Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Oriental Aristocrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

1. [1][2][3]: Making false claims of having consensus for his edits on Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (it has 1RR rule) despite being alone to restore refuted content.
2. [4] Calls another editor a "vandal" after getting warned for edit warring on Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
3. 7 April: Rejects inputs by other editors by making false claims that they "were clearly WP:CANVASSED here."
4. [5][6] WP:WIKIHOUNDED me on Muhammad Iqbal despite zero history on this article.[7] Never joined talk page discussion either.[8]
5. Adds contentious content on 9 April, and then edit wars over it for days.[9][10]
6. Falsely claimed for the above on 21 April that he is restoring the "WP:STATUSQUO".
7. 21 April: "is it that your only goal is to WP:CENSOR Wikipedia?". See WP:NPA.
8. 22 April: Instead of answering allegations against himself, he unnecessarily dragged me and falsely accused me of canvassing and failed to notify me (not even pinging) about the false allegations he was making against me.

Deceptive POV pushing together with personal attacks and false accusations of misconduct is very common from this editor. Since he filed an ARE report earlier, there is no doubt that he is clearly aware of what he is doing.[11] He is indeed WP:NOTHERE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)

[12]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

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.

El_C, the reason I didn't respond was because I was busy during the week and hadn't edited b/w 24-28 April. Secondly, I see this 'complaint' as nothing but a bunch of stale cherrypicked diffs and part of an attempted FORUMSHOPPING series carried out by a select group of editors.

It all started after I left a comment at ARE filed against USaamo by AKG, back in Oct 2022 (which itself might have been a retaliation for USaamo's ARE filed against Bookku). This is given the fact that Bookku during the same month, miraculously filed a SPI against me even without a previous interaction and where AKG left multiple comments. Then, earlier this month, Orientls used the very same diffs (in the same order) with the same argument as AKG at ANI which gained no traction. Later, a week ago, CapnJackSp accused multiple editors (incl. me, Nooruddin2020, Ameen Akbar, War Wounded & Cheel) of canvassing, at ANI. Meanwhile, Capitals00 has filed a SPI involving me. And now this.

"I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area." — Black Kite

Besides, if one looks at the interaction b/w me and AKG you find that:

1. On Insurgency in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, when I restored some content, AKG removed it with "rv WP:DE by Oriental Aristocrat" as edit summary. AKG then reverts me & Shadow4dark multiple times (see: Rv, it was constructive, Per consensus on talk page, per more comments on talk page).

2. On Terrorism in Pakistan, when I added some content it was removed twice by AKG in their first edit to the article.

It is clear who without AGF, has been HOUNDING me and GAMING the system with a BATTLEGROUND mentality and NOTHERE to build encyclopedia. They deserve a BOOMERANG, as all they do is remove large chunks of text from different articles. Thus, before reaching any conclusion, I request the admins to thoroughly go through the OP's linked articles' history and their associated talkpages. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El_C - Considering, I only have some 200+ edits to 77 articles in the past 11 months, every other edit that I make can easily be interpreted as me following someone especially if it's a revert. The same cannot be said for someone with thousands of edits. On Muhammad Iqbal, the AKG's edit in itself was contentious because of the removal of the text mentioning Two nation theory (an article where AKG et al. are edit-warring Mydust). My second revert was per BRD as the dawn.com source linked in the edit summary is FRINGE. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El_C - Again, per my earlier clarification I never linked to Consensus required, it is you who's doing that. Instead, I said "Consensus is required" and meant to link to BRD. Secondly, as you aren't "familiar with the subject matter" by your own admission, let me tell you that Two-nation_theory#Allama_Iqbal itself has a whole section on Muhammad Iqbal (which AKG must definitely be aware of considering their edits to that article). So the very removal of the Two-nation theory's mention from Muhammad Iqbal would constitute a FRINGE idea (although I never mentioned that in my edit summary). And there's nothing weak about AKG following me to Terrorism in Pakistan which too were out-of-the-blue reverts of my additions as their first edit in an article they've never contributed to before. — Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some clarifications

Brief: It was needless and far from being helpful to bring me into this conversation.

Bookku (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These are concerning diffs. And the fact that Oriental Aristocrat continues editing without having responded to this complaint is also concerning. Even a quick glance shows a pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUND and failure to assume good faith. There is also WP:FOLLOWING and WP:GAME violations. For example, they follow the complainant to a page and revert him with an edit summary that first reads: contentious removal (what exactly is contentious about the removal is left unanswered). Then, after the complainant reverts them with an edit summary that reads See the dawn.com source, they revert again, this time with an edit summary that reads: Consensus is required / Undid revision 1148927799. But that page, Muhammad Iqbal, is not in fact subject to Consensus required. I think sanctions are called for rather than a logged warning, though I am open as to their severity (largely depending on OA's response to this report). El_C 04:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oriental Aristocrat, you started editing again April 28 and only after I my comment you showed up here. So that is what it is. You also have not addressed the example I singled out above. How come? That said, even a quick glance at the diffs you submitted is also concerning, though WP:FOLLOWING has not been clearly established. But either way, that does not absolve you. Maybe you both need to be sanctioned. Maybe others as well. On its face, legit content disputes are being handled badly. Hopefully, other admins who are more familiar with the subject matter than myself could also offer their take. El_C 11:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oriental Aristocrat, you making less than 100 edits in the last year yet having all these problematic ones among them — that actually isn't a mitigating factor, on the contrary. You also have weaker evidence than the complainant (lengthier and more convoluted), at least that I am able to immediately parse.

Now, the topic area is covered by WP:ARBIPA of which you are aware, so it is your responsibility to be careful with WP:FOLLOWING of content opponents, especially for something like out-the-blue reverts of the complainant's changes as your first edit in an article you've never contributed to before. I don't see where it states that Dawn.com is WP:FRINGE — you just sort of say that it is, declaratively, which falls short. Moreoever, WP:BRD is optional, only Cosnensus required is mandatory. And again, you even claimed the article was subject to Consensus required (diff), even though it wasn't.

I'm sorry, but that does not inspire confidence. All I'm getting from you is the minimizing of your own misconduct, mostly by complaining about that of the complainant. The former is a serious problem, likely an impasse, while the latter can only go so far. El_C 21:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oriental Aristocrat, I said "more familiar," I'm familiar enough (go over the ARBIPA sections of WP:AEL through the years to see that that is so). I'm also not gonna take your various claims of FRINGE on faith, claims which are probably better left for content discussions elsewhere. At this point I think at minimum you need a topic ban from the topic area until you have a better understanding of policy and best practices. It doesn't really make sense that you learn these on-the-fly around this contentious topic area, where the gravity of mistakes and misunderstandings is greater. El_C 23:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I can’t justify in my thoughts anything less than a sitewide block. Year as AE action. Courcelles (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, I looked over all their edits and will close with a sitewide block. Their total sum of edits is simply and exclusively India-Pakistan WP:BATTLEGROUNDing: claiming false consensus to support their viewpoint, blanking a whole reliably sourced article etc, casting aspersions etc. Galobtter (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (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

DanCherek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PalauanLibertarian (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/Abortion

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

1. Edits at Human fertilization (26 April 2023): [14], [15], [16] – Repeatedly re-adding the contested and poorly sourced claim that fertilization "is thought by 96% of biologists as when life begins". First, it was cited to this article, which I reverted because the journal is not a reliable source in this topic area. Their "better source" consisted of a self-published working draft by the same author, Steven Andrew Jacobs, who is vocal in the anti-abortion movement. They reinstated the removed content once more with a plethora of sources, once again re-adding the citations to Jacobs' self-published work, a Supreme Court brief, a statement by the American College of Pediatricians ("a socially conservative advocacy group of pediatricians" whose "primary focus is advocating against abortion and the adoption of children by gay or lesbian people"), among others.
2. Edits at Dilation and evacuation (20–24 April 2023): [17], [18], [19], [20] – Repeatedly re-adding contested material to the article. Cited "abortionprocedures.com", a website put up by Live Action, a "nonprofit anti-abortion organization ... known for its undercover videos taken at Planned Parenthood clinics"; their edit summary in the last diff indicates that they consider this website to be a reliable source. A violation of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (second diff).
3. Edits at United States anti-abortion movement (20 April 2023): [21], [22] – Re-adding contested material to the article, with a violation of WP:ROLLBACKUSE (second diff).

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 by me on 26 April 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PalauanLibertarian seems to doing good work in several other areas of Wikipedia, but to me it unfortunately does not seem like they have the ability to properly assess source reliability in the topic area of abortion, nor a willingness to collaboratively edit in this area (see repeated reinstatement of contested material to articles and misuses of rollback). DanCherek (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated this section with their new username (diff). DanCherek (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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

I agree that I have not followed the policy on some articles, but I'm confused as to why my original 96% source is not a reliable source. It's from a peer reviewed reputable journal. Also, my third edit included many other reliable sources other than ACPeds why was it reverted instead of removing those specific sources. I'll make an effort to stay away from politics or you can restrict me from editing those articles (fine with me). PalauanReich^🗣️ 00:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. Yes I know it is sometimes associated with that, but that's not my intention. It's simply Palauan Empire or realm. PalauanReich^🗣️ 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [Moved here from Result section] USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 11:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Femke: over here on a TBAN from abortion, broadly construed. Judging from the diffs, I can definitely tell that this user has difficulty telling apart sourced content from neutral content. Also, due to the history of rollback misuse I'd say a removal of rollback privileges would be a good idea too. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 12:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• These diffs and response here show an inability to distinguish advocacy sources from reliable sources. Scientific articles are reliable when published in reputable journals, not in a journal that pushes disinformation on a wide range of topics, with a low impact factor as well. I would say a topic ban on abortion would be a good remedy here, as well as a revocation of rollback (which PR only got last week). On a side note: PalauanReich, are you aware that some people may associate the word Reich primarily with the Third Reich? You may want to consider renaming into something without that association. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Femke; no ability to figure out reliable sources in this topic area, even after DanCherek explained the issues with the source. I think a topic ban and revoking rollback is appropriate. Galobtter (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. And I regret granting rollback to this user. Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2023 (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

KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Interfase (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:AA2

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

1. 16 April 2023, 16 April 2023, 16 April 2023 - edit-wars in the article over his own addition, doesn't have consensus

1. 18 April 2023 - edit-wars again

1. 19 April 2023, 19 April 2023 - edit-wars again ignoring arguments on talk discussion and notices on their talk page

1. 23 April 2023 - falsely claims consensus and edit-wars

1. 24 April 2023 - falsely accuses another of edit-warring and edit-wars himself

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 28 November 2021 blocked for edit-warring as part of arbitration decision

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 [23]

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Interfase has been highly incompetent and edit-warring in the 2023 European Weightlifting Championships. They edit-war on a whim and restore/remove info depending on their POV: on one hand they edit-war and restore irrelevant to a weightlifting cyclopedia article derogatory quote, explained why thoroughly on talk - [24], [25], [26]. On the other hand, they’d hide info that doesn’t suit their POV despite several reliable sources, and again edit-war in the process with multiple users - [27], [28], [29], [30].

