Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331

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

Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

OrcaLord (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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. Talk:Elissa_Slotkin#Labor_Positions_and_the_2023_UAW_strike Further explanation below: This is the editor's first engagement on this article following a 3-month block for disruptive editing. The discussion shows continuing intent to insert an opinion which multiple experienced editors point out is attempting to not supported by mainstream reliable sources (only supported by Jacobin and Twitter user noted below) and refusal to drop the insistence to include their spin of living person's comments.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. July 2023 Warning re: original research on same article from Binksternet
2. November 2023 90 day ban from article for disruptive editing from ScottishFinnishRadish
3. 3 separate protections of page for disruptive editing in last 6 months

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Nov 18 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on November 2020 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia.

Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing.

Red-tailed hawk: I do think repeatedly making the same point to myself, Drmies, and XeCyranium rises to the level of bludgeoning. I'll try to put together difs tomorrow before work on Monday -- been super busy off-Wiki -- but I think that reading through the convo will lead you to the same conclusion… Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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.

WP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page.

If anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning.

Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing.

DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop.

I'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many times can one person say the same thing? About once every day for two weeks, it seems: 3/16 3/18 3/19 3/19 3/20 3/20 3/21 3/21 3/22 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/27 3/27 3/27. OrcaLord has made six other posts in the same discussion since 3/16; they are all related to the same argument, but differ slightly in their emphasis from these. During that time period, all other editors combined have made fewer than 40 comments total. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not seeing any edit warring, and this appears to primarily be a content dispute between two editors. I see someone recently suggested on the talk page that an RfC be used, and I think that, not AE, is the way to bring resolution to such a dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An RfC seems reasonable. There also appears to be a disupte as to the reliability of a particular source, so a WP:RSN thread might also be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this as content dispute/no action, with recommendation of dispute resolution if necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds good to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm truly struggling to see how any edits made within the past month or so could plausibly be edit warring, though I do think that previous sanctions related to the same material are worth noting should the topic be a root cause of behavioral disruption from one user. Merely that an editor has moved from edit warring to bludgeoning a talk page discussion would not render a warning or prior block for edit warring wholly irrelevant.
  On that note, regarding bludgeoning, the ArbCom has noted that [e]ditors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Have individual editors been repeating the same point over and over in talk page discussions to such an extent that they have been dominating the discussion by sheer volume of comments? If so, an organized list of diffs showing this pattern of behavior would be very helpful in evaluating what's going on here. It's a bit hard to follow as-is, though I can try to go through the discussion diff-by-diff on my own if need be. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (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

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

A Wider Lens (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/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation

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

Slow Motion Edit Warring at Skoptic syndrome

1. 09:03, 24 March 2024 Adds the statement , there was a mention of this fetisch in the DSM-VI under code 320.6-3: 'Persistent preoccupation with castration or penectomy without a desire to acquire the sex characteristics of the other sex'.^[1] This was omitted in the DSM-5 for unknown reasons (this is WP:OR, the DSM-VI lists that as an unspecified gender identity disorder but does not call it Skoptic syndrome anywhere in the text)
2. 09:07, 24 March 2024 Adds the uncited WP:OR The Eunuch Archive is a website dedicated to the eunuch fetish. This website is cited by WPATH's SOC-8 as a source for their eunuch chapter.
3. 12:51, 24 March 2024 Revert 1: Reverts an IP who had reverted both items
4. 05:40, 26 March 2024 Revert 2: Another IP had partially reverted the first and fully reverted the second. AWS re-adds the content from item 2
5. 05:42, 26 March 2024‎ Still revert 2: AWS re-adds the content from the first (the DSM-4 listed it in the section gender identity disorder asking if the IP is Euphemizing the phenomenon?
6. 06:28, 27 March 2024‎ Revert 3: Undoes a cn tag placed in the lead by Sirfurboy
7. 06:36, 27 March 2024 Revert 4: Re-adds the content from 2 cited to Genspect after it had been removed by Sirfurboy as unsourced
8. 11:25, 31 March 2024 Revert 5: Today they re-added the text on the DSM-IV to the lead

Personal attacks, forum rants, and disparaging comments about transgender people

1. 15:52, 30 March 2024 The fact that you use words such as 'anti-trans activist' [in relation to Graham Linehan] and calling Genspect a conversion therapy lobby group exposes that you are highly TRA (activistic defending the WPATH-ideology). That is fine, I have a different opinion obviously.
2. 02:47, 31 March 2024 Argues Linehan and Gluck's critics are just trans activist motivated people as they are not anti-trans but critical on the cultlike movement and on the iatrogenic aspects of the provided form of healthcare. (For reference, "Iatrogenic" in this case means a theory by Genspect members that giving kids hormones make cis kids trans) Also They consider trans kids unfortunate misled victims. Not Anti. They are anti dodgy people abusing the gender privileges (weird dudes on toilets that film themselves, infringement issues on women’s rights, prison issues, healthcare malpractice, etc). That was said in reply to me linking to our policies and explaining why they aren't reliable sources.
3. 06:28, 26 March 2024 Tells an IP editor I see you are the same IP that erased relevant info on the Skoptic Syndrome page, trying to hide it's connection to Eunuch and WPATH and fetisch/gender identity disorder and states Please be aware of contributors that are trying to protect/hide the dark side of Eunuchism.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. March 10 2024 This user was blocked on the Netherlands wiki from the pages Gender-affirming care, Misgendering, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, Transgender care in the Netherlands, Woman, TERF, Gender-critical feminism, Detransition, Anti-gender movement, and Hormome replacement therapy for 275 days. The reason was persistent problematic use of sources and a large amount of non-neutral content. Some google-translated quotes: A Wider Lens publishes texts (or entire articles) that are biased (see above) without any citation, texts that are sourced but where the source does not cover the content of the text, or texts that are based on sources without any authority., User has repeatedly indicated that he is not neutral about gender (not problematic in itself): many articles are created to serve as a stepping stone for 'gender criticism' (one issue); see for example Nullification , (the history of) Tavistock scandal . The personal non-neutrality becomes completely unacceptable when A Wider Lens incorporates these non-neutral *opinions* into articles as being facts, Despite quite a lot of requests, A Wider Lens continues to be both forum posts with lengthy explanations about his opinions, viewpoints, and ideas.. There had been a previous block request that was rejected referenced in the decision.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:48, 27 March 2024‎ (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On the talk page me and Sirfurboy have attempted to explain to A Wider Lens that what they are doing is WP:OR. They have not sought consensus, but have ignored us. They state repeatedly that they are adding the DSM IV quote due to Graham Linehan making the connection between it and Skoptic syndrome on the talk page and have ignored us noting that's not a reliable source. The text they add to the article has so far only been 1) uncited, 2) cited to an unreliable source, or 3) cited to a source that doesn't support it. Upon reviewing their contributions, I realized that they had been given the Netherlands equivalent of a GENSEX ban for exactly the same behavior. Having checked out their articles on the Netherlands Wikipedia (as they frequently link to them on English Wikipedia as things to consider when updating ours), I cannot understate how terrifying it is how many of them rely on Genspect and other FRINGE advocacy groups as a source and editors are still working to undo the damage they've done.

