Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive302

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

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ObtuseAngles (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. 10:40, 25 February 2022 At Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adds extended content regarding a rent arrears dispute
2. 11:21, 25 February 2022 At same article replaces a referenced year of birth with a completely unreferenced full date of birth, one that's also a different year from the referenced one
3. 11:55, 25 February 2022 Restores content from diff#1 despite it being removed with a clear edit summary of WP:UNDUE, see WP:ONUS this should not be added back without consensus
4. 11:58, 25 February 2022 Repeats diff #2
5. 11:57, 25 February 2022 Posts to my talk page saying Please do not remove well sourced information from articles. It can be considered vandalism. If you have any issue with any content please raise it on the talk page. Thank you.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

See also the repeated attampts to issue me with a DS warning, despite me clearly being aware already.

I would dearly love to know how I could possibly have followed ObtuseAngles to an aritlce I have edited numerous times since February 2020. As for the claim to be inexperienced, see diff#5 with the post to my talk page. People with no experience of Wikipedia don't say things like that, in my experience. FDW777 (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notifed

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 editor is obviously much more experienced than I am and knows how to game the system (I see they have reported multiple editors to this page) and try and trick new editors into making procedural mistakes and get them into bother.

This editor tried to get the article Dungiven landmine and gun attack deleted at AfD. But when that did not succeed they tried to Merge the article and has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page.

Obviously they didn't like that and since then has started spamming my talk page with warning notices. I consider this unfriendly and aggressive but it looks like they were potentially goading me to try to set my up to bring me here.

Then today they followed me to the Violet-Anne Wynne article. This lady is in the news today as they resigned from their party today. So it was my intention to expend the article today.

I have started that by adding material to every section of the article until this editor stopped me in my tracks.

This editor seems to have an issue with two particular parts of my editing. 1. The date of birth. 2. The rent arrears section.

I'm not sure what is controversial about these edit? The date of birth is outlined here and the rent arrears issue was national news with multiple media outlets covering the story and this story is the reason most people in Ireland ever heard of Wynne. I don't think anyone is disputing anything I added.

I tried to discuss the matter with this editor but they obviously didn't want to know. My guess is because discussing the matter would have stopped them walking me into this trap. So they just deleted my message.

I am not saying I am a perfect editor. I am not saying I know all the rules and regulations here. I am learning. But this editor is acting in a very sneaky way and trying to trap and inexperienced editor that they disagree with in an attempt to shut them up.

Again every edit I made was backed up by sources, no one is disagreeing with any of the content I added it just looks to me like this editor loves causing trouble and throwing their superior knowledge of the system around. Poor form.--ObtuseAngles (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ObtuseAngles suggests that FDW777 has had an issue with me ever since I disagreed with their position on the talk page, and "unfriendly" and "aggressive". But. OA's comments at the talk page merge discussion started off telling FDW777 to Stop wasting everyone's time ([1]) and then telling another editor that they had a boring and negative approach, whose edits would all be rolled back ([2]). Pretty robust language for a new editor who took no part in the original AfD, but I think it's becoming clear who has the "unfriendly and aggressive" WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. SN54129 15:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FDW as far as the content dispute is concerned, but do not see why they brought it here. It is not a BLP/AE issue. 86.4.163.59 (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note that I have blocked ObtuseAngles per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SlideAndSlip.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Benyamin2006 (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:ARBPIA

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

1. 20:41, 8 May 2021 Me, giving discretionary sanctions alert to Benyamin2006, adding "Please especially note that you should not edit controversial areas in the IP-area before you have 500 edits," (they have less than 20 edits, as of writing)
2. 21:34, 27 February 2022 Benyamin2006; (changing "Palestinian" to "Israeli" in a place occupied by Israel since 1967)
3. 20:40, 28 February 2022 Me, giving Benyamin2006 a stern warning ("If you do more edits like the one you did at At-Tur (Mount of Olives): expect to see youself reported to WP:AE, This is my last warning,"
4. 20:38, 28 February 2022 Benyamin2006, repeating the change of "Palestinian" to "Israeli"
5. 06:17, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)
6. 21:05, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)
7. 21:32, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)

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

20:41, 8 May 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Benyamin2006, (who presently has less than 20 edits), is obviously not listening to me, hopefully they will listen to some admin? Huldra (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Benyamin2006 continues to edit-war on At-Tur (Mount of Olives) against 3 other editor. Can somebody please just stop him? Huldra (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continuing to edit war and paying no attention here says it all, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• With so few edits, it's easy to search their entire history, which is largely edits to change Palestine to Israel or simply adding Israel tags. This seems like a WP:NOTHERE situation, and I'm ready to simply indef if someone doesn't beat me to it. Given the use of "short description" tags and other semi-advanced editing methods, I don't think this is their first account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin block after going on yet another revert war on the same article. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Baxter329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

1. 23:33, 23 February 2022 At Patrisse Cullors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds text In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist." They had been informed here and here of the Rfc at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?, and after saying here that I am considering adding the Politifact quote of her saying she's a "trained Marxist" to the Patrisse Cullors article they were also told here that I would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors. But they went ahead and did it anyway.
2. 23:15, 21 February 2022 Adds WP:LEAD violation at Black Lives Matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. 22:03, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 without consensus (I'd probably give them a pass on that since it was removed without any explanation, just including it for thoroughness)
4. 22:52, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 despite it being specifically challenged on WP:LEAD, lack of consensus from previous talk page discussions and WP:ONUS. See also talk page post made prior to that revert detailing more discussions about that particular quote.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's a general cluelessness and failure to listen at Talk:Black Lives Matter in general. FDW777 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conveniently demonstrating the general cluelessness and failure to listen I mentioned, they twice say here that no one has given any valid explanation as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last 15 minutes, Baxter329 has restored disputed content relating to Black politician Winsome Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accusing her of being a white supremacist, with one of the references being Fox News. This is despite their November attempt to add the same content being reverted. I remain speechless. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: At 23:20, 26 February 2022 Baxter329 was still claiming they haven't been given an explanation as to why the content shouldn't have been added. Either they are being intentionally disruptive or they don't have the competence to edit. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

I stand by all of my additions to Black Lives Matter. My additions to Black Lives Matter are relevant and reliably sourced.

At the same time, I also respect the consensus to not include the content. I will not add any of those things to Black Lives Matter again. I disagree with the consensus. But I will obey it.

I also stand by my addition of the following to Patrisse Cullors, in the section titled "Ideology and policy positions."

In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist" [3]. In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.Am I A Marxist?

No one has given me any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" of Patrisse Cullors.

I added that content to Patrisse Cullors exactly one time. After someone removed it, I never put it back.

And again, no one has given any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

My only defense of any of my additions to either Black Lives Matter or Patrisse Cullors is the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."

Given that Patrisse Cullors has a section called, "Ideology and policy positions," why should that content not be included in the article?

Baxter329 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that I was not allowed to add that content to my sandbox.

On 23:08, 23 February 2022, at Talk:Black Lives Matter, I said:

"while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it."

But this arbitration section was created on 23:43, 23 February 2022.

In other words, this arbitration section was created 35 minutes after I promised to respect the consensus regarding Black Lives Matter. So that issue had already been solved before this arbitration was created.

Thus, the only remaining issue is my addition of the following to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."^[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.^[2]

I added that content to Patrisse Cullors one time. Someone removed it. I never put it back in.

No one has given a legitimate explanation for why the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors should not include that content.

I still maintain the following as my only justification for adding that content to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

"Wikipedia:Neutral point of view"

"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

"NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects."

Baxter329 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to show that Winsome Sears was a white supremacist. Instead, I was trying to show that some of her opponents had accused her of being a white supremacist. I stand by my edit.

My edit to food desert is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. Numerous reliable sources have reported that shoplifting and rioting are major causes of food deserts. Before I added this content, the article made zero mention of shoplifting and rioting as causes of food deserts. I stand by my edit.

The video that I cited gives an extensive explanation by Patrisse Cullors, in her own words, of what she meant when she called herself a "trained Marxist." I stand by my edit. And I stand by my comment that no one has given a legitimate reason why this content should not be included in the section of her article titled, "‎Ideology and policy positions."

Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:FDW777 just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless."

That's the problem - you're "speechless."

I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

Baxter329 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with me citing two different New York Times articles which blamed Joe Biden for creating a policy of institutional racism that was ALREADY mentioned in the wikipedia article?

What's wrong me citing info on the recall of George Gascón?

The New York Times wrote extensively about the overcrowded housing where the Philadelphia fire occurred. According to the New York Times, three mothers and their 11 children (no fathers were mentioned in the New York Times article) were all living together in a 4 bedroom home. This is relevant because it's what led to the death count being as high as it was.

Without fossil fuels, we'd still have an average life expectancy of about 30 years.

The New York Times reported that it was racist to give a literacy test to prospective teachers, so the test was abolished. That's what it said in the New York Times. I even quoted the New York Times word-for-word to make sure I was getting the meaning of the article accurate. Are you saying the New York Times is not a reliable source?

You posted the wrong diff for my edit on voter ID laws. This is my actual edit. I stand by that edit as well.

(talk) 23:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for posting in the wrong section before.

I understand that YouTube videos aren't always a reliable source. But the video that I linked to was from Cullors's own channel. I thought that would make it a reliable source.

I agree that the phrase "trained Marxist" is vague, but if you watch the video, she explains what she meant.