What Interfase demonstrated with their recent conduct is categorically how not to behave on Wikipedia, especially in the contentious AA area; they edit-war on a whim, ignore notices on their talk, remove/restore info based on POV preference rather than merit, sources or strength of talk arguments, and finally they don’t bother listening to multiple users on talk [31], [32], [33], still continuing to edit-war despite clear disagreement with their edits and lack of consensus. Interfase has been blocked already for edit-warring so this seems like a repeating pattern, and I believe AE admins should take a look into Interfase’s disruptive conduct and incompetency. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on “The flash mob of pro Armenian activists users” shows the WP:Battleground mentality of Interfase, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the motives of all users who disagree with him with solid arguments. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interfase keeps saying users violated “WP:CONS” when he doesn’t even have consensus, several users actively disagree with him on talk or reverted him [34], [35], [36], [37]. In fact, there is consensus in opposition to his edits. Yet as seen by the diffs in the report, it doesn’t faze Interfase one bit to the point of him repeatedly edit-warring in the article – this isn't how one behaves especially in a contentious topic area and especially when warned by others to stop this disruptive behavior. Moreover, Interfase still doesn’t acknowledge any errors they made and what's even worse, he keeps blame-shifting with unfounded accusations which is rather worrying to see especially after such problematic conduct and edit-warring in the article and in a contentious topic area, also considering the fact that they were blocked already for edit-warring in this area.

They also made ridiculous battleground comments here and when called out, yet again keep blame-shifting with “not me” remark, saying the edits of other users trying to restore reliably sourced content with several sources “flashmob of pro-Armenian users”, yet mirroring the accusation of battleground behaviour by essentially saying “it’s not me, it’s them”. Reverting multiple editors in the article to maintain the version they like yet denying that they edit-warred and going as far as frivolously placing edit-warring alerts on other user pages [38]. Not listening / understanding what due weight is and what cyclopedic writing style is but arguing that if something is in the source it should be mentioned and arguing if we’re not mentioning B then we should not mention A. Unfortunately, Interfase keeps demonstrating their incompetence and battleground mentality. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2023 (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.

There is ongoing discussion on a talk page of the article and there is still no any consensus on information about the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh in this article about the championship. The disputed text was hidden by me[39] after the dispute on talk page about the information related to Karabakh conflict till the consensus. But several users try to do POV-pushing and violate WP:CONS disclosing the disputed information that is not related to the article without reaching any consensus[40][41]. My position is to reach the consensus and not to do POV-pushing without any consensus. If we want to add the information about the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the brief information about the wars between two countries and occupation of Azerbaijani territories also must be added (this information was mentioned on reliable sources in the context of the championship as well). But this information was removed from the article by nominator[42]. In this case all information not related to the championship also must be removed. It seams that there is a flash mob by proArmenian users trying to keep disputed information in the article without consensus using their numerical superiority. --Interfase (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence on “casting WP:ASPERSIONS on the motives of all users who disagree with him” is not true. I am talking not about users "who disagree with me", but users who clearly violate WP:CONS and insteade of reaching any consensus are tryling to fight to implement their preferred version immediately in artice. Actually the users disclosing the disputed information shows the WP:Battleground mentality, not me. WP:EW clearly says that editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. There is still no any consensus on hidden text on a talk page. It means that users trying to disclose it engage in an edit war. --Interfase (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A WP:AA2 topic ban seems appropriate based on the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality shown above ("flash mob by proArmenian users") and edit warring. Galobtter (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

Repeated edit-warring in a BLP in violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS

• 21:02, 20 April 2023
• 20:58, 20 April 2023
• 20:56, 20 April 2023 (yes thats three reverts violating ONUS in a BLP in 6 minutes)
• 02:41, 15 April 2023

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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 12:37, 11 June 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is super basic, an editor is seeking to enforce their view through edit-warring, repeatedly restoring material that a quick look at the talk page shows there is no consensus for its inclusion. This is discussed at Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Comments_on_Teixeira, where among other issues Zaathras calls another living person a "traitor" (without that person having ever been convicted of treason), shows five editors opposing or being unsure of inclusion, and three editors in favor. Yes, not a vote, but there being no consensus for inclusion means the material stays out. Zaathras apparently feels like ONUS does not apply to him or her, see the edit summary here. The page has since been protected, but this method of edit-warring to enforce a personal position violates the arbitration decision, and given this is also a BLP I feel this should be met with sanctions.

• Also note their response to the AE notification here in which they continue with their MO of making personal attacks. nableezy - 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• You dont need a 1RR to prohibit edit-warring. Maybe the user would find a personal 0RR a good way of learning how to properly edit in restricted topics without resorting to edit-warring and personal attacks. And that below comment appears to be an admission of disruptive editing, as Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion is exactly what they were doing. nableezy - 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Continuing with the personal attacks here is all sorts of special, and Ill note Zaathras is also aware of the restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• SPECIFICO, pretty sure Im the uninvolved editor in question, and also at a loss as to how Zaathras was baited in to edit-warring. But glad there is agreement that they were indeed edit-warring. nableezy - 00:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Im sorry what? I saw an editor repeatedly restore edits that they acknowledged had no consensus for. I saw a talk page in which even editors and admins who can quite easily be identified as not being in the pro-MTG contingent saying that this material should not be included. You cant just force in edits you want, you cannot just abuse the first mover advantage the you think you have with the 3RR. Zaathras was edit-warring against WP:ONUS while claiming the opposite of what ONUS requires, that the removal is what needs consensus. If you had editors that actually told their own side when they were editing poorly this topic area wouldnt be half as bad as it is. But you would rather defend your own sides edit-warriors because it is to your advantage to have their reverts in these articles. If you feel like I was edit warring for having made two reverts against one person while citing the policy that supports my reverts (WP:ONUS with a majority of the talk page opposing inclusion, then the user having made 3 reverts in 8 minutes against multiple users with a minority of the talk page backing inclusion while editing against that policy was definitionally edit-warring and should be sanctioned. You cannot simply force your favored versions in to an article. That is WP:DE. nableezy - 03:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite I think Kcmastrpc was reverting too much as well, though they did have both ONUS and a talk page majority on their side here. If this had been on AOC's page and I say Kcmastrpc reverting 4 times to push in material that was objected to by a majority of the talk page I would have reported them instead. But I dispute I was tag-teaming anything. I saw this whole sequence play out, and like in a bunch of other pages saw a contingent of edit-warriors trying to push in to an article material that did not have consensus. That should be dealt with, but sure, Kcmastrpc reverted too much. I dont think I did, but feel free to ban me from AP2 too if youd like. nableezy - 15:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is just absurd with Valjean making absolutely bonkers claims that I am not a "mainstream or experienced" editor (when I have >10x the edits of Zaathras) and that I needed to convince a minority that material should not be pushed in against the majority of editors on the talk page. Is anybody questioning why editors like Ianmacm (46k edits), Muboshgu (admin, 104th most active editor all time), Slatersteven (62k edits) all questioned inclusion? But no, I needed to convince editors lol. I knew ARBPIA had issues with factionalism and excusing poor behavior when it is to your advantage, but this is on another level. nableezy - 15:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO youre dissembling, but not very well. ONUS is part of V, and on top of that CON is likewise policy, and so is EW. All of those things are violated when an editor repeatedly pushes in material without consensus. And the thing of it is, even editors on your side of the ideological divide (waves hand, and also points to the editors that objected on the talk page) objected. But the ONUS is not a prescriptive policy like V misses where ONUS redirects to. nableezy - 18:01, 21 April 2023 (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.

