Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive277

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :

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

1. 18 September 2020 Replaced Kiev by Kyiv in an article which is not about the city and mentions it in the context of the 17th century.
2. 18 September 2020 After I reverted, starting the talk page discussion claiming the usage is not historical.
3. 30 September 2020 Introduced the name of the city to the article in an unnecessary context.
4. 30 November 2020 After the RfC at this very page was closed as no consensus claimed that the "no consensus" means Kyiv for all usage.
5. 1 December 2020 Repeated the argument; said that my argument that the usage is historical "failed to achieve consensus".
6. 1 December 2020 Replaced both instances of Kiev with Kyiv though this is the 17th century usage.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none yet

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

[1]

Recently, a RM at Talk:Kyiv was closed as move to Kyiv. Mzajac is a strong proponent of the name Kyiv. He immediately started indiscriminate move all instances of Kiev in all articles to Kyiv. Many users objected (an example ) but he would not stop claiming that the real name of the city is Kyiv and this is how it should be referred to in every context. Finally, users who objected the replacements opened a number of RfCs/RMs, for example, here, here, or here. In all of them Mzajac actively participating pushing his arguments and ignoring the arguments of the opponents. In the diffs above, he added an unneeded usage of Kyiv in the article and then argued that consistence requires that other spellings were changed to Kyiv. He perceived attempts to discuss his behavior as personal attacks (e.g. this ANI thread where he posted in a topic which had no relation to Ukraine). The main RfC (at Talk:Kiev) was closed as no consensus to use Kyiv in historical context, as a guideline everything before 1991 should use Kiev, and BRD must be observed in all cases. Subsequently, the RfC at Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia was closed as no consensus. The first thing Mzajac did (see diffs above) was to open a new topic at the same page stating that there is a clear consensus that this is not a historical article, and therefore the usage must be Kyiv. When I removed the unneeded use of 2014 Kyiv, he said that I "failed to convince the editors that the RfC applies to this article" and restored Kyiv for the two instances of the 18th-century usage. The RfC was opened specifically about historical usage, and now Mzajac claims that this RfC was only about articles which are fully about historical period, and does not apply to Territorial evolution of Russia. This is clear wikilawyering. Note that Mzajac's understanding of which historical sources are reliable and which are not is substandard (this is a good example). The cycle I describe by the diffs above (A makes an edit, B reverts, A opens an RfC, D closed RfC as no consensus, A interprets "no consensus" as "I revert back") is not a valid dispute resolution avenue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

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.

[Waiting for admin action on the request, which exceeds the 500-word limit. —Michael Z. 15:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)][reply]

• Thanks, [El_C]. I see it’s been edited down since I posted that note. Will respond as soon as I am able, hopefully tomorrow. Is there a time limit? —Michael Z. 00:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay. I will respond today. —Michael Z. 15:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing my response now.

User:El_C, as the result seems to be a moving target and I’m not sure everyone is on the same page, would you please explain with precision what the proposed “Kyiv Kiev ban” constitutes? And as a long conversation at user talk:El_C#Some thoughts about the recent AE case appears to be vital to your decision, can we have it moved here, for other admins to read and for me to respond to? (I have not read through it yet.) Thanks. —Michael Z. 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incident 1. I made this edit. Without introducing any new source, I replaced an existing inaccurate descriptive statement with more correct one. We had the following exchange. Mzajac's edit summary says blatant OR (accusation that lack evidences are personal attack). I explained my search procedure and proposed Mzajac to do the same search by himself. In a case if his search results would be different I was ready to apologize for source misinterpretation, otherwise I expected him to apologize for wrong accusations of doing OR. IMO, that was fair. No apology followed. Mzajac's aggressive tone was, most likely, the reason why a very good user:TaivoLinguist decided to abandon this topic. (If Taivo does not want his name to be mentioned here, I will withdraw the last statement and ask admins to disregard it). I concede Mzajac's contributions are sometimes very good, but Taivo seems to be even more valuable asset for Wikipedia.

Incident 2. To the references that directly support a totally neutral and descriptive statement that Kiev is an English name for the city, Mzajac added numerous commentaries that imply that the sources demonstrate growing usage of the word "Kyiv". That may be correct of wrong, but the sources cited do not say that, so that is a pure OR. That is especially noteworthy keeping in mind the accusation Mzajac himself is throwing (see #1).

Incident 3. Per our policy, the change of the name of one article does not automatically affect the names of related articles. That is a policy, and, being an experienced user, Mzajac is supposed to know that. However, he used the Kiev->Kyiv renaming as a pretext for renaming a large number of articles and even categories.

Incident 4. This recent incident affected my decision to comment here. This is a good summary of Mzajac's editorial behaviour. He charctersises me "genuinely naïve or intentionally demeaning" and provides the evidences of ostensibly wide usage of "Kyivan": google scholar, google books and Wikipedia. However, Mzajac totally fails to understand the following:

• He provides gscholar results for "Kyivan", but he forgot to check how frequently "Kievan" appears in sources (a hint: 22,100 times, 10 times more frequently than "Kyivan").

• He provides google.book search, but forgets to do a simple check: Ngram (English 2019) says "Kievan" appears 5 times more frequently, and that ratio is stable for last 10 years;

• He refers to Wikipedia, but he forgets that Wikipedia is not a source for itself per our policy.

That means Mzajac either cannot properly use search tools and doesn't know our policy, or he is deliberately ignoring our policy and misusing search tools to advocate some specific POV. That means he, probably, does not fully meet the expectations listed in guide.expect.

Fresh evidences. this edit introduced a totally ahistorical and very infrequently used spelling into English Wikipedia. I am a little bit puzzled why Mzajac has time for editing Wikipedia, but has no time to respond on this page.

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

• As the principal admin involved in making the move request from Kiev to Kyiv orderly (see also my notes in the log), I can personally attest that Mzajac often skirted the line throughout that process. Coupled with the evidence provided in this report, my sense is that a Kiev-to-Kyiv restriction is probably due — although at the time of writing this, Mzajac has yet to provide a response to this report, so this constitutes a preliminary assessment only. El_C 20:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mzajac, while the OP's portion of this report does, indeed, exceed the 500-word limit, it does not do so by a lot — it being below 600-words. Exceeding the limit by less than 100-words is not something we ordinarily enforce here at AE. So, as far as your response goes, there's no need to wait. El_C 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mzajac, no rush. If you need to take a week, that also works for me. P.S. I moved your response onto to your own section, because we don't do threaded discussions at AE. El_C 02:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mzajac, as a fellow admin, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but reports on AE are not usually expected to remain open for entire weeks. That is a bit extraordinary. But this entire report is somewhat extraordinary. Here we have one admin asking for Arbitration enforcement sanctions to be placed on another admin, while a third admin (yours truly), who just happens to be familiar with the issues raised, is set to evaluate the request. While I usually prefer to refer any actions that would involve another admin to the Committee, in this case, there's has been no use of the tools nor an invocation of administrative authority by Mzajac (none whatsoever). He has been acting purely in an editorial capacity. So, Mzajac, how about we do this: another week, starting now. I don't really see the harm in doing that, as I doubt that in the meantime, you'd engage the topic area with the type of edits identified by this report. But, if 7 days from now you still haven't submitted your statement, I am leaning toward deciding this in your absentia by imposing a narrow Kiev-to-Kyiv restriction of a duration that has yet to be determined. And I am prepared to do so even if no other admin opines here. I feel qualified to do so (again, due to my knowledge of and prior administrative intervention in the dispute) without quorum. Note that you would be able to appeal my decision in three different ways: either to a quorum of uninvolved admins (here at AE); directly to the Committee (at ARCA); or to the community (at AN). Anyway, sorry for going on about this at such length and thanks for having made it this far! I hope it all makes sense to you. Please do not hesitate to query me about anything (whatsoever). El_C 06:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As Paul Siebert has just brought to my attention on my talk page (didn't help that I was a bit slow on the uptake there), I overlooked that Mzajac has been making the same disputed edits even as we were waiting for him to respond here (see strikethroughs above). Unbelievable. Look, Michael, I don't know what you were thinking, but that is not a respectful manner for one to conduct themselves. So, this is what's going to happen: I intend to close this report sometime tomorrow. You are welcome to respond before then, but I'll be honest with you: I doubt there's much you can say to avoid sanctions at this point. I would like to, once again, thank Paul for setting me straight. I appreciate it, truly. El_C 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep49, argh. You're right. At my defense, indeed, usually there are other uninvolved admins who make an appearance (and who help keep my absentmindedness in check). Too bad today's appearances came too late for that! As for your suggestion that we widen the topic ban, I'm not opposed to doing that in principle. I'm just unaware of there being EE issues other than the Kiev-Kyiv naming convention disruption. Mzajac, I feel it's probably best that I spell this out: if you make even one more Kiev-Kyiv edit, I am going to block you. And I will do so without hesitation. While it has been years since I blocked an admin, I am undaunted. El_C 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep49, ah, I see what you mean now. Sorry, I'm not sure why I'm being so dim today. Eep. You are now the second person struggling to explain the obvious to me. Yes, please extend heartfelt sympathies for lapses in cognitive functions! Anyway, needless to say, I agree with your reasoning. In light of everything, I think it would be best to err on the side of severity with a broadly construed ban from Kyiv (rather than just a narrow naming convention ban). So, unless there are objections, that is now the sanction I intend on imposing when I close this complaint tomorrow. Thanks again for, well, holding my hand here... El_C 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mzajac, really? That is all you have to say? After everything? Wow. No, nothing needs to be moved here. Read it or don't. Linking is good enough. And the Kiev-Kyiv ban is pretty much no longer on the table. Had you bothered reading my comment directly above, you would know that, in light of your recent misconduct, you now face a full Kyiv topic ban, broadly construed. Anyway, unless another admin objects, I intend on closing this report by imposing this more severe topic ban later today. In any case, your avenues of appeal have been outlined above, so you will be free to pursue that at any time. Finally, I'm sorry to say, but your latest reply (such as it is) exhibits virtually zero introspection and reflection about any of what has transpired thus far. Which is disappointing, still. El_C 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In actu, Barkeep49, with regards to the school of thought which views adminship to be incompatible with facing restrictions, myself, that is not something to which I am inherently opposed. And, hey, maybe that's a viewpoint you can both bring to the incoming Committee when you join it soon. Which I'm sure is gonna happen. After all, I voted for the two of you, so I'm ready to call voter fraud if either one of you do not make it! </kiss ass> El_C 18:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• RegentsPark, to me, a naming convention ban was a likely outcome from the beginning, because I was already personally aware of Michael's disruption in the topic area from before this report (back when I applied Arbitration enforcement to the Kiev-to-Kyiv RM). Now, the reason I (and others) think a wider ban is now due, is because Kiev-to-Kyiv disruption by Michael continued while we were waiting (and waiting) for him to reply here. If this is to be brought before the Committee, as has been suggested here, I would not be surprised if Michael were to face additional censure, up to and including a desysop. But anyway, no, the softly-softly approach is done, as far as I'm concerned. It's just not an effective way to deal with stonewalling. El_C 18:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• As an admin who has monitored the Kiev/Kyiv issue (but not been as frontlines as El C), I endorse a Kyiv to Kiev ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Mzajac got, if not quite the embodiment of WP:SUPERMARIO at the minimum, he did get special treatment here because he is an admin. I am not blaming El C - when only one admin comments it puts that admin in a tough spot and I think he was trying to navigate a fraught situation carefully and without support. However, to abuse the special treatment creating time to do further disruption but not to respond here is not in-line with our policies, guidelines, or practices. I am now skeptical that a narrow Kiev-to-Kyiv ban is the appropriate measure to ensure that there is not further disruption by this user in this topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  El C I am indeed sympathetic, as my comments hopefully made clear, to the position you found yourself in. It's why I jumped in when I happened to wonder this way for the first time in a while. Kyiv is clearly the source of disruption for this editor. On first glance saying "don't change Kiev to Kyiv anymore" felt like it would be sufficient to stop disruption. I worry that he will test the limits of that bespoke sanction and so we should instead issue a more typical topic ban from Kyiv, broadly construed. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @In actu:, I am, as my second message in this thread hopefully makes clear, also troubled by the actions here including the lack of communication. I certainly respect the idea that having created enough disruption to merit a topic ban is incompatible with being an administrator. I go back and forth as to whether or not I agree. Obviously imposing the topic ban, which I still support, is not incompatible with someone opening a case request about the topic. So I still support imposing the topic ban here, as it is within our remit, and leave it to you, or others, as to whether it's appropriate to make a formal case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would endorse a Kyiv to Kiev ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: The lack of any real communication here while engaging in these disputes elsewhere makes me think a wider topic ban should be imposed. Honestly, we should go off to arbcom, because my long-term position that admins shouldn't be allowed to keep their tools if they created enough disruption to lead to a topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a Kiev to Kyiv ban but I don't really see evidence of large scale disruption here. Three of the six diffs provided by ymblanter are talk page posts explaining Mzajac's position. I looked at Mzajac's contributions and while there are many instances of Kiev --> Kyiv, they seem to be in response to the recent page move from Kiev to Kyiv. My inclination would be to leave well alone, perhaps with an admonishment to be careful in dealing with historical references to the city. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: I don't know the longer history of this (which is, unfortunately, not clear from this report) so, of course, you should go with what you think is best. No worries. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually have been on the edges of some of this editing..seeing it pop up on some historical articles I watch for vandalism. I think a wider topic ban from everything Kiev related is warranted. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, so a removal of sanctions (even if temporary) would be kind to the Copy Editors.

