question to refer to my edit as "this kind of edit warring". I'm careful not to edit war, and I and others have pointed out the issue relating to BLP material -- and prior and current talk page discussions of same. I've tried to present my view of the issues of implicit Consensus and ONUS and the ongoing discussions on WT pages about what constitutes implicit consensus for longstanding text, and other factors. I was the editor who requested DS page restrictions on this article due to repeated edit warring. As Dennis Brown points out, the CR page is an essay from one point of view, not a policy. I read the CR restricton in the context of the community's views on consensus, which do not provide a bright line rule such as 1RR. It's evident that my understanding is not something I cooked up to deflect responsibility for disruptive edit warring, because I cited CIR in my edit summary for the diff in question. I do not believe that any WP Consensus policy is intended to lock down content, recent or longstanding, that has been reasonably challenged. That having been said, any Admin who rejects my understanding and concludes that my handling of the content issue was disruptive is empowered by DS to sanction me on their own discretion, regardless of my intention or anything I say here. So I don't know that it's helpfiul for me to go on at length or repeat myself about the article, BLP, consensus, etc. and I'll stop. I'll only add that it's clear to me that this was a vexatious complaint by NadVolum after they failed to get me sanctioned or my BLP concern rejected in the 3 other threads they had open at ANI and BLPN at the same time they filed this complaint. Moreover NadVolum openly flouts BLP -- that was the subject of their trip to BLPN regarding David Leigh (jouirnalist) -- they recently posted another BLP violation, linked above, saying Hillary Clinton wanted to kill Assange. These overt and implied BLP violations have come up over and over on this page and a minority of editors there do greatly frustrate many others who do not share our concerns. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: With considerable respect for your efforts, I don't think it's fair to conclude that I am "doubling down" by stating my understanding and documentation of Consensus and BLP issues regarding this complaint. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which Arbcom case, is being requested to enforce? GoodDay (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the red-link above, that's confusing me. Thus my question, which Arbcom case is being referred to? GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I know which case. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend the disputing editors open an RFC at the Julian Assange page, in order to clarify the consensus-in-question. If there's doubts about what that consensus is. GoodDay (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: If it hasn't already been restored. I recommend that you restore the content-in-question (i.e. undo your revert). Then seek a new consensus at the Assange talkpage, to have the content removed. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation... per WP:BLPRESTORE, in situations where BLP does apply, the default when there is a conflict over BLP-sensitive material is to leave it out, not in. This is a specific exception to the usual WP:BRD procedure and the way we handle WP:NOCON situations. In order to restore the text in question you would have to argue that it is not BLP sensitive or that there is an existing consensus for it, and even then, one revert removing it wouldn't normally be WP:AE-worthy. The "teeth" of WP:BLPDS - the stuff that calls for an immediate AE action even from one or two bad edits - is intended for things that could potentially harm the reputation of article's subject. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how it works and SPECIFICO knows it, as they were topic banned about two years ago for almost the exact same thing.. An editor removed long standing text (which implies it had consensus to be there), NadVolum reverts it back in, and SPECIFICO reverts it back out insisting on a new consensus. If SPECIFICO's edit summary was valid, it would give editors license to revert stuff they don't like out of controversial articles and require new, fresh discussions to find consensus for it to go back in, regardless of how longstanding it was. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nad - amend your request and replace the red text under “Sanction or remedy to be enforced” to link to WP:ARBAPDS. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible reason why NadVolum didn't bring this up to SPECIFICO before reporting to AE - SPECIFICO went to NadVolum's page a few days ago to accuse them of making personal attacks, and has not bothered to substantiate these aspersions - link. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Aquillon, there is no BLP issue. Neither the person who originally removed the text nor SPECIFICO said there was a BLP issue and it has been around for a long time. In the discussion by the original person on the talk page Talk:Julian_Assange#Why_list_things_Assange_wasnt_actively_involved_in? you can see they talked about why if this was okay wasn't it okay to list all the major scandals and criticisms of Wikileaks too and I pointed to WP:BLPPUBLIC for that. They said at the end of the back and forth that their problem was bloat - which I can sympathize with to some extent but this is not the way to deal with that. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gooday, I was following the instructions on the talk page under "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"

• Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
• Editors who are aware of discretionary sanctions in this topic area and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