My other edits all cited reliable sources.

Someone cited this diff of mine, and said, "I'm particularly concerned by the repeated conflation of anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment."

That is not an accurate description of my edit. In my edit, all I said was, "Here are some reliable sources that address this topic," and then I posted some links to reliable sources. I never took any side on the issue involved. I posted those links because I thought they would be useful. I was not taking sides.

Baxter329 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kire1975 said, "I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#I_propose_changing_the_name_of_this_article_to_"Media_defamation_of_Covington_Catholic_High_School_students". I agree with DanielRigal. There is a broader pattern of POV editing here. Baxter329 appears to be intentionally WP:NOTGETTINGIT, regularly ignores consensus. If a topic ban is warranted, it would have to cover a lot more than just Black Lives Matter."

At that link, on 5 December 2021, I started a section on the talk page where I proposed changing the name of an article. I did that because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my proposal. I didn't want to change the name without seeing what other people thought of it. It's been more than two months since I proposed my idea, and so I far have not changed the name of the article. I was waiting (and hoping) for more people to respond.

Given that I started that section on the talk page because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my idea, I find it very odd that User:Kire1975 uses this as an example of me "ignoring consensus."

Baxter329 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that someone please post a link to a diff where anyone gave me a legitimate reason why the Politifact article should not be cited in "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. I'm not talking about the Black Lives Matter article, where people did link to previous discussions. I'm talking specifically about the "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. Please cite a diff where someone explained to me why the Politifact article should not be cited in the "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. Thank you.

Here's the content with the link:

In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist."^[1] In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.^[2]

I can understand why the video might not be a reliable source. I thought that since it was Cullors's own YouTube channel, it was a reliable source. If it's not, I understand.

But there has never been any doubt that Politifact is a reliable source.

Baxter329 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit that I made: There is a huge correlation between life expectancy and the amount of energy a person uses. It doesn't have to be fossil fuels. It could be nuclear, hydro, wind, or solar. But my point is that we do indeed live a lot longer because of our increased use of energy. I would also add that regular garbage collection did not become the norm until we started using fossil fuels. Prior to that, most people just dumped their garbage wherever was most convenient, and so typical cities had massive amounts of garbage everywhere. There's also the fact that fossil fuels brought an end to the huge problem of massive amounts of horse feces being all over the place.

Regarding this other edit that I made: I quoted a report from NASA. The info that I quoted is highly relevant, and the source is highly reliable.

Baxter329 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am WP:INVOLVED but I was thinking of bring an AE request against Baxter if they continued their disruption. I support an AP2 topic ban. I will add some more diffs in a couple hours to demonstrate the pattern of disruption by this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous ANI report - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Baxter_329_WP:GREATWRONGS_WP:NOTFORUM

POV against liberals, solely negative edits

• Rebecca Watson - "Defending shoplifting" (with a dash of SYNTH)
• Winsome Sears - Accused of white supremacy by liberals
• George Gascón - [4] and [5] about recall vote
• Institutional racism - Joe Biden sponsored crime bill
• Leon Cooperman - Criticism from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren
• Sonia Sotomayor - Fact check 1 and 2
• Alvin Bragg - Armed robbery sentencing
• Neil Young - Hypocrisy on GMOs (and on The Monsanto Years)
• Leonardo DiCaprio - Hypocrisy
• Elizabeth Warren - Solitary confinement

Black Lives Matter

• Perseveration on looting - deserts&oldid= , [6], [7], [8], [9]
• Donations investigations - [10]
• Family structure - [11], [12]
• Antisemitism - [13], [14], [15]

Racial antagonism?

• 2022 Philadelphia apartment fire - Somehow the fire is related to African-American family structure?
• Literacy test scores (multiple pages) - Education in New York (state), New York (state), Standardized test, Institutional racism
• Voter identification laws in the United States - Some video about race and IDs

Other SYNTH and CIR

• Effects of climate change on humans - Fossil fuels increases lifespan, Greener trees
• Black Lives Matter - Let people make up their own mind

EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Baxter329, please only comment in your section. Unlike talk pages, this board is set up to have each user/commenter use only their own section and not reply in others' sections. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:Rebecca Watson#Defending shoplifting?. I think we may have a broader pattern of problematic POV editing where they are constantly trying to spin sources (see Talk:Food desert#Shoplifting) or just confect complete non-issues (e.g. the issue on Watson's article) into something to support obvious POV narratives and possibly even grudges against BLP subjects. I suspect that this is indicative a general WP:NOTHERE attitude but, if it is not, then WP:CIR becomes the issue. What I don't see is much editing outside of these problematic areas. If they were doing good work in other areas then I'd be happy let them continue with that but, as they are not, I wonder whether there is any point in any sanction other than a block.

As for the "trained Marxist" thing, I think it is a pretty much meaningless phrase with very unclear implications and I suspect that that is the intent. I also find it funny because it makes Marxism sound like some sort of martial art and inadvertently makes it sound way cooler than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify. I don't think that the "trained Marxist" thing is the main issue here. I think that the other POV editing is far more problematic.--DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#I_propose_changing_the_name_of_this_article_to_"Media_defamation_of_Covington_Catholic_High_School_students". I agree with DanielRigal. There is a broader pattern of POV editing here. Baxter329 appears to be intentionally WP:NOTGETTINGIT, regularly ignores consensus and WP:SEALIONs. If a topic ban is warranted, it would have to cover a lot more than just Black Lives Matter. Kire1975 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This all seems centered around Baxter329 continually adding "marxist" or "trained marxist" against a well established consensus. I'm a bit confused over how that consensus developed, and could see how the term could be used in a very limited circumstance, but it doesn't matter what I think. The RFC was valid and very clear that the threshold to use that term hasn't been met, not by a lack of sources, but from a lack of the term being properly defined in those sources, as "Marxist" is a bit of a catchall phrase that could mean many things. It seem that Baxter329 was aware of it before inserting it in the article multiple times. So Baxter329, the ball is kind of in your court. Please shed some light on this so we don't have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I totally agree that saying "trained Marxist" in Wiki voice would be a no no, but this is how they described themselves in a reliable interview, so this is a reliable primary source. I don't even know what a "trained Marxist" is supposed to mean. If they refuse to come and discuss, I would be inclined to say a 30 day tban from the topic to start, simply because they knew there was an RFC and they ignored it. You can't just ignore an RFC in contentious areas. If you disagree, you have to take the long way and see it overturned. I prefer to hear from them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The RFC really bugs me. If someone claims their idiology is $x, and you are making a section on idiology of that person, but you get a consensus to NOT put in that fact, a "trained Marxist", that doesn't make sense. It is almost like a bunch of editors are trying to protect her from herself in this article by voting to exclude information that you would THINK is relevant, sourced, and clearly material to the section. We don't have the authority to override the RFC here, but something stinks. That said, Baxter, you MUST abide by a consensus. You can work to get it in front of a bigger audience and form a new consensus, but you can't ignore it. All that said, I'm hard pressed to sanction because something just feels very wrong about this situation. We're being asked to sanction for activity that is usually considered normal. I don't feel I can do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Using the term as a self described label, but stating the term isn't well defined, or defined at all is a valid way. Or simply saying Marxist without the meaningless modifier. But withholding information from a bio when the source is clearly primary AND secondary, seems wrong. It seems like sanitizing, whether or not there is a consensus to do it. This doesn't take away from our friend's other problems, but again, something seems off here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Dennis with the caveat that I can see why "trained Marxist" could be a POV statement. If we fail to hear from Baxter329 some sort of action (a tban from AP2, which is pretty much the only area they edit in?). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: "Trained Marxist", as DanielRigal points out, is a meaningless term and should not be used in any article, whether or not someone describes themselves that way (also, a youtube video?). We would definitely need to explain what the term means and would probably need other people to use it before we start taking it seriously. Regardless, I started reading Baxter329's rather confused explanations above and the numerous "I stand by" statements and the frequent homage to NPOV, all lead me toward a support for a NOTHERE block. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Without that RfC, these edits would be within the bounds of normal content editing; given that Baxter329 was aware of that RfC, though, the first diff appears disruptive. I note they have also added the same content to their sandbox after being told of the RfC. I'd like to hear from Baxter329 here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't necessarily have a problem with someone whose edits reflect "one side" of a debate; it becomes an issue when the edits aren't individually defensible. Some of EvergreenFir's diffs are quite concerning. This, this, and this are all edits not compliant with WP:NOR and/or WP:V. I'm particularly concerned by the repeated conflation of anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment. With respect to the RfC: Dennis Brown, I don't see how disliking its conclusions in any way invalidates concerns over ignoring prior consensus. The policy on due weight allows for any individual piece of information to be kept out by consensus. If you dislike the result of an RfC, you challenge it, not ignore it. I think a logged warning is the bare minimum here; I would prefer a time-limited AP2 TBAN over a warning or a block, but there's also concerns with Baxter329's ability to respond to what they're being told, and I will not stand in the way of a block. Vanamonde (Talk) Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disagreeing with you in any way. That doesn't change my skepticism over the RFC. Even a bad RFC is expected to be followed until overturned, so again, I'm not arguing against your logic. I am disturbed a bit by the RFC and what, at a casual glance, looks like an unbiased result in that one RFC. But again, I've said he shouldn't have added it when he knew, and the patterns you speak of bother me as well. The RFC bothers me more, but that isn't on the table, I'm simply opining. Loudly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's reasonable, thanks for clarifying. What would you have us do with this request? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't close. I will respectfully accept whatever the consensus is. I get you must do at least a logged warning (they did screw up), and if you do more, again, I will respectfully say nothing. There is just a lot wrong with the situation, enough that I don't feel comfortable slamming the hammer. I don't have a good answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. I think I'm going to wait another day, to see if anyone else chimes in; I'd also like to hear from RegentsPark again. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I reread their responses above and clicked through to some of the edits that they "stand by" and think a not here block is probably the best alternative. Nothing particularly productive is likely to emerge from this editor except for an overall waste of time. But, perhaps I'm being overly harsh so I'll leave this to you. I do want to commend FDW777 for a textbook AE filing (brief but with the right amount of detail, and easy to read and follow). They should consider giving a masterclass on "Commenting at AE"! --RegentsPark (comment) 00:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed the evidence once again. I now think an AP2 TBAN would be inappropriate; the behavioral issues are not confined to AP2. To me, the most concerning diff is this one; it's violating several core policies, implying as it does that CO2 emissions raise human life expectancy, without sources. this isn't great either; it's cherry-picking a fact from a primary source, without context, to imply a positive consequence for humans. There's also a serious listening deficit here. That said, the circumstances that led to this being brough to AE aren't ideal, leading to at least one admin being uncomfortable levying sanctions based on those alone; and absent obvioust consensus I'm torn between a final warning and an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action. So I'm going to give Baxter329 a chance to respond to the life expectancy diff (this one). I would like to hear if they see any problems with that, and if so, how they plan to avoid those in the future. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Proletarian Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