Also, the article was extremely edited in November, hence the sanctions, but has a single edit (Done by me in preparation for the copy editors) in December. Thinking the sanctions are unnecessary at this point. Thanks, Elijahandskip (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would the current page restrictions hamper straightforward copyediting? SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BMK, most copyedits would not be considered reverts unless the text was quite recent. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it the case that a series of reverts with no intervening edits by other users between them are considered to be a single revert for purposes of 3RR or 1RR? If I'm correct about that, then copyediting shouldn't be much affected by the 1RR sanction. An "INUSE" notice might also be helpful while copyediting is underway, or do the editing in a sandbox with a copy of the article and then copy-paste it over if no other changes were made in the interim. The requirement for "consensus required" might be a bit sticky if someone objects to the changes made, but then GCE edits are presumably well-considered and not controversial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What sanctions are on the article --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the editor is referring to the AP2 sanctions notification when the page is edited (1RR, consensus required). I don't think that should affect copy editing so perhaps the OP can explain? --RegentsPark (comment) 02:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark: I agree --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Elijahandskip: The easiest and cleanest way to get the sanctions temporarily removed is to contact User:ST47, the administrator who originally placed the sanction in October. If that fails then a consensus of administrators here could also do it, but that requires several of us to go review the article's history to see if there's a good reason to override the judgement of one of our colleagues. ~Awilley (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this would be a good idea or that it's necessary. From what I've read, Trump isn't going to let this go away and may even use his new acting Attorney General to push this. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This remains a hot-button topic, so I don't think it would be wise to remove the extra restrictions authorized under ARBAP2. The restrictions are only intended to prevent edit warring (one revert per user per day, and any edit that has been reverted must be taken to the talk page), and are unlikely to apply to any copy editing types of activity. ST47 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Topic ban on Bates method related articles which has been supported elsewhere by different users[3]

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

1. March 2020 Discussion at the Fringe theories Noticeboard regarding Belteshazzar's POV edits in trying to remove the term "ineffective"
2. June 6 2020 Discussion at the Fringe theories Noticeboard showing Belteshazzar's disruptive edits on seven articles that mention the Bates method. The outcome was a block for 2 weeks.
3. "ineffective" 16 October 2020 Belteshazzar continuing to argue the Bates method is not ineffective

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 May 2020 blocked by JzG for 31 hours for disruptive edits on Bates method
2. 6 June 2020 blocked for 2 weeks for disruptive edits on Bates method. El C's block log comment is Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour.

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

1. 20 March 2020 notified about discretionary sanctions in relation to pseudoscience] by user Tgeorgescu.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Belteshazzar has been disrupting the Bates method article and talk-page since 11 March 2020 and related articles that mention anything to do with the Bates method. His agenda has been to get the term "ineffective" removed from the lead of the article or other skeptical references about the Bates method removed. This user argues against scientific consensus, disagrees with Wikipedia policies regarding fringe (WP:FRINGE) and pseudoscience.

There have been two discussions about Belteshazzar disruptive edits on the Admin Noticeboard Incidents (WP:ANI). JzG reported Belteshazzar on 8 July and I reported Belteshazzar on 8 November where I explained in detail how problematic his edits have been. I previously had reported his vandalism (on the Aldous Huxley and other article) on the Fringe theories noticeboard in June 2020 [4].

If you look at the history of the talk-page for Bates method, we can see hundreds of edits from Belteshazzar going back months. It's basically the same thing every time. He claims there is some legitimate mechanism to how the Bates method works, he wants the term ineffective removed from the lead or he criticises the Quackwatch reference as using old sources. He has created many discussions on this "ineffective". This obsession of his runs back months and months [5] yet he continues to create new sections on the talk-page making the same pro-Bates arguments or on other users talk-pages. If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [6] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked

If you check this user's talk-page I have not seen anything else quite like it when it comes to repeated chances. There seems to be endless attempts of many users trying to give him advice about how Wikipedia works going back to May 2020 but he ignores it all [7]. I believe Belteshazzar's obsession with the Bates method whilst ignoring scientific consensus on the subject and advice from administrators and other users is a case of WP:NOTHERE. I believe a topic ban on anything related to eyesight would be justified because this user has caused too much disruption on the talk-page it is wasting other users efforts and editing time. In the block log in June 2020 an admin said it was the last chance for WP:POINTy behaviour but it is clear Belteshazzar is still up to their old tricks and pointy behavior because they are making the same arguments for the Bates method in their recent edits this week. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [8]

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.

From June 2019 to February 2020, four established users removed "ineffective": [9] [10] [11] [12] Had perceptual learning been brought up during that time, this removal might well have stuck. I wasn't quite aware of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until August or September. After bringing it up and getting nowhere, I was going to let this go, but then put together the aforementioned diffs and concluded that "ineffective" did not have nearly as strong a consensus as it appeared; people had simply given up. Thus I doubled down and pointed out how controlled studies might have gone wrong. Others seemed to ignore the mechanism that I had highlighted, but recently, someone showed a clear understanding of it and still supported keeping "ineffective". Thus I dropped the stick. My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment by Guy Macon.

If Psychologist Guy is referring to my recent comments regarding Quackwatch, "he wants the Quackwatch reference removed" is a misrepresentation. I was simply trying to fix the citation. The Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter from a 1956 book.

Both ANI threads were opened after I did something perfectly legitimate, though I acknowledge that my behavior has been problematic at other times. I answered other points in those threads.

Mainly due to what is known about perceptual learning, I think there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future. As it turns out, this view was also expressed years ago by one of the users who last year removed "ineffective". In such an eventuality, we will have to ask ourselves whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily deem the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That was my reason for this. I wasn't proposing changes to policy now, just leaving that for the future. Belteshazzar (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar now [20 Dec 2020) appears to have embarked on a more general crusade against 'ineffective'. In an edit to Mickey_Sherman[[13]], he/she replaced 'ineffective with 'inadequate', even though 'ineffective' was the term used in the referenced source, with the edit summary "Of course it was "ineffective" if he was found guilty. I guess I don't like the word "ineffective"". -- Jmc (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to respond here or above, but that was simply happenstance. I didn't even make the connection with "ineffective" until I was partway through that edit. Yes, the source said "ineffective", but the article wasn't actually quoting the source's words in those instances. Belteshazzar (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like this one has fallen through the cracks, but indeed, enough is enough. I, for one, favour an indefinite topic ban from the topic area (broadly construed), a sanction which appears all but inevitable at this point. There is (or at least there ought to be) a limit as to how long WP:FRINGE contributions ought to be entertained on the project — most especially for a topic which falls under the sourcing requirements spelled out in WP:MEDRS. El_C 19:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Belteshazzar's claim that four established users removed "ineffective" is an odd one, since at a glance, there does not appear to be a single "established user" among them — and two of them are named "Samuel," somehow (what?). Further, Belteshazzar's argument that there is a non-negligible chance that the Bates method will become less fringe in the future, which may or may not be true (I have no idea), sidesteps the problem with them bludgeoning anything to do with promoting this possible outcome, in stark contravention to both WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS. In fact, it looks like such an effort is pretty much all that Belteshazzar does on the project. That is why I note above that a blanket prohibition from the topic area seems all but inevitable at this point (even if Belteshazzar was more responsive to these critical concerns, which they do not appear to be, in any case). El_C 23:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it looks like we need a topic ban here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Topic ban from all Nagorno-Karabakh related pages.:

--

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

1. [14] reverting edit. The sarcastic rhetoric in his edit explanation is even worse.
2. [15] reverting, yet again, without even trying to discuss it.

Wanted to pass this as WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, but the user was involved with such edits since the conflict began. He even failed to address the talk he was referring to in this edits. Also, it seems like he's aware of the enforced sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Steverci: Stop misusing the sources. The France24 article, citing a single French doctor, stated that Azerbaijan could have used the munition, that doesn't mean that this particular media outlet confirms its use. And a claim by a French doctor isn't enough for such remarks. Before accusing others, check the source you actually give reference to. Yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else, yes. They are written in a rhetoric to show that it is indeed a claim by the government. No footage from the Azerbaijani government claim was written as 100% fact and the truth. Again, there's not enough independent confirmation of that being a white phosphorus munition. Accusing others of edit war is also absurd, as the definition of edit war suggest that the Armenian user had engaged in the edit war, not me. This isn't even the issue. We're talking about how the user has surely violated the sanctions. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 08:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To date, Գարիկ Ավագյան, Stereverci, nor Armatura (who all protested this application and stated that consensus was not achieved) has joined the discussion. As there's no objection, we've already achieved a consensus and the two reverts made by Գարիկ Ավագյան is unjustified and had violated the sanctions. Armatura's worryings has no importance here, Գարիկ Ավագյան had to think beforehand about the possible unbalanced inclusions that might come after the enforcement of the sanctions. I'd like to note that Wikipedia is not a battleground like how some assert it. There are several third-party editors checking for neutrality and exclusion of Գարիկ Ավագյան is not, how to say, End of the World. So, this issue is not our problem and we shall not tolerate his worrying edits just because of this. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 14:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Գարիկ Ավագյան's comment on 14 December. Seems like you don't want to refer to this particular issue and how you've broken the sanctions here. Calling my edits biased without even linking to anything, and trying to divert this discussion is yet again wrong. even without finding a consensus, a consensus that you had to achieve before removing the content, and as a third-party finally made a comment, I ended my efforts on keeping the text on hand. I sent a letter to the administrators of the English Wikipedia with a request to involve neutral editors to maintain the neutrality of the article from biased edits -- there's so much wrong here, I don't know which one to refer first. Firstly, anyone is allowed to interfere in the article, if you claim that my edits are disruptive, file a complaint, no one is holding you captive here. While your last comment is yet again absurd. This is the first time that I've reported anyone during the 44 days of the war and further period after it. While a group of Armenians had reported me a dozen times and had mostly failed to limit my activity. For two days you've avoided the talk page and reverted edits asking for a consensus which you don't even moved a finger to achieve. In short, this comment of yours is nothing but an attempt to divert the issue. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Գարիկ Ավագյան's comment on 15 December. Even, let's say, you've added 90% of the article's content, this still won't give you a get out of jail free card. You've continuously violated the WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH you seem to be trying to tutor others about in your response. Accusing others of biased editing, and remarks such as how you made a personal album of President Aliyev from a whole article is also the violation of WP:CIVIL. For my part, I'll respond to your uncivil remarks and accusation about Aliyev. Those images were also in the Russian Wikipedia version of the article, and as there were no other free images that fitted the topic at that time, I had to insert such images in the article (which surely isn't the case anymore; I've even removed one of Aliyev's images in the article and replaced it with a better-fitting one). If your WP:JDLI actions required a response, I was inclined to give it to you. In the meanwhile, no, reporting editors who've violated the rules, especially the sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee, is not attacking them. The photo about an Armenian volunteer who captured a Syrian mercenary was surely an image uploaded from the Armenian ministry of defence. Are we supposed to accept Yerevan's claims as the sole truth of this universe? Of course no. The other editors gladly restored the image, though with a neutral wording, as opposed to your additions. The rest of your reply is nothing but torturing any civility or courtesy there is. For the second time you've failed to thoroughly defend yourself and continued in your attempts to put the reported in the spotlight. I hope that the administrators will soon respond to this report. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 18:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