So that's what I did. It isn't as if SPECIFICO hasn't removed new text and warned people against adding it again and often an RfC is needed to establsh consensus before it can be put in. I think I'd prefer it left the way it was before and any discussion be about removing the long standing text instead. NadVolum (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to Mr Ernie. It sounds a bit in what you say like I was involved in that previous discussion. I wasn't and didn't even know abot that. I looked up SPECIFICO's log when raising this and I didn't see anything about it. NadVolum (talk) 19:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Guerillero, I'm sorry I don't understand what you are asking for. Discretionary sanctions as talked about at the top of this page sounds fine to me or is there a list of possible sanctions I should try to choose from thanks? NadVolum (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Jéské Couriano. Yes that sounds right, I see that WP:ARBAPDS was linked to in that text on the article talk page. NadVolum (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to SPECIFICO I guess people can check most of it themselves but about the BLP violation I changed a sentence which had just been inserted saying "WikiLeaks asked Trump Jr. to share a claim by Assange that Hillary Clinton had wanted to attack him with drones." Assange did not claim that bit of conspiracy theory. The source cited this other conspiracy site that I did not recognize as such. This had nothing to do with anything else. And yes I did come here straight. SPECIFICO does not edit in a collegiate manner. they are very non-neutral on the topic [46], and slags off editors that don't agree and engages in canvassing [47]. Worse than that I think they are a clear case of following WP:DE like a rulebook. fFr instance one of those things they complained above about me going to ANI was them not bothering to give a decent reply about what BLP problem they were supposed to be fixing with their edits[48]. And they couldn't be bothered to find a source and said the actions of a grand jury are SKYBLUE in another.[49] NadVolum (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a previous discussion in December 2021 in which SPECIFIO talked about removing non-biographic content Talk:Julian_Assange/Archive_35#Trimming_and_relocation_of_non-biographic_content. They removed all mention of the US diplomatic cables incident after stopping inclusion about the unredacted files and password being released. The content has finally been included after an RfC, see Julian_Assange#Release_of_US_diplomatic_cables which covers that content complete with the unredacted cables. As to going to their talk page and asking for a revert - I haven't seen anything here about being sorry they made a mistake or would have reverted! NadVolum (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why admins are so unwilling to do anything about SPECIFICO. Maybe you think they are doing a good job stopping Julian Assange's followers turning his article into a hagiography and biasing any connected articles? If that was just what SPECIFICO was doing I certainly wouldn't object. But they seem to be acting out of hate for Assange and determined to do anything they can to remove anything that might be in his favor even when well documented and obviously relevant and due. And that includes disruptive editing techniques to try and get their way and remove editors they don't like. NadVolum (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the linked DS alert and the talk page notice referred to, I have to assume this is being filed under AP2 as the case and the post-1992 American politics DS regime as the remedy. @NadVolum:, when you file a request here, you are obligated to link the case and specify the remedy you're filing under. (For bans under DS, link to the DS authorisation and the ban notice/thread.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage SPECIFICO to admit, as quickly as possible, that their understanding of the CR restriction was incorrect. I hope to see NadVolum commit to politely bringing up possible 1RR or CR violations at the offending user's talk page before bringing the issue to the next step of conduct dispute resolution. It would help if we discussed formalizing the CR restriction and including a link to the explanatory essay WP:Consensus required in any talk page banners or edit notices, as the text commonly used (and used at Talk:Julian Assange) is not explicit about how removal is handled. Assuming SPECIFICO and NadVolum can both own up to handling this imperfectly, I ask that admins refrain from sanctions in this matter and nudge us all to move on. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eeurgh I came across this and was involved with the discussion on the talk page. I'm unsure if there was a BLP issue here, but the content was definitely highly skewed to paint as much blame on the articles subject as possible. I would still object to the content as is because of that (although that's not relevant here). It doesn't look like this is the only page with this issue. I dropped out once it became apparent that we were just going in circles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of times I see a report and think you know if you just apologize and say my understanding was wrong and Ill be mindful to make sure I follow the rules as you have just patiently explained them to me this would be closed without even a logged warning, but if youre going to argue no Im right and this is why youre going to get sanctioned increases by one more. Oh, and you could still probably say that and this would still probably be closed with at most a logged warning to be mindful of the CR restriction. nableezy - 14:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @NadVolum: please specify the remedy to be enforced or I will close this thread --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• SPECIFICO definitely reverted out of process, the question is whether there is a BLP issue at hand (or other exemption), which I don't see at first glance. He needs to come here and explain. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I appreciate the detailed reply, and I note the frustration and sincerity, but as I noted, the revert really was out of process, a technical violation by virtue of the number of reverts. Again, a BLP exemption didn't seem obvious for that exact revert, and you didn't seem to claim or explain it if you thought it was. As for reverting back simply because you felt that was the prior consensus, that gets muddy for admin, who would have to dig into determining and sometimes guessing consensus. This is why we have bright line rules against multiple reverts. I get your frustration, I do, but I need to focus on this event, not just the past. Was there a specific reason you had to revert instead of going to the talk page? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[50] Major edit to consensus/stable version. [51] revert of that edit. [52] You reinstating that edit after it had already been reverted. Is there a BLP issue specifically with the content of that edit? Can you point me to a specific discussion and consensus that the removal of material was necessary? I'm not trying to oversimplify it, but yes, on the surface, it appears you were out of process. Keeping it short, can you show the discussion/consensus or BLP issue? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put another way, material was removed, then that removal was challenged as inclusion was considered consensus. The only way your additional revert would be considered kosher is if you can show a prior discussion establishing consensus to remove it, per WP:Consensus required, an essay, but it sums it up. Without that consensus (or other exemption), then yes, your edit is a problem. That's how CR works, to preserve the status quo unless a new consensus is demonstrated. Deleting material isn't given special privilege over adding it, unless 3RRNO exemptions apply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think one has to ask why CR was implemented in the first place, and I feel that edit warring was the primary reason, particularly slow motion edit warring which doesn't cross the bright line of 3RR. There already existed policy to prevent undue negative material from being piled on, and I don't agree with your take on this, and from my eyes, your revert was a violation of CR. What I have to consider is "What would the greater community say", and I think they would disagree with you, saying CR was designed to specifically prevent these types of reverts. It appears nothing was so urgent that it required you to do the 2nd revert on the material, and while you claim it was "consensus", you haven't offered any proof. I can believe you believed the 2nd revert was acceptable, but from my understanding of policy, it was not. I want to leave this open for other admin to opine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems clear this was a policy violation. The real question is, what do we do about it? Ealdgyth is correct in that it would have been better if NV had requested a revert, but all this had been previously discussed on the talk page (and the consensus was clear) in late 2021 and there has been contention between these two for some time. As SPECIFICO hasn't indicated they understand the problem (and has, in fact, doubled down), this forces our hand and requires a response. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Doubling down" might be a bit strong, but my point is, you are holding to the idea that there is nothing wrong with your editing. If you were a new editor, it might be possible to just log a warning and move on, but you've had problems in the past, and really should know better, so I don't think the community is going to accept a warning as adequate. This is putting me in tough position, as a good solution isn't obvious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is similar to what Dennis came to - the CR is designed to prevent this sort of constant low-grade edit warring and make folks discuss on the talk page. While it would be nice if NV had given a chance for a self revert, that's not required. Consider this notice to NV that not everything on wikipedia is written in the rules and that being kind and discussing one-on-one with another editor before escalating to a noticeboard or other public venue is the kind thing to do. But that doesn't change that I agree with Dennis on idea behind CR is to avoid this sort of edit warring. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2022 (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

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kendall Clarks (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

500/30 Rule

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

Users that edit Arab-Israeli content must have 500 edits, this user does not, in the following diffs he is editing A-I content:

[53] 6 August

[54] 15 July

[55] 15 July

[56] 15 July

[57] 15 July

[58] 15 July

[59] 15 July

[60] 14 July

[61] 29 June

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

Was told at his talkpage by two separate users that he is not allowed to edit A-I content:[62] yet he has now continued to do so after previously violating the 500/30 rule and also violated the 1rr and 3rr in July.