The user has broadly and disruptively been engaging in a widespread change of the descriptor used for the Marxist-Leninist states (often the Soviet Union and the Albania) from "communist" to "socialist" across a grand number of articles without seeking consensus. At the time of writing, the user has made 46 edits to the article space, of which 21 have removed mentions of the term "communist" or "communism". This disruptive behavior, which began before they were aware of the sanction, continues after they were made aware.

Albania:

1. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist government and replacing it with Socialist Government
2. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist and replacing it with Socialist
3. 30 January 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
4. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist regime and replacing it with socialist nation
5. 16 February 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
6. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist and replacing it with socialist
7. 1 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism
8. 3 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism

USSR:

1. 17 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist state
2. 18 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist government
3. 3 March 2022 Removing comunist and replacing it with socialist

Hungary:

1. 10 February 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist

Multiple countries, including at least one Eastern European or and/or Balkan state:

1. 30 December 2021 Removing communist in four places and inserting socialist
2. 30 December 2021 Removing communist and inserting Socialist
3. 30 December 2021 Removing communist countries and inserting Socialist states
4. 20 January 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist
5. 21 January 2022 Removing communist in three places and inserting socialist
6. 6 February 2022 Removing communist regimes and inserting Socialist States
7. 14 February 2022 changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations
8. 15 February 2022 again changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations (though they later self rv)
9. 2 March 2022 deleting totalitarian communist

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above or this diff.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a consensus-based manner and is being rather disruptive across the Eastern European and Balkans topic area. The editor is engaging in clear POV-pushing and repeatedly insists upon using their own definition of communism when writing articles and rejects basically all sources they personally disagree with as being biased right-wingers or by claiming that mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP is all right-wing propaganda. As can be seen in the edit summaries of many of the diffs listed in the diffs section, the user is a WP:POVPUSHer who has been making changes en masse that have by and large shown the editor's inability to engage productively in these areas. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the user is also somewhat uncivil, referring to me as an ignoramus and claiming that I write for the Newspaper of Mentally Disabled Persons. I think that sharp discretionary sanctions are warranted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC) See also: this vandal edit to my userpage. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2022 (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.

Just block now and save the time and drama. [16][17] [18] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, due to the recent contributions, I've handed a block to the user to avoid further harasment. Feel free to extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• He was blocked for 31 hours by Lee Vilenski, but the real problem is that they were just given an Arb alert today. That doesn't prevent normal admin actions (which Lee did), but it does limit what we can do as AE actions (topic bans, etc). Thems the rules. Needs a closer look and a bit of creativity with standard admin actions, I think. It would help if Lee participated here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Duh, just notice Lee did com here (thank you, been a rough day...) and is giving us freedom to modify without consultation, which helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)I think looking at the recent contributions, I'd be happy to endorse an indef block, and talk page privileges being removed. My block was more preventative while this gets looked at, as it was clear there was some proper harasment going on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 3 March 2022 (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

Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ypatch (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed [19]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Vanamonde93 (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 requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified.

I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:

• In the first content dispute, I’m primarily at a disagreement with User:Iskandar323, where some editors are supporting the inclusion of other names to the article and other editors are supporting the exclusion of those names. Since this seems to be a content dispute, I have proposed a RFC to solve this.

• In the second content dispute, I’m at a disagreement with User:Vice regent about how a section in that article should be organized. Since we are at a disagreement, I have proposed that we get others to vote about which version should remain in the article.

• In the third content dispute, I am in agreement with all the other editors there.

My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).

• Vanamonde, I believe a bigger picture is being overlooked, but I don't want to fill this appeal request with whataboutery. I will instead open a separate case in an attempt to explain further. Thanks. Ypatch (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now read BANEX. To confirm, am I allowed to make a separate report here about someone else's conduct? It’s difficult to explain my approach in these disputes as an isolated event (takes two to tango). Ypatch (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I didn't come to that conclusion, that is why I was asking. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Iskandar, since the ArbCom case, you have made twice as many edits to the article than I have, which would make you involved. My objections with your edits have been that you have tried to add things like "Holy Warriors" as the MEK's other official names, which it isn’t. In other edits you give a deceptive edit summary saying that "Relocating more Amnesty reporting on government treatment of the PMOI to the appropriate section", but instead you removed sourced material from the article. You removed that the U.S. "designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention" from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that the reasons behind the MEK-Iranian regime conflict from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that Khomeini prevented the MEK from running for elections, even though this is backed by reliable sources. Despite warnings, you again violated the article's "Consensus Required" restrictions [20][21]. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RegentsPark, without diving deep into the subject, User:Vice regent's edits have involved WP:ARBIRP violations like wikivoicing that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is the confirmed culprit behind the assassinations of Paul R. Shaffer, John H. Turner and Louis Lee Hawkins [22][23] (the article already made clear that there are different suspected culprits surrounding those assassinations). I did not report them to avoid a battleground mentality. Instead, I have been advocating the use of RFCs. Vice regent, on the other hand, was recently warned against civil edit warring, yet recently violated the article's Consensus Required restrictions again [24][25]. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A clear reason for my topic-ban has not been given. Mainly for this reason, it is difficult to address it. Ypatch (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, please read WP:BANEX before you spend a lot of effort on a report about someone else's conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, how did you read that page and come to the conclusion that you are permitted to make a behavioral report against someone else in the area of your TBAN? It's pretty explicit. You may discuss the topic only in the context of appealing your ban, or clarifying its scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, for the last time, you may not discuss the behavior of other editors if it relates to Iranian politics. Seriously, are you not hearing me, or are you trying to provoke a reaction? I'm giving you some leeway because we're discussing your ban at AE, but it will be a block without further warning, next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from a regular in "post-1978 Iranian politics", and my principle interaction with this page has been to effect a name change in a move request with unanimous support, but, based on my limited experience I would have to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment that the editor in question would benefit from some time away from the subject (as I have in other areas). Ypatch seems to tread a particularly fine line between neutral and tendentious editing with regards to the PMOI, and appears very much overly invested in the subject. In the diffs cited above by Ypatch, which they are presumably upholding as an example of good editing, we see them boiling down existing material on the funding of either terroristic/militaristic activities into a bland statement about funding. You also have them deleting substantial reliable, secondary sources such as Guardian long reads that make use of detrimental terminology about the group, while adding less ironclad/no consensus sources such as Daily Beast material to reinforce sympathetic viewpoints. In the active discussion on names, Ypatch is pushing back against the mentioning of a term that reliable sources say was a standard name for the group prior to the 1990s, at which point the PMOI made an active public relations (PR) push to change its image. Content aside, Ypatch, based on no particular Wikipedia policy or guideline (but heavy reference to the discretionary sanctions, and the need for consensus/an RFC to undo anything that they have reverted), takes a position that aligns with that PR. Meanwhile, on Commons, Ypatch has also been trying to bring about the deletion of public domain images that I suppose might arguably be construed as portraying the PMOI in a negative light - here the group's leader meeting with Saddam Hussain. Make of all this what you will. I'll leave it at that, but, as I began, I believe Vanamonde93 is well merited in having concerns over this editor's current ability to edit neutrally in this subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch: Yes, I did edit the lead. The page is currently tagged as 'lead too long', and likely still requires further shortening. About half of those edits removed material that was inexplicably in the lead despite not being in the body copy, in clear violation of MOS:LEAD, as was clearly stated in my itemised edit summaries. Others were just edits weighing what is likely to be more or less due. Just basic editing really. As no one has reverted any of these diffs, I can only assume that none were objectionable (present company excluded). There has also been no indication from any editors that any of this has violated consensus, so I would request that you desist from this insinuation. In response to your specific personal attack that I made a 'deceptive' edit summary, you are wrong. If you scroll down the diff in question, you will find exactly where the material was relocated to. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• This sort of a t-ban is very hard to judge because that would involve a deep dive into the article edits and the article talk page. But I did take a look at two threads on the offending talk page (this and this and there is some evidence of what could be disruptive behavior (particularly in the second thread with the not responding and then reverting after someone added/changed the summary). I think it better to defer to accepting Vanamonde93's topic ban, ceteris paribus.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline WP:NOTTHEM appeal. I can personally attest to the appellant's reoccurring problems in the topic area. See also the log in the former WP:GS/IRANPOL. El_C 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal - There seems to be good reason to have put the tban in place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 5 March 2022 Questioned if ScottishFinnishRadish is WP:HERE, which I see as a gross personal attack;
2. 6 March 2022 Implied the ARBCOM case was started to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them;
3. 6 March 2022 Accused me and SFR of being out to get the skeptics no matter what and doing something he calls "donalding" (i.e. dodging and/or attacking when someone caught you making a mistake).