You say that there is "not enough independent confirmation of that being white phosphorus", yet it there is a citation that it has been reported by France 24. You object to including the video just because it was published by the Armenian government, yet there are many claims on the article made only by Azeri government sources and no one else. And on the talk page, the only evidence presented about it not being white phosphorus is three unverified Twitter accounts. It seems the requesting user just doesn't like the video and started an edit war to remove it. --Steverci (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steverci: None of what you just said justifies the fact that the mentioned user reverted 2 edits on an article where sanctions are valid and only 1 revert is allowed. If you don't agree with the edit, take it to the talk page and discuss it (to date, none of the objectors have said anything in the actual talk page discussion). — CuriousGolden (T·C) 07:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the revert counts to the uninvolved admins. However, I would like to highlight that removing one of the few Armenian editors of the article would leave the editorial workforce of the article in question more unbalanced than it already is. I disagree with the removal of the white phosphorus video without reaching a fair consensus, such unilateral removals by the user who opened this appeal have previously sparked revert cycles. Regards, Armatura (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Armatura's response above: I do not think it should ever be a consideration for Wikipedia's admins to make decisions based on an editor's presumed ethnicity or nationality -- and I do not believe I've ever seen that be the case. The only consideration should be whether the editor can edit in a NPOV manner in accordance with basic Wikipedia policies. If an Armenian editor can do so, fine, if a Azeri editor can do so, also fine, if any editor of any stripe cannot do so, then they should be prevented from editing. What that does to the "balance" of editors working on a particular article is irrelevant, and is also ephemeral, as editors come and go. Therefore, Armatura's point is not an appropriate one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Solavirum, this is not the first time that you have been warned for your biased edits. We have asked you many times not to be a biased editor on the English Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits suggest otherwise. In our last discussion, you categorically argued that your edits were justified, and even without finding a consensus, you still made your edits, where, in the end, the decision was made not in your favor. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We are all volunteers here and must adhere to the rules of Wikipedia and respect each other. From the very beginning of the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh conflict, after seeing that you were spending 24/7 on articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh, I sent a letter to the administrators of the English Wikipedia with a request to involve neutral editors to maintain the neutrality of the article from biased edits. I also have concerns that blocking Armenian users has become your priority. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Solavirum, unfortunately, I do not have as much time as you spend in articles related to Nagorno Karbakh, but on the other hand, you cannot fail to notice the significant contribution that I made in the articles, mainly removing your biased edits. I still remember how you made a personal album of President Aliyev from a whole article and attacked participants who were against your edits (this is what you are trying to do now). You were also warned that you do not fully understand the WP:GOODFAITH principle and were subsequently blocked, but you still abuse it without understanding. As for the video on using the phosphor, there are links to third sources, [17], [18], [19], [20], although I can see you did your own investigation. In the same way and with the same statements, you removed the photo about an "Armenian volunteer who captured a Syrian mercenary", calling it "Armenian state propaganda". I am very sorry that Wikipedia has extended-confirmed editors who still do not understand the simple principles of Wikipedia. Once again, I ask you not to be a biased editor. You can freely remove information in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, but please try to find a consensus with the editors in the English Wikipedia first, and then remove. It is also very unclear to me who do you call the third editor? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says on this talk page that "the Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". If you look at the edits in this article, which were done by me, is about absolutely respecting the rules of Wikipedia. I'm terribly surprised that violating 1RR may lead to the topic ban for 3-6 months, which I definitely couldn't imagine myself.

Also, there are no accusations. If you look at my and Solavirum's contributions you can see that we had disagreements on different topics.

As for the phosphorus video, the discussion on the page is not finished yet and I think here is not the right place to continue such discussion. I would suggest to continue discussion with you and Solavirum on the use of the white phophorus video on the talk page of the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry that you see lack substance in my statements. I am "here" because the user Solavirum complained about my 1 revert and believes that I should be banned from editing any articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh just for 1 revert. Solavirum and me had many different discussions on different talk pages for quite a long period of time, I would like you "to look there" (if you have time) and see that Solavirum and me more or less find a consensus even if we have different point of views. I still do not understand why you are claiming that I should be banned from editing for 3-6 months, while it concerns those "who repeatedly or seriously" fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Well, I didn't take part in the discussions about the use of white phosphorus video, I am the user who just uploaded the video to Commons and then to English Wikipedia. Here was raised this topic and as you're expressing your point of view here, so I am suggesting that we can continue the discussion on the talk page of the main article to have more productive discussion and many users may be able to see that and get involved.

I would like to say once again that my contribution has always been in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia and the history of my contributions can confirm that.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TonyBallioni, I apologize for breaking the rule WP:1RR which I didn't know about the sanction and about 1 revert within 24 hours.

I assure you that in the future and beginning from this moment I will be more attentive and will use self-revert in such cases.

And thank you for your time.

Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A topic ban from the topic area for 3-6 months makes sense to me. In addition to a 1RR violation, there also seems to be a deep misunderstanding of WP:ONUS. Neither of these problems are addressed in the responses of the editor facing the complaint (Գարիկ Ավագյան). Instead, they make repeated accusations of bias against the editor who has filed this report (Solavirum), which is not really helping anything and is just plain inappropriate. Now, as for the use of white phosphorous during the recent 2020 war, specifically (see also: White_phosphorus_munitions#2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war), I get the sense that there are a few possibilities. 1. It did not see military use, at all. 2. It did see military usage, but for smoke screening purposes rather than as a chemical warfare agent, and resulting in no injuries or fatalities. 3. Smoke screening use did result in unintentional injuries and fatalities. 4. There was intentional use of it as a chemical warfare agent (or otherwise usage of such gross disregard to possible enemy exposure, it basically amounts to the same thing). So, the question as to which of these possibilities are favoured by 3rd party sources is a matter for discussion. If that discussion reaches an impasse, a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) is something that participants may avail themselves of. Naturally, any pertinent claim made by official sources affiliated with either side ought to be qualified accordingly. While a discussion is ongoing (say, pending closure), the status quo ante version is the version that ought to be displayed. That is the point of ONUS. That it falls back on longstanding text until it becomes clear what's what. It's surprising that any of this needs to be spelled out, yet here we are...¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Գարիկ Ավագյան, I have a problem with your response. I find it to lack substance, both argumentatively as well as from an evidentiary perspective. And I also I find it to be fairly unresponsive. That is why, in part, which is to say "in addition to" the 1RR violation, the likelihood that I'm going to end up imposing these sanctions on you is high (even if I have to single-handedly conclude this report myself, which wouldn't really bother me). Also, sorry, I am not actually interested in engaging the discussion about the usage or lack thereof of white phosphorous munitions in the recent war. I mean, I'm curious to find out whichever possibility of the four which I have outlined above will end up being backed by 3rd party sources. Or maybe there's a fifth possibility...? I can't really conceive of there being one — but sure, why not? The point is that it isn't a burning question for me (pun definitely not intended), even if I find the answer to be of interest. So, I advise you to not get distracted. Formulate an argument (with as solid evidentiary basis as is possible) that isn't fixated on a WP:NOTTHEM defense. Because that approach is serving you poorly. Crucially, it offers little in the way of the reflection and introspection under which a renewed foundation of trust may be rebuilt. Good luck. El_C 03:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Գարիկ Ավագյան, further lack of substance does not work for me. These totally unsubstantiated proclamations, especially, do not work for me. Quotes are not links. I'm sorry to say, but it just comes across as lazy. I, for one, am not inclined to look at someone's contribution history pretty much in the blind. Anyway, the point is that saying something is this or that does not make it so. And, obviously, I do not have a point of view regarding the usage or lack thereof of white phosphorus munitions in the recent war. That's because I (still) have no idea what actually happened there, so how would it even be possible for me to have an opinion of any sort? First, you hint that I do. Now you say it outright. Not sure why or how you think that advances your position in any way whatsoever. In any case, it's a plainly false assertion and it just seems silly. In actu seems to be in favour of an indefinite topic ban rather than the brief duration of a few months which I originally envisioned. And, to be honest, seeing as your latest reply is mostly fluff accompanied by zero documentation, I can't really disagree with them at this point. Anyway, I think this complaint has been opened for long enough, so I'm just about ready to close it. I'll give you a day or so to respond before doing so. El_C 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, no, I disagree. I'm just not feeling all of these totally unsubstantiated, unresponsive replies. Having an editor with such a poor comprehension of what collaborative editing is supposed to be, seems like a recipe for trouble in this fraught topic area. I don't think that, in this case, it makes sense for us to go through the motions of warnings and/or mild sanctions. It probably is best for them to face the (explanatory) hurdle of WP:GAB before being welcomed back into the topic area. The war is just too recent, so as far as the project is concerned, I'd rather err on the side of peace. El_C 00:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tony, fair points. Maybe I'm over relying on intuition here to the point of being counter-factual? Maybe I'm also conflating inexperience for stonewalling? Could be. How about we do this? I'll bow out and you close this complaint as you see fit, with my thanks to you for taking this weight off my shoulders. Season's Greetings, btw! El_C 01:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see time limited restrictions to be a useful use of our time --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Գարիկ Ավագյան, did you realize this article was under the 1 revert rule (meaning you could only make 1 revert in 24 hours, not 2)? Do you realize that this is a rule on some articles? If you make two reverts on an article with this rule in the future, will you agree to self-revert if someone lets you know it’s a violation of a sanction or policy?
  @El C and Guerillero: depending on the answers here I’d suggest a warning. I’m extremely hesitant to topic ban someone who hasn’t been sanctioned at AE before over a 1RR violation two weeks later when they were never given the opportunity to self-revert. This is doubly the case for ethnic-nationalist disputes where usually there’s more history involved in editor interactions than is neatly packaged in an AE report. I normally block for 48 hours for 1RR, but this is so late in the game I don’t see that as helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero, fix ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • El C, I guess I’m reading their replies differently. I read the responses as them saying they didn’t know 1RR was in play, and I don’t see anyone else letting them know (I could have missed it, so if they were ever given the chance to revert, that’s a different matter.) I don’t exactly buy the comment above about needing at least one person from each “side” in a topic area, but I do think that the ethno-nationalist disputes do tend to be areas where all editors involved tend to be pushing a POV and many of the AE filings are ways of waging content wars through sanctions; that’s a large part of the reason I’m hesitant to go with a topic ban for a 1RR violation without any evidence they actually knew they were violating policy. All their responses above seem to me to indicate that they didn’t know there was a page specific sanction, and might not even know about the concept of 1RR. I’m just really struggling supporting a topic ban for a 1RR violation where the filing party went straight here without even letting them know that they’d violated 1RR. That’s a courtesy we typically extend, and not doing it very much feels like trying to win a content dispute via AE. Your call if you still feel like imposing sanctions, but I think we should give them the opportunity to tell us if they knew the sanction was in place and if they understand how this works going forward.
    If you do decide to go with a topic ban, I also generally agree with Guerillero that time-limited bans are not that effective, but my preference here would be a warning, based on how I’m reading their responses. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the reply, I’m closing this with a logged warning. TonyBallioni (talk)

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) 22:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dadanke (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:ARBPIA4 :

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

1. 19:38, 26 December 2020 New editor removes Walid Khalidi reference from Neve Monosson-article

1. 18:00, 28 December 2020 repeat
2. 22:13, 28 December 2020 repeat again

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

• Alerted, 20:20, 28 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This brand new editor starts removing Walid Khalidi reference from Neve Monosson-article with edit-line "Dubious relevance, dubious source, POV of editor, added citations". I give them IP alert after 2nd revert, telling them that "you are removing Walid Khalidi's info that Neve Monosson is located on a depopulated Palestinian village land, and at the same time claiming that "this doesn't belong to the Arab–Israeli conflict"? Next time you do that, expect to find yourself reported to WP:AE," (link)

They then proceed to repeat the same edit a 3rd time.

This editor is obviously not interested in what I have to say; hope for "outside" input, Huldra (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Dadanke: this report is about you; if you have objections about my editing in general (not pertaining to this case): please open a separate report.
• Walid Khalidi is obviously a WP:RS.
• I am actually a little bemused that someone can remove info that an Israeli communal settlement is on former Palestinian village land, arguing that "this town has no relevance to WP:ARBPIA" (link). It doesn't make me optimistic about any future editing from Dadanke in the WP:ARBPIA-area, Huldra (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The source cited by Huldra (Khalidi) is not a reliable source, as the review "here". states. As for the POV of Huldra, there is a plethora of information in her contribution page showing their non-neutral stance towards the Arab-Israeli conflict. In their edits in "here"., they added "citation needed" remarks and then simply removed them. Judging by the fact that they also did this in a number of other articles, such as "here"., "here"., and "here"., I am suspicious the user will return to delete the "unverified" information and keep their own information there which reflects negatively on Israeli towns (where the history section would indicate the town was "depopulated" and then remove any information which is not negative). Furthermore, Huldra requests citation for mundane statements in those articles, such as in the article of question (Neve Monosson), where they requested a citation for "In later years it became popular with the families of airline pilots and is today an independent-minded middle class community 20 minutes drive from central Tel Aviv, to where most of its workers commute." For this example in particular, this is a case of WP:OVERCITE, given that the town is geographically close to the Ben Gurion airport and it is reasonable to assume the statement is true. Nevertheless, I added citations for the administrative status of the town for some of the statements Huldra marked with ^{[citation needed]} by using governmental sources. However, Huldra still reverted all changes and stated that the article pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict and therefore I cannot edit due to the 30 day/500 edit rule as stated "here".. However, I don't see why the entire article of the Israeli town is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict (the town is in the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan area, an area not largely related to the Israeli-Arab conflict). I reverted once more by stating that the town is unrelated to the conflict, and called for a discussion on the article's Talk page with the edit-line This is an Israeli town, this doesn't belong to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 30/500 doesn't apply. Please discuss on talk page. Had Huldra explained to me why the book should be used, I would have been okay with including the information as well as my citations, but instead they reverted my edit once more, stating the article belongs in the Arab-Israeli conflict per WP:ARBPIA, and warning me with a report to WP:AE. As a new editor to Wikipedia, I don't believe my first edits constituted for vandalism, and I sincerely believe they did not cause damage to Wikipedia, as detailed "here"., so they should not have been reverted outright.