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.

User clearly not 500/30 qualified. Appears to be attempting to argue that Druze is not under ARBPIA sanctions eg this edit but the talk page has the ARBPIA template there, right at the top. @Kendall Clarks: I'd suggest apologising and abandoning editing in this area or a block to enforce the sanction seems the only option. This is now for the second time of asking. GoldenRing (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Closing with obvious result. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:28, 11 August 2022 (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

NMasiha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ghazaalch (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/Iranian politics

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

Ghazaalch makes up WP:ASPERSIONS in RFCs against other editors:

"...And RFC is the ideal place for him and the other Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources. One of these voters, for example, is NMasiha who has appeared after a year to vote in these RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)" [63]

What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false (despite Ghazaalch's baseless character attack, I made edits to the PMOI article in February [64][65], and in its talk page on May [66] and June [67][68], and have also edited other articles in this area although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). This is poisoning the well and can wrongly influence consensus of RFCs.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I know there were other AE cases, but don't know if there are sanctions.

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

1. [69] Recent AE report about Ghazaalch

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Like others are discerning, the problem is not only referencing other editors as "pro-MEK users", the problem is Ghazaalch's constant aspersions such as saying that in those RFCs "there are different accounts here with different jobs" which are "Now led by Fad Ariff", or saying those same editors are "finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources", or suggesting (without any evidence at all) a link between editors involved in those RFCs as well as a link with past blocked editors. NMasiha (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This tool shows that NMasiha's first appearance in 2022 in this page was to vote in an RFC and has continued this job till now. I am not talking about other pages. So there are different accounts here with different jobs. NMasiha's job was to vote, Iraniangal777's job was to revert, TheDreamBoat's job was to edit on behalf of the blocked users and so on. (see Stefka Bulgaria, BarcrMac and Idealigic for the pro-MeK users who were topic-banned before the new ones Fad Ariff, TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Iraniangal777 emerged).

Concerning RFCs being an ideal place for pro-MeK users, see El C's comment here where they talk about a super-trim RfC launched ... which only redacted longstanding, agreed-upon text to one tenth of its original size.(link to the "super-trim RfC" that admin El C was referring to) and now the same supper-trimmed section (cult section) is subject to two new RFCs ([71][72]) in spite of the previous ones([73][74]) to reduce the small section even more. Because the pro-Mek users (Now led by Fad Ariff) don't like the MeK group to be called a cult in spite of numerous sources confirming that.

Here I am quoting Vice regent's objection to another RFC attempt that aimed at removing cult description([75]):

• ...I provided 15 scholarly sources that argue that MEK meets the definition of a cult. Despite this they amassed 10 votes in support (proposal "A" in this RfC) but Vanamonde closed the RfC as "consensus against proposal A" because "sources presented below using the "cult" descriptor are patently more reliable than those challenging that descriptor".

Here is another objection by another user([76]):

• regarding the RFCs, there was a trend of launching super-trim RFCs aimed at "railroading"[77] the opposing side. This made El_C suggest the idea of having an "outright requirement" for Stefka Bulgaria to avoid super-trim RFCs (he was "instructed" to avoid it). "New restriction proposal" suggested by me, contains the context to the discussion over those RFCs.

• @Dennis Brown: To tell the truth I don't know much about the wiki policies and I do not have a good command of English language, so I often try to imitate other people's language. I saw using "Pro-MeK" and "anti-MeK " expressions first here and then here in the same page so I thought it won't make a problem using them, and even considered myself as an "anti-MeK user" here. The same thing can be said about the other so-called aspersions. I won't use them again if they are against the policies.

And RFC is the ideal place for [...] Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources.

This part is a well established pattern by now [78]. Although, to the best of my knowledge, there's been not enough presented evidence about the participation of currently active and non-(p)blocked users in the off-wiki coordination that has been going on for years in the page. MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with Ghazaalch in those RfCs is enough to qualify anyone as a "pro-MEK user", where "finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources". Nonsense. Editors in those RfCs have adhered to using reliable sources and even helped fix WP:RS problems.

Muddling RfCs with Ad hominems like this (or disrupting the natural development of RfCs [79][80][81][82][83][84], or edit-warring while using trumped-up edit summaries [85][86] - all of which were noted in my last report about Ghazaalch) nullifies any meaningful attempt to solve a content dispute in that talk page. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghazaalch is not wrong that the bent of the many recent and often bad RFCs on the page has been tendentious in the extreme. Without exception they have been geared towards drastically cutting out material that portrays the PMOI/MEK in a negative light. Now why anybody would be that fixated on this is beyond my ken (even if one is doggedly anti-Islamic regime for instance, that hardly requires one to embrace this particularly dubious opposition group), but fixated some editors do indeed seem to be - and this is of course why an arbitration intervention imposing discretionary sanctions became necessary in the first place (the material on cult-like attributions was equally one of the prime movers of the original arbitration). And when there are individual editors being so transparently tendentious in favour of the MEK, the term "pro-MEK" is not much of a stretch or an aspersion, at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ghazaalch, stop pinging my name with baseless accusations. I have nothing to do with other editors. Hogo-2020 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I would decline taking action on this report, based on the evidence presented. The RFC is ongoing and I find it difficult to see this one edit as poisoning the well. It isn't helpful for Ghazaalch to talk about the editors rather than the merits, and to be clear, it should be avoided, but at this time it doesn't rise to the level that requires discretionary sanctions be applied. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This edit is casting aspersions, which is not helpful, and Ghazaalch has said some similar things in their statement here as well. It's definitely not enough to justify sanctions but I wouldn't object to some kind of reminder/warning to stop making these kinds of comments. Hut 8.5 17:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was for a while among the few admins active in this area. I'm just coming off of a long period of inactivity, and do not have the time to investigate the situation in detail; but the comment highlighted here is the sort of personal commentary that landed this dispute at ARBCOM in the first place, and as such I would support a logged warning. Anyone editing this topic needs to remember that repeating the behavior of those sanctioned by ARBCOM is a direct path to being sanctioned themselves. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This type of personalization of disputes and impugning the perceived motives of other editors is what often makes things in this area very difficult to discuss and come to agreement on. I would certainly support a logged warning, with a clear understanding that if it continues, further action will be taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 11 August 2022 (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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zekelayla (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions (1RR)