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 February 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I fail to see how Hob was "pushed" and would appreciate some clarification there. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I see your point. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, my intention is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did I expect that to be the result of this request. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, seeing how editors like Roxy did not receive a topic ban and his conduct was much worse than Hob, I expected a formal warning or reminder along the lines Roxy and I received. Of course, I personally believe both Roxy and Hob to be engaging in a level of personal attacks that should not have and should not be permitted to continue in the way it had or has. However, I understand that arbitration is particularly careful about enforcing sanctions unless necessary, so I did not nor do I expect any serious sanction to come out of this request. Nonetheless, I still believe it should be considered and addressed so that editors don't think they have a free pass to just question others' motives for editing without justification just because the Arbcom case has ended. By "impeding the resolution", I meant that I see the RSN thread as the last step in the whole resolution process (an epilogue, if you will) and by igniting tensions through uncivil comments he is making it more difficult for the issues raised in that thread to be properly discussed. I hope it wasn't understood as me accusing him of disrupting arbcom itself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:28, 6 March 2022 (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.

There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did.

<angry comment withdrawn> --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought this discussion up for wider comment: When discussing things 'as civilly as possible' in the future maybe don't help escalate or use phrases like 'petty piss-fighting.' MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. C. Santacruz, my sincerest advice is to withdraw this case proposal. You seem a very well-reasoned editor with a calm demeanor. Someone who occasionally holds opinions contrary to the tide of the editor base, but who does it with aplomb and kindness. I would say this ARBE proposal is uncharacteristically reactionary.

1) It appears some of these complaints of behavior arise from @Hob Gadling's essay. It's good to keep in mind that wide latitude is given in user essays, especially in preliminary ones. It's entirely appropriate for HG to collect their thoughts, understand disagreements, and set down what they think. Nothing untoward there.

2) With regards to comments HG made towards @ScottishFinnishRadish, I see these as benign and part of the normal back and forth of disagreements. The #1 thing I tell users who are transitioning from "new" to "seasoned" (as many of us do, present company included): develop thick skin! When someone is rude (on any side), you don't always have to escalate. In fact, it makes wikipedia worse if you do. Most things can be handled without Admin, without ArbE or Arbcom. They have better things to do than to review this case.

3) It makes sense if you want to make rights right, wrongs wrong, we all have that inclination. But this is likely not the place. Even if HG was rude (and I'm not sure from the diffs that they were), a certain low level of rudeness is permitted on all sides of any debate, as participants become frustrated. I think it would be an excellent thing if you stuck around here for many moons, and I think not letting such things bother you will help. For your own sanity! When one brings a case here, it should probably be a slam dunk. Otherwise very little is likely to happen. The more fruitless ArbE cases are made against an editor, the less likely each subsequent case is to succeed, in my experience. And even when you do bring what you think is a slam dunk, don't be surprised if nothing happens or little happens. ArbE is still a high bar, even if a lower burden than the drama board.

4) I think the Skepticism case got a lot of feathers a little ruffled, on the side of proposers wishing/hoping for more drastic measures, and on the side of skeptics/adjacent, who see TBANning of Rp2006 as excessive. It would do us all good to let things lie and resist inherent urges to play out these frustrations on other boards. The debate over SI is not the place to air grievances, nor is it the place to start looking for any and all reasons to score more "points." Not saying you are, not saying anyone is, but noting instead this tendency is perennial on wikipedia. It happens any time a user is TBANned (e.g. I have seen this play out multiple times in COVID origins). It also happens any time a well-crafted and intricately written ArbCom case doesn't go precisely the way one hopes. We must resist this tit for tat tendency, for the sake of the project.

5) This ArbE proposal has very little merit on the WP:PAGs and should be retracted or dismissed.

Shibbolethink dismounts ungracefully from the high horse he has no business riding.--— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's wholly hyperbolic statement here ("His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case."), and their posts here and here, provide ample justification for quickly declining this case. A. C. Santacruz, please follow the excellent advice of Shibbolethink above and withdraw this case now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hob Galding's civility is an issue. Is it serious enough to require a block? Probably not but their behavior, over the long haul is an issue and they should be warned for their general battle ground like behavior.

• [26] "So, fuck off, liar"
• [27] "From your difficulties in understanding what normal people write, I think Wikipedia is not the right place for you."
• [28] "Since you are the only one who really did something wrong, you should behave less like an aggressive, pushy loudmouth and more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake."
• [29] "you already said that, ans we answered it. Go away" (edit note)
• [30] generally antagonistic comment directed at another editor.

This is needless hostility towards other editors (who very well may be wrong in the bigger picture). Per CIVIL, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

If nothing else this should close with a simple, clear statement that comments like these are not compliant with CIVIL and need to stop. Note: I'm not involved in the RSN discussion in question and I don't have an opinion on the outcome. I have had unpleasant interactions with HG in the past hence my CIVIL concerns here. Springee (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The diffs you provided don't really show anything sanctionable. Saying "Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia?" is benign and I can't see it as a personal attack. I will have to dig and look at the entire discussion to get a fuller picture, later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion [31] for my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after reading the entire discussion, I still see no problems. Hob can be a little abrasive when pushed (so can I) but that is hardly unique. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means sometimes there is some friction and heat. The worst of it is the above quote, which I see as a question, not a personal attack. In short, I see no merit in this report, and as such, I recommend taking no action in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz"Pushed" should be self-explanatory. It's a heated debate, everyone is pushed. That's why we don't sweat minor things, as the goal isn't perfect etiquette, but solutions. None of this is relevant, however, as you've filed a report, and the key is demonstrating policy violations within an Arb sanctioned area, and you haven't. You've linked to some mild words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A. C. Santacruz, could you please provide actual diffs, rather than whole page versions where it's difficult to find the material you wish to refer to? I've dug it out now, but it's a bit of a bother to have to do that. Please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. As for your request, "gross incivility" and "grossly disruptive" are gross exaggerations. Taking out an opponent from a topic isn't what discretionary sanctions are for. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• A. C. Santacruz, thanks for the diffs, that was very prompt. But I'm surprised you say your intention with this request is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did you expect such a result.[32] May I ask what you did intend and expect, then? You accused Hob Gadling of being "grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI" and even of "impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case"? That's strong sauce. If the AE admins had agreed with you that HC was doing that kind of harm (which they don't seem to be doing so far, but you never know) — impeding an arb case! — how could you not have intended/expected a topic ban at the least? I'm baffled. Are you perhaps back-pedalling? Do you wish to withdraw this request? Just asking. Bishonen | tålk 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

• 16:33, 3 March 2022 Removes the lines "The users of the app utilized the database of citizens categorized using multiple attributes and sent automated hate messages as replies on social media. The phrases in these automated messages were decided in a centralized document to harass prominent persons." from Tek Fog#Automated messaging with the edit summary "rm material covered in detail in the sections above", when the material isn't covered anywhere else in the article.
• 16:47, 4 March 2022 Removes the same lines with the edit summary, "Added information back that had been removed in my previous edit. Removed the rest of the redundant material. WP:ONUS, W:BRD should be followed by editors wishing to introduce material. Kindly ping me if making a talk section." The edit also introduces the word "centralised" in the section on "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment". Note that the word had never existed there unlike what they claim in the edit summary.
• 17:13, 4 March 2022 They insist that "the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section, in the sub sections above it" The sub-section at the time of their second removal contained the lines, "Tek Fog had an extensive centralised database of private citizens with information about their "occupation, religion, language, age, gender, political inclination and even physical attributes like skin tone and breast size." The Wire had received screenshots that showed these parameters. The Wire verified the existence of database by monitoring harassment messages that were sent with extreme granularity to "female journalists", who were among the targeted groups."

Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging).

• 21:15, 4 March 2022 They demand explanation on how it isn't the same despite one being already provided and it being apparent. I leave a warning on their talk page (User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § March 2022) after seeing all this, where they deny any fault and continue to insist that the material was the same. I eventually restore the second part of it (on the central document of phrases being used for the messages).
• 16:11, 6 March 2022 They immediately revert and re-introduce the unverifiable "centralised database of citizens" while on their talk page, they make a retaliatory accusation (Special:Diff/1075546791) of "disruptive editing" and state that "The third editor [Toddy] seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit".
• 17:50, 6 March 2022 Apparently I want to introduce something else altogether, according to them on the article's talk page.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 03:25, 18 January 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggested to elaborate a bit more on my report (here) but I'll try to keep it as short as possible since this is starting to get a bit bloated.