Beyond questionable edits by Huldra, their contribution history reveals a non-neutral record, such as their removal of Jewish related terms seen "here". and the Israeli War of Independence as seen "here".. The user has removed information related to Israel and Judaism from other articles, and added in unnecessary and disruptive information to the point where others complained on their talk page, "here".. I believe that the user in engaging in disruptive editing per WP:DE by bringing in unrelated topics to WP:ARBPIA, and given the evidence I have shown, I do not believe the grounds for sanctioning me are solid, and I do not believe Huldra is acting with good faith.

To respond to Huldra's claims, no, I have no previous accounts.

Well, I have seen a lot of tendentious editing in my time on Wikipedia, but that must be the first time I have seen an editor try to discredit a major work from a respected academic by quoting an Amazon customer review. And to justify an edit by stating that "it is reasonable to assume the statement is true" is further evidence of ignorance about or total disregard for Wikipedia's guiding principle of verifiability. For the avoidance of doubt, removing a sourced statement about the 1948 occupation and depopulation of the village is unquestionably related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and within the remit of the arbitration. I find it hard to believe that this is a new editor, and note that they have not responded to Huldra's legitimate question about previous accounts. RolandR (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, the Amazon customer review was cited in Dadanke's first sentence above, "The source cited by Huldra (Khalidi) is not a reliable source, as the review "here". states." RolandR (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA4 has a 500/30 clause, and the editor in question has 4 edits, at least under this account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor shouldn't edit of course till he reach 500 edits per policy but what more worrying is the diff that was brought by the new editor [21] this was not just a innocent copy editing but a clear WP:POVPUSH with false edit summary --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Amazon customer review" — what? You can't toss a hot potato like that without a diff, RolandR! (Please don't make me look for stuff.) Anyway, Dadanke, please cease immediately from making any WP:ARBPIA edits, of any kind whatsoever, until you reach the required tenure. That's not really something which is up for debate. El_C 19:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, sorry RolandR for the reading comprehension failure on my part. Anyway, I agree with you that this clearly falls short of the sourcing standards stipulated at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Neutrality_and_sources. I also agree that, irrespective of whether or not the page is deemed a "primary article,", it is still an ARBPIA edit (i.e. "related content"). El_C 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Crossroads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jokestress (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/Sexology#Jokestress topic-banned from human sexuality :

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

1. 30 December 2020 Clear and serious violation of topic ban in order to cause disruption at an ArbCom case. More commentary below.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 November 2019 Blocked for 1 week for violating the topic ban by Thryduulf.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The simple fact of the post in clear and obvious violation of the topic ban is grounds for a lengthy block and removal of the post. On top of that, however, the post exhibits the very same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TE problems that led to Jokestress getting her topic ban reaffirmed and clarified in November 2019. [22] It contains no difflinks whatsoever, but rather, conspiracy theories about an "editing collective", as well as baseless lies like "most transgender editors in particular have been driven from the project due to unrelenting hostility by this edit group" as well as numerous WP:ASPERSIONS and violations of WP:NOTTHEM.

This situation is very similar to this one. That user likewise violated a ban from the same topic by posting at an ArbCom page (about the election) and attacked a candidate while doing so. This was judged by the community to be a clear violation of the topic ban, and because they claimed not to understand their restriction, their resulting block was indefinite until they did.

As intentional disruption, Jokestress' post should be revision deleted per WP:DENY. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jokestress says she intends to email ArbCom with "private evidence" about the case. [23] This is a statement of intention to violate the topic ban further, and actually emailing would be such a violation. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

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

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

• I have reverted the edit at the arbitration case but express no view on any further sanctions, other than that BANEX is sometimes misunderstood to mean that posting at ArbCom is always exempt from topic bans. It's not, but that misunderstanding may be a mitigating factor. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see @Cullen328: has blocked for 2 weeks - I would be tempted to make it indef since she hasn't edited for a year and has used her first edit not only to break the topic ban but also make a serious personal attack. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was also tempted to make the block indefinite but this is only her second block, so I decided to double the length of her first block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crossroads: I was the one to suggest that Jokestress email the committee, and doing so would not be a tban violation. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree with BK here, but I'm not going to do it because my IRL identity is too tied to my Wikipedia identity and I'm not trying to get dragged on twitter for the next month. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is a very bad thing, honestly. Why should someone enforcing our norms be subjected to that sort of abuse? (I agree with at least the two weeks, could see indef also) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Crossroads: Emailing arbcom isn't a violation. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• AE cannot indef, the maximum period is one year. An indef would need to be either an admin discretion thing or a community consensus at AN thing. I don't have a view, currently, on whether indef is justified. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Roy McCoy (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/September 11 conspiracy theories
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

Using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories:

Initial WP:COI @ Griffin

• Special:Diff/982056247 Special:Diff/982424039 Special:Diff/982188051 confirmation of WP:COI and proposals, WP:PAID apparently didn't apply
• Special:Diff/975250064 edit summary personalizing dispute and promoting "paid agent" conspiracy theory
• Special:Diff/990072230 now claiming to no longer represent Griffin, but still complaining about Wikipedia and promoting latest author's refutations against independent sources

MkUltra

• Special:Permalink/995948709#No consensus for Page move (a thread more than a diff, the page includes 21 McCoy posts, here are exerpts from between the 15th to the 23th: "'conspiracy theorist', a boring and embarrassingly hackneyed phrase that one sees everywhere in Wikipedia whenever anyone departing from the official narrative is concerned.", "Wikipedia's reputation falls with that of the "reliable sources" [...] following the official narrative even when it flies out the window, but there are also a lot of people who aren't being fooled", "Speaking of sources, Wikipedia's are often duplicitous and unreliable, so one can keep regurgitating the RS policy till the cows come home, and it will still fall flat with anyone aware of the dubiousness of the WP-approved sources", "since the RS policy perhaps shouldn't be over-advertised given current public disillusionment with 'the lying media'", "If the purportedly reliable sources are partisan, your comment is a more a defense of partisanship than a legitimate claim to rationality." (arguing that mainstream sources are partisan, that the author's book is credible and should thwart reliable independent sources, and "Please don't come back to me about secondary sources at this point, thanks").

Election results

• The incredible state of WP:AN3 on 31 December shows this editor among others campaigning in relation to the Stop the steal article (among some other frivolous reports). Feoffer's assessment: "argues our articles should not be based on reliable sources [...] not here to build an encyclopedia." Doug Weller's summary is also insightful, that are also related to the topic below.
• Convinced that Biden lost (let's consider this a personal opinion, but it's still advocacy noise on the talk page). Special:Diff/996013128. I count 13 extant posts by McCoy on that page, who presents sources about complaints filed as evidence of fraud (WP:GEVAL disputes). Others included these quotes: "Whatever your motives, you and your diligent colleagues are inappropriately injecting POV here as elsewhere. This assertion assumes that Wikipedia should be an impartial and reliable reference rather than a propaganda ministry.", "a large amount of purported evidence purportedly indicating a purportedly massive amount of electoral fraud is purported to exist, and it has not yet been objectively established, but only asserted, that these claims are invalid" (even if all court cases but one failed). I stop here and some posts are so long that few would fully read them (firehose?).

9/11 (other than Griffin)

• Special:Permalink/995948709#No consensus for Page move (a thread more than a diff, some still accusatory)
• Special:Diff/997830666 Emphasis mine: "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the official narrative of the September 11 attacks in 2001." classical conspiracist assumption that it's just a questionable narrative.
• The history of Talk:9/11 Truth movement shows soapboxing and personalization of the dispute, as well as aknowledgement for disregard of reliable sources.
• Special:Diff/998181463 arguing that public perception should be considered equivalent to "mainstream knowledge".
• Special:Diff/998177749 Most recently, a list of reports about public perception that are claimed to justify describing the official investigation results about 9/11 as a questionable narrative with disregard for WP:GEVAL, policy that the editor was already reminded about recently (Special:Diff/997909836).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

As far as I know, only one block in relation to accusing other editors (27 August).

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

• Special:Diff/990979257 9/11 conspiracy theories (DS/Alert)
• Special:Diff/995930016 US politics (DS/Alert)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would like to note that involvement in conspiracy theories is a recent trend, starting with Griffin. McCoy edited constructively with interest in languages (Esperanto), music, the manual of style and misc. random article improvements. I propose a topic ban in the area of conspiracy theories or US politics rather than a WP:NOTHERE block.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/998228884

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 congratulate PaleoNeonate on a fine and professional presentation of the case against me. His citations are all accurate and I retract none of the statements concerned, though I do deny that the positions I have defended are actually conspiracy theories, and I protest and reject Wikipedia's abuse of the language in this regard. I've suspected for some time that Wikipedia simply gets rid of dissidents (this explaining their notable absence on current talk pages), and eliminating me as well would appear to be a confirmation of that suspicion. This is all right with me, as Wikipedia can demonstrate itself to be a propaganda ministry all it wants. Some people will get this and some won't. I have been in the process of washing my hands of it, and this seems to be coming to a conclusion now.

Perhaps needless to say, the so-called conspiracy theories are regularly more true and substantiated than the fictional official narratives to which they provide more credible alternatives, and the individuals smeared as conspiracy theorists are often honorable and intelligent persons telling the truth and not deserving of the insulting, inaccurate and misleading characterization they are branded with in their articles. Yet the insistent, across-the-board libel and mischaracterization continue. What am I do suspect other than a consistent, deliberate policy, presumably executed by paid agents of moneyed interests (or by persons so moneyed themselves), with periodic support and assistance from deluded laypersons who are uninformed, unintelligent, unperceptive or inattentive, hypnotized/mind-controlled, and/or to some degree deranged?

I'm surprised to see my recent "General consensus > mainstream account" post cited as evidence against me, however.[25] I plead guilty to the general charge (though with the "conspiracy theory" qualification above) and don't mean to mount a defense, but I think this post is in some ways a model talk-page contribution toward the end of improving an article in accordance with approved sources. An editor had made a controversial and unsupported change to 9/11 Truth movement last August,[26][27] and I documented that this was not only not supported by the cited sources but contradicted by them. This was roughly the same thing I had done at Stop the Steal, where Feoffer and his collaborators were insistently and erroneously terming the campaign a conspiracy theory. This was simply illiterate and could rightfully have been corrected as a simple copyedit, but in addition it was also in contradiction to the cited sources as I described in detail there also, both in an edit summary[28] and in the talk. The proper change was finally implemented by Anachronist, and Feoffer's blustering accusation of edit-warring apparently did not lead to a sanction, or at least has not to date.

As I've stated in one place or another, you can get rid of me and I suppose you will. I request, however, that you not block me in the manner proposed by PaleoNeonate, but rather obliterate, as much as possible, my entire association with your shady propaganda agency that used to be to a degree reputable before it got taken over by whoever or whatever, whenever that occurred. As I've also said in one place or another, I suppose I can still come in and correct commas and misspellings on unprotected pages anonymously if I feel like it (as will likely occur, given my predisposition toward this kind of thing and the fact that I'll presumably continue to consult Wikipedia even though I don't like it), and that this won't bother anyone. I also understand that if I were to "vandalize" anything my IP address could be blocked, though I don't understand the technical details of this. In any event it will not bother me to no longer be morally compromised by association with your ethically seedy and intellectually dishonest operation. I hope a true history will judge you by your merits. –Roy McCoy (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the response indicates that in fact, a TBAN is not going to work. It's hard to see why they have decided to make an issue of Wikipedias (perceived) POV bias. Nor (as they are not a new editor) why they think this kind of attitude is acceptable (indeed it almost reads like they want to be banned, and are doing their damndest to get it done). This all reds more like some game. It needs to be put a stop to.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) and/or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014

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

1. Today's addition of unsourced content to the lead of Lauren Southern:

   20:23–20:25, 31 December 2020‎ (UTC) adds In 2019, Southern suspended her public activities because she had developed a romantic relationship and conceived a child with a non-white man; she returned to public life in 2020, acknowledging that her husband and child are non-white, and attempting to rebrand her public image. to the lead of Lauren Southern. That Southern has said her husband is non-white is sourced in the "Personal life" section of the article, as is the fact that she has a child, the rest is unsourced.