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

1. 11:19, 11 August 2022 revert 1
2. 08:17, 12 August 2022 revert 2
3. 08:21, 12 August 2022 revert 3

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 20:47, 10 August 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The last time this user was actively editing they were also trying to remove a widely acknowledged description of a pro-Israel thinktank, [87], [88]. That resumed yesterday. The user was asked to self-revert twice, they have so far declined to do so.

I think an article ban would be sufficient, the disruption has been focused on this one article since December.

Note the user is continuing to revert. nableezy - 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC) 15:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, two of these are labeled reverts. The second one is a whole sale removal, definitionally a revert that reverses another editors contribtution. Then add the initial revert at 16:49, 10 August 2022 in which the editor returns to the edit-warring he started back in December (Special:Diff/1061029608, Special:Diff/1060895604). nableezy - 15:34, 13 August 2022 (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 engaged in a single revert (what nableezy calls "revert 3") to remove from the lede material which another user had already pointed out came from a notoriously controversial book. Zekelayla (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right that the first one is a revert, but not of the same material. So, I did revert twice in 21 hours apparently. Zekelayla (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I must have missed the first revert since it wasn't one of the diffs linked at me on my talk page.) Zekelayla (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Responses moved to own section; please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mark612 (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:A/I/PIA (500/30)

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

1. Special:Diff/1104276257 ARBPIA content (applies to all the below, all today), all following multiple warnings.
2. Special:Diff/1104276082
3. Special:Diff/1104275870
4. Special:Diff/1104275657
5. Special:Diff/1104275456
6. Special:Diff/1104275374
7. Special:Diff/1104275237

Post-AE reverts and ARBPIA related edits

1. Special:Diff/1104276833
2. Special:Diff/1104276894
3. Special:Diff/1104276988
4. Special:Diff/1104277312
5. Special:Diff/1104277417
6. Special:Diff/1104277492
7. Special:Diff/1104277749
8. Special:Diff/1104277800

And continuing now.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 11 May 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Possibly just needs a block to be made aware if they are not seeing the talk page notices, but even if he had 500 edits these edits are all WP:TE. Regardless, sustained violations of the EC required provision

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.

@Mark612: has gone way over the 3RR rule, on a few pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They've now attempted to remove this report as well. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have indefinitely blocked Mark612 from editing the Article namespace, given that their behavior has continued since the filing of this report without any attempt to communicate (save for this and this, which doesn't count). --Kinu ^t/_c 23:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• To follow up, given this, another administrator is welcome to change the nature or duration of the block. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously there are problems in the ARBPIA area, but this seems larger than just this. They have been blocked three times before, including an indef for the same thing earlier this year. Technically, we aren't supposed to do AE blocks longer than a year (barring WP:IAR), but I would support a standard admin block of indef, not just article space, but wiki-wide. However, unlike AE actions (which are unilateral), to do a standard admin indef block, I would rather have a consensus of admin here. We have better things to do that baby sit someone who is doing such childish things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This editor is clearly treating Wikipedia as a battleground, and gives no indication of being here to build an encyclopedia. I would support a sitewide indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This editor is on my watchlist. I've looked at the details and their talk page (I've given them 2 DS alerts in the past) and I fully support a sitewide indef. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The attempt to delete this report shows they are clearly NOTHERE, and I've indeffed them as such. Doug Weller talk 10:03, 14 August 2022 (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

ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zenzyyx (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2

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

1. Eastern Anatolia Region: 9 August 2022, 22:32, 9 August 2022, 22:47 – Removes sourced content/section from the article about Armenians/Armenian genocide/Turkish government name changes to eradicate Armenian mention, with edit-summary mini essay "not a historical article", "other similar articles aren't structured this way" subpar explanation. The WP:RS directly contradicts them, will be shown below in additional comments.
2. 10 August 2022, 13:31 – Edit-wars over their own disruptive content removal
3. 10 August 2022, 13:40 – Edit-wars over their own disruptive content removal, with threats to ANI in an edit-summary
4. Lahmacun: 2 August 2022 – Violation of MOS:CLAIM on RS
5. 10 August 2022 – Edit-wars with more MOS:CLAIM violation
6. 10 August 2022 – Edit-wars with same MOS:CLAIM violation even when asked, for the 2nd time, to conform to MOS:CLAIM
7. Ashure: 12 August 2022 – Adds country of origin as Turkey, doesn't cite a source.
8. 12 August 2022 – Edit-wars over their own addition, doesn't cite a source again. Now claims "it is sourced throughout the article". None of the sources mention Turkish origin in the article.
9. 12 August 2022, 22:13 – Edit-wars and removes actual sourced content. Now adds origin based on a bible legend.
10. 13 August 2022, 09:08 – Edit-wars and removes actual sourced content. Now adds origin based on a bible legend.
11. 13 August 2022 – Breach of WP:3RR over their own edit
12. Just take a look at the article history for more, I can't link all the edit-warring here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 June 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