The article is not under a 1RR or a "You may not reinstate a reverted edit for 24h" restriction that I saw. Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion about said content is what I consider to be disruptive here. There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight, therefore, IMO, removal in mid-discussion (esp. this user who had no prior involvement in the discussion) was a quite naked act of bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe BLPRESTORE applies here, as the content is not damaging or damning to the subject if left in the article. I do not wish to get too far into the weeds of discussion on the content itself, but briefly, this is about whether the subject's public tweets in support of an alleged leaker/whistleblower. The subject publicly supports the leaker, so being linked to him in her bio is not a "negative", in the BLP sense. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "personal attack", sorry, but this user has apparently long been allowed to vice support of a terrorist organization on their user page. That the wording is extremely careful and couched is immaterial. We all know what it means. Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in this conflict, I felt the initial two reverts on April 15 were WP:GOODFAITH, at which point I'd backed off to let the conversation develop for roughly 5 days at which point it began to settle down. Before taking any action, I requested input from other editors and TFD suggested we revert unless any other major developments surfaced. In my judgement I felt consensus had not been reached, and while my primary concern was WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, there were aspects I felt were completely WP:UNDUE especially with regards to Liz Chaney's comments. Nevertheless, as other admins have pointed out, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS apply here since the material in dispute was never stable nor gained consensus through discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO In addition to what some could consider WP:ASPERSIONS being casted in the talk page by the same editor we're discussing here, you've brought up an interesting action completely unrelated to this incident that other editors called out as excessive, all while making a significant and still uncorrected error in your claims that I was an uninvolved editor AND the claim that Zaathras had not been involved in this edit dispute from the very beginning as they were the first individual to undo my initial reversion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black_Kite I'm still a relatively new editor here and by strict reading of WP:3RR I don't feel like I was in the wrong since my two sequential reverts were several days apart, however, if other editors and admins feel I stepped over a line I apologize and regardless I'll be more cognoscente of my actions in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean perhaps you could take a moment to see that I was editing based on the fact that the conversation had reached an inflection point, which hasn't really changed in substance even to this very moment. Based on the consensus on the talk page (or lack thereof), it was clear to me that the content was disputed and should have been removed per WP:ONUS. Perhaps you see things differently, but I'd ask that you take a moment to take a deeper look at the situation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Am I correct that the editor you appear to be referencing as the uninvolved reverter was @Kcmastrpc:? That editor had been edit warring this content before Zaathras' involvement and is currently blocked regarding another FoxNews-adjacent page. I left a note on the article talk page in the hope that editors there will provide some context to these events. Also, I took a look at Zaathras previous CT sanction. He restored valid content that was removed without by @Mr Ernie: who gave no reason and did not engage on talk and Zathraas' edit was not challenged by any other editor. Zaathras' edit there did indeed have consensus. I'm surprised to see that he was sanctioned, but the page was fairly chaotic due to persistent Republican and right wing media coverage of the subject matter. In the current complaint, while Zaathras reacted poorly by taking the bait and edit warring, the behavior is hardly egregious enough for a draconian sanction such as 0RR, or anything more than a week's page block. FWIW, Zaathras is one of the best-informed and generally constructive editors active in the most contentious politics articles, and his contributions are based on mainstream sourcing and policy. The tone of this complaint feels a bit like weaponizing an unfortunate but harmless misstep. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, I think 0RR/Consensus Required is contradictory. The best page restriction is 24-BRD, which has worked well at many difficult AP pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy and SFR, there was already an edit war in progress and I would say Nableezy was part of that. I also did not consider citing WP:ONUS to be particularly mom/apple pie standing up for policy. That's just shorthand for saying they consider the content UNDUE. So this is a garden variety edit war on a page with no explicit restrictions and as MASEM says, it's trout-level stuff. The question of editors picking and choosing from daily news is ubiquitous and lots of time and attention is wasted on it. Just to be clear, I meant to say Zaathras' prior sanction was IMO ill-advised, and subsequent events, with the drive-by reverter failing to give any reason or engage on talk and with Zaarthras' reinsertion going unchallenged ever after, seems to confirm that. I would not hold that up as any indication of depravity or anything else outside of that place and time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I may not have been clear I meant to indicate that the editor whom I called a drive-by reverter (whom I pinged so they can come to their defense here) gave a vacuous edit summary and did not meaningfully engage on the talk page. And the consensus was indeed demonstrated to be in favor of Zaathras' edit. That the reinstatement after the revert is a sanctionable violation actually points out one of the flaws with the "Consensus Required" as a page restriction. It allowed the unsubstantiated revert to sidetrack numerous other editors into a talk thread, only to endorse Zaathras' action for which he was shackled. That's why @Awilley: devised 24-BRD after a lot of experience with AP enforcement, and I presume why Arbcom codified it as one of the authorized page restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:ONUS. Yes, it appears in a policy page, but it is not a prescriptive policy such as V, NPOV etc. ONUS gets cited in content disagreements. It's just a reminder that citing V does not resolve a content dispute. SO: I don't think we should be describing the removal of this MTG-tweeting content as if it were wrapped in the flag and glory of the five pillars. It was just a content dispute and the removal was to launch a garden-variety content disagreement which, per se, is beyond the scope of enforcement judgments. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith and ScottishFinishRadish: I strongly disagree with this proposal. What harm are you preventing with such a draconian sanction on Zaathras?There's plenty of examples elsewhere of various editors earning such sanctions when they push UNDUE negative, contentious, or ill-sourced BLP content. That's not what Zaathras has ever done, to my knowledge. This was a bad situation, no harm done, and a quick AE trigger by the complainant. Moreover, to repeat again (3x total) "Consensus Required" is the least workable, leadt constructive of the permitted page sanctions. The most contentious AP articles have done well for several years now with "24-BRD", a fact that was recognized by Arbcom when they codified it in their long review of the enforcement process. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for your reply, but I asked what harm by Zaathras you expect to prevent. I'm well aware of BLP and the BLP Arbcom decision. The MTG bit is all over the talk page and has been in and out of the article and is published in various sources. This is not a bright line BLP issue. It's a WEIGHT issue. That takes on heightened importance in BLP-related content, but my previous comment stands. I see no pattern or inclination toward policy violations, egregious misconduct, or obstinate disruption from Zaathras, and I've become quite familiar with their work over the recent past as they've become increasingly active. I see no consensus among the Admins here that Zaathras needs a sanction to prevent damage, disruption, or BLP harm. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite is spot on. Nableezy and Kcmastrpc were edit warring against three mainstream and experienced editors. Even worse, Kcmastrpc was exhibiting OWNership behavior when they, after a pause, returned to try to again force their version, even though the article's history showed they were in a minority. Nableezy and Kcmastrpc bear the brunt of the blame and the others were justified in restoring the content. Nableezy and Kcmastrpc should have stuck to discussion and aimed to convince the others on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worse than trouting for anyone here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My abject apologies to User:Nableezy. I intended to modify my comment, got caught up in an edit conflict, saved it and posted it, and had to immediately run to other responsibilities, forgetting to modify it. Nableezy is obviously an experienced and respected editor. I'll modify my comment now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Black Kite that there were "tag teams". Reverting was straightforwardly indicated by our policies as the proper course of action until affirmative consensus is reached. I'm not a household name, so you don't need to take my word for it, take Blueboar's. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: WP:BLPRESTORE does apply, since its merely cites "good-faith BLP objections", and asking ourselves whether material is "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" is part of BLP. No need for the material to be "negative", which would be far too subjective a criteria. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just noting that I protected the page before seeing this report in an attempt to stop the issuing edit war, which was related to BLP issues. Any uninvolved administrator can undo that protection (and return the indefinite semi-protection) if they see it is no longer necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since I'm already here, I will add that I agree with an article restriction, with "consensus required" being my top choice. I'm undecided on any sanctions of Zaathras. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While I'm unsure about how to deal with Zaathras, in that whether a logged warning would be sufficient or if they should be tbanned, I don't see the issue with Nableezy's reverts here. I protected the page because I saw several users edit warring over this issue, so pblocking wouldn't be ideal. No one has raised other issues related to Nableezy's edits in the area here, but Zaathras has a background of not respecting our consensus building guidelines, as pointed out by The Wordsmith. I personally don't think a 0RR restriction is useful, and would support either a logged warning or a topic ban from the intersection of BLPs and AP2 topic areas. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Notating here that Zaathras has already received a two-week AP2 page ban from Hunter Biden laptop controversy[43] for reverting to restore BLP material that was under discussion (the article was under a "consensus required" page restriction), and I cautioned him about similar behavior violating WP:BLPRESTORE at Talk:Libs of TikTok#BLPN discussion, though it was unofficial and not a logged warning. There seems to be a pattern of this sort of behavior. Some kind of sanction seems to be warranted; 0RR is probably the least severe one that would resolve the issue unless somebody provides evidence of more widespread problems than just reverting content under discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SPECIFICO: To clarify, I meant either 0RR or consensus required, not both. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Concerns about due weight are most definitely legitimate BLP issues, and the PAGs dealing with restoration of BLP content certainly apply. Considering they've been sanctioned in the past, 0RR is the least I would support. I think a topic ban on BLP content involving American politics wouldn't be amiss. I'm also less than impressed with the personal attack in response to the notification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also like to add that when someone uninvolved shows up and reverts in support of PAGs, you should make sure you're on solid footing, rather than continuing to edit war. Uninvolved input and opinions are always welcome, which is why we have the feedback request service, RFCs, and noticeboards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SPECIFICO, I'm referring to nableezy, who was uninvolved in the article, as noted by Zaathras here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SPECIFICO, Arbcom has held that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.^{source, emphasis mine} The RFC at Libs of TikTok found there was consensus against including a critic label, essentially on due weight concerns, they reverted to keep in despite good-faith BLP concerns. At MTG we have edit warring to restore content that other editors have a good-faith objection to in part because of due weight concerns, as well as referring to a BLP as a traitor on the talk page.

  BLP applies everywhere on-wiki, and concerns about undue weight are legitimate BLP concerns. Above, in this section, they say There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight. That makes it clear that they do not understand or respect the BLP policy and how it applies to content, WP:ONUS, and why edit warring to include material in a BLP that has been objected to is inappropriate. A topic ban from the area where this has been a problem is a reasonable solution.

  Arbcom also recognized the consensus required restriction when they codified it in their long review of the enforcement process. You'll find it listed directly before the enforced BRD restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  On the topic of Zaathras' earlier sanction which SPECIFICO brought up, it is a clear violation. An edit was challenged by revision, with an edit summary here, and discussed on the talk page here. By the time Zaathras reverted the edit, multiple other editors had disagreed with the edit. To claim there was consensus for the content when the revert was made is plainly false. This actually demonstrates one of the issues, a willingness to revert to their favored version rather than waiting for discussion to reach consensus. In the case they were sanctioned for they never even took part in the talk page discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Zaathras should clearly know better to not edit war on contentious topics and that ONUS applies. However, I would also add that I think Greene's article presents a clear example of the epidemic of poor editing around contentious topics in general, trying to include every negative mark that a person or other entity gets from RSes but not looking to write the big picture per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - not just involving Zaathras but editors on that given talk page discussion. This idea to rush to include every minor kerfuffle that happens in the news - no matter how well sourced - doesn't fit with our encyclopedic purpose. However, that point is hard to take any action on any editor here, just that we really really need to look at this better to try to reduce disruption around contentious topics in today's political climate. I feel a trout is appropriate here, but it should be clear that Greene's page should be considered under 1RR or even 0RR. --Masem (t) 00:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that looking at the earlier sanction and warning The Wordsmith linked to above brings this above trout-tier. This a continuation of the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To Zaathras' benefit here, the Greene page does lack any revert restriction, only that it could be placed under one, where the Hunter Biden laptop story, as noted at the diff above, had such a restriction in place. I still think an editor as experienced as Zaathras would know not to pass that, but, you know, benefit of the doubt here that they saw no outright editing restriction and thus reverted multiple times. I don't think this instance is a blockable/bannable offensive but I can see something lighter and more effective than a trout too if we do apply the "should know better" concept. Masem (t) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there is definitely a wider issue around that article. Regarding the article not having a revert restriction, Zaathras is seasoned enough to know that three reverts in under 10 minutes is probably going to be considered edit warring even without a CTOP restriction on it. I could get behind adding a 0RR/Consensus Required restriction on the article in addition to a sanction on Zaathras. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support some action on the article as well. I prefer consensus required over 0rr or 1rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unconvinced that Zaathras is the only problem here, looking at the sequence of reverts. You effectively have two tags teams, one inserting the material six times (Soibangla x 1, Aquillion x 1, Zaathras x 4) versus one removing it six times (Nableezy x 2, Kcmastrpc x 4). I'd suggest that more than one editor needs to be looked at here. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like we've essentially stalled here, but there appears to be consensus that some sort of sanction is needed for Zaathras and that something is also needed for that article. Anybody opposed to a topic ban for Zaathras from material about living persons within the AP2 area, and "consensus required" for that page? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds good. Also a reminder or warning to KCmastrpc not to edit war may address Black Kite's concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer a logged warning for Zaathras, but otherwise agree with the MTG page restriction of "consensus required". Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 19:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is obviously an edit war to add material that does not have consensus despite an active discussion. The attitude that both sides were edit warring is unreasonable because there should be no hint that people can edit-war material into an article and wait for the opposition to prove it has to be removed. Without positive agreement concerning new text, after two attempts, Zaathras should have waited or started an RfC. If others want it, I would not object to a consensus-required restriction for MTG but this incident is evidence only that Zaathras should be blocked the next time such enthusiastic fait-accompli editing is used. To close this report, I would support a logged warning against Zaathras as suggested above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like consensus here is for a logged warning against Zaathras and consensus required at MTG. I'll close it and log everything when I have the time, but anyone else who has the time should feel free to do so, as I'm quite busy and this has hung around long enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2023 (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