I'll point out the primary issue in the above series of edits and conversations. If one goes through it, you'll see CapnJackSp is trying to confuse the material related to the database with those related to automated messages. For instance, they repeatedly remove "a central document of phrases used for the automated messages" which is verifiable from the given citation, replace it by adding "centralised" to the "database of citizens who were targeted" which is unverifiable and then justify the former's removal by pointing at the latter. This is essentially dishonest trolling, or if you want wiki-lingo tendentious editing.

In addition, to give some examples of their conduct beyond this on the page, I'll present a couple diffs. For their behavior on talk pages though, individual diffs aren't going to be very useful and one would have to go through the conversations they have participated in, at length.

• Special:Diff/1066320740 Introduction of expressions of doubt with a edit summary claiming that they had reached a consensus. The talk page at that point only contained a discussion on merging a section.
• Special:Diff/1067628839 More sneaky attempt at the same, no edit summary. It's coupled with re-arranging some sections and wiki-link removals while adding phrases like "claimed" and "said to have", pushing a couple sub-sections further down and removing some in-line citations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1075580590

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.

An apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me.

This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below.

(As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Wikipedia.)

(1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2).

(2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity.

(3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here.

(4-6)

After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Wikipedia article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here.

A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. ^[a] The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping.

As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE [33] by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language.

The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does.

If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to elongate this even further, but the diffs by Tayi need to be clarified here. Diff 1 is my edit after the editor with whom I has an edit conflict told me to "go ahead and edit it", when they had previously not allowed me to edit it. The changes reverted by tayi, were reinstated with minor changes, and extended to the rest of the lead by editors more experienced than me [34]. The edit summary could have been more clear, I accept that much. It was fairly early in my editing, and I have gotten much better since. Diff 2 is not the same as Tayi claims - It was merging an awkward section to another to reach a more readable form. This was done after the discussion on the talk page - See Talk:Tek_Fog#Merging_the_section_"Military_grade_psychological_operations_weapon"_to_Reactions.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Regarding the diffs of supposed closed paraphrasing provided by Venkat TL, which are more than 1 month ago, came after the warning he made to me on 10 February. I am not sure why he is bringing up these old and outdated violations to derail the report which concerns nothing more than content dispute as accurately described by Kautilya3. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally not going to reply to Venkat's allegations as my answer was getting too long, but since he left me a ping on Talk:The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future, I have replied to him there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat has in his edits introduced even more off topic material against admin advice, thus forcing me to respond. I had refrained from responding to his edits due to size constraint and excessive off topic bloating of this report, but I would like to ask admins for a size extension here since it seems he is trying to force as many trivial points in to try and make his statement sound more credible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes)

I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.[35]

I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang action on CapnJackSp did not get enough traction there.

I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but now I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editing of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Wikipedia mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page.

Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown CapnJackSp edits with a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government. (Diff C1 = Diff number 1 of edit by CapnJackSp)

Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research, Source misrepresentation

Diff C1 made up stuff not supported in the article. Please provide quote from source if you disagree.

Diff C2The author does not say anything about the ideology, yet CapnJackSp adds stuff he made up.

Diff C3 misrepresents current decade as "next decade"

WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing

Diff C4

Source Quote=

"Wherever there is a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that."

Line added by Capjackspr (without quote)

Aaditya Thackeray, state minister of Maharashtra, told journalists that if there was a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that,

Diff C5

Source Quote=

Two people have been arrested in Kundapur in Karnataka's Udupi district for allegedly carrying lethal weapons during a protest at a government college over students' right to wear a hijab in classrooms... According to police officers, out of five men carrying weapons, three managed to flee from the spot.

Line added by Capjackspr =

Two men were arrested when they were found carrying lethal weapons during a protest about this issue. Three others managed to flee.

Apart from WP:CLOP, CapnJackSp Inappropriately dropped 'allegedly' to confirm the alleged crime in Wikipedia voice. Attribution was also dropped.

Diff C6

Source Quote=

Ten Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province,

Line added by Capjackspr =

10 Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province.

Source Quote=

" The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India."

Diff C7.1

Line added by Capjackspr =

The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India

Diff C7.2

This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

Diff C7.3

This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

CapnJackSp did not just violate copyright here but also edit warred three times to restore the same copyright violation. It was explained to him at 3 places 1 2 3 Moreover Kautilya3 then used diffs of my reverts of removal of copyright violation ( WP:NOT3RR) to file a false Edit warring case against me for sniping me)

Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.

Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.

Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.

User:Kautilya3 failed to mention below that he is not an uninvolved bystander, he is deeply involved in these disputes. Kautilya3 is acting alongside problematic user CapnJackSp. Kautilya3 has attempted to target and snipe me at Admin board. (false edit warring and false ARE case). So, I am not at all surprised that Kautilya3 is attempting to sweep this case under the carpet. Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I apologize. I stand corrected about the ARE case diff. I have struck it down. I had in mind this ARE case started by Kautilya, which was about Hemantha and not me, yet CapnJackSp had used that ARE case to target me.

I have noted CapnJackSp's bias that I have assessed based on reviewing CapnJackSp's Wikipedia edits, and provided diffs. I believe this is WP:Tendentious editing and the admins should take note of this behavior as it violates neutrality of Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp has answered about Diffs C1-3 on Article talk page due to word limit here. I invite the admins to look at it . His answers will give you a good idea of what we are dealing with here. You have to see it to believe it. Now I believe more strongly that WP:CIR applies.

1. C1 = CapnJackSp did not answer the question and added yet another massive copyright violation Diff C10.
2. C2 = Claims that he is not responsible for the source misrepresentation he had added,
3. C3 = CapnJackSp doubles down and says "This decade = next decade." Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite had said on ANi "Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January." Another editor STSC had suspected this user to be a sock. Though CapnJackSp denied. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.)

Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, "please explain your undue removal of valid sourced content here", (i) "undue" is not something that applies to removals, and (ii) the sourcing of the content was not stated as an issue. (Never mind that that paragraph never cited a source to start with!)

There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely.

I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case. But the main thrust of his argument is the allegation of "a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government". If he start with that kind ideological profiling of editors, what kind of collaboration can we expect from him? And, what if CapnJackSp has pro-BJP leanings? There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says pro-BJP people cannot edit Wikipedia. As far as I can see, CapnJackSp is quite aware of his own biases and is cautious in pushing for them. See this comment for a recent example.

That is more than I can say about Venkat TL. Even though I probably agree with him 90% of the time, he needs to attack me for the remaining 10% disagreement. (By the way, the lead of the Tek Fog article was almost entirely rewritten by me, by bringing in better WP:SECONDARY sources. Is there anything there that Venkat TL found disagreeable?) He claims that I brought "two falses cases" against him. For the first, a straightorward 3RR violation, we have only his own claim that it was "false". And for the second, the so-called "false ARE", I neither brought it here nor participated in it! So, it seems that Venkat TL is imagining enemies everywhere and waging ideological battles with them demanding 100% agreement with his own views. Not a good recipe for being a decent Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looking at one or two comments, I don't see much, but if you put the puzzle together, starting with CapnJackSp being the only person to vote Delete at an AFD that closed as a Snow Keep, then the types of arguments being bandied about on the article talk page, it looks like a death by 1000 paper cuts. Bogging down the discussion. That's the vibe I'm getting anyway. Passive-aggressive obstructionism. One last thing, I noticed in his deleted contribs four AFDs that he started (plus the other he voted in), which isn't related but highly unusual for someone that literally just started a couple of weeks ago. Curious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Venkat TL, you mentioned copyright violations; do you have any diffs or links that could shed some light on this particular issue? It isn't in the initial report, but that is a bigger issue if it is a continuing problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys are meandering here, out of scope, and using way over your limit of words (do not delete, just don't add unless there is a VERY good reason). I'm not sure what to make of all this mess. Yet. Much of this looks like poor editing, not specific to India/Pakistan topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Clean Copy (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

16:50, 6 March 2022 — breach of topic ban, mentioned the S-word

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Dennis Brown: Not only he violated his topic ban once, he violated it twice, as shibbolethink stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[36]

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

Further example of Clean Copy breaching his TBAN: 06:11, 17 February 2022. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Textbook example of violating a topic ban, zero question in my mind. Going to park and let another admin decide on the appropriate sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think 48 hours is very reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like they've come back, but I will let another admin apply the sanction. Don't like to see my name on so many of these.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A 48 hour block seems warranted, this was as obvious as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, textbook. I'm good with 48 hours. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 48 hours is OK, I suppose, but Clean Copy has only edited once in March and may not notice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarshallKe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 16:11, 17 March 2022 last sentence is a direct personal attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:12, 6 March 2022 warned for civility

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:54, 6 March 2022 .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Normally I would let things like this go, but considering that Hob was informally warned about civility on A/R/E mere days ago, I consider it prudent to file this request. Had a discussion with Hob regarding the status of Alexander Gorodnitsky as a climate change denier. I am primarily concerned with the very last sentence in the provided diff, You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. This is a direct attack on me, and a particularly offensive one, as I take WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS very seriously.