So where do I even start... I actually wanted to report this user about 2-3 days ago, but tbh I was lazy and had enough of bad faith in AA and overlapping areas. So what happened? Zenzyyx reported me in ANI with a subpar at best essay. This is what the commenting admins had to say, pretty self-explanatory: Black Kite [89], Dennis_Brown [90], Deb [91], [92],

Now this little debacle out of the way, let's start with Zenzyyx and their extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS editing pattern, edit-warring, WP:OR, incompetence and just overall inability to recognize wrong-doing. First article, Eastern Anatolia Region: they remove sourced content with invalid reasoning. When I confronted them on their talk, they finally bothered to open an article discussion but stating the same invalid reasons for content blanking regarding Armenians. For the record, their arguments, even in ANI are: "information is sourced but irrelevant to the article", among other subpar reasons for their disruptive edits. I repeatedly told them in talk that sources directly contradict them and that they should stop being disruptive, see even a single source as an example; Vicken Cheterian, Oxford University Press p.64 - p.65

Second article, Lahmacun. Adds unhelpful MOS:CLAIM and when reverted with the explanation to conform to MOS:CLAIM, repeatedly fails to do so and edit-wars over their own edit.

Third article, Ashure: I actually noticed this article when they were edit-warring with another user yesterday. Already knowing Zenzyyx, I didn't engage in this farse and instead directly confronted them (again) in their talk, explaining the problems with their edits and asked them to stop edit-warring / tendentious editing. In response, they accuse me of "WP:ASPERSIONS" and "false accusations" [93], [94]. Yeah...

Honestly, initially I wanted to suggest a topic ban for this user from AA and overlapping areas, especially articles pertaining to Armenians. But seeing their repeated incompetence, extreme edit-warring, bad faith and characterization of my valid comments in their talk regarding latest Ashure as "false accusation", I now strongly believe that this user clearly is not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently adding unsourced content, then misleadingly edit-warring over it [95] (no source in the article mentions such origin, also Mount Ararat is from a anecdotal bible legend and no such country even existed at the time of this legend). Then removing actual sourced content from the lead, breaching 3RR over your own addition, apparently all of this is ok as long as there was an IP in the mix (not even "three separate IPs", just a single range), according to Zenzyyx. This is some next level of incompetency and continual refusal to recognize wrong doing that I haven't seen from someone with 4yr experience in a long time. And this being just one of the articles they were disruptively editing in and edit-warring. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

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.

Firstly, I had already addressed the concerns of an admin[97] that the ANI report was TLDR.[98] I had also explained kindly to the admin who was concerned that the report had little foundational basis why I disagreed with them.[99]

• Regarding my edits on Eastern Anatolia Region: I explained in the ANI report why I removed said sourced information. I removed the information because it was irrelevant. Why was it irrelevant? The article is about a Turkish administrative region founded in 1941 (per First Geography Congress, Turkey, Geographical regions of Turkey, and^[1][2]). Including any information prior to 1941 is irrelevant, meaning the article has nothing to do with Armenia/Armenians. One can see that the article's talk page and archive is riddled with concerns like this (e.g.[100]).

• Regarding my edits on Lahmacun: Also explained in the ANI report. I did not cast doubt on the reliability of the source, I had included that the person making the claim had claimed the ensuing information. The claims are controversial, and contains only a single source.[101] Even if the claim was uncontroversial, NPOV must be preserved to uphold the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia; and in this case, NPOV was seriously lacking (per WP:YESPOV). I fail to understand how this is "unhelpful".

• Regarding my edits on Ashure: I had wrote the country of origin as Turkey because according to anecdotal evidence stated in the article, Ashure originated from Mount Ararat. Later, I wrote "Mount Ararat, Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) according to legend"[102] to avoid the possibilities of edit warring. I had even added back the repeated information[103] to, again, avoid an edit war and show that I am acting in good faith. However, concerns were then raised about Mount Ararat not being in Anatolia (which it is, per Mount Ararat). I addressed this here[104] and in my talk page[105] Also, this almost seems like a case of IP sockpuppetry involving a single person or tag team, with 3 separate IP users suddenly disruptively editing the article to fit their POV[106] [107] [108] and ZaniGiovanni intervening very soon after this[109] and then this report being made. It is to be stressed that I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am making an observation which the admins may find to aid them in deciding what do with this report. As such, I had reverted 4 times to combat the vandalism, and warned one of the IP users who was especially restlessly edit warring to cease doing so in an effort to avoid further edit warring.[110] [111]