Generalrelative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rayner111 (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/Race and intelligence

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

1. 19:23, 4 May 2023 Inappropriate use of WP:PROFRINGE / WP:EXTERNAL link. This user is well aware that this is disruptive and WP:POINTy behavior given prior history discussed below. The link is to a piece by J. Philippe Rushton, one of the most notorious promoters of race and intelligence pseudoscience, whose views have been overwhelmingly determined to be WP:FRINGE, e.g. here.
2. 19:45, 4 May 2023 Ditto.
3. 20:20, 4 May 2023 Edit warring to re-add the same PROFRINGE / EXTERNAL content.

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 15 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user came to my attention after making PROFRINGE edits to Charles Murray (political scientist): [44], [45].

A glance at this user's talk page revealed that he has identified himself as the psychologist J. E. R. Staddon, and has been warned about COI. Despite this, even after the warning, it seems nearly all of his edits have been self-promotional (not just to his BLP; he's also gotten up to a lot of ref-spamming, e.g. here, here, here, and here).

The only exception to this COI editing appears to be recent edit warring against the consensus on race and intelligence. I attempted to engage with Rayner111 / Professor Staddon on his talk page (where, after an initial warning for vandalism, I realized that this was an elderly professor and attempted to explain the existing consensus). I also invited him to engage on the article talk page, which he ignored.

Instead, I was informed yesterday that he'd published an op-ed on the conservative website Minding the Campus, titled "WikiBias: How Wikipedia erases “fringe theories” and enforces conformity". In it, he misrepresents events to make it seem as though his edits were more reasonable, and appears to dismiss me by noting that my user page states that I use they/them pronouns. I was prepared to let that go, since R&I is a topic area full of trolls to whom I prefer to WP:DENY recognition. But seeing as this user has now come back on-Wiki to make the three highly inappropriate and pointy edits linked above, I see no other option but to seek sanctions.

For context on the IP editor's comment below, please note that they are just now coming off a 30-day block for disruptive editing in the R&I topic area (see this for context). They are now cheering Rayner111 on at his talk page, implying that those of us who enforce the R&I consensus are acting in bad faith. I would suggest that this IP could use a longer vacation if they are going to jump right back into the same behavior that got them blocked last time. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Beyond My Ken but it's okay, I expected R&I opponents to come out of the woodwork when I filed here. I know that my own conduct is liable to be evaluated as well. My answer to the second IP is the same as my comment on Rayner111's talk page: Of course, the way we phrase the sentence is subject to debate, but not the overall thrust of the message. Murray's views on race and intelligence are indeed discredited, and we are required by the WP:FRINGE guideline to say so whenever we present them in article space. In this case, we are dealing with a centralized consensus (here). And at least four others besides me have reverted to restore the language in question: Skllagyook [46], Discospinster [47], Dr.Pinsky [48], and Tpdwkouaa [49]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

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

Just so I am clear, it appears Rayner111 included a link to Science Direct, which to the best of my knowledge is a reliable source and not subject to any kind of sanction. If I am wrong, forgive me, but I don't see what is disruptive about this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6d80:65a9:d528:c5d2:6e14 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that I am disappointed in the above post. user:Generalrelative has the heart of a lion. They are someone I considered to be a formidable ideological opponent, if not a friend. We've had colorful discussions in the past, and I've never known them to stoop to casting aspersions. However, their summary of my post on Rayner111's page is exactly wrong. I stated that "intelligent editors are aware as to what is happening". I include user:Generalrelative in this group of "intelligent editors". As I explained on their talk page, although we may be political opponents, that does not mean we cannot be civil with one another. I certainly hope I am not wrong. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:9C24:DCBC:8EE4:8A20 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP address was blocked for "Disruptive editing: Immediate return to prior editing pattern upon unblock". Doug Weller talk 15:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Rayner111 self-identifies as J. E. R. Staddon, they should, at the very least, be partially blocked (as an ordinary admin action) from editing the article about himself. He's made 45 edits to the article, 24.4% of the edits to the article, [51] contributing 8.4% of the article's content.[52] Because of his obvious COI, he should be limited to suggesting changes on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this report, I would suggest a topic ban from R&I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the second IPs comment below, the facts as presented appear to be incomplete and inaccurate. They fail to mention that there is a consensus on the article talk page, and I do not see the "8 people" claimed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is counting edits from over 2 years ago, which I suggest is rather WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. It appears to me that both of the IPs here are long-term warriors concerning this subject, something which cannot be verified because they are IPs. Their comments are also completely focused on Generalrelative, and not on the subject of this report, Rayner111 - this is not AN/I. I suggest that their comments should be ignored by admins when considering whatever actions might be taken here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the IP editor below (24.246.138.48) had made only the three edits to this report and has no history of editing to improve the encyclopedia. [53] The IP appears to be static, so it is unlikely that they made edits under a different IP number. I would say that it's likely that the IP is here due to canvassing outside Wikipedia specifically to argue in order to avoid a sanction to Rayner111. Their comments should be weighed with this in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The background to this report is important. The disputed wording in the Charles Murray (political scientist) article was added by Generalrelative [54] without (initially) any discussion on the talk page. Rayner111 tried to modify Generalrelative's wording several times, and Generalrelative undid those attempts before making this report. Generalrelative also undid attempts by six other users to modify his wording: by user:Bartinny, [55] user:TankRe, [56] user:Oveclocked66, [57] user:Nrunje, [58] and two IP users. [59] [60] A third IP user challenged Generalrelative's change on the talk page, and his response to that IP user was dismissive. [61]

When one is restoring one's change that's been opposed by eight people in total, and there has never been a consensus for the change on the article talk page, it's disingenuous to claim, as Generalrelative claims above, that one's opponent is "edit warring against the consensus". Repeatedly restoring one's contentious change as others challenge it is also the opposite of how WP:BRD is supposed to work, especially in an article about a living person. — 24.246.138.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:07, May 5, 2023‎ (UTC).

Replying to above: the eight people are Rayner111, Bartinny, TankRe, Oveclocked66, Nrunje, the two IP editors who tried to modify Generalrelative's wording, and the third IP editor who objected to it on the talk page. That's eight total. Where is his change supported by "a consensus on the article talk page"? The only section there that reached a consensus is the one about whether to call him a white nationalist. [62] 24.246.138.48 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that while this report is open, Generalrelative has made this edit, [63] replacing the text "studies intelligence and believes in sexual and racial differences in intelligence" with "has also advocated fringe positions regarding sexual differences in intelligence" in another article about a living person. There has never been a consensus to use the term "fringe" with respect to Sex differences in intelligence. The source for calling it that is the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose views cannot be stated as fact according to WP:SPLC: "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION."

He also recently re-added text calling Murray a white nationalist, [64] again citing the SPLC, with an edit summary that distorts the result of the RFC about this label. Aside from keeping it out of the lead, the RFC result also states, [65] "On grounds of BLP concerns, the proposed text shall be kept out of the article for time-being unless a new consensus to the contrary over-rides this RFC."

Mind you, that's only what he's done in the past week. Over the past three years, he has made probably over a hundred edits like those, and several dozen editors argued against or tried to undo them. Rayner111 is only the most recent. 24.246.138.48 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've partially blocked him from his biography, leaving the talk page open for him to make suggestions. Still thinking about a TB. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Looking into this a bit more, I'm not inclined to topic ban, but I am going to partially block from the article on Charles Murray. I'm doing this because Rayner111's doctoral supervisor, according to his article, was a co-author with Charles Murray on The Bell Curve. I know this might be controversial and I am not asking for any Admin who wants to undo this to consult me, but it does leave Rayner111 free to use the talk page and not topic banned. Note that this is not intended to be an AE action. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 8 May 2023 (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

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Emilimo (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:ARBPS

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

1. [66] 29 April 2023 — violation of WP:PSCI.
2. [67] 29 April 2023 — violation of WP:PSCI.
3. Seems a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Emilimo (at least since 11 April 2023).

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 [68] 12 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@KoA: I meant they look like a WP:SPA since 11 April. They had some edits in other articles, but that was earlier. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [69] 29 April 2023

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.

Tgeorgescu, it took me a second to catch what was exactly being reported without much background provided (and I'm a regular watcher at WP:FTN), but I'm guessing this report is because Emilimo has a history of trying to remove pseudoscience as a descriptor from articles, which violates WP:PSCI policy? Just making sure it's clear for admins that may not be as familiar with PSCI subjects here.