If this was not an obvious personal attack, I don't know what is. If I was mistaken in making this report, I ask for some guidance to understand what a personal attack is and is not so I can avoid wasting people's time in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to address the accusations against me from other users commenting here, as the actual diffs they provide to supposedly back up their false interpretations of my editing behavior betray them, and I think that any reasonable admin who reads them in context will understand what is really going on here. I consider my debates on Wikipedia to be solidly grounded in policy and devoid of personal bias, except that I have an interest in editing in certain subjects. With the possible exception of civility and AGF sometimes (everybody messes those up), I consider my debate style to be not just policy-abiding, but exemplary of a Wikipedian. I am unlikely to change my editing philosophy. MarshallKe (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:23, 17 March 2022‎

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.

One moderately testy sentence at the end of a well-founded WP:FRINGEBLP argument seems like a waste of AE time. If the linked edit is a "personal attack", then so are This is just pure POV editing [37] and To remove this claim from the article because it didn't come with criticism is disruptive editing [38]. After all, who wants to be called a disruptive editor, with the connotations of malice and/or incompetence that come with it? XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallKe: Let me get this straight: 1) You said to Hob This is just pure POV editing. You are saying that we should delete a well-sourced, neutrally worded, factual claim in order to further your point of view. 2) Hob then replied You are simply wrong. Can we stop this? You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. 3) And now you're bringing Hob up for sanctions on the basis that the final sentence constitutes a personal attack? Am I missing something here? Are you under the impression that, because you haven't been formally warned, you are free to make the same sort of "attack" for which you hope to get Hob sanctioned? Generalrelative (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll third the above comments. This goes beyond a frivolous report and into a prime example of WP:BOOMERANG when a report ends up highlighting the filers behavior more than anything. The edit was fringe propaganda by any plain meaning of the phrase. Unqualified statements like that never belong in an article and always need some statement of what the science actually says. Denialism is frequently snuck into discourse with terminology like that, which is why we're so careful about adhering to WP:FRINGE. Trying to stir things up in this manner about that is just plain disruptive in fringe articles.

I am concerned that it looks like MarshallKe is staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles though. In the AE case just above we have another fringe article subject, and MarshallKe has jumped in there too[39] accusing those of dealing with basic fringe issues of POV pushing now. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in fringe articles. I'm not familiar enough with their background to check other areas, but this at least looks like a trend. Maybe not pseudoscience topic ban territory yet in my mind (though a bit more than just WP:TROUT territory ), but that could change if others have other examples of similar issues. KoA (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn has some good additional examples of WP:TEND behavior, the hallmark being that in isolation tendentious editing isn't always clear in single edits, but shows when looking at their history. It really does come across now as Marshall marching in with battleground behavior and antagonizing other editors while trying to pick off people getting annoyed with them in administrative boards. That or at the least, stirring up enough dust to make it look like a "both sides" situation. Either way, patent disruption that the DS are supposed to keep out. KoA (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KoA that it seems MarshallKe is "staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles". MarshallKe seems to have become obsessed with a notion about editors in the fringe/medical topic space and it looks to me like this AE is an attempt to take one out. I believe the origin of this was at Shiatsu last July where MarshallKe took exception to Wikipedia saying that qi (a mythical form of vital energy) did not exist.[40] The ensuing edit-war, page protection, and consensus against MarshallKe's position seems to have led to a screed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), "Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down ".[41] In this, MarkshalKe details their concerns about "certain editors" and "articles that have fallen under their purview". The complaint ends with a little note of self-praise, as MarshallKe is surely by their own account is "here to uphold is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV".

Needless to say, the village pump posting went nowhere, although (uninvolved) editor Schazjmd astutely twigged its purpose was "getting back at specific editors that you feel are Doing Wikipedia Wrong".[42]

Within this context, a pattern is apparent, with a particular focus on fringe health:

1. As noted, in the incident here he accused Hob Gadling "just pure POV editing".[43]
2. A few minutes later at Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber) they accuse me of "pure POV pushing"[44] (This is arfter they arrived at the article taking the side of an antivax editor who was beyond 3RR and reverting their bad edits for them[45] to downplay COVID deaths). As a bonus they say removing the bad edit was "disruptive".
3. On 10 March at Talk:Calcium supplement/Archives/ 1#Cardiovascular impact section poor sourcing MarshallKe made a series of posts about content, mixed up with (false) accusations about "editors", what they would and would not do, and how "personal belief on the part of the editor is a corrupting factor".[46]
4. MarshallKe seems to have taken exception to Wikipedia recording any hazards about lavender oil (another substance in the world of altmed). Here they are removing a MEDRS review article (PMID:33109161), falsely saying it is a primary source.[47]
5. At Vitamin C recently (altmed/supplements again) more posting about how "if I were to interpret this study in the way that the anti-fringe zealots want me to."[48]

Overall, it looks like MarshallKe's editing has become an elaborate WP:BATTLE in an attempt to prove some kind of WP:POINT that exists in their head about "certain editors". If there's to be a TBAN I think its scope would need to be pseudoscience and WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PaleoNeonate: Yikes! How could I forget that FT/N post from MarshallKe, which has WP:POINT written all over it. A formal warning is something, but I suspect that this pattern, combined with their blind confidence in their own rectitude will lead to a ban later. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a violation by Hob Gadling. While the statement was terse in a way that was not productive it doesn't cross any lines as it sticks to commentary on the edit/article, not the editor. MarshallKe when trying to decide if this sort of comment is a CIVIL violation consider the following. Does it speak about an editor or the edit/what the edit does to the article? In general if it speaks to the editor or the editor's motives in a negative way then it can be seen as an attack on editor. The quotes in question basically speak to what HG feels your edits will do to the article in question. Consider a hypothetical, you want to add [claim] to an article. I say, "that's a stupid claim and it will make the article a clear POV propaganda page". THe use of "stupid" and "POV propaganda page" aren't value add to the quality of my arguments but they don't attack you as a person nor are they profane or unsafe for work type comments. You would likely feel insulted by such a summary of something you have proposed but it isn't going to cross the CIVIL line. Alternatively consider, "that's a stupid claim and you are trying to make the article a propaganda page." In this case I assigned a negative motive to your intent. I said your intent is to make the article a propaganda page. In short, you intend to do something that is negative. Now that would be an attack on your character and a CIVIL violation. The same would be true if I said "A person would have to be stupid to add that claim." Since now I am making it clear that I think "stupid" applies to you the editor vs the [claim]. Note that none of my example replies would be good. It would be better to say something like, "the problem with that [claim] is [reason]. It will make the article read like propaganda [because]." By avoiding the emotive words in my rejection of your hypothetical edit I hopefully communicate the issue without making it feel personal. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to quote the complainant from above, because I couldn't agree more: I think that any reasonable admin who reads [...] will understand what is really going on here. I ask that an admin please close this reckless, disruptive "case" now, if not sooner. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This made me revisit some old threads I had in my notes and then look at the filer's recent editing. Alexbrn has already provided some relevant links. There was no reply to a previous concern of mine, but this may be further evidence of WP:TE and perhaps even trolling. That specific clueful regular editors appear targetted also suggests harassment. I support a formal warning for MarshallKe. —PaleoNeonate – 06:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nope. Not going to sanction over what seems to be good faith discussion. XOR'easter labels it well above, moderately testy at the end. This is what we call a "frivolous report". Everyone gets one, and you just used yours up, so please don't file again unless it is obviously a personal attack or at least incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Dennis, there's nothing to do here. Hut 8.5 08:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a frivolous report. I'm not sure I agree with Dennis that "everyone gets one"; it depends how it's done, and on the background. I recommend at least a logged warning to the filer, especially considering Alexbrn's interesting diffs. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm ok with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with a warning to the filer, some of Alexbrn's material is concerning. Hut 8.5 11:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tombah (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Revision as of 21:52, 13 March 2022 Added "excluding the United States"

Revision as of 00:07, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Onceinawhile.

Revision as of 08:40, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Revision as of 09:48, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Selfstudier.

Revision as of 10:10, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [49] Indef for not responding on talk page to concerns about copyvio and ARBPIA violations, appeal to blocking editor accepted.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Subsequent to the appeal above, in February 2022, discussed with this editor the need to faithfully represent sources.

Warnedby the previously blocking admin about disruptive editing at Talk:Al-Khader and assuming bad faith in March 2022.

Warned editor about making false statement.

I have asked the editor to self revert several times, which they have refused to do, instead making accusations that I am being abusive and making personal attacks in requesting same.

This could/should have been resolved by way of self reversion at the first opportunity. The response in general seems not to address the issues, which go beyond the relatively straightforward 1R matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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

I have joined Wikipedia a few months ago, aiming to expand and democratize knowledge regarding the history and archeology of Israelite period and Second Temple period. However, since I have joined I am repeatedly exposed to a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic. I try to assume good faith, I really do - but it's getting harder seeing how deep the problem is. In some instances, these edits border re-writing history - with the purpose to erase Israelite/Jewish/Israeli history. Here are few examples:

• In the article Decapolis, a group of Hellenistic cities from the Roman period, it was mentioned that most of Palestine was inhabited by Canaanites, Nabateans and Arameans at that time, while in historical research, the Canaanites have disappeared from history centuries earlier, during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. I later found the original study, which actually lists these nations as Jews, Nabataeans and Arameans. It is pretty clear what happened here.
• According to the Al-Khader article, ancient water systems built by Judean rulers during the Roman period were terminated under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a mosque which was built only hundreds of years later. According to the same article, they were named for Suleiman the Magnificent, where in fact they are traditionally named after King Solomon. When I corrected this to reference the correct site which occupied the Temple Mount during that period - the Second Temple - my edit was quickly reverted, with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial.
• In the article for Sebastia, a West Bank town which was originally founded as the capital of the Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC, editors repeatedly remove the ancient Israelite connection providing no explanation, sometimes preferring to base the lead on places such as ‘Lonely Planet’ instead of proper academic sources.
• Seeing that bias is so rooted, the fact that Israeli settlements are described in the article’s lead with "colonies" as a synonym, a term used almost exclusively by Palestinians (as explicitly mentioned in one of the sources) - comes as no surprise. There surely no problem in showing various point of views, but referring to "Israeli colonies" as a mainstream title is of course POV. In the article's talk page, @Nableezy claimed that "the term 'Israeli colonies' is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory," an explanation that seems like Wikipedia:No original research; Later, @Selfstudier, the issuer of this arbitration request, based his opinion on the French language: "Colony is a synonym and they have no official name so not ridiculous, the French even use colonie for settlement."