It is obvious which user has been wrongfully edit warring and disruptively editing (kindly see the ANI report for more information). Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Hi Seraphim, I appreciate your viewpoint on this. I have explained why I reverted four times in the Ashure article; by virtue of being a recent changes patroller, I have dealt with a lot of vandalism like this before. I had suspected (and still do) that there was a case of IP sockpuppetry possibly involving a tag team in that article, with three different IP users suddenly appearing and removing content, pushing their POV (which I have proved in my statement). I am definitely not of the view that "warring is okay as long as you're really sure you're right". Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. No offence to you but I do not agree, the reasoning being that because of the influx of random IP users disruptively editing the article to remove information which has *already been stated in the article* (per the first paragraph of the "history and traditions" section in Ashure), I treated their changes as vandalism (the edit history and wholly incorrect edit summaries in the article further prove this). This is my rationale behind why I had reverted 4 times. Thanks. zenzyyx (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Hi Dennis, thanks for the message. I can see where I may have acted in haste when the short description was changed from "Anatolian dessert" to "sweet pudding", but that seemed like the most accurate definition when you take the article into account. The short information I added in the infobox was stated/confirmed in the first paragraph of "history and traditions". Removing it made no sense and was POV pushing, as evidenced by three separate IP users suddenly disruptively editing the article to get their POV across (possibly anti-Turkish sentiment, not very sure. Also claiming that Mount Ararat is not in Anatolia[112] [113] [114] when it clearly states in the mountain's article that it is, and then asking me to provide sources that Mount Ararat is in Anatolia, in an article that is about a dessert...[115] Honestly laughable). A topic ban for this, in my opinion, is overkill. Thanks again. zenzyyx (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Certainly, Zenzyyx has been engaged in multiple edit wars, and at least at Ashure has gone over the 3RR line quite some time ago. (As has the IP editor there, which will also need to be addressed, but it is more or less pointless to impose AE sanctions on an IP, so that will probably require either a block or semiprotection.) As Zenzyyx seems to be of the view that edit warring is okay as long as you're really sure you're right, I can't see any outcome but a topic ban from the AA2 area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid the latest statement just solidifies my position. Neither "I suspect tag teaming" nor "I suspect sockpuppetry" is an exemption for edit warring in general, or 3RR in particular. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Zenzyyx, part of the problem is you are defining "vandalism" as "things I don't like or agree with", and that isn't the definition we use here. The "vandalism" claim is only valid for edits that are clearly designed to harm the article and/or encyclopedia. Replacing a name with the word "poop" is a good example of vandalism. Replacing a description in good faith with a plausible name and that is obviously done in good faith is not vandalism, and absolutely not an exemption for edit warring. Also, you say you added something to avoid edit warring, then edit warred to keep it, that just doesn't make sense. And yes, claiming you felt they were sockpuppets...jeez. Your gut feeling that they are a sock is not a valid excuse for bad behavior. This does show you aren't capable of exercising good judgement in this topic area. Short version: I completely agree with Seraphimblade. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the above - there is a pattern of edit warring here and the explanations do not help. They are mostly focused on why Zenzyyx thinks their version is right and why other people's versions are wrong. This is not a valid reason for edit warring - disagreements about what content should go into articles are resolved through discussion on the talk page rather than edit warring. The claims of vandalism are also unfounded. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage the encyclopedia. Any edit intended to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism, no matter how misguided. Somebody who doesn't think Mount Ararat should be described as being in Anatolia, for example, is not a vandal, they simply disagree with Zenzyyx. Looking through Zenzyyx's other edits I can see other examples of this, e.g. here Zenzyyx reverts something claiming it's vandalism when it clearly isn't, and in a resulting discussion claimed that you have to get consensus before making large changes to articles, which is not true at all. The claims of sockpuppetry are also not a reasonable explanation for edit warring. If you think someone is a sockpuppet then you can report it to an appropriate venue such as WP:SPI, but you will be expected to provide hard evidence. I think a sanction is warranted here. Hut 8.5 13:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Hut that some sanction is merited. Perhaps a 1RR within the AA2 topic area, with warning that future disruption may lead to a TBAN? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: Your edit came right as I was imposing a TBAN. Do you have any strong objections, or are you okay with me closing this? --Blablubbs (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blablubbs: No objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, thanks for the quick response . --Blablubbs (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with a TBAN. I protected the last article they were edit-warring on before they got themselves blocked, but they then went to Ashure and the number of reverts there was something like eight or nine in 24 hours, and they're still edit-warring as of a few hours ago, this time on Ionia. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2022 (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

Gilgul Kaful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mili977 (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

topic ban from the subjects of India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, broadly construed.

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

1. 12 August Hindu text
2. 12 August Hindu goddess
3. 12 August Abode of Hindu goddess
4. 12 August Hindu religious text

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Was topic banned
2. Then blocked for a week for breaking it.

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

User:Seraphimblade suggested last time that this page is better than his talk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

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.

Because I give due references to the edits I make. I request you to reconsider this matter

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

• At this point, right back to violating the topic ban after coming back from a week long block, I do not see any indication that this editor intends at all to comply with the topic ban. Mili977, I'm open to being convinced otherwise if you'd care to comment here, but absent that I think it is time for an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. Another violation 3 minutes after that very unsatisfying response. Indeffed for disruptive editing (as much CIR as anything, I think), first month AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:23, 14 August 2022 (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

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SCNBAH (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:A/I/PIA (500/30)

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

1. 15 August 2022 adds Category:Hezbollah attacks
2. 15 August 2022 adds Category:Hezbollah attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 August 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that there isnt a single source for the idea this was a Hezbollah attack, but regardless Hezbollah is a primary article in the ARBPIA topic and all edits related to it are covered by 500/30. The article has the edit notice and talk page notice for related content, and the user was warned about this material specifically. Also note that a number of users with a handful of edits have returned after year+ long absences to become active in this dispute, eg SCNBAH and Smoking Ethel