2. Edit warring the same unsourced, possibly WP:OR content into Mike Enoch over the period of over a year:

   In the process of formulating this report, I uncovered what appears to be a slow and long-running edit war to introduce WP:OR about Enoch's surname. Note that at one point Cozy does introduce a source, which an IP later says does not contain the material Cozy has said it supports. I don't have access to the source (a book) to verify one way or the other, and in a later edit it appears that neither does Cozy.

   • 14:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC): part of the edit adds The revelation of Peinovich's Slavic surname was another oddity for a neo-Nazi, in light of the Nazi regime's classification of Serbs and other Slavs as subhumans ("Untermenschen"), and its ethnic cleansing, extermination, and enslavement of millions of Slavs throughout World War II. to the lead. This is not sourced anywhere in the article. No summary.
   • 19:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC): Lindenfall reverts, summary Reversed opinion lacking WO:RS.
   • 22:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the above text to the lead. No summary.
   • 10:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC): Bilorv reverts, summary undid unsourced additions and sources say his wife is Jewish, not that he says this
   • 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, this time with a source: "Andrew Marantz, Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation, 2019, pp 275-314". Summary added citation. (Sorry for not doing this earlier).
   • 17:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC): 212.178.243.209 removes the statement about Enoch's surname, summary Nothing in mentioned source says he was mocked for his last name.
   • 18:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, sans source. Summary: re-adding Serbian bit along with source-needed tag; if a source isn't found for this I will delete. No citation needed tag was added in the edit, not that that would have made the addition of unsourced information acceptable.
   • 18:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC): 107.77.210.96 reverts, summary doesn't belong in article until source confirmed
   • 00:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC): 2601:241:8202:130:c1f1:edb2:3207:95b re-adds the text, summary restoring content that was deleted without a clear argument why it is not notable
   • 00:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC): Drmies reverts, summary Because it is totally unverified
   • 09:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC): CozyandDozy re-adds the text to the lead, summary We can put a source needed here if it isn't in any of the sources (I thought it was), but it is firmly established that this happened.
   • 15:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC): 178.221.110.100 reverts, summary You have again reinstated a claim which is false, you have done this already even when false source quoting was pointed out. You also promised August 29th this year that you would delete this part if no source is found.
     • On December 27, 2020, Calton warns Cozy about adding unsourced content to BLPs, with the added note And if it's "firmly established", then actual reliable sources shouldn't be a problem, should they?.

3. Repeated changes to the same exact sentence in Lauren Southern that was under discussion at an RfC, with consensus leaning heavily towards not changing the sentence in ways like Cozy was changing it:
   • Multiple edits (between 06:07, 24 December 2020 and 20:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)) to Lauren Southern to remove parts of or soften the statement that Southern "is a Canadian alt-right, white nationalist, conspiracy theorist, political activist..." They have made the edits while this exact sentence has been under discussion in the RfC (started November 23, 2020) at Talk:Lauren Southern#RfC: Inclusion of alt-right, white nationalist, and Great Replacement details in lead, and at least at the current moment there is very strong support to retain the wording.
   • 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC): Bacondrum warns CozyandDozy on their talk page for edit warring[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:03, 14 August 2019: 31-hour block for edit warring on Tucker Carlson. Edit war visible in page history. Following the block notice, the blocking admin added: And this by the way, without proper citation amounts to vandalism. If you continue your next block could be much longer.
2. 17:33, 4 March 2020: 72-hour block for "Continuing to use tabloids, specifically the Daily Mail, not using edit summaries, ignored too many warnings."

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.
• 22:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Alert for both AP and BLP DS[reply]
• 11:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Alert for AP[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

CozyandDozy does not seem to understand that sources are not optional when editing, particularly when it comes to American politics BLPs. I have repeatedly observed them adding unsourced claims, often controversial, and often to the lead of an article (but it's not a LEADCITE issue; the claims are new information not sourced elsewhere in the article). They have been warned about this repeatedly, as well as about issues with edit warring and not following discretionary sanctions.

Cozy's talk page shows a long list of warnings about edit warring and disruptive edits on American politics-related articles, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard B. Spencer, and others. Best to look at the history of the page, as they have cleared some of these warnings and don't appear to archive their talk page. I compiled a breakdown of these incidents before realizing it would take me far over the diff/word limits, but can provide it on request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: I apologize that this request came as a surprise, but I have asked you to provide sources for your changes before, other editors have asked you to provide sources for your changes, you have been brought to noticeboards over this, and you've been blocked for insufficient sourcing. I was honestly at a loss for how to get through to you that this is a serious problem, because your behavior seems to have gone completely unchanged. You ask for a second chance rather than a topic ban, but why is it only now that you're going to change your behavior? Why not after the first, or second, or fifth warning? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: You reject the policy basis of providing reliable sources when adding new material, particularly controversial material about BLPs? Or that a citation must be provided inline so other editors can verify your additions, rather than being expected to read through sometimes more than one hundred references in the hopes that it might be in one of them?

Unfortunately I don't think your portrayal of this as an issue limited only to the Enoch article is really accurate—as I mentioned in my filing, I went through the edits about which you've been warned in the past year, and this does really seem to be an ongoing issue. If an admin wants me to present this information I can, but I would need approval to exceed the word and diff limits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CozyandDozy: Maybe best not to cast aspersions about the AE admins in an AE request regarding yourself... In my experience, the admins active here do very thorough work, and do not just take complaints at face value. Either way, sure, I can put the additional information on your talk page, and if an AE admin wants it here I can put it here too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: It would certainly get most of it, as that is the vast majority of their editing focus. Though I will note I have also run into issues with CozyandDozy adding unsourced content in non-BLP AP articles, for example this edit to Dominion Voting Systems which I personally reverted. That article was among the earlier times I ran across this issue with Cozy adding unsourced, new content to the lead: see Talk:Dominion Voting Systems/Archive 1#MOS:LEAD. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that CozyandDozy has said they are retiring: I'm going to dramatically retire from Wikipedia now; I am certain to be topic banned but at least I can beat them to the punch. and posted a "Retirement notice" on their talk page: I'm going to spend more time getting and dozing off, as opposed to editing Wikipedia, when I'm feeling cozy in bed. (yikes). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2021 (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.

Hi.

I must concede that I have respect for the intellect and seriousness of admin User:GorillaWarfare, so I was surprised to see her file this complaint, and have read it carefully.

Anyway, upon reflection I would agree that my conduct has not been unimpeachable; far from it. My biggest offense appears to be adding contentious claims about living persons without a direct citation.

I accept that this is not a trivial mistake; I can and should be criticized and perhaps sanctioned on these grounds. However, I must note some compelling facts in mitigation. I haven't added anything (nor am I accused of adding anything) that is erroneous/false about a BLP. Moreover the "unsourced" content about BLPs mentioned here appear in other reliable sources cited in the article.

For example, take the Lauren Southern edit about which Gorilla complains. The fact that she has a non-white husband and child is mentioned in the documentary White Noise; the documentary was produced by the RS The Atlantic, and was previously cited in the article by someone else. What I did is use the same source to flesh out a claim in the lede, although I failed to add an explicit citation.

I admit that I was lazy in not learning how to cite documentaries; I should have done that and cited the specific part of the documentary where these claims are corroborated. But I was using a reliable source (the Atlantic)

As for my edits to the BLP of neo-Nazi Mike Enoch, the misconduct detailed by Gorilla is more serious. Let me explain.

The underlying statement I have tried to add to the article, the fact that neo-Nazi Mike Enoch was mocked when his last name was revealed because it shows he is of Serbian heritage (and Serbs were considered sub-humans by the Nazis), is absolutely true. In addition to Andrew Marantz, The chemist and skeptic author Myles Power notes this too on his blog: "Mike was using a pseudonym to hide his Serbian heritage, because the Nazi regime – and therefore presumably his audience – classified Serbs as subhuman." https://mylespower.co.uk/2020/08/19/defending-my-work-debunking-holocaust-denialism-against-white-nationalist-and-neo-nazi-mike-enoch/

The problem, and herein lies my most serious offense, is that I used the RS Andrew Marantz book to cite this claim without verifying my recollection that the Serbian surname issue was mentioned by him in there, when in fact I am not certain of this (RS Marantz absolutely mentioned this, but he may have mentioned it in a podcast or blog). I accept that my conduct in this regard amounted to a serious violation of policy. But given that the claim I was trying to add is true, and that it is corroborated by Marantz and some forum or another, I believe that my conduct was hardly reprehensible or irredeemable.

I believe I should be given a second chance, rather than topic banned; I do not defend my conduct, but would distinguish it from the promotion of lies or misinformation about BLPs. (My claims are all true and backed by RS.) Regardless, I am pleased with my contributions to the project, and will retire without commotion if my head rolls.

tl;dr: There is a case to be made against my conduct. But it doesn't rise to the level of formal sanctions, much less a topic ban, at this time; though I do not think a temporary block would be unreasonable. I am humbled by this complaint, and hope to continue my contributions in my sphere of interest alongside Gorilla and other more experienced and policy-savvy editors. CozyandDozy (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gorilla. No need to apologize. This is just a hobby of mine, and I honestly don't take offense to any of this.

I have indeed dismissed most of these warnings, because I have rejected their policy basis. I have not dismissed all the warnings, however; regarding neo-Nazi Mike Enoch, which I agree is (by far) the worst offender among my editing, I have not edited the page since Calton warned me; nor have I deleted Calton's warning from my talk page. The only new edit is Lauren Southern, and this is much less problematic, since (as an uninvolved editor who restored my edits noted) the content I added there is established by an RS from the body of the text.

On Enoch, I accept that I found the idea of a neo-Nazi having a Serbian surname funny, and wanted to re-add that (true) material. This was misconduct. The question is whether this single episode, involving true information I wanted to write about a neo-Nazi, rises to the level of a topic ban. (I think you'd have to admit the other episodes, where I edit warred, and added content to the lede that wasn't cited in the lede but was cited by RS in the body of BLPs, were much less serious). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CozyandDozy (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol the admins aren't going to read this carefully. They decide on hunches and the reputation of filers.

How about you present your allegations (with diffs) regarding other misconduct on my talk page? That way, I can see what you are referring to, and adjust my behavior in the unlikely event that I am not topic banned. Also, in the unlikely event that the closing admin actually studies these allegations seriously before rendering judgment, he can read these other diffs on my talk page. CozyandDozy (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is looking like a case where a topic ban is necessary. Would biographies of living people related to American politics cover everything needed or does it need to be broader than that? Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed. Erring on the side of broader seems sensible, too. I'm looking in a bit of disbelief at an edit from a few days ago (diff), where CozyandDozy adds in wiki-voice and without attribution about how this American neo-Nazi was mocked when his non-Aryan, Slavic ethnicity was revealed. Totally unsourced, and here's the kicker — it's in the edit summary, I am quoting it in full: re-adding deleted content. We can put a source needed here if it isn't in any of the sources (I thought it was), but it is firmly established that this happened. Such a cavalier attitude toward citing sources for a page about a living person is alarming. The suggestion that a {{cn}} would be added in advance, and maybe a source is going to be found, maybe not. Maybe it's in an existing source. Who knows. Yet, it's "firmly established that this happened," somehow? I'll spell this out: the notion that neo-Nazis are not to be afforded the same protection as any other living person — that way, madness lies. El_C 05:10, 1 January 2021 (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

Belteshazzar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Belteshazzar, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Acupuncture

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[29]

Before the case was filed, I dropped the stick, as someone who clearly understood the concept in question nevertheless supported keeping "ineffective". My subsequent comment in that thread was only a response to a new comment. What I did after that seems to have been misrepresented. Psychologist Guy said "If we check a recent discussion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard we can see this user has not changed his behavior. He still thinks there is legitimate evidence for the Bates method and he wants the Quackwatch reference removed [30] This user is still claiming other users are wrong and the entire scientific community is wrong. This is not good faith because this user was blocked". Regarding the Quackwatch reference, I was simply trying to fix a citation, as the Quackwatch page in question reproduces a chapter of a 1956 book. I do think the apparent scientific consensus here is likely wrong, and if that someday turns out to be the case, that will raise questions about whether it was ever correct for Wikipedia to summarily label the Bates method as "ineffective" or "discredited". That's why I suggested that policy might be changed in the future. I was not proposing such changes now. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: But I dropped the stick before the case was filed. [31] [32]. My subsequent comments were just responses to others' comments, and an attempt to fix the aforementioned citation (an attempt which was misrepresented in the case). Belteshazzar (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: I did it now because at least one point (regarding the Quackwatch/Pollack link) was misrepresented in the case. Belteshazzar (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are still commenting on this, let me make this clear: no one had shown a real understanding of perceptual learning as a vision mechanism until Location did here. After that, I dropped the stick. Belteshazzar (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my topic ban was within process and was done as a read of the discussion of uninvolved admins --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 20:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every WP:PROFRINGE POV-pusher argues that they are right and the Wikipedia is wrong, starting with WP:LUNATICS, WP:GOODBIAS, WP:ARBPS, WP:PSCI, WP:UNDUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and so on. So, insisting that they will be proven right some day promises nothing good. I suggest that he was properly topic banned and that the ban should stay. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Belteshazzar: That's only a matter of procedure. We're not a bureaucracy. The topic ban is precisely to the point because you still insist at WP:AE that you are right and the rest of us are wrong, and that that will be shown to everyone sometime in the future. You don't have the right mindset to edit SCAM industry topics. You would just go on and on, wasting everybody's time. Prove that you can edit constructively and cooperatively, abiding by WP:PAGs before we allow you to edit SCAM subjects again.