The same article, Israeli Settlements, also stated that "the international community has rejected any change of status in both territories and continues to consider each occupied territory." While in fact, the US has recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. I edited the article to point that out. This was quickly reverted by Selfstudier, who deemed it as a "false statement", removing the US reference along other material I added to the article. Some hours later, I re-added the US reference, and provided more citations for that reference. My previous edit incorrectly mentioned Jerusalem along the Golan Heights as one of the territories the US recognized as part of Israel, so I left that out, and kept only the Golan Heights reference, which is indeed correct. Upon learning this was a violation of the 1R rule, I manually reverted my edit.

Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm still gradually learning the rules. I don't claim for expertise, but as someone with experience in UX design, I can confirm Wikipedia is a platform with a very steep learning curve. Honestly, up until today, I didn't fully realize how the revert rule works, especially regarding edits (as distinct from re-reverts). Unfortunately, it seems that tolerance for mistakes made by new editors who try to challenge the biases is non-existent, even for someone who asks for mentorship. I'm afraid there is a small group of editors here who are systematically trying to discredit other editors whose editing might oppose their point of view. I believe that a quick visit to my talk page showcases that quite vividly. Even if the final decision is indeed to block this account, I hope from the bottom of my heart that Wikipedia will investigate this matter in greater detail and create more sophisticated solutions mechanisms to protect its neutrality and reliability from editors trying to game the system, especially in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

@Nableezy, this is not an issue of ethnicity. When speaking on the Arab-Israeli conflict, a term which is used predominantly by one of the sides - in this case, the Palestinians - should be seen as it is - one-sided. I haven't seen a single document written by the United Nations, for example, calling the settlements "colonies". Drawing inspiration from pre-1948 namings, the French language, or historical comparisons is irrelevant for that case. I have no problem with mentioning "Israeli colonies" as part of the Palestinian POV that can be surely described in the article and even have its own section. You are welcome to create an article and call it "Israel and the Colonialism analogy". But using the term "colonies" as a synonym in the article's lead not only confuses users, but turns this whole platform into a propaganda site. In any case, this is far from being a precedent. The article "Tel Rumeida" mentions that one of the synonyms, "Tel Hebron", is used by Israeli settlers exclusively (while many academic studies use this title). In addition, the same article previously mentioned that "Some Jewish scholars believe it was the location of biblical Hebron".

Now that I have fully read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I understand my mistake. My comment here was indeed improper, and I apologize for it; I have now struck that out. Commenting on the ethnicity of the writers was wrong. I truly believe that I could be a valuable editor for Wikipedia, and in many topics, including the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. As I'm still new here, I know I still have lots to learn about how to deal with content disputes; I was looking for some guidance before but couldn't get it anywhere. For example, I think that if I was familiar with WP:UNDUE, things would have looked differently. I learnt about WP:UNDUE only after I had written the comment mentioned above, as it was mentioned by Shrike here. And today was in fact the first time I ever stumbled upon the teahouse. I think this is not a question of time passed, but of guidance; a mentor, who has a deep knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, would be really helpful in showing me the right way to handle content disputes. Tombah (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, Yes. I think that there is much to improve in our articles in terms of neutrality, but it's more important to be respectful to other editors and assume good faith. My past comments shouldn't be directed at anyone (as stated in "avoid you"), but at the substance. I believe that disputes should be solved in a more cooperative, respectful and constructive way. Tombah (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was a request to self revert was made? --Shrike (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user have self-rv Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, There is nothing outrageous here I was told numerous times that there is a heated enjoinment and users that have made far more serious accusation were not sanctioned. Shrike (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased, that's are usual practice Shrike (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93@Dougweller I agree that his comment was unacceptable but he seems stricken it so I think he understand that it was wrong [50] and unacceptable Shrike (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy I didn't noticed this diff Now that I did I see it problematic nature and yes some of our articles are biased Shrike (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a self-revert request was made (here), and ignored in favor of claiming phantom personal attacks when being told they are in violation of the 1RR. Been consistent edit-warring and accusations of bad faith against others (see for example edit summary here, and this outrageous accusation.) nableezy - 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, saying "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" is in fact outrageous. nableezy - 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that sources call the settlements colonies so we should include it as an alternate name is the very opposite of original research. Whereas dismissing sources because of the ethnicity of the authors, well that seems like something more serious. Imagine somebody saying we cannot include some material because the authors that support it are Jewish. Somebody saying something like should be booted out faster than they can press save page. But saying the sources are all written by Arabs, well nobody bats an eyelash at that display of, ummm well what would you call it if somebody dismissed sources because they were written by Jews? nableezy - 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source says Tel Hebron is used by Israeli settlers exclusively, and you removed that, presenting a fringe sized group within an involved party as an anodyne alternative name. Here you have no such sourcing saying anything about a term being used by a minority group, but you excise it entirely. There the sourcing says explicitly it is used by a fringe sized group and you promote it without qualification. And have the gall to imply others are racist with your "what do you have against ancient Jewish history" quip. nableezy - 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Tombah could be a valuable editor, and personally think this can be closed with a warning to be mindful of ones own biases and rein in the bad faith accusations. I think Shrike's going from "Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased" to "I agree that his comment was unacceptable" to be just the latest in the list of deflections and diversions abandoned once penitence seems to be more likely to achieve the desired effect. But I dont really think a topic ban is all that necessary, I actually think Tombah could be a fantastic editor if he abandons the Im right and thats that style of editing that has at times characterized his efforts. nableezy - 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah is also WP:AWARE due to a December 2021] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this editor should be sanctioned for making verifiably false claims right here in this very discussion. They say, first, that the category "Palestinians" should only ever be treated as "one of the sides in a conflict", and dismissing positions because "Palestinians" are the source is not the same as dismissing an "Arab" source, and therefore is not racist. Yet they seem to say that "Israeli" is a synonym for "Jewish", and therefore disclaiming a position as being held by "Israelis" is the same as disclaiming a position as being held "by Jews". They claimed here that an article made a reference to some town only being called by some alternative name by "Jewish scholars", with the implication that this was antisemitic (which it would be if it were actually true). Yet as shown by Nableezy's diff, the article didn't say "Jewish", it said "Israeli". And this editor is implicitly claiming that as racist, anti-Jewish bias, yet in the very same post is arguing it would be perfectly fine to write articles that treat Palestinians in the exact same fashion. That is to say, "it's racist if the statement is about Israelis, but not if it's about Palestinians." Aside from this being a blatant double standard on its face, they also tried to mislead this discussion by claiming the article said "Jewish" when in fact it actually said "Israeli". This is, at best, an editor incapable of editing neutrally due to inability to recognise the fact that they are applying an obvious double standard, and at worst an attempt to deliberately mislead this discussion. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah is one of those many editors who come to the I/P part of Wikipedia with a strong POV and then get upset that they meet resistance from editors who don't have that POV. So far Tombah has not learned how to navigate this situation in a collegial fashion, instead accusing other editors of bias while not judging himself by the same standard. Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor. I often agree with him on content issues. But statements like the last part of "a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic" (see above) are utterly unacceptable and should bring a sanction. So should the assertion that a common name should be omitted because it is only used by Arabs. As Nableezy pointed out, someone who wrote that about Jews would be out the door quick smart. Zero^talk 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom is being targeted here by users who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Tom is being targetted due to his perceived ideology and possible ethnicity. This kind of targetting reflects poorly on those who comment above me in support of their cause.

About the Al-Khader article; Tombah states above that "with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial."

My 2 cents: no-one has ever said that Solomon's Pools should not be linked from Al-Khader; indeed, they have AFAIK been linked for as long as I have edited the article. What I object to, is repeating stuff from the Solomon's Pools in the Al-Khader-article (especially controversial stuff). Firstly; Doing so is a recipe for endless edit-wars, in my experience. Secondly: I usually remove any superflous/duplitate info, iff there is an article about the subject/issue. Eg., I have changed countless "French explorer Victor Guérin" to just "Victor Guérin". That does not mean I have anything against "French explorers".