Also please note the blatant source misrepresentation in this edit. The Times doesnt say a word about a girlfriend or becoming more religious. nableezy - 19:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, it was in there before, removed several times in fact. The first reinsertion was just a revert of my removal here. Which was followed by another revert of an edit by me. nableezy - 19:32, 15 August 2022 (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 will not defend SCNBAH's edits as I have not checked the sources they used or their edits. However, User:Dennis Brown, this is very large expansion of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie has nothing to do with Israel, it is not part of the conflict. The claim that any edit mentioning Hezbollah in a context other than the conflict is a large overreach. Are 2022 Lebanese general election or 17 October Revolution, internal Lebanese affairs which involve Hezbollah, now conflict protected everywhere they mention Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a large player with 19.89% of the vote. Is every article on and in Israel now covered by the conflict? There are tens of thousands of Israeli biographies, institutions, organizations, sports, and so on that have nothing to with the conflict but they do mention Israel throughout. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nableezy reverted at least four times in the past day, [116][117][118][119]. Though if the A/I/PIA apply that would be legitimate against SCNBAH because of 500/30. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown I am not defending SCNBAH, if those edits are bad they should be blocked, not not because of 500/30 or A/I/PIA. I am worried at the expansion here of the 500/30 and A/I/PIA rules and this being here. The ramification I concerned with is that now any Israeli article or any article that mentions Israel, even Category:Olympic equestrians of Israel appearances, would be covered by special A/I/PIA rules. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm assuming the CAT wasn't in there before, so we have one addition and one revert by him. I'm not quite ready to use AE tools, but if the new user proves to be a problem, an article block, done as a standard admin action, may be in the works. Lot of heat and friction on that talk page right now, so I'm loathe to jump the gun on sanctions as it does appear to be moving forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just caught the 500/30 aspect, was focusing on the content...oops. I blocked him for 30 days from editing that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• חוקרת, Two things to note: I disagree with your perspective on it being under ARBPIA, although I get where you are coming from. It isn't the most obvious, but I think it applies. Second, I blocked as a standard admin action, which is kind of tricky for a 500/30, but is allowed as this is no different than WP:ECP. This means any admin can review it on his talk page if HE (and only he) requests it. I think the action I took is fairly measured, and in the spirit of removing disruption in the area. Yes, it is under 500/30, so the reverts are exempt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)The entirety of a article wouldn't be covered under ARBPIA, but anything Hezbollah (or similar) would be, and since that is exactly what he was focusing on, I don't see any daylight between the restriction and his actions. They are certainly covered. Keep in mind, this is also a WP:BLP, so you can expect stricter enforcement all across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My intention is to leave it to another admin to close after all questions have been asked, as the action taken was a standard admin partial block, not AE sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Good catch Tamzin, and I agree with your conclusions. I see the Ethel sock was a sleeper, two years old. I've went ahead and applied WP:ECP to the article for 90 days. The talk page is still open, but this should prevent any new socks or other trouble on the main BLP while this story matures. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Researcher's point, my view is that content about Hezbollah's role in internal Lebanese politics may sometimes fall outside of "the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed", but the concept of "Hezbollah attacks" falls within that scope. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I've stuck {{BLP editnotice}} below the ARBPIA notice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further review, indeffed as either Icewhiz or someone working with him; see also Special:Contributions/Smoking_Ethel. Will leave this for someone else to close, just in case there's anything left to discuss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:37, 15 August 2022 (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

Jr8825 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBEE

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

1. Special:Diff/1104278671
2. Special:Diff/1104039111/1104165916
3. Special:Diff/1104280751

WP:NOTFORUM rants about their belief that Ukraine/Zelenskyy are Nazis/Hitler etc.; purposefully spreading misinformation. No attempts at, or interest in, constructive collaboration. They were topic banned under ARBEE for exactly the same behaviour in 2017.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/779647782

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has a history of disruptively using talk pages and has been warned adequately over multiple years. Deliberately uses a misleading signature in order to confuse editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1105003693

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

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

• Indef Block - it's not as if they've had a long history of productive edits between the 2017 TBAN and now. Particularly the first of the three diffs is egregiously poor. I was considering a direct indef, but another editor issued a lvl4 warning for it, but given the problems in this field, I think an AE sanction is best levied. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the editor's talk page, which is littered with blocks and warnings, their last 100 edits, which almost solely consist of arguing on talk pages and low-level disruption going back to 2017, this, and the general way they interact with others, I feel like an indefinite block for battleground/disruptive editing/not here etc etc. is the best course of action. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was thinking indef before I noticed their fake sig that redirects to a non-existing user, so yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 19 August 2022 (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

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Newimpartial (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 (1992 cutoff)

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

1. August 15 Newimpartial reverted well-sourced claims explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong. Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts, and they did not start any talk page discussion.
2. August 15 ^
3. August 17 After edits hashing out all talk page objections, Newimpartial directly removed well-sourced claims explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong.
4. August 16 Part of the dispute is how to interpret Jérôme Jamin[120] Newimpartial claims special knowledge to insist sources mean something other than what they plainly say. This involves examining whether "cultural" is capitalized or not, and similar special pleading not supported by sources.
5. August 17 Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources.
6. December 28, 2021 Similar arguments were made this past December/January. Newimpartial frequently rejects good-faith requests for clarification as "sealioning".
7. December 28, 2021 ^ (The link they eventually provide here as evidence is just their prior comment that contradicts Jamin without evidence.)
8. February 3, 2021 Newimpartial added language about "no clear relationship" at Marxist cultural analysis.
9. December 15, 2021 I pointed out that the source in fact described a relationship at length. Newimpartial reverted my Talk page post, calling it FORUM, and accused me of socking. This was our first interaction. The source is the same one from Jamin.
10. December 16, 2021 Newimpartial reverted my first attempt to fix the issue with the sole justifications of "BRD" and "no consensus".
11. January 8, 2022 Newimpartial reverted my Talk page policy-based suggestions for article improvement
12. January 8, 2022 ^ (twice)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on December 30, 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Newimpartial did not violate 3RR, but 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Newimpartial has continually exhibited almost every bullet point of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing over an extended period of time. Especially disruptive is Newimpartial's tendency to remove cited claims with inadequate explanation, and try to boomerang requests for clarification by alleging "sealioning". It is a strategy designed to stonewall. This is not a feature of their interaction with me, but a feature of their approach to the topic of the Frankfurt School. If administrators are interested, I can point to further diffs in 2020. While collecting diffs, something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle.

I have been unable to get consensus mainly because Newimpartial's edit summaries are brief and vague, ignoring the suggestions of WP:DRNC and WP:BRD-NOT. With their "sealion" rhetoric, they weaponize my very willingness to elicit and respond to feedback. Over many months, I have concluded they they are stonewalling. They will never budge from their personal OR interpretation of what an "actual movement" means, which has nothing to do with the sources or edits. As they say in diff 5, arguing with you about what specific sources mean by specific passages - that is something I only do when it is unavoidable, and it is rarely unavoidable. Sennalen (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Newimpartial describes as rescuing an orphan POVfork was actually a shameful episode. Talk was turning towards adding a dab from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Western Marxism. Newimpartial opposed the idea of an informative dab based on culture war reasoning.[121] That's the discussion that led them to Marxist cultural analysis, where their main activity was purging well-cited scholarly uses of the phrase "Cultural Marxism"[122] before setting that page as the dab. It is a Potemkin article to forestall an informative dab. Davide King made some good faith improvements, but since then no one has really paid attention to Marxist cultural analysis apart from the oversized WP:ONEWAY-violating conspiracy theory section. Sennalen (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding jurisdiction, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is squarely in the area of post-1992 American politics. That is where it originated, where it is still active, and crucially, it is why some editors are motivated to stymie article improvements. Sennalen (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, I have never directly reverted a revert. All my restores have been with the addition of further cited text or incorporating talk page feedback. This is obscured by the mass reverts, further underscoring how disruptive that is compared to WP:PARTR. Also BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. I have always been the one to go to the Talk page first. Sennalen (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=1105031008&oldid=1104692691&diffmode=source