I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should be banned from GENSEX. They have continued the same POV-pushing, WP:OR, and WP:RGW that they were recently banned for, and I concur with those who weighed in at the Netherlands wiki that it is a waste of editor time to review all their edits due to their consistent misuse of sources and blatant desire to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints in trans and/or trans healthcare related articles.

On an additional note, their username may be a violation of our username policy, as it is the name of a Genspect podcast and on their talk page A Wider Lens stated this was because they were a fan. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A Wider Lens for the record, I'm a woman. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you saw my Mastodon profile on my userpage without seeing the pronouns, venus symbol, userbox saying I'm a trans woman, the one saying I'm a lesbian, etc you had to scroll past to get there, and kindly ask you to update your comment. Otherwise, your comments he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved, we are dealing with a fanatic TRA speak for themselves. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 13:04, 31 March 2024‎

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.

(request for more than 500 words)

I have indeed problems with what I estimate as TRAs (trans ideological motivated contributors) that act as guards on many Wikipedia topics. As is the case in my opinion on the Skoptic syndrome page. (Redacted)

Here some links to better understand the seriousness of this topic:

• In the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs

(Redacted)

Needless to say (Redacted) is not a site you cannot cite in the main text of Wikipedia, but it is currently the only website that has brought this explosive information and all that is mentioned there is perfectly sourced. Read it yourself and fine if you come to a different conclusion.

If you prefer me to step back, fine by me. English is not my native language, so me too would prefer it other contributors merge relevant info on Wikipedia about this highly sensitive topic. But unfortunatelly not many contributors dare to dive into this topic. I have understanding for Your Friendly Neighborhood Society's contributions, but also have the feeling that he is a misled person on this topic, Sorry for saying that so bluntly. I have noticed gender critical arguments and sources are pushed away very easily on Wikipedia. (Genspect being a fringe org for instance and other down pushing of relevant experts. Genspect/Shellenberger published the WPATH Files and many of the Genspect board members were the main body that took down the Tavistock clinic). On the Dutch my critical contributions led to a temporary block indeed (on which I agreed to give them some air and time to really understand what a scandal is rolling out currently.) Hopefully this explanation clarifies something. Blocking me is not taking away the issues surrounding this medical scandal. It will only make the infection worse, if you don't cure it now by exposing the truth. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also look at the reverts YFNS did after I tried to improve the article with plenty of sources. It looks to me as if he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

No need to block, you can simply tell me not to contribute to Skoptic syndrome and I leave it up to other contributors. I am just very concerned about the entire WPATH Files and the Eunuch Archive, but in case you are not, you are not and I rest my case. I expect others will come up in the future with identical concerns. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

No need to start a fight on such things. I regard people biological male or female and had no intention to mis'gender' you on purpose. But since you express you are a trans person, male born, I uphold the freedom to not adapt it on the previous edits, but I will adapt my language on the future ones to not make an unnecesarry issue even though I consider pronouns claims a type of gas lighting and offensive towards people that don't believe in gender ideology. See the Maya Forstater case, or Jordan Peterson's schoolyard moment. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

AWS' responses here will speak for themselves. My only comment is to say that, based on talk page discussion at the article to date, I do not believe they have the competence required to edit an article such as this. They don't seem to understand sourcing requirements, nor even how to cite a source. I am not convinced they understand why secondary sources are required, and I don't think they are reading the sources. I note below that they may have talked themself into an indefinite block. However, if they can avert that, I would suggest that they may want to seek mentoring and a much less controversial topic to cut their teeth on, and where they can learn to edit. A TBAN would make sense until they are able to demonstrate editing competence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Reading A Wider Lens's own submission here, a GENSEX ban is obviously the minimum indicated, but I don't see any issue with an NOTHERE indef either because they're clearly not here to improve any sort of encyclopedia, merely to push their own extreme philosophies. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've redacted and revision-deleted a whole lot of it, both because of BLP issues either implicitly stated or stated in the links. I will give it a short time, but if no-one else objects I will continue and block AWL indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the latest comment ([2]), that's a pretty clear NOTHERE, not to mention the earlier outing and the like. Blocked indefinitely, as a normal admin sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admins have any further input on the indefinite block within a day or so, I'll close this request as resolved. The blocked editor can of course appeal the block via the normal processes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Special:Diff/1216559418 and Special:Diff/1216560043 to the section corresponding to respondent. I've added links to the original diffs, so that context for what comments they were responding to can be viewed with a click. For those of us who are newer here, we don't do threaded discussion at AE. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (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

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Burrobert (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

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

1. 06:30, 7 April 2024, re-implementing 20:04, 6 April 2024 on Julian Assange

There are two specific changes here that are disputed and per the "consensus required" restriction applied to this article, require consensus:

1. A recent RfC found a consensus that we should include the claim that Assange said informants "deserve to die", attributed in line to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding. This change removes this attribution, instead saying that Walsh and Harding said that Leigh said that Assange said the quote.
2. It re-adds a statement from Goetz denying that Assange made the statement.

There is a discussion on the talk page about this, and Burrobert says that this establishes consensus for his changes, but I disagree:

1. For the attribution, only Burrobert and NadVolum supported the change. This is insufficient to establish a consensus even in the absence of the existing consensus.
2. For the Goetz statement, Burrobert, NadVolum, and - only after the initial request to self-revert was made and refused - Cambial Yellowing support it. While closer to consensus than the attribution, I don't see a consensus here.

For both, I am the only editor opposing in the current discussion. I have requested they self-revert and they have refused.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:03, 9 March 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding BM had previously disputed its inclusion but did not participate in the discussion until after the consensus about Goetz' statment was implemented on 7 April, I did not have time for Wikipedia between the 1st and the 7th. BilledMammal (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whose time sheet you are looking at, but I made no edits on the 2nd. However, I don't think it matters - the point is that you can't claim a consensus solely based on two editors agreeing, even if there is a week between opposition to those editors position. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits you link were made on the first; are you using the "Time Offset" feature to give your local time rather than UTC? BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NadVolum: Can you clarify what you are insinuating with your last two sentences? BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that, a month after my discussion with FortunateSons, I came to an article that you hadn't edited in three months for the purpose of "trying to find ways to cause trouble for [you]"?