Copy/paste from WP:FLAT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a suggestion to endorse or decline, just a note to Belteshazzar. If this appeal fails, it was likely made too hastily. The next one would be more convincing after evidence of a few months of constructive editing in other areas. —PaleoNeonate – 04:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Decline. Nothing of substance to really consider here. After six months to a year of productive editing outside the topic area, such an appeal would have actual merit. But after a few days? It's not realistic. Even then, the appeal ought to revolve around (as I note above to another user facing a different complaint) reflection and introspection, not a WP:NOTTHEM-centred defense. Rehashing the arguments which were already rejected in the original complaint, I'm sorry to say, is just not sound. Belteshazzar repeating again that they had already dropped the stick (which yes, we can see they said that), also doesn't really help. Because they may say that, but in light of their editing history, it just isn't that believable to me. Belteshazzar may genuinely believe it themselves, but I remain skeptical. I'm going to need more. More time. Better arguments. And not an appeal which comes across as a sort of last hurrah for this particular content dispute. El_C 04:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been 2 weeks since my own evaluation above and a full week since Tony has added his. Despite there being no further input beyond that, I am inclined to close this appeal as having been declined. Unless someone objects, I intend on concluding this appeal sometime tomorrow. El_C 17:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline there is nothing suggesting this was outside of admin discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

RKOwens444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

1. 03:02, 8 January 2021 Edit warring in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:CON on Alien abduction
2. 00:20, 8 January 2021 ibid.
3. 23:50, 7 January 2021 ibid.
4. 22:22, 7 January 2021 ibid.
5. 20:04, 7 January 2021 ibid.
6. 23:55, 7 January 2021 Edit warring in violation of WP:FRINGE and WP:CON on Haim Eshed
7. 19:34, 7 January 2021 ibid.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22:34, 4 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

New user that seems to be WP:NOTHERE, but specifically causing disruption to articles about alien abduction and UFO conspiracy theories. Refuses to engage on talkpage. See also discussions at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Haim Eshed

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [33]

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.

• There's a Haim Eshed article now? Yay! Anyway, these clear violations to WP:FRINGE are as unambiguous as they get. To the point that it almost seems like an outright provocation (diff). El_C 13:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-closing note: Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action (also per Bish), which was my original impulse. Not really sure now why I didn't do that from the outset. We should really have zero tolerance to this kind of nonsense. El_C 18:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• RKOwens444 is a very new editor, but it does seem quite difficult to steer them into being a constructive Wikipedia contributor, as several people have tried to do, notably PaleoNeonate. For instance, they push right on with the edit warring on Alien abduction after being warned about it; that doesn't slow them down at all. And first they insist on using the user-generated Medium.com as a source; then, while still claiming Medium.com is actually fine, move on to using an article in NYT. A reliable source, right?[34]. Wrong. The article in NYT that RKOwens444 considers shows David Huggins's alien encounters are "a strongly-sourced fact"[35] is actually a review of Huggins's (alien-encounter-related) paintings, and, if it needs saying, by no means credulous. Nor is the Vice article credulous. RKOwens444 is also quite belligerent, making no use of the article talkpage although several people have urged them to in edit summaries, and although there is a discussion there. One that they have clearly not consulted before penning the aggressive recent edit summary "Finally someone has the courage to provide an actual explanation for their reason for removing this sentence", etc.[36] No, several people have had that "courage", and RKOwens444 has been repeatedly asked to go read all about it on Talk. I will topic ban them indefinitely from pseudoscience pages unless I see some objections below reasonably soon. Bishonen | tålk 14:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Adding: The diff El C cites is another example of belligerence; it seems designed purely for provocation and trolling. If anybody thinks we might as well block indefinitely as a regular admin action, I'm on board with that. Bishonen | tålk 17:30, 8 January 2021 (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

Jeppiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mandruss (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. 01:44 8 January Mandruss removes part of the lead of the article (I see no problem in that edit as such)
2. 01:54 8 January Violating the required 24 hours, Mandruss reverts both me and others to their own edit only ten minutes later.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20 October 2015 Only one distant block

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

I informed Mandruss about the policy and encouraged them to self-revert [37]; Mandruss refused [38]. User Tataral likewise informed Mandruss and urged them to self-revert [39]; Mandruss again refused and even told Tataral to take it to WP:AE, showing they are well aware of the situation [40].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Mandruss's conduct at Donald Trump has been combative and disruptive recently. In response to User SPECIFICO hatting an irrelevant comment by Mandruss, Mandruss (by their own admission) hatted the comment of a third user just to show that "two can play your little game" [41]

Below, Mandruss claims it somehow show 'lack of objectivity' that I mention the previous block against him. I want to be clear I consider the previous block irrelevant to the discussion. My inclusion of it was based on the belief previous blocks should be mentioned, not in itself based on any lack of objectivity. Like Mandruss, I believe it can be disregarded. The issue here is the current direct violation of discretionary sanctions, nothing else. Jeppiz (talk) 02:00, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Furthermore, Mandruss also claims their two edits were different "by 2,219 bytes" and alleges it is bad faith of me not to mention this. I consider it irrelevant; the only reason they differ in bytes is that edits in between had both added and removed content. Mandruss's revert was 100% a revert to their previous edit 10 minutes earlier, even as the discretionary sanctions forbid reverts to one's own edit within 24 hours. Jeppiz (talk) 02:08, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Update In 12 years, I've never seen users abuse an AE report to game the system as Mandruss and O3000 have done here. Below, O3000 tells Mandruss "self-revert and I'll revert" and they then proceed to do exactly that 03:09 03:11. This is not a good faith effort to address the situation, but instead about two users using an AE report to game the discretionary sanctions in place. Jeppiz (talk) 02:55, January 8, 2021‎ (UTC)

Could I kindly encourage O3000 to take the time to read the request, as they have now misrepresented several facts. O3000 claims it would have been proper to ask Mandruss to self-revert instead of filing this request. Had O300 read the request, they would have seen that that is exactly what I also did. I first asked Mandruss to self-revert [42]; Mandruss answered by refusing [43]. Next Tataral asked Mandruss to self-revert [44]. Again Mandruss made it very clear they refused [45]. Only after these repeated efforts to de-escalate was this report filed. Against this background, it is baffling that O300 now claims it was wrong to file this AE instead of asking Mandruss to self-revert. The only thing that made Mandruss 'self-revert', after repeatedly refusing, was O3000's explicit promise to restore Mandruss's version [46]. Only then did Mandruss "self-revert" [47]] (explicitly referring to O300's gaming proposal in the edit summary) and then immediately inform O300 [48] so that Mandruss preferred version could be restored [49]. Like El_C, I'm a bit surprised this even needs to be explained at AE. Jeppiz (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I'm at a loss to understand your comment about me. I've edited Donald Trump twice in a year, once yesterday and once in November (completely different edits). My edit yesterday partly agreed with Mandruss's removal but brought back a couple of sentences I felt were relevant. Anyone is free to disagree with my edit, of course, but it did not constitue any policy violation. I'm surprised you seem to treat this as a content dispute as it is not; it's about conduct. I really should not need to point this out, but being right about content is not a reason to violate policy; and even if you disagree with my edit, being wrong (in good faith) about content is not a policy violation. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification [50]

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

Preliminary response: The 24-hour 3RR block in 2015 was not in the AP2 area (or any DS area for that matter), therefore doesn't belong in "previous relevant sanctions", and its inclusion there says something about the filer's objectivity in my opinion. The spin in the filer's comments is I suppose par for the course in this venue. The diffs presented largely speak for themselves, but I will respond within 12 hours to any questions. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the filer has presented the same diff as two successive reverts, making it appear like they were identical. They were not; in fact they differed by 2,219 bytes while intersecting. No doubt this was an honest mistake. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Done.[51] ―Mandruss ☎ 02:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: On your first point, if one of the most experienced, most level-headed, most law-abiding editors in the project (O3000) can get that so egregiously wrong, I'd say the error is far less outrageous than you claim. On your second: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Mandruss violated 1RR. For the record, I apparently edit-warred, but not by violating 1RR, which is currently suspended at that article.

I'm trying very hard not to think about all the times I've witnessed editors re-revert identical edits at that article, causing far more disruption than I did, and get off scot-free, apparently because nobody had the time, energy, knowledge, and capacity-for-stress to file an AE complaint with no guarantee that it will have any beneficial effect. In my experience, the discretion conferred on admins by DS means very little in the practice of enforcing its rules.

That was worth bringing up in an ArbCom venue, but I want to be clear that it is not meant to excuse my mistake. I don't blame my failures on the failures of others, and in fact my greatest peeve is that that is routinely tolerated and even encouraged by the community. My parents taught me that two wrongs don't make a right, and the destructive results of a system where they do are quite clear to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I can't believe you just cited an essay as proof that O3000's action was "outrageous". ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: So what? You propose a logged warning based on an essay? I think that's outrageous. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: "This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." To borrow your words, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. If that's wikilawyering, check please! ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I'm surprised and disappointed to see such a dismissive response from you. No, I'm not going to follow you down that path. You win as far as I'm concerned. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: Well it's clear that good faith ignorance is not an excuse for you or me. We are expected to be cognizant of everything relevant or we get a logged warning or worse. I failed to have mastered all of the rules after seven years. Neither Jeppiz nor Tataral managed to cite the passage from WP:EW that made it clear I was in the wrong in this uncommon and complicated situation, so I wasn't aware of it until this was filed and El_C commented. I'd be surprised if there aren't still a rule or three that I've yet to learn. And you weren't aware of what went on at my UTP. Shame on both of us, and we deserve black marks on our records for being less than perfect. That's ok with me, since such black marks apparently merely flag an editor as being both imperfect and unlucky. I don't expect one such black mark, or two or three, will ultimately affect my ability to edit Wikipedia, and my eventual departure will be on my terms. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: Self-rvt and I’ll rvt (or someone else if I’m asleep). @Jeppiz: Yes, something belongs. But, take to the talk page, have patience, and avoid running to drama boards. Let us not mimic the politics we document. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: In no way was I attempting to "game the system". If that was my intent, I certainly would not have done so openly at AE. Using email would be gaming. 1RR causes serious gotcha problems as it is easy to accidentally violate. Mandruss violated 1RR. If I see this happen, I warn the editor on their UTP and suggest self-rvt, as opposed to filing at AE or AN3. I believe that's what most editors do, even when on opposite sides of an issue. If I run into a situation where a rvt is needed, but I am up against 1RR myself, I ask someone else to rvt on the ATP. I've been doing this for years and several times an admin has reverted for me. The entire point is to bring discussion to the talk page without drama and time-wasting complaints like this one. O3000 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt was to continue the removal of challenged text from the lead, relating to news currently on the front page of nearly every major newspaper in the world, in an extremely highly viewed article, to bring discussion to the ATP where it belongs. My philosophy of DS editing is collaboration to improve the project over drama. Editing AP2 articles is like dancing a tango in a minefield. As for Mandruss refusing to rvt, I had not seen the user talk page discussion until now. O3000 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I would claim WP:IAR; but I seriously do not know what rule I violated. I made a good faith effort to quickly bring discussion back to the ATP where it belongs in an extremely delicate area, immediately after what RS call an insurrection not seen since the War of 1812. I only made one edit, which was aimed at improving the project. I did not (and have never) secretly collude with another editor. There appears to be general agreement here that the edit should have been reverted. I merely suggested a quick path to doing so that fit within the rules. O3000 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That article states: Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. In no way was I attempting to “circumvent the normal process of consensus”. The one edit I made was to revert an edit for which there was no consensus. I was trying to guide the subject back to the ATP so a consensus could be constructed. We should not be constructing a consensus on the article page at such a critical time on such a controversial article. That's what an ATP is for. I was doing the exact opposite of what you are accusing. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Again, I was not aware of any refusal to self-rvt. My error for not looking at their UTP. As I indicated, I was going to bed. I felt it was important to have any possible violation reverted in a way that the status quo was quickly restored in a highly visible article at a historic moment. And for the life of me, I can't see how one reversion is tag-teaming. O3000 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."