From what I can see at Stephen C. Meyer, David Berlinski, and Michael Behe with the edit warring going on, it does appear Emilimo is WP:NOTHERE in terms of pseudoscience subjects and some sort of preventative action would be needed so the community doesn't have to deal with it there. They're technically not a WP:SPA as Tgeorgescu mentions in the evidence, but definitely WP:ADVOCACY issues in the last month that likely warrants a topic ban from intelligent design subjects. That could be expanded if they cause issues in other pseudoscience/fringe topics. KoA (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A topic ban from at least Intelligent design is obviously warranted. Galobtter (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d make it all of pseudoscience at a minimum. And I’m wondering if the editor is fundamentally compatible with WP. Courcelles (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, a ban from the whole topic is warranted too. They have a lot of edits from before made to a wide variety of topics e.g. chemistry and programming, which look fine to me so I don't think we're at WP:NOTHERE. Galobtter (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  TB from all of pseudoscience. I agree with Galobtter, it looks as though they can edit ok in other areas. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, recently I got topic banned from editing India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles by Tamzin after editing article Love jihad conspiracy theory. She topic banned me by citing reason of verifiability and synthesis. But I am not convinced by her argument as I think I have cited reliable sources and not done any Synth. The sentence added by me were clearly mention in the articles. My edit link is here [70]. Can any uninvovled Admin review the TBAN decision. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We had a conversation about the name of Caesarea and Iskandar323 dismissed my academic sources which reject the notion of a source provided by another academic Masalha, I provided why I was removing the source from the Caesarea page as there was sufficient back up to remove the source provided by Masalha as the book is subject to controversy and cannot be given as a fair source. As such I removed it until a compromise can be reached and not because I removed it based on my own personal opinions. I was then in away blackmailed to reverse it by Iskandar323 despite given the explanation I had listed for its withdrawal and if I did not back into his wishes, he would report me. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further he also outright dismissed my sources I had in a conversation with him claiming that they were not credible without peroxiding a reason why. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As such I am writing this report because I believe I am being harassed for providing a source which is contrary to Iskandar323’s opinion. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2023 (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

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Salandarianflag (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/Palestine-Israel articles (discretionary sanctions / 1RR)

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

1. 10:46, 11 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima

2. 13:09, 11 May 2023 Repetition of the above

• 13:20, 11 May 2023 notification by Iskandar323 of 1RR violation, and request to self-revert

3. 00:31, 8 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima

4. 09:28, 8 May 2023 and 09:31, 8 May 2023 (combined series of edits) Repetition of the above

• 09:47, 8 May 2023 notification by Onceinawhile of 1RR violation, and request to self-revert

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

14:25, 2 January 2023 Notification by DougWeller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I and another editor have given this newish editor two separate chances to self-remedy 1RR violations, but the editor has ignored these opportunities. Note two other related discussions: (1) the AE filed by Salandarianflag against Iskandar323 immediately above, and (2) a discussion at WP:RSN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I am not going like this like a lamb to the slaughter and I will defend my judgements as such I the response I shall make, firstly I believe that the context in which the source was in was highly biased in that it basically said that Jews took over a Palestinian City, which is not true as we know that Jewish settlement was one of the first settlements in Caesarea, when I removed the context, I stated why because to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is just historically wrong, when archeological evidence points to plenty of Jewish history in Caesarea, note the Roman Theatre which contains the name of the Jewish Governor at the time of Caesarea. As such to say that Jews took away a city which had been historically Palestinian is just wrong and as such I provided context as to why a removed a portion of the section and made modifications to it, it isn’t like I just wiped it out without exposing why either, which is why I feel that this report is just a personal nab, since these views don’t seem to align with others.

This isn’t as clear cut as you think it is because in most of these situations people removed context without providing an explanation but I provided an explanation and a source as to why I was removing it, further it wasn’t done with malice or ill wishes and I believe that the whole report should just be annulled as I had no ill meaning and provided a source which is this: https://www.britannica.com/place/Caesarea which clearly gives a source of defined Jewish settlement and that Caesarea was rebuilt by King Herod who was Jewish, so to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is ludicrous.

Salandarianflag (talk) 00:09 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• What do you mean by a topic ban? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn’t violate it since I provided context. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn’t online then, so I didn’t see. 81.103.179.43 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But it’s not in violation of 1RR as I provided context and a source. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe my edits were in good faith but if you suggest I topic ban then fine I don’t mind but I did provide a source from encyclopaedia Britannica. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How long are topic bans? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, as this is my first run in with 1RR and I don’t know about too much so I’ll will go over it, I did try to my make edits in good faith, I believe that a topic ban or block is too much, I’ll take a warning and I’ll try next time if I have any disputes to start a compromise discussion if I feel context is off in a certain area. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I will comment in my section but I want to say that my edits were made in good faith because I felt I had sufficient reason from my sources. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can honestly tell you that I didn’t see them then regarding those notifications as I was offline, as this is my first run in I am asking for a bit of clemency. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks pretty like some pretty cut and dry 1rr violations. I think a week-long page block and a warning is in order. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Salandarianflag, you were made aware of contentious topics and offered chances to self-revert. None of what you said is an excuse to ignore 1RR, and reads as if you don't believe those rules should apply to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking that there may be a bit of a WP:CIR issue as well, which is another argument to keep them out of a contentious area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Salandarianflag, editing in good faith or providing a source does not provide an exception to WP:1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:1RR was linked multiple times on your talk page when asking you to self-revert, which you still have not done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I had offered Salandarianflag some gently worded warning/advise a few hours back in response to the AE complaint they had filed. Their response to this AE report indicates that none of that was taken aboard. In light of the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, assumption of bad faith, and arguably WP:CIR, issues I would support an indef topic-ban from the PIA area in place of (or, in addition to) blocking for the 1RR violation. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This. The battleground attitude displayed here is too much to be met without a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At first I was thinking a short page block and a warning to not repeat the behavior, but the responses definitely push me towards a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Abecedare, a topic ban is warranted for these violations and the other poor conduct, and if not at least a 1 week block and a final warning. @Salandarianflag: see WP:TBAN. Galobtter (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Salandarianflag: please only comment in your own section above. Galobtter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Salandarianflag "I can honestly tell you that I didn’t see them then regarding those notifications as I was offline" is so obviously false, not only did you respond at User talk:Salandarianflag#WP:1RR but you found your way to WP:AE too. Galobtter (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban in Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed

Topic ban from editing in the ARBPIA area, broadly construed, imposed on 29 January 2022, and which Tban was subsequent to a failed appeal in November 2019 (see here), imposed by User:Ymblanter, and which original ban was related to disruptive editing by me (as seen here), imposed by User:Euryalus. It is to be noted that an appeal was submitted in September of 2022 to rescind my current Topic ban (as shown here}, but that it too was declined.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

I am asking that my Topic ban be lifted, since I am fully aware now (finally) where I had infringed upon my own Topic ban (here), where it was stated explicitly that I was prohibited from making “any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page,” but that I had wrongly taken the initiative (careless of me) to create a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” following the Outline of Munich format, and which new page clearly discussed post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics. There is no excuse for this flagrant abuse of my limited topic ban, although I was permitted under the same ruling to “upload or add historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects,” as well as to contribute “verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research,” in addition to “make edits relating to geographical features of the Levant.” This generous leniency and freedom given to me by my peers rendered my judgment obscured, and I had forgotten the most important proscription, namely, to engage in edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed. I can now say honestly that the community was right to censure me for this flagrant violation, after giving me so much freedom. I will not be upset if the community should turn-down my current request to appeal the topic ban. I feel ashamed that I had not noticed my own error, before it came to this. With that said, for the record, I personally bear no grievance toward any man, and I fully understand the need to reach a consensus with my fellow editors, especially when dealing with contentious topics such as this. As a religious Jew, I have since come to learn something that will, hopefully, guide my attitude here on out in the future, and that is this: for Jews and Arabs, the country remains eternally under special sanctity, and peoples have historical connections to the land. This calls for extra sensitivities when editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