It's an absurd claim - an WP:ASPERSION based on assumptions of bad faith - and I ask that you strike it. The real reason I came to the article was because I read an article in the New York Times. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:34, 7 April 2024

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.

Here is my interpretation of the sequence of events:

• An RfC determined that Julian Assange's bio should include an alleged quote. The closing editor stated that "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The closing editor did not say what attribution to use when presenting the quote to readers, although BM did include a suggested attribution in the statement of the RfC. My interpretation of the closing statement is that details of the attribution should be discussed as part of the "appropriate context".
• BilledMammal started a talk page section entitled Removal of Nick Davies on 27 March. As part of that discussion editors talked about how they should attribute the quote. A consensus formed that it should be presented along the lines: "In their book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy they say Declan Walsh heard Assange say at a dinner when asked about redaction "Well, they’re informants ... ". After their initial comment, BM did not participate in the discussion until after consensus was implemented. NadVolum implemented the consensus on 7 April. BM reverted NadVolum's edit within a few hours and I reverted BM's reversion because I believed BM was editing against consensus.
• Goetz' statement was not part of the RfC but was discussed within the talk page section "Removal_of_Nick_Davies". The only editors who mentioned the statement (me and NadVolum) believed it should be included. BM had previously disputed its inclusion but did not participate in the discussion until after the consensus about Goetz' statment was implemented on 7 April.
• BM started a discussion on my talk page after I reverted their edit. Some of the above points are covered there. Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter why BM did not participate in the discussion which led to a consensus. BM's editing history does show some extensive editing on 2 April, by which time editors had already started discussing the inclusion of Goetz' statement and the error in attributing the alleged quote to Leigh, Harding and Walsh. Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made by BM on 2 April start at [3] and end at [4]. There are around 25 edits on that date. There was an 11 day gap between when the discussion was opened on 27 March and when a consensus was implemented on 7 April. The discussion involved three editors, me NadVolum and Jack_Upland. Jack did say at one stage "We could say they reported it". On 4 April, I said "Yes, we should say that the claim about what Walsh said is from Leigh and Harding, possibly mentioning their book". I suggested that we use something like "Leigh and Harding wrote that Walsh told them Assange said ""Well, they’re informants ..." and said "Unless someone comes up with an objection, I will make an attempt at improving the way in which this anecdote is related to the reader". Jack responded "You don't need permission to edit the page, comrade". Jack is more than capable of speaking for himself, but my interpretation of Jack's comment is that he did not object to my suggested change. As it turned out, NadVolum implemented the suggestion before me. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange this was brought againt Burrobert since I made the more recent changes. I only found this because I was mentioned above. As far as I can see the changes I made all follow the RfC. Exactly how long are editors on Wikipedia supposed to hang around waiting for BilledMammal to show up again in a discussion or to complain about their edits being changed - and more concerningly for me I notice BilledMammal turned up at the article on Assange after User talk:BilledMammal#Hey, I am looking for a second opinion on a user we both have encountered, could you (as a more experienced person editor who already interacted with them) take a quick look whether their actions have reached the point of warranting more substantive actions being taken? which is about me. The two in that discussion are major contributors to a proxy Israel-Hamas war at WP:RSN. NadVolum (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to BilledMammal my feeling is that after you fixed up an AE request on me in preparation and "Instead, I would recommend sitting back and seeing how they behave, and if there are further issues then bringing the whole lot to AE" you followed me to the Julian Assange article with the intent of trying to find ways to cause trouble for me on Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see they posted the change on the article page before my contribution and my last contribution was eight days previously to the talk page so I accept they got there from reading about in NYT. My apologies. There's lots of people who feel deeply about the business so they'd put in something damningg about Assange but remove a witness saying otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To FortunateSons I made no aspersions against you except in so far as I said you are a major contributor to a lot of the current discussion at FTN on material favorable to or against one side or the other in the Israel-Hamas war, that is what I see as the background of your request to BilledMammal. NadVolum (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in that RfC and I can't for the life of me see any wrongdoing by Burrobert. BM has not presented any diffs that show any editing that is not in line with the RfC close. Unless there's additional diffs to be presented which show anything else I don't see that there's anything to be answered here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was uninvolved in the original dispute, but got added here because I (in my opinion, appropriately) requested the assistance of a more experienced user in addition to an admin when encountering a conduct-dispute. As I did not edit the disputed articles here and chose not to file the request, I see no relationship between me and the action at hand and would kindly request clarification from NadVolum what exactly my request regarding him has to do with this, as well as to strike any aspersions against me. In particular, now as I gained more experience, I still believe that the comments made by BilledMammal are both appropriate and deescalatory. FortunateSons (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your claim, including of me being a major contributor[s] to a proxy Israel-Hamas war at WP:RSN. FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (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

Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaymailsays (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/The Troubles

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

1. 19:46, March 27, 2024 Adds blatant WP:SYNTHESIS
2. 15:30, March 29, 2024 Repeats previous edit in violation of WP:ONUS despite discussion at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked for edit-warring at 18:25, February 16, 2024

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.

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.

• Unfortunately the complainant has now broken the 3 revert rule without consensus or suggesting an edit, on the Martin McGuinness page by removing BBC content, because it doesn't fit in with their personal view, instead of adopting a neutral encyclopaedic edit. Request that a neutral administrator reinstates edit.
• The complainant reinstated 14 killed during Bloody Sunday, when the citation linked to the official report states 13 and not 14. The complainant is acting as if they own the article instead of collaborating with editors to gain consensus. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[5][6][7][8] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[9] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This editor's talk page is quite the mountain of warnings for OR, poor use of references, and the like, and I see even more of that in these edits. I also note that now they seem to want to needlessly snark at other editors, while there's an AE request open about them: [10]. Jaymailsays, I'd be open to hearing your side, but at this point I'm giving a lot of thought to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still considering what to do here, primarily between a TBAN and indef. If anyone else has any input, would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the wide range of topics that Jaymailsays edits, I support an indef. RegentsPark (comment) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (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

JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zilch-nada (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/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation

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

• Longstanding and systematic use of dismissive and belittling tone towards other editors:
  1. 2 July 2023
  2. 2 July 2023
  3. 27 September 2023
  4. 15 December 2023
  5. 12 March 2024
  6. 13 March 2024 (a response to a request to retract a personal attack)
  7. 13 March 2024
  8. 14 March 2024
  9. 14 March 2024 (a third party requests that they retract a personal attack; they decline)
  10. 1 February 2024
  11. 1 February 2024
  12. 7 February 2024
• Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus, and battleground behavior: I'm not exactly sure how to show this in diffs, but they've made roughly a dozen comments on Talk:Sarah Jeong and about twice that many at Talk:Gender, rehashing longstanding settled questions, taking a heavily argumentative (rather than consensus-building) approach, and not desisting despite the evident failure of their efforts to draw any support. Here's a sampling to try to illustrate the basic tenor of their contributions:
  1. March 14 at Talk:Gender
  2. March 13 at Talk:Gender
  3. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
  4. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
  5. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seraphimblade. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate input from some more administrators so that this could reach some conclusion (whatever it may be). --JBL (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

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 am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
• Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.

Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media?

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere.

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that have already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [12], [13], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [14] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [15] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [16]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [17], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [18]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.

Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:

• [19]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.

When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:

• [20] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.

When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:

• [21] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.

I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've dearchived this request as it is incomplete, and it looks like discussion was still in process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• On going through the diffs (and some of Zilch-nada's other posts) it does seem that their tone is rather brusque and dismissive. That said, none of it is actually beyond the pale and therefore I think a logged warning, a mild one that reminds them to AGF in discussions, is likely the best way to close this. RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds reasonable enough to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Bakbik1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites.

Doug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (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.

Your personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ban aside, Bakbik1234 has not reached extended-confirmed and thus is not allowed to edit topics related to I/P broadly construed regardless. The ban is not meaningless, in that it will have an effect once Bakbik1234 reaches extended-confirmed, but it's wholly inappropriate to be appealing it at this time. Demonstrate that you understand how to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, demonstrate that you understand the extent of additional restrictions that apply to this topic, reach 500 edits, and only then consider appealing the ban. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur strongly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bakbik1234 continues to violate their ban and non ECP status. I warned them and said I’d give them a pass, but they’ve continued. A few minutes after filing this appeal they asked if they were still banned. I don’t think they are competent enough to edit within the constraints of the ban. It was User:331dot who gave them the ban. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops. I wasa bout to write that I wasn't sure if I should be posting in this section as I was the one who banned them, had a moment of doubt, looked at their talk page history and saw 331dot's name so deleted that and added their name. Embarassing to say the least! Doug Weller talk 06:55, 11 April 2024 (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

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kashmiri (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

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

Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza:

1. 21:06, 3 April 2024
2. 20:24, 3 April 2024

Refused to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 14:13, 5 March 2024
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 19:50, 16 February 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:18, 11 April 2024

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.

• @Callanecc It would be polite to let the accused respond. There's no urgency (alleged breach took place more than a week ago), and closing the discussion two hours after filling, no other editor having had a chance to participate, is a tad out of process. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've topic banned Kashmiri for a week for the 1RR breach and not reverting after being notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kashmiri I had originally intended to comment and encourage you to self-revert and explain until I saw that you had effectively been given that opportunity a few days ago. I have, however, left this thread open so that you, and others, can comment. That might include presenting a case that the sanction is unnecessary. Further, on 'out of process', any uninvolved admin can apply any sanction at any stage. The purpose of this board is to report potential breaches and then allow admins to discuss potential responses if they need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (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

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rp2006 (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/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.

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

1. 15 April 2022, an edit about at Havana syndrome about Robert Bartholomew, he writes for several newspapers and journals on sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times.
2. 15 April 2022, explicitly warned about edits about Bartholomew at Havana syndrome on their talk page, clarification of topic ban provided.
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306#Rp2006, 12 June 2022, Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken following a technical violation.
4. 21 January 2023, an edit about a living person of interest to the skeptic community.
5. 27-28 January 2023, warned about violations on their talk page.
6. 1 March 2023, topic ban violation at David Paulides.
7. 4 March 2023, warning about that violation.
8. Special:Undelete/User:Rp2006/sandbox/Biddle, 20 December 2023, 17 July 2023, 30 September 2022, admin-only, page since deleted, edits about Kenneth "Kenny" Biddle, an author, skeptical investigator of paranormal claims.
9. 6 February 2024, adding Wikiproject Skepticism to a BLP.
10. 6-7 February 2024, talk page warnings about violations
11. 2 April 2024, an edit about Robert Bartholomew at Havana syndrome.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with a sanction from Arbcom is not a reason to ignore it. The not understanding the limits doesn't really wash after it's been explained by multiple editors multiple times. We expect all editors who are topic banned to stay away from the edges of their bans, and to ask questions if they're unsure.

The diffs above are also not the only violations. Taking a look through there are more that pop up, like [22]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note that I have sent evidence of COI editing to Arbcom as well. I'll provide the evidence to any admin who requests it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (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.

My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated.

It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!"

Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise.

IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You.

This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind.

This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here.

Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There's only so many times we can say "Hey, stop doing that" before we conclude that an editor is either unable or unwilling to follow an editing restriction. Rp2006, I'd like to hear from you, because the alternative at that point is normally a lengthy or indefinite block. I'm willing to hear you out, especially because that's certainly not something I'm happy about, but there's a fair chance that's what we'd be looking at here. You've had a lot more chances than most get before blocks start to be imposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've got to say, the response here does not fill me with confidence that this will not be an ongoing occurrence. To begin with, since you were topic banned directly by ArbCom, we can't lift the topic ban. Only ArbCom could do that. And the fact that you have repeatedly not adhered to it will not work in your favor if you want to request that. If someone is interested in editing about science, there are tons of articles which would not risk crossing over that line. Just a couple days ago, I happened to look through the article on Le Chatelier's principle, a rather important concept in chemistry, and well—it's rather a mess. You could work on articles like that with no problems whatsoever. If that doesn't strike you as worthwhile, there are tons of other articles on scientific principles and the like which wouldn't be anywhere close to the ban's subject. I suppose I could go with DWF on this; a formal logged warning indicating that this is the absolute last time, and that next time the line gets crossed (even if clearly technical and possibly inadvertent), blocks are going to result from it. The expectation of a topic banned editor is to stay well away from anything that might violate the ban, not to keep walking right up to the line and sticking their toe over it from time to time. That applies whether you think the ban was fair or not. Until and unless ArbCom lifts it, you must adhere to it, or the result will ultimately be you not editing anything at all. That's not an outcome I hope to see, but that's why I think it's very important to be clear that right now, that's the direction you're headed in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the private evidence is concerning enough for ArbCom to ask to let them handle it, I'm inclined to do exactly that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this request and open one at ARCA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rp2006's response above makes me believe that a block is necessary the next time they violate the restriction. They clearly will never accept they were sanctioned for a good reason, and this is not a hard sanction to understand (and they could ask for clarification, but of course they aren't going to, because they'd rather pretend like the sanction doesn't exist.) SFR has treated them with kid gloves, because the fair and reasonable thing would be to block the editor repeatedly violating the arbitration finding against them, not just keep warning them away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The Arbitration Committee has received private information related to Rp2006. As such, an uninvolved administrator (or rough consensus of uninvolved administrators) could refer this case to ARCA for the Committee to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Abhishek0831996 (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

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

1. 27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing.
2. 27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?"
3. 27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
4. 31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
5. 1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "Revert half baked edits of Haani". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page.
6. 1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough." Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press.
7. 26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00
8. 21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
9. 16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.

Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.

Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.

For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.

As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.

On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1 April 2024 17:49

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.

• 1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[23] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu[24] and The Deccan Herald[25] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
• 2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[26] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
• 3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
• 4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[27] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[28]
• 5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[29] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
• 6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[30]
• 7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [31][32] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[33] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
• 8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[34] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[35] Hindu Mahasabha[36][37] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[38]
• 9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."

It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00

Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff

Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff

Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff

False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff

Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.

After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE

I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.

In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[39]

Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Aksai Chin was occupied by China and for "Aksai Chin occupied" by China, there are dozens of sources. However, Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing the text Kautilya3 and I added with reliable sources that China occupied Aksai Chin. I am expecting them both to be sanctioned.-Haani40 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[40][41] and even WP:CIR.[42][43]

While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[44][45][46] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[47] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[48][49] against their will on the cited pages.

I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[50] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.

• Some different facets Diff1
• Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."

• • Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.

• • @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.

I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seraphimblade, I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this matter, but you're right that it's a lot to go through. Per the below, I'm inclined to close without action, except to advise everyone involved to watch their toes a bit more. Planning to close as such in a couple days unless you or someone else wants to go another way or requests more time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this ultimately boils down to a content dispute, but I'm seeing some behavioral issues here as well. I don't see any truly egregious ones, but a reminder to everyone to tone it down a few notches or there will be some action taken in the future would not be a bad idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry to say that I'm hampered by a lack of a general understanding of the topic areas involved in these disputes. It makes it hard to parse much of the evidence provided. For example, diff #9 is presented as "deletion of a well-known fact", but judging just based on the article, Bose is raised as a figure from the Congress Party who "diverged" from "Gandhian Values". In the main Bose article, there's lengthy description about differences between the two. Is it so factual to say that he was a "leading follower of Gandhi's ideology", and so patently unacceptable to remove such a statement? Haani40 cites multiple diffs of Abhishek and Capitals "repeatedly removing sourced content" but the citations provided do not appear to support the content about a 1959 occupation. I might be way off on all of this, but the evidence provided is not clear enough to make firm conclusions.

  Reading the evidence provided, and looking at the page history, there's plenty of evidence of content disputes turned acerbic. I'm not seeing a diff or two that jumps out at me as being over the top. I'm not at all happy with:

  1. Abhishek's description of other editors' work as "nonsensical" and "half baked".
  2. Kautilya's suggestion that Abhishek and Capitals are tag-teaming. I'm not seeing enough evidence of coordination to make such a suggestion appropriate.
  3. Haani40's casting aspersions at an article talk page

  I don't think any of that rises to the level where administrative action is needed, at least not yet. I'd caution everybody to turn down the rhetoric and be a bit quicker to seek outside content dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Haani40's response to me is emblematic of the problem here. The Google Books link shows many sources, the first two of which (at least for me) say:

  • "... Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962"
  • "Aksai Chin occupied by China in 1962 Indo China war"

  Neither supports, and both implicitly contradict, the disputed article text which said "Between 1959 and 1962, China occupied 5,985 sq mi/15,500 sq km. of territory claimed by India in the region". I am neither the holder nor the arbiter of the truth at the heart of this content dispute, but I can't support administrative action based on the quality of the evidence presented so far. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that some uninvolved administrators can review Havana syndrome and determine if:

1. it is covered by the pseudoscience and fringe topics contentious topic area
2. and if some AE restriction can be added to help with the ongoing edit warring.

The article was fully protected for two weeks, by EdJohnston, from 5 April to 19 April. Within a day of the protection's expiration, edit warring had resumed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple government investigations into Havana syndrome that are ongoing, and three review articles published on the subject acknowledging different possible causes. A subset of editors, primarily from the "fringe noticeboard", are pushing to classify the weapons hypothesis as "fringe", just as everything to a hammer looks like a nail. An uninvolved administrator will have a very hard time arguing he/she does not have a POV on the issue in making a decision that this subject is pseudoscience, and specifically which theory is pseudoscientific. FailedMusician (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the 60 Minutes etc reports which seem to be the primary reason for the recent flare-ups come under EE? I have no idea how this is generally interpreted but would think it covers allegations of EE government actions even outside the EE geographical area. Nil Einne (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of what the EE abbreviation was, but Eastern Europe CT would make sense as well as any American politics CT too. There's a more clear intersection there while pseudoscience would be more limited in scope there. KoA (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firefangledfeathers for asking this here after I originally asked for help in this ANI thread. The hope there was to get an admin to tamp down on the battleground behavior and edit warring before things escalated further or needing editor sanctions. Even for those of us who were largely outside the topic and saw issues from the noticeboards while trying to mediate a little, it's definitely above my pay grade when I'm seeing repeated edits like this over the last month reoccur where editors are told about WP:ONUS policy only it ignore it and guidance on the talk page about how to handled disputed edits on talk.