The lead of Donald Trump is far too long. Those who wish to trim it down are following our guidelines. Those who wish to keep it excessively long are violating our guidelines. They should instead work on getting consensus for changing the guideline.

This is not to say that dodgy behavior while enforcing a guideline is OK, but the issue would have never come up if not for certain editors thinking that WP:MOSLEAD doesn't apply to them.

(I will be without Internet access soon, possibly for weeks, so may not be able to respond.) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss has apologized: Ok, it appears my second revert was wrong, I got lost in the tangled labyrinth of rules, and I'll take my lumps. I'm not one to say that ignorance is an excuse, or that being in the right on content excuses being wrong on process. Given that, and their ability to work productively on highly contentious topics over many years — and with editors holding very different views — no action should be taken against them. There's just no indication of a continuing pattern of disruption that needs to be stopped in order to protect the community or encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note that the extraordinary political events of the past few days are bound to cause a little turbulence at one of the most closely watched pages on Wikipedia. It was a single apparent infraction, Mandruss has apologized, and we should move on. -Darouet (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I believe the concern was that Mandruss had violated your 24-hour BRD restriction and then declined to self revert when approached about it on his talk page. Perhaps it's time to remove that page restriction? SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not very interested in bureaucratic procedure. Instead, I would suggest to Jeppiz and others wanting to tell the world about yesterday that it is not reasonable to pack all that into the lead of a long article. To paraphrase from the edit summary by Mandruss, it's grossly excessive and violates MOS:LEAD (for example, there's nothing in the article about a coup d'état), and (according to Mandruss) this article does not use citations in the lead. Why would you want to do that? Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Johnuniq, unless something like WP:BLP is invoked (which I don't believe it has been), this whole Self-rvt and I’ll rvt in turn plan and subsequent execution thereof is just outrageous. Editors are not allowed to coordinate for the purpose of circumventing an existing revert restriction. It's bizarre to me that this even needs explaining. A sign of the times? Just because Mandruss may have been correct on the edit (which, in fairness, when it comes to the Trump page, he usually is), doesn't mean that this was even remotely acceptable. El_C 02:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Mandruss, reverts need not be "identical" to count as such. WP:EW is quite clear on this: in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period (bold is my emphasis). El_C 02:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandruss, while I can appreciate the impulse to defend your long-time colleague, I do not subscribe to that logic. El_C 03:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Objective3000, I do not accept that. Mandruss was already given the opportunity to self-revert, but they declined. They accepted your suggestion that they self-revert because you offered to mitigate the edit war in their favour, which is not acceptable. You are not allowed to do this, anywhere on the project. Again, I'm puzzled that I even need to explain this. El_C 12:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, logged warnings to both Mandruss and Objective3000 works for me. But for the record, any further circumvention of revert restrictions (anywhere, whatsoever) will be viewed harshly and is almost certain to result in immediate sanctions. El_C 19:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Objective3000, it was clearly an instance of Wikipedia:Tag_team#Tag_team_characteristics (bullet point 1). And, no, IAR is not a magic exemption. El_C 19:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, they blatantly circumvented the edit restriction. Anyway, I intend to log a warning for them, too. If either yourself or Objective3000 (or anyone else) objects to this, you are welcome to seek clarification from the Committee on the matter. Mandruss, yes, I cited an essay. So what? El_C 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandruss, if that is the basis for your objection to my application of the discretionary sanctions, again, you are free to contact the Committee directly for further input. Obviously, I feel that to be a weak argument. But as always, I defer to Committee guidance in all matters AE. El_C 20:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandruss, okay...? Anyway, I would still stress that the right of appeal is sacred on Wikipedia and, in this instance, it is represented by Committee oversight. Objective3000, Mandruss refused to self-revert (explicitly) until you made the Self-rvt and I’ll rvt offer to him. That is not okay. I'm not sure I'm able to explain this any more clearly. El_C 20:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, in applying the discretionary sanctions, it is my interpretation that this is not allowed. In answer to your question: if Jeppiz was contacted for the purpose of and acted upon circumventing the revert restriction, too, they should also face similar admonishment. El_C 20:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I think this was a violation of the AE restriction. FWIW I pretty strongly agree with Mandruss, O3000, and Johnuniq on the "that's way too much detail for the lead" issue. I agree with Johnuniq on his general disinterest in bureaucratic procedures. I don't even think the following point is the most important point, and Jeppiz should take on board Johnuniq's comments. But if I imagine for the sake of argument that I could stomach editing political articles (or could stomach editing articles on any area subject to AE), and I imagine myself in Jeppiz's shoes, I would think it was pretty unfair that I have to follow "bureaucratic procedure" and Mandruss doesn't. That's not a crazy attitude, and isn't completely unimportant. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whenever we talk about reverts and reinstatements, there's always an assumption of "whether in whole or in part". Mandruss's second revert was a clear violation of the editing restriction "If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours..." (Note the restriction even words it as a "change", instead of an "edit" or "revert".) That said, from my observations, Mandruss has consistently been on the side of Wikipedia policy and community norms. From what I've observed, on the Donald Trump article he's been the strongest enforcer of community consensus, enforcing even the community resolutions that he opposed, and pushing back against the recent-news-induced editing frenzy many editors often get caught up in. For this reason, I would oppose anything more than a warning or reminder in response to this incident, especially now that the edit has been (belatedly) self-reverted. Newcomers and drive-by editors, even the problematic ones, often get a free pass the first couple of times they run afoul of the editing restrictions. I don't think it hurts to extend the same courtesy to the veteran editor on the front lines of trying to maintain decorum. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: I personally don't think Objective3000 did anything wrong. They talked Mandruss down off a ledge and got the article back to the status quo. That kind of thing happens all the time when someone accidentally violates 1RR, often with some amount of eye rolling by the person who has to self-revert an obviously good edit for procedural reasons so that someone else can immediately revert the self-revert. The difference here is that the exchange happened here at AE instead of a user talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: I'm not seeing what edit restriction was circumvented. There is no restriction against tag-teaming. Boiling this down a bit, HappyWanderer15 added new coup d'état material to the Lead and Mandruss removed it with a reasonable and detailed edit summary. Jeppiz reinstated much of the material without responding to any of Mandruss's objections, and after a revert and self-revert from Mandruss, Objective3000 ultimately removed the material again. Meanwhile at Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt there's not yet a consensus on whether to mention "coup" in the body of the article, let alone the Lead. Should we also log a tag-team warning for Jeppiz? ~Awilley (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (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

Alsee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ceedub88 (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

Discretionary sanctions American Politics2 WP:ARBAP2; and/or Biographies of Living Persons WP:ARBBLP

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

Donald Trump article history search for edits by Ceedub88 currently returns 7 results. The edits are identical, they apply a category, that category explicitly states This category is for people who have been clinically diagnosed, and constitutes a clear BLP violation unless unless Ceedub88 provides sufficient Reliable Sourcing of clinical diagnosis.

• 01:36, 09 January 2021 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
• 00:50, 23 December 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
• 18:36, 18 August 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
• 01:57, 19 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump
• 09:24, 18 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
• 23:20, 08 July 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)
• 19:21, 05 January 2020 (diff) . . (+57) . . Donald Trump (/* External links */)

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

AP & BLP alerts issued by Mandruss 03:38, 19 July 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I recall no interaction with Ceedub88, other than being (un)lucky enough to spot and revert their latest Trump edit. I was going to generously Twinkle a level 4 BLP FINAL WARNING on their talk page and move on, but decided action was mandatory when I discovered how persistent this problem was.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification (and insignificant cleanup edit to fix the accidental double section heading).

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.

Other than the BLP issues, this is an obvious case of slow edit warring against consensus. These edits were reverted by at least four different editors. I fail to see any attempt to discuss it at the article's talk page. I see few warnings but there was a clear one on 19 July 2020. —PaleoNeonate – 04:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I suppose it's possible to argue that a more detailed warning, beyond the BLP and AP2 alerts that were issued back in July, would have better driven the point home. But the fact that Ceedub88's talk page is littered by (otherwise unrelated) warnings, and the fact that the only edits they ever seem to have made to their talk page were just to remove comments — all of that does not inspire confidence. Sanctions are probably needed here. El_C 05:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's the sneaky persistent slow edit war of a BLP violation into a high profile article for me. If this were something that I stubbled upon in my watchlist I would probably indef block the user with a partial block from the Donald Trump article. ~Awilley (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur that an indefinite partial block from the Donald Trump article is the most appropriate sanction to issue, as it precisely targets the reported problem. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 11 January 2021 (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

Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Warlightyahoo (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. 10 January 2021 NOTFORUM trolling.
2. 9 January 2021 NOTFORUM trolling.
3. 10 January 2021 Crypto-vandalism?

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

Editor is aware of the AP2 DS [52] by template.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Many of these article edits look okay, but there's probably some kind of subtle disruption in there that isn't obvious; the NOTFORUM talk page posts about time travel and flip phones look like a bad faith editor here to annoy us or to prove some other point.

If this is an otherwise good faith editor with a discipline problem on AP2 talkpages, then this is the correct forum.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[53]

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.

Although this appears to be a clear WP:NOTHERE case, I don't think this complaint has the gravitas for AE, it's a better candidate for WP:DENY (delete and ignore), or for reporting at WP:AIV if it continues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the editor doesn't seem to be entirely a troll, there are some edits of worth in their contributions, along with the dross. Still, a trout for the OP for bringing this here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{u|Bishonen}} Ouch! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't necessarily believe in the "crypto-vandalism" here. Warlightyahoo added a reasoned and sourced paragraph (though I'm not sure it's in the right section). The "crypto" addition of "5" in a different paragraph could easily have been an accident. But there's certainly trolling at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, actually more so than Geogene's diffs show. The "field trip" post was added twice, in two separate edits[54][55], so as to appear twice on the page (just look at how that came out), and then re-added, also twice and appearing twice on the page, after it had been reverted[56][57] and after W had been warned about it. I find it hard to see all, or any, of that as an accident. I suppose it doesn't indeed have AE gravitas, per BMK, but it's a big ask to expect editors to simply revert and ignore that amount of messing about. I have blocked Warlightyahoo from 2021 storming of the United States Capitol and its talkpage for a week as a normal admin action. And no trout for Geogene, as I don't blame them for being irritated. A walloping with a rack of dried stockfish for BMK for suggesting it. Bishonen | tålk 09:29, 10 January 2021 (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

ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

1. 10:22, 10 January 2021 4RR on Pentagon UFO
2. 12:37, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
3. 12:35, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
4. 10:22, 10 January 2021 Ibid.
5. 09:36, 10 January 2021 Ibid.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 05:12, 4 January 2021 Blocked for edit warring

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 12:39, 4 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been complaining about the way Wikipedia handles subjects relating to UFOs and was WP:BOOMERANGed on WP:ANI. While I could have appealed to WP:ANEW, I fear that a simple block which was already enacted is not enough. User was warned about discretionary sanctions already so stronger measures may be useful. jps (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58]

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 made an unintended error not realizing I have already reached a 3rd revert. I admit to this and apologies. That being said, my meticulously researched properly cited additions, done in the spirit of accomplishment WP:LOSE2WIN (What motivates contribution?) have been reverted few times with complete disregard to WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:NPOVFAQ (Common questions/Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete) and so many times by way of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing ("Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources").