My fervent hope and desire is to add important historical data to articles in the ARBPIA area, and to bring some of these articles up to "Good Article" status.Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Beyond My Ken: Can I kindly request you to explain to me what you mean by saying there is a lack of understanding as to "why they were Topic banned"? Do you mean by this my very earliest Topic ban when I contended with my fellow co-editors? Or do you mean the current infraction, where I overstepped my bounds by writing an article entitled "Outline of Jerusalem," and where I clearly violated my limited Topic ban and have since expressed remorse for doing so? If you mean my earliest Topic ban, I can expand on that as well. I cannot deny that the freedoms given me to edit in the ARBPIA area gave me a sense of confidence that I could edit without infringing my Topic ban, but, which, as I know now, was grossly mistaken. Secondly, how can an editor like myself show "evidence of a change in attitude or behavior"? Have I continued to show unstaid and skittish behavior? Please explain. I know deep down within myself that if I am ever given the opportunity to edit again in the ARBPIA area, I will be doubly cautious before making any edit. All that I'm asking to do is to occasionally add historical data to articles in the ARBPIA area, and to work together with my fellow co-editors to improve these articles. If given a chance, I'll accept that responsibility and will work to that end. If not given the opportunity, the work will fall on others to do, and I accept that too. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Selfstudier: Actually, before I started the article Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine I consulted an administrator for his advice (see here) who told me that I could make the article, without infringing my Topic ban. When it came to the RFC, the person making the RFC said explicitly that she thought that it does not fall under the ARBPIA category. This explains why I interjected there, only later to rescind my comment.Davidbena (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Cullen328: Will you be my mentor? If you agree, before I post anything to a Wikipedia article in the ARBPIA area, or else broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, with your permission, I'll first post the edit to your Talk-Page for your approval or disapproval.Davidbena (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nfitz: I read your statement, and you stand to be corrected. I NEVER once in my life said that Palestine doesn't exist as a country. You have misunderstood my words in the defense of myself when I was reprimanded for creating the article "Outline of Jerusalem," and where I stated there that, because of my limited Topic ban, I thought that by avoiding the word "Palestine" in that article, I could escape condemnation, and no one would accuse me of engaging in a "geopolitical" and "contentious" issue when it came specifically to that city of Jerusalem, given my limited Topic ban. In fact, in many of my other articles on Wikipedia (prior to the enactment of my Topic ban), I frequently interchange between the words Israel and Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To Huldra: I often interchange between the two. As you know, I work with Palestinian Arabs, as many as , at my work place. I call them "Palestinians" because that is how they would identify themselves in this country. By the way, nearly all come from the West Bank, and two women from Hebron itself. Only one comes from Galilee. I call them "Arabs" simply for its common English usage, and because that is how they also identify themselves.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To Zero0000: I would indeed agree to that, say, before posting any comment to the ARBPIA area, I would ask the prior approval of my mentor.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• To Serephimblade: As I wrote to Zero0000, I would fully and whole-heartedly agree to work with a mentor, meaning to say, before I endeavor to post anything to a Wikipedia article in the ARBPIA area, I will first seek the prior approval of my mentor. Nothing is better than receiving good advice.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Zero0000: Would you please agree to be my mentor? I will write the suggested edit in the ARBPIA area on my sandbox, and then link your name to the page for comment (either approval or disapproval)? Is that alright with you? If you can agree to this, I will gladly abide by the rule, until you or others feel that I am capable of editing in the ARBPIA area without obtaining the prior consent of my mentor.Davidbena (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nableezy: Since my request that Zero0000 become a mentor to me has gone unanswered, and no one else has stepped-up to accept the task of mentorship for me (having also appealed to User:Nishidani), can I ask you to be my mentor for at least one year in the ARBPIA area? As I wrote to Huldra on my Talk-Page, I have no objection that you be my mentor for at least a year. I am eternally grateful for your kindness towards me. And while we might occasionally disagree on certain political issues, I, personally, do not have any wish nor intentions to aggravate tensions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. My only interest at present is historical data. Any suggested edits in the ARBPIA area will be posted by me to my sandbox and your name tagged for either approval or disapproval.Davidbena (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• For Your Information: See this here. I am posting this for the community's information, as it pertains to future edits while I am under my mentorship.Davidbena (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to the Administrators: There seems to be some confusion as to what will be the extent of my freedom in editing in the ARBPIA area, once this Topic ban is lifted and I am put under the mentorship of our fellow co-editor Nableezy. Does lifting my Topic ban mean that, under my period of mentorship, I will be reinstated to my "limited Topic ban" where I could only make edits related to the history of Israel (such as when these edits are not related to the modern conflict)? Or does lifting my Topic ban mean that I will be free to edit in the ARBPIA area, including such topics as relate to the modern conflict, on condition that I receive the prior approval of my mentor? Please clarify.Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With Davidbena, I think the problems we have seen have generally been an issue of negligence rather than malice. That's not to excuse them—editors subject to restrictions are still responsible for heeding them, and liable for the consequences if they do not. Part of that is either to stay well clear of any area which even might be interpreted as subject to it, or at the very least to ask for clarification and advice before doing anything that might be near the line. That said, if someone experienced were willing to act as an advisor/mentor for Davidbena during a gradual return to some of the area, and Davidbena were willing to accept such guidance, I could see that as a potentially workable solution and would not object to that. I do think that just wholesale removing this restriction (especially with the community restrictions still in place) is not something likely to end well for anyone involved; it certainly has not worked out well in the past. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake, I would not object to the proposed resolution with Nableezy helping out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no secret of my fondness for David, and have tried to ward him off from shooting himself in the foot in the past, and thats despite having been asked to be banned by David in the past, in fact two of his more ardent fans are the only ones he's ever asked to have banned I think. But he is without doubt one of the most sincere people on Wikipedia, and I have never doubted David's honesty or good faith. His zeal was the only real problem. But I absolutely believe that he thought he wasnt doing anything that violated his topic ban previously, and even though it was obvious to me, and to everybody commenting at AE at the time, I remain of the view that good faith mistakes should be forgiven, and honestly think you all should have just gone with escalating blocks up to one month for those good faith topic ban violations. Yes, it was a topic ban violation. But who cares really, it had zero impact on anything, and anybody could have removed it and he would have left it alone if told to due to his ban. I cant honestly say I have any real confidence that he wont make another good faith error in abiding by the AN imposed ban in the future, but I just dont see how this is beneficial to any of the parties here, David or Wikipedia. So my view, unchanged over years and years, is David can be an asset to articles that need knowledgeable editors who research thoroughly and have access to some of the world's best resources for the Jewish history in Palestine/Israel, and we are just depriving ourselves of that asset for technical violations of a ban that has barely any real benefit to Wikipedia to begin with. And it be better if we didnt do that. nableezy - 04:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or building off Zero's proposal, here, hows this as a proposal, have David commit to following some editor from the opposing side's advice on if an edit or comment is a violation of the AN topic ban. Ill do it, and if any editor raises an issue with an edit David makes and I tell him its a violation he commits to removing it no questions asked and disengaging from the topic. nableezy - 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Id be happy to if thats acceptable to the admins below. And while I definitely am not a model editor, I can certainly promise the advice I give David will be better than the internal monologue I follow. nableezy - 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so Im clear, we're just talking about the AE imposed ARBPIA wide topic ban, the AN ban would still need to be appealed some time in the future, and the mentorship here consists of David agreeing to follow my advice on if a proposed or made edit is a violation of that AN ban and committing to self-reverting and disengaging for any topics that I say are violations. Right? nableezy - 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato, Cullen328, Euryalus, and Black Kite: pinging the admins below to ask for the clarification requested in David's question at the end of his statement. nableezy - 20:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato and Black Kite: but would the Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Davidbena remain in place or is that being discussed here? I feel like part of the confusion is that we have two overlapping bans, both using ARBPIA for part of its definition. Where are we going with mentorship? Pre-AE imposed ban or pre-AN imposed ban? nableezy - 20:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Nableezy, I'm one of those who generally sit on the opposite side of the fence to David on ARPBIA issues. And yet, like Nableezy, I see David as an asset to the project. To start with, David's knowledge of Jewish matters is spectacular. Second, David is good faith personified. The times when David violated the rules were more to do with his confusion about them than with an intention to be disruptive. And, yes, he does fail to understand the rules quite often, but I know from long conversation that he is genuine about it. This leads me to a proposal: give David a trial period with a mentor. During this trial period, David would be required to follow the mentor's advice, which would be mostly about policy and wikicraft rather than content. Zero^talk 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Indeed, both David and the mentor would have to voluntarily agree to it. Zero^talk 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in two minds about this. On one hand; I like Davidbena; as far as I can judge: he is an honest editor, always polite, and better: he actually read stuff (like books!), he isn't one who just googles up some trash. (Incidentally: Nableezy, Zero0000 and myself were named the 3 top anti-Israeli editors on wikipedia, according to a now defunct off-wiki harassment site; that we all like Davidbena says something about his qualities.)
• Sigh; on the other hand Davidbena, eh, tends to "loose his cool" when it comes to the IP subjects. In the 23 February, 2019 -appeal, both Nableezy and I voted for lifting his topic-ban ("with some trepidation"); less than two months later he says that we have "shown animosity towards me since day one" and reports us to AN (which spectacularly backfired, and got him topic-banned, again.)
• I support the suggestion of a mentor, if Nableezy or Zero0000 is willing to do it, and I support a lifting of the broader topic-ban.
• One question to Davidbena: Do you call Palestinian for "Palestinian", or do you call them "Arabs"? Huldra (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2023 (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.

• The appeal does not indicate any real understanding of why they were TB'd, nor does it provide any evidence of a change in attitude or behavior since their last appeal was turned down 6 months ago. I would urge the admins here to turn down this appeal as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Because I don't believe this page is clerked, I have moved Davidbena's responses from other editors' sections into their own section. If that was a faux pas, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, at Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine editor breached the tban and comments made in an RFC were eventually removed after an administrator explained the obvious.

Editor has a history of pushing boundaries and always seems to reach a point of not being able to edit neutrally in this topic area.Selfstudier (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his response to Selfstudier above, Davidbena notes that he was told that creating the article Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine wasn't a violation. But what he is being criticized for by User:Selfstudier isn't anything to do with that page. It's the words of his talk page edit that are the issue, where he said that "the addition of "and" makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country". With your topic ban you can't opine (anywhere in Wikipedia) of your opinion about whether the area in question is one country, two countries, three countries, or 50 countries! That even today you don't see that, is very concerning.

In your title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1151399666 ANI request yesterday (which was closed and moved here) you said that you "simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem". Reading the earlier ANI discussion, it notes that your neutral article "Outline of Jerusalem" (that I have not and cannot see) never mentioned Palestine, even though it governs a large potion of the city. Even in your ANI appeal you imply that Israel governs the entire city. In my mind this suggests there remains a lack of understanding or sensitivity regarding the situation. And in particular there seems to be a lack of understanding that even mentioning who you think governs all of Jerusalem (a highly controversial topic) violates your TBAN.

With this lack of understanding of what the Topic Ban restricts, as recently as yesterday, I think the topic ban should continue, as making such a bold and controversial comments on Jerusalem, and the assertation insinuation that Palestine doesn't exist as a country, is only going to end up going badly.

On a personal note, I applaud the community for trying to work with the editor, rather than simply penalize the editor; it's not something that the community is very good at. Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify - I thought people weren't allowed to edit in another person's section (sorry, I don't appear here very often).

But to respond to the statement, I had meant to write "insinuate" rather than "assert". I'm not sure how else to interpret ".. makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country. Though that's secondary to the current request to lift the topic ban. That you ever mentioned the number of countries in your comment is a topic-ban violation, as far as I understand it. Nfitz (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am in support of David returning to this topic area. We disagree on many (most?) fundamental areas of the topic, but the disagreement is usually constructive, open-minded and honest. And source-based. None of us are perfect, but we need more editors on either “side” of this topic area who can talk to and work with each other. Good luck David. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have barely, if ever, touched this topic area. I am not sure if I've voted before on topic ban of Davidbena, but it's possible that I have. Nevertheless, if editors in this topic area, particularly and especially those who may be of opposing POV to Davidbena, are amenable to lifting the topic ban, then I will also support the lifting. starship.paint (exalt) 03:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Zero0000: We can't force someone to mentor another user, we would need a volunteer. I'm still reading the previous discussions, but if we had someone willing to mentor Davidbena, I could see myself giving them some rope. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davidbena and Nableezy: My understanding is that this is related exclusively to David's topic ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict, as per the linked discussion by the appealing editor. If there are no objections, an uninvolved administrator should be able to close this soon. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not willing to commit to a formal mentorship, but I do want to say that Davidbena is always welcome on my talk page and I also encourage him to visit the Teahouse or the Help desk when in doubt about any edit. I am impressed with the endorsement of the editor's knowledge and good faith by editor's POV opponents. That is a credit both to David and to the other editors who have made those comments This topic area is inherently very difficult and we need good faith, well informed editors contributing. Accordingly, in the spirit of Wikipedia:One last chance, I support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Davidbena, I have visited Israel twice and Egypt once, and own a number of books on the conflict. But I am far from an expert and do not feel comfortable getting deeply involved in this topic area. I lack the academic training and the motivation to do so. I am a generalist editor, not a specialist. I am happy to discuss Wikipedia editing at any time, but not to sit in judgment of all your Israel/Palestine edits. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nableezy, my understanding is that only the restriction imposed in January 2022 is being discussed here. Thank you for your generous mentorship offer. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support lifting the topic ban on the basis of the one-year mentorship proposal from Nableezy, accepted by Davidbena above. @Isabelle Belato and Cullen328: (or anyone else) any further views? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems fine by me. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still somewhat concerned that he will violate the community topic ban if this ban is lifted. His community restriction is quite complicated and easy to violate if he continues to edit in the topic area. But since we have Nableezy willing to mentor for a year and make sure he doesn't violate the topic ban, I support lifting the topic ban. I'm also heartened to see such good faith from editors of opposing viewpoints in such a contentious area. Galobtter (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to see this happen with Nableezy as a mentor. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nableezy and Davidbena: Given the mentorship, I'd be happy for the ARBPIA tban to be lifted, I'm pretty sure that DB is under no illusions as to what would happen if there were to be any difficulties with this. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2023 (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