To answer question 2, perhaps a consensus is required restriction would help with the issues of content continually being reinserted without getting consensus on it? Cut down on that and it would take care of what's mostly destabilizing the article and talk page to a degree. With the battleground sniping I linked to at ANI though, just someone to enforce WP:TPNO at the talk page would help a lot too. I'm seeing too many folks treating the talk page as a battleground, and I'm out of energy for the topic as someone who tried to help a bit on the normal editor side of things. Not sure if threaded AEs are ok or not since this isn't a specific enforcement request, so I'll just leave this as my 2 cents. KoA (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest flare-up was because of an attempt (in essence) to say Havana syndrome was caused by a direct energy weapon, despite there being no medical evidence this was the case, to even that the Russians have such a capacity, thus some people felt that was a medical claim "In March 2024, an investigation by 60 Minutes claimed that the Russians had perpetrated the attacks through state agency GRU Unit 29155 using directed energy weapons.", Note as well that this claim was made in three separate places within the article (at first). It keeps on being re-inserted with no agreement as to what we should say or where, based upon the claim that "well we have agreed we can have it, and thus we have consensus for my version". Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no attempt to "say" (assuming you mean in wikivoice) that Havana syndrome was caused by a directed energy weapon (check the text here [51]). You also keep on mentioning "evidence" [52], as if this is somehow important for us to cover the allegations made in the relevant section. It isn't. Our responsibility as Wikipedians is only to cover the allegations as reported, not to verify them ourselves. FailedMusician (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's too many names that I'm WP:INVOLVED with around there for me to do much, and I already spend a lot of my free time babysitting one CTOP. If an RFC is started on the actual wording to include I'd be more than happy to full protect the article while it runs, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Why should we entertain an RFC when there is a firm consensus from a majority of editors across three discussions, just because of a persistent few? Initiating an RFC requires a prior discussion under WP:RFCBEFORE, which includes suggestions for alternative text, but these editors have done no such thing. Now that they see that the content has been restored to the page, they have simply changed their tactics to trim it, claiming it violates MEDRS, when there is already an RFC on the page in that regard, with a very obvious outcome. This seems more like a conduct issue, inappropriate for an RFC and better handled directly on this noticeboard. FailedMusician (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is not firm consensus for inclusion of the details and structure you want for that information. The only thing there is firm consensus on is that it was significant enough to be due mention. The rest is an open question that should be discussed and hashed out at article talk before inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As @TinyClayMan pointed out in response to your trim, there is no point in including the allegations on the page if we don't say what they are. You trimmed the contents purely to sustain an edit war and maintain your position about MEDRS, even though it has no grounding in policy. FailedMusician (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least try to assume good faith. I have some serious concerns about WP:RECENTISM, the quality of the source, and the way it is being framed to support specific proposed causes. Simonm223 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2024 (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

Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Haani40 (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

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

1. 18 April - Added thoroughly unreliable sources in a topic that is sensitive towards religious conflicts
2. 18 April - Removes critical content about the subject by misrepresenting WP:BLP in edit summary
3. 18 April - Same as above
4. 18 April - Engages in WP:BLP violation by using unreliable sources and misrepresenting this discussion on edit summary

What is more surprising, that the last diff came after this clear-cut topic ban warning by Bishonen on his talk page. This user has actually misrepresented the sources with this edit as correctly observed by another admin (Cordless Larry).[53] Even after this all, he is still arguing on the article's talk page that how his edits are not WP:BLP violation.[54]

While this user is overly enthusiastic about these controversial topics, I believe the inputs and warnings on his talk page have so far ended up getting ignored by him. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[55]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[56]

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.

At WP:DR, it says, "If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages. There are several templates you may use to warn editors of conduct issues,[b] or you may choose to use your own words to open a discussion on the editor's talk page. In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner"

However, there was no edit war nor any discussion on any article's talk page or my talk page about these edits by the filer. I therefore believe that this ARE/AE is filed with a malafide intention.

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the first diff: That was copied from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article (which someone else had added in that article). Srijanx22 then reverted it. In the mean time, an admin (Vanamonde93) removed it from the Anti-Hindu sentiment article for some reason and so, I did not edit war over it in either the Anti-Hindu sentiment article, nor in the Indian reunification article (I did not add it back).

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the second diff:- That was reverted by an admin (RegentsPark) and I did not add it back

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the third diff:- That was reverted by a Rollbacker, TheWikiholic and I did not add it back

Reply regarding the addition of what is mentioned in the fourth diff:- I asked at the WP:Teahouse and added that with reliable sources but since it was reverted, I didn't add it back and started a discussion on the Talk page of the article (see this) where the consensus was against adding it (however, only one experienced editor who had reverted it responded to the question if it was acceptable and the filer of this AE was not a part of that discussion at all). I have abided by that consensus.

I have been extra careful about my edits after the warning by an admin (Bishonen) on my Talk page and have asked for clarification at the Teahouse before my next edit. After that was reverted and discussed on the Talk page of the article and the consensus was to avoid adding it, I didn't add it back. I have understood why my edits were reverted and apologise for it. I shall learn, improve and avoid making the same mistakes. In fact, I will ask some experienced editor or maybe at the WP:Teahouse before making any edit I feel is going to cause a problem.

I have not received any warning by the filer ever before. He/she has directly come here for Arbitration/getting me sanctioned with a malafide intention!

The filer may be sanctioned as per WP:BOOMERANG

I read what Bookku has written below and so, I request you not to block or ban me. If you really want to, please make it light. For example, a block for 72 hours. A topic ban would be a very severe punishment for a first time sanction!-Haani40 (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22 has also opened a false SPI against me here. It is possible that he had a bad experience with that user and is now WP:WIKIHOUNDING me. That is all the more reason to sanction him instead of me.-Haani40 (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per instructions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser, Srijanx22 had to, "Notify the suspected users. Edit the user talk pages" which he didn't.-Haani40 (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bookku below, Srijanx22 has not followed the WP:DDE protocol, so that also calls for a sanction against him instead of me, as per WP:BOOMERANG.-Haani40 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I observed Haani40 as uninvolved editor form Abhishek0831996 case (still on this board while commenting here), there after I tried to give some mentorship like peer advice. I concur with OP that User:Haani40 seems overly enthusiastic about some controversial topics. They seem to pick some part of advice and overlook some. I doubt similar mistakes might be happening while interpreting the sources due to haste. Some of this mistakes may happen from any new user.

Hence I had advised Haani40 to not edit in these topic areas at least for couple of months. I suppose after my advice User:Haani40 should have got opportunity un til they do not repeat the mistake. There is specific WP:DDE protocol for such cases that too has not been complied before coming to ARE. In any case the case is on board so I feel let us observe Haani40 for 8-10 days by keeping this open, then take the call whether to leave them with warning or Haani40 deserves Topic Ban for some months.