I have a past of even headed editing in controversial articles such as Ching Hai (added all the scholarly refs) and in Water fluoridation (added the EU position and the notable oppisition view) despite very strong POV pushing editorial opposition. Also in Influenza vaccine (added EU position), where there was quite a robust POV discussion. Was even commended by one of my discussion opponents, an Administrator Special:MobileDiff/782699643

My turn to ANI was due to my past experience with this kind of behaviour, and in this case specifically, blatant WP:NPOV violating editors, and trying to avoid this: "In Wikipedia, debates can be won by stamina. If you care more and argue longer, you will tend to get your way. The result, very often, is that individuals and organizations with a very strong interest in having Wikipedia say a particular thing tend to win out over other editors who just want the encyclopedia to be solid, neutral, and reliable."(Criticism of Wikipedia Criticism of process#Consensus and the hive mind). My first encounter with this article presented me with an obvious and quite shocking WP:STICKTOSOURCE policy violation, on the very first citation. Reverting editors ignoring this, got me dismased and quite upset. My basic question to ANI was what do you do when WP:FACTION is so evident in violating the above through Concensus if not let ANI deal with it? Does Concensus overide WP policy? according to WP:CONLIMITED the answer is no.

ANI didn't come to a conclusion regarding this, but did give me a 48 hour ban for edit waring.

My next option (recommended by commenters on ANI) was an RfC that I started (proccess I'm not so familiar with technically) in order to get other editors input other than from the small group that exhibited classic WP:OWNERSHIP of the article applying constant WP:GAMING (which I consider this WP:AE attempt as one) and WP:LAWYERING. Editors commenting on the RfC explained my formative errors in the RfC request and recommended I start a new one.

And so I did, today. All I ask of this inquiry panel(?) Is to just look at this RfC which has an easy to see comparison of current article and my additions, and decide if I'm some kind of pseudoscience pusher with disregard to Wikipedia's Policies & guidelines. Or not. Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#RfC_regarding_an_edit_to_the_article_and_it's_compliance_with_WP_Policies

I think you will find that I'm doing my very best in the spirit of WP:PURPOSE.Thank youBigbaby23 (talk)

Along with the edit warring presented above and insistence upon using unreliable sources (for example, here), User:Bigbaby23 has in this topic area cast aspersions and assumed bad faith against editors in good standing here, here (see the subject line), here, here, and here. This editor has also explicitly rejected seeking consensus for their edits (see the edit summary here). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's that fact-based reality-biased cabal again, causing trouble for Bigbaby23. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C Yes, that diff was reported during the ANI discussion and did not receive much attention, so it did indeed "fall through the cracks". Levivich is correct that an indef would appear to be called for, but I would levy the topic ban as well, in case he appeals and is allowed to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is emblematic of the battleground attitude BigBaby23 brings to this topic: [59]. Please topic ban. - MrOllie (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the TBAN. Indef as a normal admin action for the diff MrOllie shared. Let them make an unblock request and they can negotiate the terms of a TBAN as an unblock condition. Over-the-top comments like that, plus the other disruption == editing privileges revoked, IMO. They should not be able to edit at all, and should have to earn their way back to a TBAN, based on their recent conduct. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C: The editor was new to me, it was the first such offense I was aware of, so I only replied not thinking it was worth reporting. Before the ufology campaign, Bigbaby23 was active in other areas, like martial-arts related BLPs, so I'm not sure it's a definite NOTHERE case. —PaleoNeonate – 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's some indication the latest disruptions at Pentagon UFO videos and Haim Eshed are part of a long term pattern of opposing consensus regarding pseudoscience and fringe science content (with resultant edit warring).

• On Rupert Sheldrake - [60]
• On Water fluoridation controversy : [61]
• On Influenza vaccine - [62]

So a TBAN might be the most effective remedy here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I recommend a wide-ranging topic ban from anything WP:FRINGE or WP:ARBPS, whatsoever (as in broadly construed). Also, violating WP:3RR mere days after a block for violating 3RR is a bit unbelievable to me. Finally, what is up with the RfC they authored? That must be the longest RfC I've ever seen. It is basically incomprehensible due to its sheer length. Enough is enough. El_C 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just noticed the diff presented by MrOllie, which is obviously beyond unacceptable. How has this even been allowed to stand without a strong and unequivocal remedy? Maybe it fell through the cracks, somehow...? El_C 17:00, 11 January 2021 (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

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

The following edits are all topic ban violations (emphasis added):

1. 16:43, 10 January 2021: Changed Similar baseless accusations of antifa false flag operations to Similar false accusations of antifa false flag operations in 2021 storming of the United States Capitol
2. 16:37, 10 January 2021: Addition of 1,003-character comment on Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol, including the section heading "‎Essentially Domestic Terrorists"
3. 11:50, 8 January 2021: Addition of 515-character comment on Talk:QAnon
4. 01:09, 8 January 2021: Addition of 1,046-character comment on Talk:QAnon

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14:52, 25 November 2020: Indefinite topic ban from editing post-1932 American politics articles

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 25 November 2020 by SebastianHelm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 3 December 2020, SebastianHelm warned JazzClam about previous violations of this topic ban. — Newslinger talk 00:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/999599042

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.

Newslinger I was not under the impression that commenting on the QAnon articles and the 2021 storming of the capitol was against my sanction. Also, I did make, admittedly make under full knowledge of my sanction on the 2021 Storming of the United States Capitol article, an edit. The edit regarded changing baseless to false. There was a conversation where consensus was reached to change baseless to false. I believed that since that edit was relatively uncontroversial and popular amongst editors in the consensus discussion, I made it. I personally believe that trying to penalize me for comments and a simple, uncontroversial, non-major, and popular edit in an article is absolutely draconian and bogus.

I believe that these edits were constructive, and the concept of these sanctions is quite superfluous. I will continue to comment on talk pages and make my opinions heard. JazzClam (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SebastianHelm It's in archive 7 of the talk page on that article, under "Baseless => False", the editors in that discussion agreed that False is better than Baseless. JazzClam (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Of course, thank you for your understanding. I'm going to be appealing my block soon anyway, the reason why I edited it then and there is because it was small, uncontroversial, and effected the neutrality greatlyJazzClam (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it needs to be said that the template I posted only spoke of articles, not of talk pages. (Although the linked WP:TBAN does explicitly say “all pages (not only articles)”.) I would therefore recommend for the discussion to focus on the one edit in article space. In this context, I would like to know what JazzClam referred to by "This conversation" in the edit summary. ◅ Sebastian 18:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, and so that others don't have to search for it, here's the link: Talk:2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol/Archive_7#Baseless_=>_False. That was not a unanimous decision; there were at least three different opinions. I'm sorry, I have to say that because I now read (below) that you're planning on appealing your block “because [your edit] was ... uncontroversial”. ◅ Sebastian 19:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Swarm: Yes, I made a couple of mistakes, and I'm sorry about that. However, the situation is not as dire as you are depicting it: JazzClam has in user talk:JazzClam#December 2020 been clearly made aware that even small edits to articles on post-1932 American politics “are violations of the ban, even if ... they are uncontroversial [and that they] could get blocked” for them. So, maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see how, as you say, “this user technically isn't in the wrong”. ◅ Sebastian 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Thank you for asking my opinion. I will be OK with whatever you and El_C decide. Since I am involved, I am only contributing here with mere statements.

For the record, I think a block would technically be justified, since JazzClam acted against the warning. But the question is: How much damage would it prevent? On one hand, one might say that the edit in question did not do much damage; at first glance it doesn't look like the editors who disagreed with the wording, Builder018 and Rich Farmbrough, took umbrage with the edit. On the other hand, it is of concern that JazzClam characterized the edit as “uncontroversial” despite the obvious diversity of opinions. Then again, I regard it as a sign of good judgment and tact that JazzClam did not use my mistake for their defense, which gave me the chance to point it out myself.

One clarification is missing, though: Are talk page edits OK from now on? I now see that the original intention of the community included a ban from talk pages, but El_C – ostensibly to accommodate my mistake – struck that requirement. The three diffs brought up as evidence above contain nothing disruptive (they show a collaborative spirit, and at ~1000 characters they take ~1 minute to read each, which is not overly rambling) so I see no reason to ban JazzClam from talk pages, at least not now anymore. (Maybe JazzClam improved in this regard.) ◅ Sebastian 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, El_C. It was actually my first mistake in this matter that I regarded myself as not involved after having !voted, which was pointed out by another sysop at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Moving towards closure back in November. But we're fortunate to have Swarm here, who has much more experience in such matters, so I would entirely trust their leadership here.

That you meant striking the comment just with regard to its retroactive import is understood. ◅ Sebastian 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question about talk pages is probably moot: Swarm has entered a regular topic ban for JazzClam at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community, so it would be extra work to remove that. That means, that henceforth talk page contributions are forbidden, too. All that remains is to announce that formally clear to JazzClam. I feel a bit sad for JazzClam that, despite my positive impression of their talk page contributions, those will not be allowed anymore, but then again, I hope they can understand that increased severity as a natural consequence of their continued editing while feigning ignorance and “consensus”. ◅ Sebastian 23:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not only did JazzClam knowingly violate their topic ban, but above, they even express their intent to continue doing so(!). A sanction in the form of a block (of a yet to be determined duration) is probably warranted for this blatant violation as well as for the sheer contempt shown toward the terms of the restriction. A restriction that they are absolutely required to comply with. If they wish to see that restriction lifted, they may only do so through the avenue of a proper appeal. Them deciding to circumvent these rules due to... reasons (or whatever) is a major problem. El_C 17:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JazzClam, you are right. Indeed, those are not within the scope of your ban (which specifically says "articles" rather than "pages"). Sorry for my inattention. Stricken with apologies. The 2021 storming of the United States Capitol editing, however, was a clear violation, and there were similar problems a month ago, as well. A logged warning would work for me, so long as it is understood to be a last chance saloon before blocks become imminent. El_C 19:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• JazzClam, please comment in your own section only. When you say "appeal the block," I presume you mean the topic ban, as you are not currently blocked. Anyway, of course, you're free to do at your discretion (don't know enough to comment further on the appeal's viability, and so on, though). But until such an appeal succeeds, even minor changes to pages covered by the ban are strictly prohibited. Also, I struggle to understand how you're able to assert in the same breath that the edit in question could be both small, uncontroversial, and [yet still having] effected the neutrality greatly. Anyway, good luck! El_C 19:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Swarm, once again, thank you for the clarity. I'm admittedly a bit scattered today, so it is greatly appreciated. I have no objection to you closing this complaint by overlapping (or supplanting outright) the community sanction recorded at WP:RESTRICT with a full AP2 AE topic ban to be recorded at WP:AEL. El_C 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SebastianHelm, I've struck my comment not as a future requirement, but only to emphasize that it cannot be retroactively used against JazzClam. Also, I don't know why you think you are WP:INVOLVED. If all of your interactions with JazzClam have been of an administrative nature, then you're not. You're probably a better judge of whether talk pages (or all pages, including AfD, etc.) ought to be included. My immediate impression is that they should and that the ban should probably err on the wider side of AP2 (in every sense). In any case, happy to follow your (and Swarm's) lead. El_C 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SebastianHelm, ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. For sure, Swarm seems to be up to speed with the overall background to the dispute (which I am not), so I, too, am happy to follow their lead here. El_C 23:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Guerillero, as Sebastian notes above, Swarm has already updated WP:RESTRICT accordingly, reading: JazzClam is indefinitely blocked from the subject area of post-1932 American politics, broadly construed. As Sebastian also points out, all that's left is registering that change on JazzClam's talk page. I will do so momentarily and am otherwise closing the request with these notes. El_C 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, we're here because of clerical errors. A general AP2 topic ban was unambiguously imposed by a unanimous community consensus here. This community consensus was essentially ignored, never documented at WP:EDRC like it should have been, and closed in favor of an AE sanction instead. With no offense intended, Sebastian's imposition of this sanction was sloppy at best, he didn't specify what the sanction was at all at WP:ACDSLOG, and the way he worded it changed the community's intended standard topic ban to a much more restrictive ban that only applied to articles. This user was literally deemed by the community to be a POV-pusher in this topic area and they were unanimously banned from it back in November, and because the closure was botched so badly we're now here having to grapple with the procedural technicality that this user technically isn't in the wrong for continuing to edit in the topic area, as a general TBAN was never formally imposed. It's ridiculous. Not intending to be personally harsh towards Sebastian, but that's literally the situation we're in. I'm logging the standard community ban at EDRC as it should have been from the beginning and I will clarify this with the user. If we want to maintain the AE ban on top of it that's fine, but it should to be amended to be a plain TBAN. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @SebastianHelm: The situation isn't dire, this is no big deal, just a minor, unintended loophole that needs to be closed. I acknowledge that you did already warn the user in December and there is a proper article space violation that can be sanctioned, my issue was with this user editing talk pages which they never should have been allowed to do. I'm really not trying to play a blame game here, I'm just trying to document the problem and a solution for the record. Anyway, El C and I are both fine with simply giving a final warning/clarification here, are you okay with that or do you intend to sanction the editor for the article space violation? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Swarm and El C: Lets convert this into a standard topic ban with the knowledge that a future breach will result in a long block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]