I therefor really do not appriciate (when I remove duplicate info) questions like "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" Huldra (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The original complaint does not concern me terribly; yes, it was a 1RR violation, but the user did ultimately self-revert, and recognizes they were in error. I'm more concerned by their general approach to contentious material, though. This diff is unacceptable, and their explanation here is a textbook case of false balance. Coupled with the lengthy string of warnings on their talk page, I feel Tombah may need a break from this topic. I would apply a six-month TBAN, appealable in three; and I would expect to see evidence that they have grasped the fundamentals of NPOV better than they do at present. I'd like to hear from other admins, including Doug Weller, who applied the first block. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shrike:, if Tombah has thought the better of that comment, I would like to see them explain that, not you. I see no elaboration anywhere of his decision to strike that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tombah: aside from mentioning the writers' ethnicities, do you see nothing wrong with your struck comment or its defense here? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been open too long, and has unfortunately not attracted much admin attention. I remain unconvinced that Tombah is able to edit the ARBPIA area in a neutral manner, but absent stronger consensus, I will not levy a sanction, and am instead closing this with a warning. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I definitely see the need for a topic ban. I'm not convinced that it will make much difference in the long run and would probably apply a longer tb, but I guess we can try 6 months appealable in three, but if he breaks it or after it expires/he succeeds in an appeal he carries out the way he has, I'd probably go for an indef block. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 17 March 2022 Way outside reasonable bounds of discourse in a controversial topic.
2. 18 March 2022 Aspersions without diffs.
3. 16 March 2022 Rank NPOV addition in lead.
4. 17 March 2022 More cluelessness about how NPOV works - a film producer claim's about the film's accuracy cannot be regurgitated in wiki-voice esp. when dozens of critics have taken issue with the historical accuracy.

1. Another example from the same day.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 09 Aug 2021 Threatened to be indeffed; responds two days later by deleting the t/p post.
2. 26 January 2021 AE-block for violating TBan.
3. 27 January 2020 TBan from Assamese languages under ARBIPA.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• BB's first comment borrows from the rhetoric of Narendra Modi—as our article notes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attacked critics in response to negative reviews, claiming that there is a conspiracy to discredit the film, which according to him "reveals the truth"—to imply that Wikipedia editors are in a concerted campaign to discredit the film. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis, I am not bothered about convincing you and my above "explanation" (or any "expertise in Hindi cinema") was not needed either. Not the first time that you admit to unfamiliarity with Indian sociopolity yet proceed to comment at relevant AEs.

  As any of the usual admins in ARBIPA (Vanamonde93 or RegentsPark or Bishonen or Abecedare or Newslinger or ...) can attest to, my diffs (for example, the one about NPOV violation) are not edge-cases covered under the purview of editorial discretion. And whether BB has unpopular views is irrelevant because I am proposing sanctions not for his views but for his edits and proposed edits.

  The previous problems, over a year ago, are indeed interesting because after being issued a warning by EdJohnston's about the imminent risk of an indefinite block, BB promised to reply (11 August 2021) but stopped all editing and returned this month (16 March 2022) to edit the article of The Kashmir Files. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20 March 2022

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 must admit, when I saw the posts TrangaBellam links to above, I was expecting them to be from a newbie, not from an editor with 5000 edits and 14 years tenure. The aggressive response to DS notifications [51] is concerning; the use of "genocide" in Wikipedia's voice [52] is likewise concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page (Talk:The Kashmir Files) is seeing upwards of 100 posts a day, and the regular editors who are trying to write content as well as field questions (most of which are repetitive, partisan, and peddle the establishment POV in clever ways, like "why is X review ignored", "why is BJP mentioned", "not allowed by MOS:FILM" etc.), are fatigued. It shows here as TrangaBellam describes Diff 3 as "rank NPOV addition" whereas he meant "rank POV addition".

The editor concerned is an experienced user with a first-hand experience of ARBIPA regimen. It is inexplicable how they could do the mainspace edit in Diff 3, that too in the lead, without any source or any explanation of what they are doing. Their talk page comments are mundane and WP:BATTLEGROUND. They are a net negative here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged by User:Abecedare, whom I sort of thank for mentioning some unpleasant episodes. My first and main encounter with this editor was, as noted below, in one of the most difficult DRN disputes that I have mediated, in which more than once I had to warn the subject editor that I would fail the mediation if they persisted in being uncooperative. It was this editor whose behavior made it necessary to me to write the rule Be Specific at DRN, because they would repeatedly say, "All viewpoints must be presented", rather than saying what viewpoint needed to be included in the article, and this was one of the reasons why the DRN took two months.

In 2019, I said that a topic-ban might be necessary, and in 2020, I said that I thought that a topic-ban was necessary. In 2022, the question should not be whether to impose a topic-ban, but a choice between a topic-ban and a site ban. A site-ban would be too harsh for an editor who has apparently managed to avoid a topic-ban until now. I haven't read the recent report, but this editor has been a repeat offender. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark, User:Abecedare - Thank you for letting me know that the editor is already under a topic-ban from languages. Then the question is whether to expand the topic-ban to India and Pakistan, or to expand the topic-ban to a site-ban (or indefinite block). Since the editor edits primarily in the area of South Asia, there isn't much difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm feeling a bit lost. For starters, the report isn't clear. For example, your first (and I would assume strongest) claim against Bhaskarbhagawati is Way outside reasonable bounds of discourse in a controversial topic.[53] In the diff, I see one sentence and links to WP:RS. Is he misrepresenting sources? False sources? You have to remember, the vast majority of admin aren't experts in Hindi cinema. Actually, the vast majority have never seen any Hindi cinema. Because of this, the "problem" is not self-evident, you have to spell it out a bit and steer us in the right direction. I did look around and read all his contributions on the talk page. I saw his get voted down once (he didn't argue back), and he was otherwise just discussing in a matter, to me, that looked somewhat normal. So I checked the article history, looking for warring, etc. I did see that everything he's added seems to get reverted out, but I can't draw a conclusion based solely on that, and there didn't seem to be warring. The previous problems over a year ago aren't that interesting. I will ping EdJohnston since Ed did warn him well under a year ago, and Ed may have some light to shine on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, that's a good start, but having unpopular views, or even being a little rude once isn't enough to sanction someone, so I need further explanation, like you just did. ie: I shouldn't have to read all the article, or any, to understand the problem. You filed the report, the burden is on you to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis, not sure if it necessary but in case you or other admins are curious, this BBC article provides a quick overview of the underlying topic. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great source, great article. Thank you. I feel a bit more up to speed. And no, I wouldn't think you are involved just because of prior experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I had noticed at least some of Bhaskarbhagawati 's edits as I kept an eye on the (very active) The Kashmir Files talkpage over the past few days. While finding them sometimes oddly phrased and POV-y (notice the substitution of the word 'genocide' in wikipedia voice), I hadn't thought they had risen to level of being sanction-able yet. But I'll await Bhaskar's/other's input and take a more comprehensive look, (perhaps tomorrow) before saying anything definitive. PS: I have previously interacted with, in an admin-capacity, with Bhaskarbhagawati (see here or here) over the issues that later led Ed to topic-ban them. Just as an FYI; I don't regard myself as WP:INVOLVED wrt to the user or the article. Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I went and reviewed Bhaskarbhagawati's contributions since they restarted editing on March 16, all of which are related to The Kashmir Files. At best I would characterize the edits as hard to decipher, unhelpful and wasting the time of fellow-editors (see for example [54], [55], or this bizarre exchange). While several of their posts cite sources, actually looking through them one finds that they are often only tangentially connected to the claim being made, as in this edit where none of the three cited sources shed light on the 'Kashmiri Hindus' vs 'Kashmiri Pandits' issue that was being discussed. Based on this, I would have supported a page + takpage block.

But going back further I see a similar 'exhaust the interlocutors' approach by the editor over the years. As a sampling, see this DRN which was a culmination of a 7+ year long dispute, this 2019 ANI report, this 3RR report that led to Bhaskarbhawati, the filer, being topic-banned (related discussion at talkpage of Robert McClenon who had mediated the DRN), this 2021 ANI report, this 2020 topic-ban review request at AN (read, in particular, Ed Johnston's comment), and this discussion at Ed's talkpage, in which Bhaskarbhagawati left a "Replying soon, thanks." message before disappearing for ~7 months only to make a problematic return at the Kashmir Files page. Given this long history I think we need to bite the bullet and impost a topic-ban from all India-related topics. Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of editors who have either just registered or come out of the woodwork just to comment on the film is definitely concerning. Bhaskarbhagawati falls into the latter (emerged from the woodwork) category. In isolation, each of Bhaskarbhagwati's edits doesn't look too bad but, collectively, their contribution appears to be nothing more than a set of pointy remarks. At a minimum, I'd suggest a block from both the article as well as the talk page. An indefinite ipa topic ban is also on the cards but I'm RL busy and don't have the time to research the earlier topic ban and exchanges with Ed. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. After reading Abecedare and Robert McClenon's comments, I'm leaning toward an indef block of this user. The DRN is a giant time waste, as are their comments on the film and I don't see anything useful emerging from this editor. (@Robert McClenon:, the user is already under a topic ban re the subject matter of the DRN you point to. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support that as long as DS rules allow us to do so (haven't kept up with all the fine print and customs). Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support an indef block, being somewhat familiar with this user's previous record. His behavior tended to exhaust other editors and admins. An indef block is legal but would be recorded as being under normal admin authority not WP:AC/DS authority. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the input and clarification, Ed. Barring any objections or alternate suggestion I'll implement the indef in a few hours. As Robert points out, practically there is not much difference between an indef and an IPA topic-ban, and IMO we should not leave the door open for another set of editors to have to face such tendentious editing. Thoughts, Dennis Brown? Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I backed out of the discussion as that seemed the obvious choice of the filing party, so I can't say I have an opinion either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]