@@Haani40: Here in this edit of yours you attributed me but did not ping. In above guidance I suggested to use WP:DDE but did not ask to go after OP. You should have read my advice to Abhishek0831996 ".. at WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. ..". Read: time to stop digging and drop the stick. To regain the confidence of the community you need to promise and prove yourself by working in non-contentious areas without any controversy. Last but not least, going after OP or biting good faith advisors itself is last thing to help you. Bookku (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Haani40, you're past your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you're requesting an extension. Also, there is no notification requirement for SPIs, and the page you linked is marked at the top with "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not impressed by the editing (especially falsely stating that things violate BLP, and then proceeding to actually violate BLP), nor by the wikilawyering here. I don't think that this editor is a net positive in the ARBIPA area, so I would be in favor of excusing them from it. I also don't think the SPI was filed in bad faith; there are at least credible reasons to suspect socking, even if that doesn't turn out to be the case, and it would certainly not be the first time we've dealt with that problem in this topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade about giving Haani40 a holiday (indefinitely) from the WP:ARBIPA area. As for the SPI, I found Srijanx22's research there persuasive and actually came pretty close to blocking Haani40 per WP:DUCK. There was a smidgeon of doubt left in my mind, though — the evidence being all circumstantial — so I didn't. I'd be glad if another admin took a look; possibly I was too timid. (CheckUser has been requested, but I believe it's behavior, not technical evidence, that must resolve the matter.) One more thing: Haani40, you frequently use the noping template, for example when linking my username above. Why do you do that? The effect of "nopinging" me is that I don't get pinged. Were you trying to prevent me and the other nopinged admins, such as @Vanamonde93: and @RegentsPark:, from noticing this discussion? That's not a good look, and not a good use of the noping template. (It's best used for out-and-out vandals that you don't want to aggravate.) Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• @Firefangledfeathers, Seraphimblade, and Bishonen: topic ban on A) ARBIPA, or B) politics and religion in India, broadly construed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Shall we close this enforcement request as moot? Haani40 has been blocked as a sock of Souniel Yadav. Bishonen | tålk 23:41, 23 April 2024 (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

Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Grandmaster (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:AA3

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

1. 22 December 2023 Grandmaster wants to remove Luis Moreno Ocampo from the lead, but does not get a consensus to do so.
2. 13 February 2024 An admin officially warns Grandmaster the following: "Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus."
3. 18 April 2024 removes Moreno Ocampo from the lead because "not a place for individual minority views".
4. 18 April 2024 Creates a new discussion simultaneously with removing Moreno Ocampo, repeating the same points as if not already doing so in a previous discussion, which Grandmaster abandoned after being shown proof the Azerbaijani government hired a lawyer to help fight Moreno Ocampo's analysis
5. 18 April 2024 Grandmaster changes "disputed" with "denied", claiming it is better wording. There was an article discussion months earlier, which Grandmaster participated in. Grandmaster didn't want to use the word dispute, but the consensus was "disputed" is better wording.[57][58]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 February 2022 previous WP:AA2 topic ban, appealed in October.
2. 18 March 2023 placed under an indefinite probation following AA3

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 February 2022 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In both discussions, Grandmaster did not even contest the final point of the last user and just abandoned the discussions. Yet months later, after the activity quieted down, Grandmaster changed the established wordings again as if they hadn't been explicitly by a consensus which Grandmaster is aware of and took part in. Vanezi (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THE WP:BRD cycle states "you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns", but Grandmaster just ignored the previous discussions entirely. Grandmaster abandoned a discussion for something they wanted to remove because the consensus was against it, then 4 months later removed the same content without any consensus, and opened a "new" discussion repeating same talking points already addressed in the previous discussion. Grandmaster also says they forgot about the previous discussion, but is trying to make the exact same disputed/denied change that was thoroughly discussed and is the one who started the previous Moreno Ocampo discussion. I hadn't commented in the new discussion yet, because the POV-pushing and lack of regard for the established consensus seemed more alarming.

As for the admin advice given in the previous AE threads, I was not a part of those discussions, while Grandmaster was. So I do not understand what is meant by "us". Vanezi (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Grandmaster waiting 4 months after a consensus discussion to revert the established versions of without a new consensus, violate the AA3 indefinite probation and the warning given by Firefangledfeathers? And it was a revert (albeit 4 months later) despite established consensus because if you look at the article history, Ocampo was removed from lead on 18 December with no explanation other than "updated header", then it was restored with "no consensus" explanation [59], and after that a day later, Grandmaster starts a discussion that they end up abandoning, and the rest/details I've already shown chronologically in the diffs section and my comments. Vanezi (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

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.

Regarding removal of Ocampo from the lead, I just followed the standard WP:BRD, and started a discussion at talk. I was advised to not rv more than once, and this is a single revert that I made. Vanezi reverted me with no edit summary other than "rv", and did not join the discussion that I started. [61] Regarding the change of the word "disputed" to "denied", I indeed forgot about the previous discussions from the last year. We had many discussions with multiple archives on 3 related articles, so it is hard to keep track of what exactly was discussed a few months ago. I was going to rv myself when I saw the report here, but Vanezi already did. [62]

Previously the admins advised us to ask the other party to rv themselves if their edits are disputed, and only escalate if the other party refuses to cooperate. [63] [64]

This is what I did when Vanezi themselves made an edit against the consensus. [65] The closing admin confirmed that there was a violation of the consensus, and Vanezi self-reverted.

If Vanezi had notified me of my mistake, I would have reverted myself, but Vanezi never contacted me at my or the article talk. I always try to resolve any dispute by following the dispute resolution process, as one can see from all the WP:DR processes that I started, and I would certainly do so again if I was alerted about present or past disagreements with my edits. Grandmaster 13:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that there is an SPI case on the filer open over a month ago, and until that is formally closed, it is unclear if they are allowed to post here. Grandmaster 14:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not seeing anything here. It looks like 0RR was followed. Any objections to closing with no action? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with SFR, I don't see any need to take action here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:53, 24 April 2024 (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

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nicoljaus (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

Arbpia/CT

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

1. Diff 1 Revision as of 14:20, 23 April 2024
2. Diff 2 Latest revision as of 14:45, 23 April 2024

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. ARBPEE tban (2021)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When requested to self revert, commented "Oh, I'm so sorry. I need to bring in this area a couple of friends to make reverts instead ne.".

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.

There’s a 1RR violation here that needs to be reverted, but there also appears to be a lot of recent edit warring by all parties in the article.

I’m also concerned by the removal of sources that were used as evidence of WP:SIGCOV in the recent AFD on the grounds of unreliability - either they are usable or they are not, you can’t have it both ways. BilledMammal (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Based on their block log for CTOP violations, edit warring, and this gem I have blocked indefinitely, the first year as an AE action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2024 (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

AP 499D25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Crampcomes (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

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

1. 23:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) 1st revert within 24 hours
2. 06:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 2nd revert within 24 hours

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

(none)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
• Was informed by another user about the 1RR restriction on 06:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Talk page discussion has been attempted by the other involved editor (User:Mistamystery) here, but it has not been responded to.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff on User talk:Crampcomes

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.