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

This is very silly. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? Senallen is complaining about my partial reverts of their edits for which they have been unable to obtain consensus on the relevant Talk page.[123] Their filing here seems either to misunderstand a large number of my edits. The issue in this minor removal, for example, is not whether the conspiracy theory is wrong, I am disputing the implication in Senallen's BOLD additions that the conspiracy theory is based on an actual movement (as I explained at the Talk page section I linked above).

Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources is a complete falsification of the edit Senallen linked, where I actually say what I found after reading the text of the actual source. And it is I, not Senallen, who has been constantly pointing to the opinions of other editors on this topic, while Senallen has argued to ignore previous consensus of RfCs and other processes.[124]

As far as the allegation that something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle, it seems bizarre on the face of it - what is the "culture war angle" involved in ensuring that WP articles aren't skewed, as Senallen has repeatedly proposed to do, by relying on a distorted reading of a single source? It is also obviously false, as shown by edits like these[125] [126] [127] [128] where I worked an orphaned POVFORK into an article that other editors have even able to use and improve.

This filing appears to simply be Senallen's attempt to "punish" an opponent when they don't get their way on Talk; I do wonder about any WP:SPA on this topic area whether they have edited in it (or been banned from it) before, but my having wondered aloud about this last year is scarcely a ground for "punishment", then or now. As far as disrupting the topic area - Senallen's consistent POV pushing in article space, in spite of multiple editors' objections on Talk, is where disruption has been taking place; my refusal to WP:SATISFY them is not the real issue. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken, but are the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Marxist cultural analysis articles and their associated talk pages actually subject to the AP2 DS? I've had a quick skim of the diffs provided for the contributions from this month, and cannot see anything obvious that is covered under AP2. What am I missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This filing is erroneous from the start. The first diff is presented with "Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts", which is incorrect. Newimpartial's edit summary, "Subsequent edits depart from the consensus of sources and Talk page consensus, and could confuse the reader. Please discuss rather than proceeding BOLDLY.", did give a valid reason for removal of the newly added content. Instead of building consensus for the changes, Sennalen restored the content immediately. BRD is just an essay, but WP:ONUS applies here too, and either/both show that Sennalen is not in a position to be pointing fingers here. Picking out another diff at random: this edit is described by Sennalen as "Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources." In the best possible light, this is a misunderstanding of NI's comment that evidences some lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy and practice. It's hard for me, I have to admit, not to see this as a willfully bad-faith misconstruing of NI's point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these were covered by WP:AP2, I fail to see how this is anything but a content dispute, or how Newimpartial's behavior could possibly be worse than Sennalen's own. Sennalen WP:BOLDly rewrote massive parts of the article over the course of several days; reverting a bold rewrite is entirely reasonable. Sennalen then revert-warred to retain their changes: [129][130][131] (note in the first revert, Sennalen implied that their proposed additions should remain in place during discussions.) The discussions on talk don't seem to be producing any clear consensus for Sennalen's changes, at a glance, which makes edit-warring them back in even worse. It seems like Sennalen believed that the fact that it was a few days before anyone raised objections means that their edits are now the WP:STATUSQUO, which is definitely not the case - there's some valid disagreement over when text has implicit consensus, but a few days is clearly insufficient. I don't think this has reached the point where it would be more than a content-dispute, but if there are conduct issues here then they concern Sennalen more than Newimpartial.

Also, this is tangential, but glancing over the edits and talk-page discussions I'm extremely skeptical about Sennalen's assertion that their edits are focused on "explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong." That is clearly not the locus of dispute, and the insistence that it is strains good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody new showing up to this article whose viewpoint diverges from the consensus (and by this, I do not mean making claims like "Marxists have taken over America by pushing drugs to students" or whatevs, but content based on academic sources, Sage Encyclopedia entries, OED definitions, that sort of thing, all of which have been either completely or partially excluded from the article at various stages because "WP:CONSENSUS") will be (explicitly or implicity, often explicitly) accused of being a believer in the conspiracy theory, a sockpuppet, a troll, or a racist, by a small group of editors who often seem to prefer to rely on their own unsourced original analysis of capitalization, or unorthodox quantification procedures, while the primary determinant of source inclusion seems to be whether it might be used by someone, somewhere, to somehow 'prove' that the conspiracy is 'true'. Blatantly obvious misrepresentation of sources, that any L1 English speaker can see are false, require a month-long RfC to remove. Getting rid of falsely attributed quotations takes serious effort and a lot of time, with resistance justified by statements that boil down to "I don't give a **** if we misrepresent a bunch of antisemites!" I appreciate the way the grizzled veterans are guarding the article against the edits of dodgy conspiracy theorists who show up quite regularly to moan on the talk page. But I think they're overdoing it a bit.  Tewdar  08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Even construing "broadly construed" pretty broadly, I struggle to see how these edits are covered by WP:AP2. Sure, the conspiracy theory has some American proponents, and parts of these articles do fall under AP2, but I wouldn't consider the theory itself to be inherently linked to American politics. For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider them sanctionable if they were covered. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how these are covered under AP2 as well. Some of the behavior is a bit problematic, but this wouldn't be the right venue to review it. If this is the worst of it, nothing would likely come about at ANI either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think covering these under AP2 is rather a stretch, and regardless, this looks like a content dispute, which is not resolved at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]