Iraniangal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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

WP:CRP: today Ghazaalch restored [71] a link to "MEK troll farm" to the P.M.O.I. (People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran) page with the edit summary "restoring some changes to the original stable version" (but "MEK troll farm" is not part of "the original stable version").

Ghazaalch had previously added this to the page [72], which had been reverted [73] (Ghazaalch's "MEK troll farm" article was deleted, as well as its many alternate spellings).

This is no isolated incident. For example Ghazaalch recently restored [74] "People's Holy warriors", also something he had attempted many times before ([75] [76] [77] [78] ) Ghazaalch was warned [79] to stop when I first reported that, and I have also repeatedly asked him to stop [80].

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Ghazaalch warned to "stop personalizing discussions" on that same page.
2. Their talk page also shows a couple of a lerts about discretionary sanctions in this are of conflict.
3. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:49, 25 July 2021.

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

@Ghazaalch:

• Hogo-2020 reverted your "People’s Holy Warriors" edit
• Then you restored it
• Then I reverted it again
• Then you restored it again this time using the misleading edit summary "Reverting to the version before the edit-warring" (which is similar to the misleading edit summary you used here when restoring "MEK sockfarm")
• Then Fad Ariff reverted it again.

Neither Hogo-2020, or Fad Ariff, or myself were under WP:BLOCKEVASION (user:DreamBoat was). So your response about this means that (at best) you don't understand the policy. And the only reason I bring this up is because you recently violated WP:CRP when you restored "People's Holy Warriors" to the article yet again. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ali Ahwazi:

What you're saying that I was "warned against filing unactionable reports" is also false.

What's more, there have been numerous warnings and explanations of policy already posted on Ghazaalch's talk page ([81][82][83][84][85][86]), article's talk page ([87][88][89]), and throughout these reports. Ghazaalch even was a party in the initial ARBCOM case back in 2021, and after all of this, he's still unable to understand policies.

You're also incorrect that I consider Ghazaalch to be my "opponent". I think his contributions to Shia related topics have been productive, but topics relating to politics tend have continual WP:CIR problems at best (see also for example here or here or his last response here about the Wikipedia:Consensus required policy). Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: here are Ghazaalch’s recent WP:CRP violations:

• 12 May 2023 (WP:CRP violation)
• 13 April 2023 (WP:CRP violation)
• 26 December 2022 (first edit) and 31 December 2022 (WP:CRP violation)
• 3 January 2023 (WP:CRP violation)
• 8 December 2022 (first edit) and 9 December 2022 (WP:CRP violation)
• 8 December 2022 (first edit) and 9 December 2022 (WP:CRP violation)

I'm counting 6 WP:CRP violations since Decembber 2022, and the only one Ghazaalch reverted was his latest one (after I filed this report). Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: more recent WP:CRP violations:

• On 11 April 2023, Ghazaalch adds some sources in the article which are later challenged. Ghazaalch then restores them back again on 15 April 2023 (WP:CRP violation) and again on 23 April 2023 (WP:CRP violation). That's 8 WP:CRP violations since December 2022. If 8 aren't enough, I can look for more, but this is time-consuming so some feedback would be helpful here. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If these are not WP:CRP (or if WP:CRP is not enforceable) then someone please clarify. Thank you. Iraniangal777 (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2023 (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.

1. The red link MEK troll farm was added by mistake and I corrected myself later.
2. I restored "People's Holy warriors" in July 2022 because of the WP:BLOCKEVASION policy that say Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule Maybe I did not know much about wiki-policies in July 2022, but I did not want to violate any wiki-policy. This year (May 2023) I restored the material just one time (I had forgotten about the 2022 controversies after a year) and when I was warned and was reverted I started an RFC in the talk page.
3. This is the second time that Iraniangal777 brings the issue of reverting the "People's Holy warriors" to AE. Vice regent's statement in the first time apply here too: Iraniangal777 you need to engage constructively with Ghazaalch on the topic of names. As Ghazaalch points out, almost all your edits at the article are reverts. You've made three comments on this issue ([90][91][92]) and none of them gave any substantial reason for your revert. You seem to be using WP:CRP to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling, and this report comes across an attempt to weaponize WP:AE to resolve a content dispute in your favor.
4. It is a shame that some people could revert all your edits (even the sources you add, and the tags) in MEK article and you could restore none of them because of Wikipedia:Consensus required policy. But how could you reach the consensus? just look at some of the unexplained reverts done by only one user within a short period and the reasons they give for the reverts: [93][94][95][96]

I'm not a personal fan of that 'restore', but this seems like a rather disparate and disjointed set of complaints, none of which amount to anything AE worthy. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraniangal777: You have already had one frivolous filing dismissed at this venue and @Fad Ariff: you have actively been specifically warned over such filings. I'm surprised to see either of you to so eagerly return here despite these cautionary tales of AE frivolity (not to mention Fad's impressive back history of WP:1RR violations, which I only haven't brought to this forum out of idleness). Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: Your behavioural issues in this area far exceed Ghazaalch's, and if you insist on prodding me further on this matter then I may very well summon the energy needed to bring your many behavioural shortcomings to light. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MEK troll farm does not form part of any recent or original version of the article, yet Ghazaalch added it claiming to be restoring the article to an original stable version. More:

1. During an ongoing RFC, Ghazaalch added tags to the article lead, which were reverted, but he restored them two more times: {1} {2}.

2. Ghazaalch also added to the article that "Abrahamian in his book The Iranian Mojahedin, describes the group as a cult that worships its leader, and writes that the Mojahedin were labeled a cult for both internal and external reasons: political and geographical isolation, the disappearance of the veteran leadership, the marriage of Maryam and Massoud, the prevention of internal critique (members' criticism), and a propaganda war against external critique, even if directed by the organization's members". When I reverted and challenged that edit, Ghazaalch restored it 3 more times: {1} {2} {3} (all WP:CRP).

3. Also after the last warning he received to stop casting aspersions, Ghazaalch recently said that "here are always some accounts that vote "No" without giving a plausible reason, and there are always some mediators that just count the votes while closing the RFCs". Neither claim (against "some accounts" or "mediators") has been shown to be true. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 If you want to discuss our content disputes or the baseless 1RR posts you have been leaving on my talk page, then please come to my talk page or begin a separate report and I will answer there. The discussion here is about Ghazaalch. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Fad Ariff's statement, nor Iraniangal's one, is AE worthy in my opinion, specifically when they were warned against filing unactionable reports before. They could have posted a note on Ghazalech's talk page instead, to inform him of Wikipedia's policy. These kinds of reports, in my opinion, and as said by others, is an attempt to take out an opponent. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraniangal777: It is not very productive to discuss issues related to a year ago. I think we should all let the current RFC continue and try to build a consensus there. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest giving a chance to honest discussion and compromise. Rather than further attempts ([97]) at knocking out others with wikilawyering. MarioGom (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see a single recent complaint about restoring Mek troll farm, which Ghazaalch self-reverted, and some diffs from a longer than a year ago. I'm not seeing anything actionable at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur. I see nothing necessitating sanctions here. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2023 (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

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cioppino123 (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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks#Motion:_contentious_topic_designation_(December_2022)

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

1. [98] Blatant insertion of Korean POV done before alerted to CTOP restrictions.
2. [99] Blatant Korean POV pushing - according to the talk page banner, blatant POV pushing can be "reverted and treated as vandalism". This edit put WP:UNDUE weight on the Korean POV. Edit made prior to when editor was alerted about Liancourt Rocks being a CTOP.
3. [100] More blatant Korean POV pushing, this time after Materialscientist reverted their edit. Edit made after editor was alerted to the CTOP.
4. [101] Even more POV pushing - putting the Korean POV directly in the article. Edit made after editor was alerted to the CTOP.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No sanctions were made previously.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cioppino123&diff=prev&oldid=1156864113 - CTOP alert in talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User made other blatant POV edits against the Japanese POV in Senkaku Islands related articles too - [102] [103]. I'd say that a TBAN on territorial disputes relating to Japanese territorial disputes, broadly construed or a NOTHERE indef block is probably the best course to take.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[104]

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.

These are absolutely false accusations and I have done nothing wrong.

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

Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Buidhe (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/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland

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

I am working on Collaboration with the Axis powers and reading up on the history of the period in the Balkans. I came to Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, where I dropped a cn tag for: "In the 1920s, there was "a great genocide debate" in the German press which resulted in many German nationalists deciding that genocide was justified as a tactic.[105] I considered this routine, and intended to find a source myself later as I have done elsewhere, or alternately delete the quote.