Bringing this case here is totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. I already explained myself here. It's been two days and I haven't edited the article in question since then. BTW, I was the one who created that article in the firstplace.[66] Nonetheless, I will repeat: The article, which I created recently, has recently been the target of multiple vandalisms [67][68], then user Mistamystery removed mass sourced content and linked articles through both IP and account [69] [70] and became the first person to violate the 1RR rule after the article was extended confirmed protected (it was extended confirmed protected very recently). Please note that I have no interest in keeping or removing the content and I was not the first editor to revert user Mistamystery' removal of the content in question[71]. (another very experienced editor first reverted him) I asked user Mistamystery to discuss on talkpage before making mass removals[72], but he refused[73]. He at some later time put a vague note on the talkpage without pinging or notifying me about it anywhere not even in edit summaries.Crampcomes (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for replying late, very busy with work today. I created that article recently and it became the target of persistent IP vandalisms e.g.[74][75], all of which were reverted by other editors. Then IP removed this exact same chunk for which I am being accused of edit warring, but IP was reverted by an experienced editor who asked the IP to explain removal on talkpage[76]. I was not edit warring, I just repeated what that experienced editor said: to explain on talkpage, but the IP editor when editing through account flatly refused[77]. That statement had two linked articles Siege of Khan Yunis and Battle of Beit Hanoun, and both seemed to support what was stated. I concur it was my mistake for not actually checking the sources and just blindly believing in another experienced Wikipedia editor seemingly fighting vandalisms.

  [78] Crampcomes (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (@Selfstudier) It's highly likely. Crampcomes (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  BilledMammal really has no clue about what he's saying. I added this info with source:"According to CNN, the attack by Iran was "planned to minimize casualties while maximizing spectacle", and noted that Iranian drones and missiles went past Jordan and Iraq, both with US military bases, and all the air defenses before penetrating the airspace of Israel.^[1]" And it's still in the article Crampcomes (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crampcomes: Something confusing me a bit, are u saying that the IP in this diff is the (original) complainant (ie Mistamystery)? Selfstudier (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an edit warring/1RR issue at 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel:

1. 20:54, 14 April 2024
2. 20:17, 14 April 2024
3. 19:33, 14 April 2024
4. 17:23, 14 April 2024
5. 17:01, 14 April 2024

They sought to include the claim that Iranian missiles went past "all the air defences" of Israel's allies - a claim that doesn't appear aligned with the source, which says "Israel’s allies helped shoot down the bulk of these weapons". They also at one pointed added the claim that "According to CNN it was an Iranian operational success" (17:23); again, this doesn't appear aligned with the source. 13:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Did anyone give Crampcomes a chance to self-revert before filing this report? Also, Crampcomes, I'm less than impressed with your edit warring over clearly NPOV material that does not match the sourcing. Can you explain how the source you cited saying The government's decision to withdraw the maneuvering forces from Gaza and switch to ongoing defense proves that the IDF was able to bring Israel many achievements and victories in the military arena and undermine Hamas' capabilities.[79] turned into By April 2024, Hamas was able to expel Israel from southern Gaza? There is plain source misrepresentation going on here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking a one week block for the edit warring, and a 6 month topic ban for source misrepresentation/NPOV issues. If there is no other admin input in a day or so I'll implement that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur. This has also been reported at ANEW, and I was ready to block when I saw a thread had been opened up here (it didn’t needto be IMO, but it’s here now so we play it as it lays) Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Broad topic ban from the subject of Eastern European topics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive303#Anonimu, reconfirmed 2 days later at, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive304#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Anonimu, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe

Administrator imposing the sanction

El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

diff

More than 2 years have passed since the ban was enacted. I am fully aware that my behaviour then was far from encouraging civil and productive discussion of the content in a highly contentious topic (Russian-Ukrainian war), and I am sorry for that. My plan was to wait for the war to end before appealing the topic ban, unfortunately it is dragging on with seemingly no perspective of peace. Due to lack of sources/interest in other topic areas, as well as the broadness of the topic ban, in the past two years my editing was mostly restricted to fixing some issues and adding some content related to areas that could not possibly be considered as connected to Eastern Europe. I think that restricting the area of the topic ban would allow me to come back to more productive editing. Thus, if you consider that the topic ban cannot be completely overturned, restricting the topic ban to modern Russian-Ukrainian relations (say, after 2000) would still serve as a remedy to the original situation, while not preventing me from using the knowledge and sources I have in order to improve Wikipedia content related to other areas of Eastern Europe. Thank you. Anonimu (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• El_C: I was a bit confused about the procedure, considering the first failed appeal. I am impartial about which way to finalize this appeal procedure. As mentioned in my initial statement, I am fine with any result that allows me to contribute to articles regarding Eastern Europe not related to the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Anonimu (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This appeal lists a previously failed appeal, but not the original enforcement action. El_C 17:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection on narrowing the scope on my part. El_C 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonimu, since this a sanction originally imposed by me, I can just implement the change you proposed immediately, unless you'd rather go through the appeal process and let someone else close it (likely with the same outcome). So let me know what you prefer. El_C 23:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anonimu, since it's not a clear yes from you, I'll let the appeal run its course, and let someone else close it and enter the changes into the log. El_C 13:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu can be an useful editor. I don't say this because I like his POV, but because he can act as a counterweight to Romanian nationalist POV-pushers. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2024 (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.

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

• I'm generally favorable to a loosening of sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to give this another day to see if there is any further input and if there's no objection close this with an adjustment to a topic ban on post-2000 Russia/Ukraine relations, unless El_C feels like amending it now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2024 (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

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Christsos (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:ARBPIA4 extended-confirmed restriction

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

1. Created Faiq Al-Mabhouh
2. Created Ibrahim Biari (deleted by me as G4)
3. Created Draft:Eyal Shuminov

All of these are very obviously related to the conflict

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

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 see the editor has been inactive as of a few days prior to this report, so I wanted to ask - did anyone try to explain the ECR's to them beyond placing the ARBPIA notification on their talk page? 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

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

• Christsos, if you have anything to say, now would be the time. It looks like all of these happened after you were explicitly left a contentious topics notice informing you of the 30/500 restrictions, so can you please explain why you are clearly violating that? I'll give you a short while to explain, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm on the same page. They haven't edited in a couple days so there's no immediate need to step in. We can wait to see if there's a decent response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seraphimblade. they're still not around. How do you feel about a logged warning that the next violation will result in a one week block, followed by escalating blocks for further violations? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not a fan of that, as we'd essentially be tying the hands of future admins as to what to do if the violations continue (if it's a highly technical and probably inadvertent violation, maybe they only want to block for a day, and if it's egregious and obviously intentional, maybe they go right to a month, or even indef if the editor states they intend to keep violating it). I don't think we should predetermine the outcome of future actions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll buy that, yeah. So a non-specific logged warning? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]