Buidhe however reverted the tag with an edit summary saying that a reference was provided at the end of the next sentence:[106][107] Attempt to discuss #1: [108] was reverted. Attempt to discuss #2: [109] met with I have little faith in your ability to edit articles to accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources cited in that article are fine... You don't seem to even be able to correctly leave a contentious topics notice [110] I pointed out that she had marked herself as aware.[111] She restored the original talk page thread [112] and pointed out the similarity between her sentence and the source.[113] It is indeed very close: In his book Justifying Genocide (2016), Stefan Ihrig writes that there is "no smoking gun" to prove that the Armenian genocide inspired the Holocaust. However... he says that the Nazis were well aware of the previous genocide and, to a certain extent, inspired by it vs the Nazis knew of and were (at least in part) inspired by the Armenian Genocide, but the cite fails verification. It does not contain the quoted text and says nothing about the 1920s, the press, or nationalists deciding anything. Our article also presents "there is no smoking gun" as a statement that there is causation. The source is fine but more nuanced than presented.(me trying to explain that) It doesn't support the questioned statement and may not support the next.. I suggested that perhaps the source talked about the press on a different page.[114] She agreed. Her solution to this was to remove the page number, put the chapter title in the location field, and remove the failed verification tag, telling me that I needed to seek consensus.[115] To tag? On a backwater page? She appears to have written much of the essay btw.

Note that I would have fixed the article myself but was prevented from doing so. It went on from there. [116][117] [118] [119] I double checked the article, found further problems and decided to come here since I was clearly getting nowhere. Elinruby (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 10 February 2021 "

Buidhe is warned that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes. These are final warnings - any future examples of this or similar behaviour in the topic area will result in sanctions.

1. Date Explanation

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. Participated in process about the area of conflict

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

FOF 9. 10, 15

I apologize if I am doing this wrong as this is my first time at AE. I have no real interest in arguing about this article, or for that matter in the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. I would like to respond to a couple of people, then I will be gone unless there are questions.

• nableezy: You are right about the article tags and I will fix that. I didn't trust myself at the time.
• Aquillon: You may well be right, but that wasn't Buidhe's solution.

General remarks: to the people saying talk page: given the article's obscurity it was my assessment that Buidhe was telling me to get consensus with Buidhe. I think I tried fairly hard to discuss with someone who was handing out gratuitous insults. To the people saying don't go straight to AE, I try not to go to AE at all, but fixing that Collaboration with the Axis powers article is something I said I would do, which I was doing at the time, and something that consensus says it badly needs doing. I shouldn't need to take time out to explain the RS policy to Buidhe despite ugliness. reverts and really very false aspersions. The thing about letting these things stand is that people come to believe them. Been there done that in Ukraine.

Let's bear in mind that this is a new page patroller on a final warning to learn to communicate with people. Let's also bear in mind that yes, I am indeed competent to assess RS, unlike the unfortunate new editors who may encounter Buidhe. She may be right that the author of her source says that the Armenian genocide caused the Holocaust, but I like some sources in my extraordindary claims and he doesn't say it on page 333. Let me repeat that I started from the assumption that I was fixing the article myself, but Buidhe was prepared to edit war over that. It took heroic measures to get her to discuss at all. That is all I have to say and if this is acceptable behavior.... which many new editors will encounter as their introduction to wikipedia... I don't know what more I could say. Note that this started with content but I am here about the ownership behavior and the aggressively sloppy sourcing. Unless I misread the recent decision, in a case where both Buidhe and I were named and unsanctioned parties, source distortion is indeed a behavior problem. Now. I am going to go fix what nableezy is talking about, then plant tomatoes and ponder whether truth and the encyclopedia are really worth dealing with this. Peace out. Close the case if you really think so. But dismissing this concern would be a mistake in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has appeared on the talk page due to the tagging Buidhe complains of, so there is hope. Buidhe on the other hand is saying that the tags "will need to be removed" because they have been "debunked", presumably here. That is not my read. I am hearing conflict fatigue and a perception that the aspersions are minor. I might indeed have overlooked them in someone who isn't tasked with explaining policy to newcomers, but her talk page history is concerning. The other editor says they have improved the references and expressed some good suggestions on the other problems, but I am just in to check messages and can't work on this tonight. Also, I am not sure why people keep saying I haven't tried to talk to her when I have posted a dozen diffs of myself doing just that (?) You guys have a hard role and I don't blame you for the fatigue. On the other hand I don't feel responsible for it either. All I want is for Buidhe to stop reverting the source verification work. I'm not asking for the electric chair ;) maybe some coaching on collegiality, but I don't even care about that. I don't care care how many FAs she has either -- I am dealing with *this* article and my concern is that she is taking this as an affront to her honor or something. I will discuss all this with the other editor on the talk page tomorrow, although I have answered them tonight already.Elinruby (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

update: Stonewalling and aspersions continue.

@TylerBurden: specifics, please, if you really want to get onto the whole "Ukrainian volunteer units are Nazis" thing. Without specifics I can only suggest offhand that if I didn't come back to a tag it was probably because I was simultaneously dragged into a plethora of wiki-proceedings at unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation for questioning the sourcing for Azov Battalion. It has since been greatly improved by other people, but at the time it had some jaw-droppingly bad referencing for their Naziness, roundly mocked at RSN but vigorously defended anyway. Diffs are available for this, which I did not use at AC because Ukraine was ruled out of scope even if there were parties (Buidhe in this case) involved. I have no particular memory of a tag at Kraken but it is plausible, and would have been at the same time with a similar rationale. I think there is a pattern here but was trying to keep the complaint focused on my very simple and afaik quite valid wish to verify sourcing in a particular article. That article has since been largely rewritten by another editor and thereby greatly improved, but I had to stop working last night because Buidhe reverted me and accused me of "introducing errors" in a related article because (checks notes) I placed a dubious tag on "apocalyptic" when I suspected "apocryphal" was meant. After some reflection it seems to me that the problem is that Buidhe takes such tags as an affront and does not believe that they are temporary, because hers are not.

So I told her this morning that since I am this far into it I am willing to modify my process for these two articles, but she should not expect me to check authorship of any other articles before I start working to see if they need special Buidhe handling. If the admins here think this dispute is petty, I don't blame them, because it is, but I don't think it'd on my side: if verifiability is important, then verifying should not be this hard. As for Azov, I advise against going there, as it was ugly but has since been resolved. I am of course willing to discuss any of the above if asked however. Elinruby (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [120]

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

This is not the right venue; I advised Elinruby to post at WP:NORN about their concerns that the second sentence is not supported by the text. I do not think that their interpretation is tenable because "smoking gun" evidence is not the only type that historians can use to come to a conclusion about events. If that were the case we would have to edit many articles to say that there is no evidence Hitler ordered the Final Solution. The exact quote "No smoking gun" is indeed present on page 333; it is the title of the subchapter that begins on that page as you can verify by looking at the table of contents here. As for the sentence "In the 1920s, there was "a great genocide debate" in the German press which resulted in many German nationalists deciding that genocide was justified as a tactic, it is entirely supported by the chapter in Ihrig's book to which I added a citation. Ideally, it would be narrowed to a specific page range, but citing a chapter is OK for verifiability.

Adding tags that are not warranted or not adequately explained and refusing to seek consensus for them when challenged can be disruptive behavior. Currently, the banner tags on the article are not supported by any type of clarification or talk page comment about the perceived issue that led to them being placed.[121] Some of their edits to the article are ok, but others are concerning. For example, they think that "an act of perpetration" is "emotional language"[122] that merits removal, which indicates they are not familiar with the terminology used by professional historians and scholars to discuss genocide. That type of comment as well as their misinterpretation of Ihrig page 333 is why I became concerned about their edits. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to say about an editor who, on the one hand, complains about aspersions, and on the other hand argues that someone who has written a dozen FAs has a problem with "aggressively sloppy sourcing" based on no evidence whatsoever. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a direct quote in that diff Buidhe, that requires a citation. The article wide tags require explanation at the least if no attempt to fix is made Elinruby. But this is supposed to be discussed on the article talk page, not a user's talk page. Can we please go a week after the conclusion of the case before escalating here though? Withdraw this and open a section on the article talk page, pretty please? nableezy - 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, the source for the quote "a great genocide debate" was a different publication by the same cited author, a chapter that was also titled "Justifying Genocide", which was published the year before in the book Rewriting German History. It would have only taken a moment on Google Scholar to figure this out if people had raised the issue on talk before rushing here: [123]. Some things are hard to find the cite for, but for a direct quote... I can understand that WP:BURDEN means you're not required to search for it, but at least before taking someone to AE it's worth spending a few seconds googling to make sure it's not just a mix-up over titles or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, an extremely difficult, contentious, and controversial arbitration case is closed, and this is the first complaint based on it, within days of the closing? It does not bode well for the future. Maybe ArbCom should add another statement to the decision: "All editors in this subject area are directed to at least try to work together collegially before making use of the big guns." This is the sort of thing that should have been sorted out on the article talk page; Elinruby should be trouted for not posting there. They've been here long enough to know better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by Elinruby: "So I told her this morning that since I am this far into it I am willing to modify my process for these two articles, but she should not expect me to check authorship of any other articles before I start working to see if they need special Buidhe handling." seems to me to be totally uncollegial. Whatever Elinruby's personal "process" is is irrelevant, the question at hand is whether either editor is violating Wikipedia policies or behavioral norms. Elinruby has no right to impose their "process" on anyone else, and if that "process" violates behavioral norms or policies, then it must change, and not Buidhe's behavior. I find Elinruby's attitude to be far from ideal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The present case reminds me importance of WP:DDE protocol.

On side note:IMHO WP:DDE seems very appropriate protocol, to be followed before approaching WP:ARE. As needed WP:DDE may be updated further for keeping it in line with present ArbCom policies. IMHO WP:DDE protocol need to find place in ARE/Header to guide the users better before ARE cases are filed. I am not sure if this is best place to make this proposal but hope more knowledgeable may take note of context of this for their future discussions and updates. Bookku (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going to comment on one related instance, that the editor filing this, Elinruby, added ″citation needed″ tags on Kraken Regiment for content that was clearly referenced if one would actually look at the references. Maybe in this case it wasn't so, but I think some effort should be put into looking into the references before drive-by tagging with citation tags. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Elinruby has asked for specifics, here are both diffs of them inserting unwarranted citation needed tags on Kraken Regiment: 1, 2. In both instances the content was referenced by the Washington Post reference included on the article, so it seems Elinruby just decided to add them without actually checking the reference. TylerBurden (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• What an unused talk page. Can we try collaboration there rather than AE filings? Surely there's something to do to get eyes on this besides asking for sanctions? Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this appears to be an unnecessary escalation of a dispute between two editors. While Buidhe could've been more cordial to Elinruby in their interactions, I don't think this raises to an AE issue. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]